L Ron Hubbard In Perspective

Let’s get a little bit of perspective here on all the brouhaha over the past couple days on this blog.  I was not attempting to dictate how people think.  I was merely serving as an iconoclast of those “icons” who have sought (and it appears achieved in some quarters) that lofty status by acting themselves as iconoclasts of L Ron Hubbard.

I’ve seen them come and go and return and remain. Those that claimed to have the inside track to L Ron Hubbard, or they knew Ron so began to know better than him, or were channeling L Ron Hubbard, or even the one who claims to have a gigantic tunnel full of L Ron Hubbard.

Let us not lose sight of one significant fact – so obvious as to constitute an elephant in the room – none of those iconoclasts even exist without L Ron Hubbard.

I have spoken to people who have journeyed far up the Scientology Bridge who have been left in the wicked, indecisive position of “where’s the next level?”.  Caught up in the Miscavige or Robertson or Mayo or some other iconoclast mythology that Ron didn’t really mean what he said in HCO PL The Hidden Data Line (and the many lectures and policies where he re-iterated that ‘if it is not in writing, it isn’t true’), they remained tractable followers.  What I try to point out is that they are intentionally put there by setting up a religious myth about L Ron Hubbard – some make him God, some make him Devil; and none do him justice for the man he was and the work he created. But they do it for the same purpose.  That which was covered so well by Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason (quoted from in a post here not too long ago).  For anyone caught up in the perplexing fog of having to hold tight to mythology for comfort, I highly recommend The Age of Reason for some perspective.  When released from mythology and encouraged to research and study the vast library LRH did leave behind, many find that there is so much Scientology they never really understood or applied – and certainly thought did not apply to them since they had attained whatever Level they had.

I think it is important to understand LRH was a man, and not some special thetan visited upon earth like God sent Jesus or, at the other extreme, some confidence trickster intent on enslaving people.  When you take mythology out of the equation it leaves but one basis upon which to judge his legacy.  That is, does it work?   And lo and behold, if LRH said one thing more times than any other thing, I would wager it is that Scientology ought to be judged against that very standard.

Whether an author or philosopher was a saint or sinner has no bearing on whether what he or she produced works when applied as suggested.

With a timing that seemed as magical as destiny, in the middle of the current blog debates (and particularly contemplation of responding to the digs and slights on LRH implied or gratuitously offered in defending other “icons”)  and my pondering about how LRH ought to be treated in retrospect, I opened a package from Tom Felts that he had sent me weeks ago.  I reached in and found a 1929 edition of Twelve Against The Gods by William Bolitho.  I had mentioned the book to Tom when he visited me in January, noting a passage that LRH cited in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course.  I dropped everything and began reading the book and continued because Bolitho spoke the ideas I harbored but lacked the ability to articulate. Here are a few passages that I felt very relevant to L Ron Hubbard:

Adventure is the vitaminizing element in histories, both individual and social.  But its story is unsuitable for a Sabbath School prize book.  Its adepts are rarely chaste, or merciful, or even law-abiding at all, and any moral peptonizing, or sugaring, takes out the interest, with the truth, of their lives.

It is so with all great characters.  Their faults are not mud spots, but structural outcroppings, of an indivisible piece with their personality.  But there is a special reason for the inveterate illegality, or if you prefer, wickedness, of your true adventurer, which is inherent in the concept of Adventure itself.  Adventure is the irreconcilable enemy of law; the adventurer must be unsocial, if not in the deepest sense anti-social, because he is essentially a free individualist.

This is what boys — those natural judges of the matter — have been trying to mutter for centuries, when fobbed off with lives of missionaries, or generals, where varied incident in vain ornaments an essentially unadventurous character.  A feat, a danger, a surprise, these are bonbons adventure showers on those who follow her cult with a single mind. Their occurrence even repeated does not constitute a life of adventure…

…And so, the adventurous life is our first choice. Any baby that can walk is a splendid and typical adventurer; if they had the power as they have the will, what exploits and crimes they would commit!  We are born adventurers, and the love of adventures never leaves us till we are very old; old, timid men, in whose interest it is that adventure should quite die out.  This is why all the poets are on one side, and all the laws on the other; for laws are made by, and usually for, old men.

It is this doublemindedness of humanity that prevents a clear social excommunication of the adventurer. When he appears in the flesh indeed, he can hope for no mercy. Adventure is a hard life, as these twelve cases will remind you.  The moment one of these truants breaks lose, he has to fight the whole weight of things as they are; the laws, and that indefinite smothering aura that surrounds the laws that we call morals; the family, that is the microcosm and whip lash of society; and the dead weight of all the possessors, across whose inter-woven rights the road to freedom lies.  If he fails, he is a mere criminal. One-third of all criminals are nothing but failed adventurers; they usually get a stiffer sentence than the rest, the imbeciles and the hungry.  It is when he imposes himself and gets out of reach of the police that society’s reaction is most curious…

…At the beginning of most careers stands an adventure, and so with states, institutions, and civilizations.  The progress of humanity, whatever its mysterious direction, is not motored by mere momentum. Let ethics make what it can of it.  There is therefore a sociological role of adventure; necessarily an accidental one, since it is in itself non-social. History is jolted along with great breaches of law and order, by adventurers and adventurers. From the flint-jabber to standing room in the subway, from a cave at Les Eyzies to the plumbing of New York, we have come by two forces of effort, not one; the guard and the search, made by the home-stayer on the one hand, and by the bold affronter of the New on the other.  That is, by the adventurer as well as by the citizen. By law, but also by those who leaped outside its protecting palisade, caring nothing if they damaged it in the action, and augmented the treasures of the race by courage and not thrift.  The first adventurer was a nuisance; he left the tribal barricade open to the risk of the community when he left to find out what made that noise in the night.  I am sure he acted against his mother’s, his wife’s, and the council of old men’s strict orders, when he did it. But it was he that found where the mammoths die and where after a thousand years of use there was still enough ivory to equip the whole tribe with weapons. Such is the ultimate outline of the adventurer; Society’s benefactor as well as pest…

…In so far as the nature of all living things is conditioned by their enemies, the adventurer is defined by his fight with Order, and his fight with Chance. The first he may win — if he does not, he will go to prison. The second he cannot beat, for it is a manifestation of the universal.  This book contains no invitation to the life of adventure: that has the same end as all the rest. I do not mean that in our material categories an adventurer cannot be successful. Some, though not the greatest, have died of old age, on heaps of what they set out to get.  There is a more subtle tragedy that waits for adventurers than ruin, penurious old age, rags, contempt.  It is that he is doomed to cease to be an adventurer. The law of his morphology is that, setting out a butterfly, he is condemned when his development is ripe to become a caterpillar.  The vocation of adventure is as tragic as that of Youth; its course is parabolic, not straight; so that at a certain point it leads back to the cage again.  The greatest adventurer that ever lived ended as a nervous, banal millionaire…

…History has always treasured a catalogue of adventurers — she has not changed her ways, though she may not, for business reasons, be allowed to publish it. As for the adventure-feat, the Atlantic flights, the polar journeys, the Everest climb, that flowering of heroism and endurance above anything in humanity’s past, perhaps, which is the panache of our times, it only secondarily concerns our subject.  The heroes of these things are the soldiers of society, not adventurers; only a misunderstanding which these studies may clear up could make their friends claim for them the title…

In the scheme of things, I would venture to say LRH was an adventurer whose sallies from the cave were far more threatening to the social order than any adventurer Bolitho goes on to treat.  After all, LRH’s adventure lead to an invitation that we all become adventurers.  And consequently the Order, and its sheep, have subjected him to far worse treatment than any adventurer of the material realm whose goals and products were control and material, geographic or human ownership.  Many a mere missionary or general have seized on LRH’s faults in pathetic attempts to commandeer for themselves the title “adventurer.”

Finally, I quote from the final page of Twelve Against The Gods where Bolitho asks a rhetorical question of Woodrow Wilson’s adventure, a question that I believe is just as relevant to us today with respect to L Ron Hubbard’s adventure:

The great killing was over: could Wilson, with its smell in the air, risk another? And so he did not risk, so, not risking, he lost the lot.  Such is the end, we have imagined, of most adventures, perhaps all adventures, though peer and probe as we might we could not find a trace of a necessity, which would set our minds at peace.  For if only we could find an inevitability of failure of the game we are forced, singly, and in the whole slow moving column of humanity through the ages to play against gods, there would be a Shakesperean release, an ease, a true tragic katharsis in it; a quasi-musical compensation, that all endeavour is pre-destined lost.  But such, like the static dream of a fixed good in the universe attainable in time, that image of space, there is nowhere any true sign of.  We are encouraged to, not absolved from, adventure by the shortest and most inadequate look at it.  There is no certainty, good or bad, but an infinite resilience that makes both good and bad greater than we commonly think. The heights are further; the gulfs deeper; if it is a game, the odds are enormous.

So Woodrow Wilson, the last of our heroes, ends our biggest adventure; some people think that, like Arthur and the legendary Alexander, and many other lesser men, he left, even though defeated, a hope, a promise, that League, which is as it were a symbol of his perished flesh and blood, a fragment torn out of his heart and left with us, to serve for one who will come after in a retaking up of his adventure to put his feet on for the leap.  It may be. We started by renouncing a moral, and we here end without one. But at any rate, we may be more certain now of the infinite hopeful and despairing uncertainties of things as they seem, as they are, and as they will be.

436 responses to “L Ron Hubbard In Perspective

  1. The best post yet, IMO!!

    It does provide a wide angle perspective on LRH in the scheme of Man and Life. An interesting lens through which to examine one’s own life as well.

    And what an inspiring aesthetic piece of literature to enjoy over morning coffee!

  2. Standard Tech Guy

    THERE IS ONLY ONE TECH AND THAT IS STANDARD TECH!!!

    According to Mr. Rathbun, currently the only way out of the trap is to fly down to south Texas and pay him large sums of money to crack my case when the “C of M” couldn’t. Frankly, I don’t believe it. First things first, LRH HATED splinter groups, so much so that, per policy, one is not eligible for the OT levels as long as that splinter group still exists. More importantly, an “independent” movement was not the approach that LRH advocated as the way to clear the planet. I think it would behoove every squirrel and SP who reads this blog to read/re-read HCO PL “The Reason for Orgs” as to why orgs need to exist. Even someone as OT as the great L. Ron Hubbard (Hip Hip!), could not personally audit and train the peoples of Earth. The right thing to do is to correct the C of S, instead of starting a counter-movement to bring down the C of S,because by doing so, one will “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. One only has to look at Rathbun’s and Riner’s interview with Andersoon Cooper to see that what they’re ultimately doing, which is to portray Scientology the philosophy in a very bad light. The average John Q. Public who has never heard of Scientology doesn’t distinguish between the corporate Scientology and the philosophy. This is why Anonymous wants to bring down Scientology in any shape and form. Something to think about…. Remember that LRH would have never bad-mouthed corporate Scientology – why forward the enemy line??? The whole-track, evil-purp twitching Psychs are against us and they have a lot of money. Whose side are you on?

    • Please read the blog. Marty says to pay him what you feel his auditing is worth. It might not even be money as exchange.

      Also, saying the LRH would never have bad-mouthed corporate Scientology is like saying that Jesus would never bad-mouth the Pope. Martin Luther didn’t think that.

      Why can’t LRH invent something without RTC twisting it into a trap? OT eligibility is a prefect example. I am pretty sure the nature and scope of this eligibility was completely different in 1968 and 1980 than it is now. This is probably why the OT levels are freely available outside the church — because you can’t get them in the church.

      • Eligibility in 68? What eligibility? I had received my Joberg on Grade II. I had done the SHSBC at St. Hill. I had prepaid for the CC and the OT levels. Therefore, I was simply handed the upper level materials in 1968 as I was ready to start each one.

      • Exactly what Byron said!

    • “Whose side are you on?”

      Not David Miscavige’s. LRH’s.

      As the Commodore originally said on PDC tape 20 (before that section magically disappeared):
      “This universe has long been looking for new ways to make slaves. Well, we’ve got some new ways to make slaves here. Let’s see that none are made.” “Therefore, we really do have the remedy before the assault weapon is produced. Did you ever read poor old George Orwell’s 1984? Yes, yes, that’s wonderful. That would be — could be the palest imagined shadow of what a world would be like under the rule of the secret use of Scientology with no remedy in existence.”
      “It’s a very simple remedy. And that’s – just make sure that the remedy is passed along. That’s all. Don’t horde it, don’t hold it; and if you ever do use any Black Dianetics, use it on the guy who pulled Scientology out of sight and made it so it wasn’t available. Because he’s the boy who would be electing himself “The New Order”. And we don’t need any more new orders. All those orders, as far as I am concerned, have been filled.”

    • Whose side are you on? Not yours STG.

      For you represent something LRH abhorred — blind obedience and an inability to think for yourself. Take a LOOK and observe the perverted husk of the church/orgs, now merely gathering places for vultures to pick clean the carcass of anyone who dares enter. They make a mockery of the Policies on what organzations are. ZJust count the number of auditors and Clears they make.

      Did you actually WATCH Anderson Cooper? “One only has to look at Rathbun’s and Riner’s interview with Andersoon Cooper to see that what they’re ultimately doing, which is to portray Scientology the philosophy in a very bad light.” The only Rinder who appeared on that show was Cathy — sent by Dear Leader to become the object of derision around the world for her infamous (repeated) line: “I know every inch of his body.” That was brilliance. You apparently don’t even watch what they tell you to bring up in your postings….

    • Standard Tech Guy,
      You said “The right thing to do is to correct the C of S, instead of starting a counter-movement to bring down the C of S,because by doing so, one will “throw the baby out with the bathwater”.
      First, I’m not trying to bring down the Church. Second, if the Church could be corrected from the inside, it would have happened by now. IMO, that is not LRH’s Church any longer. You and your friends have not handled. And, now you are being by-passed.

    • Thank you for that.

      Now, just prior to all this… what word or symbol did you not fully understand?

      STG: There is a reason for Orgs. No, Marty can’t do it all himself, neither could LRH (hip hip?), and though it would by “nice” to think the Church of ‘$cientology’ could be “fixed,” it is currently under the THUMB, direct CONTROL, direct PRESSURE of a bone fide Suppressive Person!!

      Go back and re-read the definition of an S.P. Now, back that perp up with millions of dollars at his beck and call, an army of attorneys, a “organization” of brainwashed kool-aide drinkers and … you soon see that “FIXING” the church ain’t gonna happen. Not without considerable hardship and uphill struggle.

      No, the Church needs to be left alone. Do THAT… and you take away DM’s power and like any tree deprived of water… left the the sunlight of the Truth, it will soon parish and die of natural causes.

      Marty, on the other hand, has taken a healthy sprig from the original tree, uncorrupted by the church, and replanted it elsewhere in the hope of seeing the founders intentions grow.

      Now, you can either play that game, or not play that game. Believe, scream, yell what a squirrell M & M are, but you have no effect on them. They are NOT playing your game! You are better off going and yelling at the beautiful buildings (Idle Orgs) to get their stats up!! “Hey! You! Buffalo Org building… get all the field in to you today and up the bridge! START!!!” And be sure to let us know how it works out for you.

      By the way, quit making shit up. Marty does not charge anyone anything. Again, find your word. And if Ron is so against what Marty is doing, then how come Marty is successful? Upstat? Getting VGI’s on his PC’s? People audited by him, who have been around the church since it’s inception, are singing his praise! People at the “mecca of standard tech” are freaking DYING!!! And you dare compare the two?

      Again, I beg you to find your word, fly your ruds, write-up your o/w’s, strip your false data… then RE-READ THE LRH BEHIND ALL THIS!!!

      Ron had it all right. Pity you don’t get it.

    • Standard Tech Guy~Find out where you are.

    • Hai OSA,

      Just FYI, while there are some Anons who think that Scientology itself is a mental trap that people should be warned against, I haven’t heard of anybody wanting to quote-unquote “destroy Scientology”.

      Indeed, most Anons want nothing more than the human trafficking, abuses of the Sea Org members, harassment of critics, and bankrupting of Scientologists to stop. Religious freedom is important to most Anons, but the behavior of the CoS is nothing more than an abuse of the First Amendment, and is hardly worthy of an organization that seeks to call itself a “church”.

      We *are* Very Much enjoying seeing you slowly implode, however. The Independent movement is nothing more than the natural result of the aforementioned abuses. You pulled it in, just like you pulled in Anonymous.

      So, I’m getting more popcorn. Please don’t fire any more footbullets until I get back, OK?

      Tick-fucking-Tock, you brainwashed buffoon,

      Mr. Fancy

      • Did we spot the 3P between the Indies and the Anons yet?
        Enjoy the show Anons – I think you’ve earned your seats.

          • Third Partying attempt

          • DFB
            THIRD PARTY
            1. One who by false reports creates trouble between two people, person and a group or a group and another group. (HCOPL 15 Mar 69)
            2. A third party adds up to suppression by giving false reports on others (HCOPL 24 Feb 69).
            THIRD PARTY LAW, The law would seem to be: a third party must be present and unknown in every quarrel for a conflict to exist. Or for a quarrel to occur, an unknown third party must be active in producing it between two potential opponents. Or, while it is commonly believed to take two to make a fight, a third party must exist and must develop it for actual conflict to occur. (HCOPL 26 Dec 68).

            Which leads to the question of who would profit the most from having the Anons and the Indies at odds. Especially since essentially we all want the same thing.

            Just sayin’

            • Ok thanks. I had never seen it abbreviated before.
              I think Anons (whatever that actually means as a group) and Indies want some of the same things, but there are many things to want.

              I still feel that as a group it is, or at it’s formation was somewhere around 1.1. Thats not a comment on individual members, but when I look at the websites and look at them as a group thats what I see.

              I’m still not sure what motivates some of them to continue to come out and protest after all this time. I understand theres probably some or many of them who have valid reasons.

              The initial impetus of the group itself, atleast when the protests started was Reactive. That I’m fairly certain of.
              The formative statements and actions of the group were well below 2.0.
              That over time some who claim to be members have shown to be “nice” doesn’t change my obnosis of the group.

              • You want to know what motivates Anonymous, DFB?

                It’s really so simple, it’s hard for people to grasp; but here it is:

                We hate bullies.

                That’s it, we hate bullies. Of course, the more that we read about the bullshit that the CoS has pulled, that just makes some of us REALLY fucking haaaaate bullies.

                When the CoS came after critics, attacked websites for posting actual facts about the Church, that was the push that got the whole ball rolling. The “Fair Game Policy” was so inherently evil and anti-American that it clicked on a piece of our lizard brains that instantly realized that while the CoS could intimidate/harass/destroy a few of us, there was NO WAY that it could take on all of us.

                So, Anonymous was born in 2008-can you believe it was just three short years ago?

                IF the CoS wanted Anonymous to disband, it would get rid of OSA and start acting like an actual organization that cared about human rights and being decent human beings. Anonymous would evaporate.

                But, the Tech is the Tech, and LRH isn’t around to change policy. So, CoS is stuck using 1950’s technology of improved PR through intimidation in the age of the Internet.

                Oh Yeah, that ship is going DOWN.

              • DFB

                I would just point out that, while they wear masks and keep their identities secret for good reason, their “hostility” toward the church’s despicable actions are neither secret or covert. I would say that more than most other groups who have wished to stop the church, Anonymous has been extremely up front about it’s intentions.

        • Yes. I spoke to the anons once in my local area and simply explained the difference between church and subject of scientology. It was early days for them and it seemed like they were attacking both church and subject by not distingushing between the two in some of their protest messages.

          As they’ve become more educated about the subject they seem to be focusing their energies on the abuses of the cult rather than smearing the subject as a whole (as a general comment, not an absolute, as clearly some of them dislike the subject as well).

          I personally don’t agree with anons as it’s not a true as-isness rather a counter-creation (much like pysch-busting is too). LRH says somewhere, might have been the last PDC lecture I listened to, that to solve crime you don’t create more police or focus your attention on crime, but instead run a campaign on honesty.

          • Just to clarify, I meant to say i don’t agree with anons method of trying to solve the problem of abuses within the church.

    • What’s true for you is true for you.
      No-one here owes you an explanation, not that you need one as you have already decided which side you’re on.
      Good for you.
      This wouldn’t be half a game without some opponents.
      Adventure!😀

    • Oh please, Standard Tech Guy,

      Save me! I threw the baby out with the bathwater because I couldn’t differentiate the damned thing from a bar of soap. No wonder putting a diaper on the thing was so hard. So slippery. But, it slept so peacefully through the night, and I slept so well, that when I discovered my mistake, I got out my carving knife and fashioned a model baby out of soap. Now, we are not only perpetually clean, but well-rested.

      I am so glad you can differentiate so well that you can see Marty, the bastard, as advocating squirrel tech while Mr Miscaviage, my hero, is staying absolutely true to LRH–which is probably why he tore down Ron’s cozy house and built a palace in its place.

      When I was involved with the Church I just knew that LRH was putting my donations for auditing to good use. I knew he was getting $500 custom shirts made and multi-thousand dollar suits–all to look good while he smoozed the stars at the racetrack.

      And I knew that when he cast his wife aside so he could go places with his…ah…his…ah…(bodyguard?) on private jets he had his dynamics completely in order. It’s all simple math. First dynamic. First dynamic plus second dynamic equals third dynamic. First dynamic plus (first dynamic plus second dynamic) equals forth dynamic. Etc. Simple math.

      Or have I failed to differentiate? Am I throwing the bathwater out with the soap? My dear soap.

      Except, I would never drop my soap and bend over to pick it up where I’m likely to end up for grossly misusing church funds for personal use. Oh no, I’m failing to differentiate again.

      Silly me.

      My thetan is in danger! Dire danger! My thetan! Yikes. I’m so glad I haven’t headed down to Texas for a session with that bastard Marty! I’m going to hide my thetan away to protect it!

      Now, where should I put it? Ah! I know! How about a trailer in the middle of the desert, all locked up and safe. What better way to keep a thetan safe than locking them in a trailer in the desert. No one would ever look there. And I could build a big fence with nasty spikes, patrolled by patrollers in jack boots with the latest electronic devices–all to keep my thetan safe.

      Now, how will I pay for all this? Just to keep my thetan safe in a trailer in the desert. How to pay for it. And because I’ve got my dynamics aligned, maybe I should lock up my wife’s thetan in another trailer in the desert.

      Or is that dessert? Desert? Dessert? Sand or chocolate. That’s the ticket! I’ll lock my wife’s thetan in a key lime pie that’s locked in an unpowered refrigerator sitting in a locked trailer in the middle of the desert. The dessert’s in the desert.

      Now who said I can’t differentiate. I guess I can go to Marty’s, the bastard, after all, because my thetan is safely locked away.

      Talk about having your key lime pie and eating it too.

      I’ll just use my theta powers of intention to make that silly Marty serve up some key lime pie at the July get-together, eat his pie, and have my key lime pie at home.

      That’s such a great strategy, I think I’ll use it for all church donations. I’ll collect all the donations for me to have, then collect all the other donations for me to eat. And I’ll have all the orgs converted to look like key lime pies so I can have key lime pie wherever I go!

      Standard Tech Guy, thank you, oh thank you. I just had a huge cognition. And my needle’s just swung three times. (I wish my wee-wee was long enough to swing just once. But hey, you can’t have everything–unless you can figure out how to buy enough key lime pie to convert to real estate to convert to monetary value to convert to POWER!)

      Now, where’s my soap? I need to take a shower.

      • martyrathbun09

        Keep at it and soon you’ll be in contention with OTDT for an Indy Pulitzer.

      • Put a fortune cookie containing sayings of L. Ron Hubbard into a key lime pie and put it up for auction at Key Lime Pie Auction Day at fundraiser Tuesdays in all Key Lime Orgs so all the key lime parishioners can munch on actual spiritual things for which one would have to buy a black market admission ticket which contains a key inside of a lime that allows you access to the Secret Contemplation of Spiritual Things room, hidden behind a wall panel and run by a secret special club of Dissenters who have infiltrated each and every org around the world and have to swear you to secrecy to never ever ever to reveal.

        • Now I know who’s writing the congressional budgets. I had to diagram this, sort of like one of those connect the dots puzzles, and I was shocked by the image hidden within. Shocked.

          • Michael and OTDT, I just love reading both of your comments. No doubt your grade 0 is in. You both communicate so well. I know the ‘ol man’ would love you guys. You’re both rogues. I’ve been accused of writing good stories but you guys blow me out of the water. My subject matter is what makes me interesting. When I write I look at the pictures and get into the pleasure moments and try to write what I saw and felt. Sometimes I can taste the soup but I fall short of trying to convey the experience with words. You both just write so well and it flows. I could say I’m jealous but I am actually in awe. I remember first reading LRH and how well he communicated. It blew me away. I had to read more and I wasn’t disappointed. You guys are like that. I hope you both continue to contribute here. Its like finding gold, sparkles and is of great value. Well, I thought I had to say it. Thank you both. Much Love, Sargio

            • Muchas gracias, Sarge.

            • SARGE,

              Sure wish you would put some more stories up. The interchange makes us all better. Art and communication does not occur in isolation. We feed off one another and become somehow more.

              Sometimes, we fall flat on our face and wonder, with red face, why we even bother. Then we read what someone writes and our fingers race across the keyboard.

              A group is a wonderful thing. It’s more than the sum of its individuals. I watch as doubts, confusions, insecurities boil up and blow away here.

              Even when we fumble, we become better people by communicating here.

              This blog will one day become overburdened, with far too much to read. Offshoots will continue to occur. Like a second dynamic of ideas rather than bodies. New groups will form.

              And saner for the effort.

              I hope.

              And, I hope you’re doing well these days, Sarge.

              Michael.

            • I’ll second you on this, Sarge!

            • Muchas gracias mi amigo.

        • ΘTater/GaryLerner

          Holy Crap! I actually followed it! (Hmmm… now I want key lime pie.)(Or… pie in the sky with diamonds…)(Or… chicken pies in a pot.)(got it! chicken diamond lime pies in the sky with lucy… now I’m really hungry!!)

    • “THERE IS ONLY ONE TECH AND THAT IS STANDARD TECH!!!”

      http://internationalfreezone.net/technology.shtml

      “STANDARD TECH, 1. a standardization of processes so that they apply to 100 per cent of the cases to which they are addressed. (Class VIII, No. 19) 2 . the accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and OT, the exact method of organizing them, the exact method of delivering them, and the exact repair of any errors made on that route. (Class VIII, No. 2) 3 . that terribly narrow path which we now call standard tech is composed of those things which if they are out inhibit and prohibit all case gain. (Class VIII, No. 1) 4 . standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70) 5 . that tech which has absolutely no arbitraries. (HCOB 23 Aug 68)”

      • And do not forget to define standard: A definite level or degree of quality which is proper and adequate for a specific purpose.

        There was no mention by LRH of DM’s robotic “perfection.”

        • Athena8

          Hmmmm…

          Try as I might I do not see that that definition of “standard” fits in the use of “standard tech”.

          I tend to go to definitions like… “Usual, common, customary.” or: “fulfilling specific requirements as established by an authority, law, rule, custom, etc.”

          My “Random House Dictionary” also has an interesting Derivation:
          [ME <OF. prob. alter. of Frankish *standord (cf. G "standort. standing-point)

          I do not see the word meaning "a level or degree of quality" It is not "how good you do it" that makes it "standard tech", it is simply that you do it the way it was written.

          My 2cents.

          WW

          • Just going with LRH, per Class VIII tape “Standard Tech Defined,” Windwalker.

            • martyrathbun09

              Thanks Athena for the accurate reference. It happens to work best in that framework. LRH sorta had a knack for figuring that out.

              • Athena, Marty

                Alas, I have never seen that reference. I would would be interested in hearing or reading it.

                My fallback reference is the definition of Standard Tech in the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary.

                “STANDARD TECH, 1. A standardization of processes so that they apply to 100 per cent of the cases to which they are addressed. (Class VIII, No. 19) 2. The accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and OT, the exact method of organizing them, the exact method of delivering them, and the exact repair of any errors made on that route. (Class VIII, NO.2 ) 3. That terribly narrow path which we now call standard tech is composed of those things which if they were out inhibit and prohibit all case gain. (Class VII, No. 1) 4. Standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70) 5 that tech which has absolutely no arbitraries. (HCOB 23 Aug 68)”

                I am guessing that you, Athena, and Marty are possibly trained to class VIII. If this is the case, or if you are trained to any higher level, I can certainly understand where you would value higher standards ( degree of quality) in auditing. There is no doubt that the skills, TRs, understandings, intentions, and breadth of knowledge that a better trained auditor can potentially bring to the auditing table, is hugely responsible for the magnitude of gain that a PC might experience. Don’t get me wrong on that score. I value high quality auditing to the core!

                What I am saying here is that it is not “quality” that makes auditing “standard”( in the sense of standard tech, as defined above).

                Someone straight in off the street, learning how to audit “objectives”, is totally capable of delivering “standard tech”. His TRs may be a little rough, his commands a bit tentative, his breadth of understanding almost wholly lacking, but by christ, if he follows the procedures and rules exactly as Ron Hubbard wrote, he IS applying “standard tech”. Every “VWD” session ( very well done, a “grade” given to the auditor by the CS to indicate that “the auditing is totally flubless and by the book”) is an acknowledgment that “standard tech” has been applied, as evidenced by the auditor’s report of the session.

                As professional course supervisor I train auditors with that understanding. “Standard Tech” can, and must, be trained into students at ALL levels. Yes, I am also interested in raising an auditor’s “standards ( as in, “degree of quality”) at every opportunity, but my first order of business is to get in “standard Tech”.

                It doesn’t matter how great the guy’s TRs are, or what his official training level is, or how much of L. Ron Hubbard’s philosophy he thinks he knows, if he is not applying Standard Tech, as L. Ron Hubbard wrote it, he is a squirreling (that tech).

                I really do not suspect that we are at all at odds on this really.
                I just wanted to make myself clear.
                I think this is an important issue.

                WW

                • He actually reads off a number of definitions. And you are right – you attain the one that Athena referenced by applying the one you referenced. But, I think there is a graduation – like learning scales, etc till you can just play the piano at new harmonic of high quality.

                  • Marty

                    Yes, I’m with you on that.
                    It is the “quality” that is the Theta.
                    Quality =Theta.
                    It is “quality” for which we all strive in our lives.
                    “Standard Tech” is ultimately only a tool.
                    Quality is perhaps the goal.

                    WW

                    • martyrathbun09

                      WW,
                      Yes. But there is a quality factor in Standard Tech. And that is why GAT is anthetical to standard tech. LRH actually uses that analogy of the concert pianest – and specifically used Mario Fenninger as an example. You practice enough under your definition of standard and wind up performing like Athena’s definition of quality.
                      Marty

      • martyrathbun09

        CD stuffing a troll with LRH. Who’d have thunk it?

        • He should read the damn thing himself. Mr Standard Tech is too far up DMs goldust sprinkeled touch to correct his own misunderstoods about it.

          HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
          Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

          HCO POLICY LETTER OF 31 JANUARY 1983

          Remimeo
          THE REASON FOR ORGS

          The only reason orgs exist is TO SELL AND DELIVER MATERIALS AND SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC AND GET IN PUBLIC TO SELL AND DELIVER TO. THE OBJECT IS TOTALLY FREED BEINGS!

          The first and all subsequent organizations of the Church were founded for this purpose only.

          It was manifestly impossible for one being to individually train and audit 2.5 billion people. Time alone would have prevented it.

          Thus help was needed.

          -snip-

          L. RON HUBBARD
          founder

          • CD,
            Good posting of the PL. In the PL it doesn’t say that the reason for orgs is to get direct donations for IAS status nor for building Idle Orgs as in the case of Corp Scn, in present time.

            No totally freed beings are resulting from the “Church” bridge, thus the freed beings are those who are now Independent and creating the needed and wanted product for themselves!

          • Cad Daddy, I think you missed the lastest revision.

            HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
            Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

            HCO POLICY LETTER OF 31 JANUARY 1983R
            Revised the 1 January 2009

            Remimeo

            THE TREASON FOR ORGS

            The only reason orgs exist is TO SELL IAS MEMBERSHIPS AND GET IDEAL ORG DONATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC AND GET IN PUBLIC TO BANKRUPT AND GET THEIR MORTAGES TOO. THE OBJECT IS TOTALLY LUXURIOUS BUILDINGS!

            The first and all subsequent organizations of the Church were founded on a different purpose, due to evil transcriptionists, but this is the right purpose only.

            It was manifestly impossible for one being to individually get donations from 2.5 billion people. Time alone would have prevented it.

            Thus help was needed.

            -snip-

            L. RON HUBBARD
            founder
            Revision assisted by the
            Charmain Of the Board
            Religiuos Technology Center
            lrh:DM:lm

    • A datum of comparable magnitude to you? Hummm…how about a spoiled brat who is throwing a tantrum because nobody here is recognizing YOU as the icon you deem yourself to be? Sounds just like that other spoiled brat, DM.

      LRH says in the PL Superior Service Image, “If auditing is occurring in the field, Orgs will boom.”

      So we’re auditing in the field.

      What’s your problem?

    • “This is why Anonymous wants to bring down Scientology in any shape and form. Something to think about….”

      As an chanology Anon I allready knew that:

      “Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof. ” – V

      “You can kill a man but you can’t kill an idea.” -Medgar Evers

      So the target is and remains the Church, and “The average John Q. Public who has never heard of Scientology doesn’t distinguish between the corporate Scientology and the philosophy.” is a shitty argument to go along with ignorance instead of educating and bringing knowledge.

      “Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind–for the laughs–we shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form.”

      Alsoo this ! “Knowledge is and should always be free” -Anonymous

      • martyrathbun09

        CD – on what authority do you have it that Anonymous wishes to “bring down Scientology in any shape and form?”

        • I think he’s saying the opposite. “[T]he target is and remains the Church”. The first bit was the quote from STG that he was replying to.

          Really, no one speaks for Anonymous as a whole but this appears to be the general consensus.

        • I was quoting Mr. standard Tech there.

          As long as there are Scientologists practising Scientology will live on.

          That is not an endorsement just a fact.

          • martyrathbun09

            Sorry CD, I missed something the first go-around.

          • As I pointed out to my Scientologist friend, the fact that the “Tech” is no longer confidential, but instead is copied and pasted all over the internet is the *greatest* guarantee that the “Tech” will survive.

            You can make all the golden plates you want, Davey. Bury them deep.

            But they’re not as secure as millions of copies in circulation held in separate servers throughout the world.

        • @Marty: Please look at STG’s comment again. CD was only quoting STG and rebutting.
          Michael A. Hobson

    • @STG:
      Oh, yes, in Scientology “There is only one Tech and that is Standard Tech” and it is utterly obvious that you haven’t the slightest clue what either “Scientology” or “Standard Tech” actually mean.

      The current centrally controlled “Church of Scientology” has become so like an undead vampire, that the only real help for it would be an oaken stake through the heart, sorry.

      Thanks to the power of the wonderful world-wide ultra-high-speed communication system known as the Internet, we Scientologists are now able to function as a very tight group without the need for the ponderous “brick and mortar” Cathedrals of spiritual torment and wickedness that McSavage has upraised and falsely branded “Scientology”.

      If you side with McSavage, you are nothing more than one the pitchfork wielding tormenters in his little corner of Hell on Earth, mister.

      Michael A. Hobson

    • hey Standard Tech Guy, precisely who are these “evil-purp twitching Psychs” that are against you???

    • STG, The “church” is an abstract concept. To reform it, as you suggest, and which I agree with wholeheartedly, you would have to deal with the individuals who collectively form that church. Now, where do you think you would get the most bang for your buck in forwarding your dream to reform the church? You would have to look at stats to determine that. Whose stats are the most downtrending for the longest time considering the individuals who are in the highest positions of power in the current church? I think you know where this is heading and whose head needs to go on the pike. Reform would happen overnight, guaranteed.

      • Actually Joe the biggest leap forward would come from eliminating the Sea Org. The sole purpose for its creation was to allow for the domination and control of the entire scientology field. The heighday of scientology was during the 60’s. As the Sea Org grew in power & influence it became an increasingly greater suppressive force on the natural ‘theta’ of scientologists.

        For many of us it was the destruction of the Mission Network, the last bastion of non-Sea Org scientology that marks the final death of the church. Any reasonable hope of reforming the church requires the elimination of the Sea Org as an active element in the control & management of scientology organizations. Might as well kill the beast.

    • Standard Tech Person,
      Well, LRH did say that if the administrative organization that runs Scientology became dictatorial and oppressively authoritarian, auditors should revolt and blow up the headquarters.

      He even said, “please”.

      The official Church of Scientology HAS become oppressively authoritarian, dictatorial and abusive, there is a ton of evidence of that despite their official well-rehearsed denials. You can read and listen to example after example after example after example after example which are not 3-P evil purp lies generated by some invisible psychs off the wholetrack, but from its own highly experienced knowledgable and once loyal members who’ve been mistreated, forced out, kicked out or left in order to save themselves from extreme abuse.

      Basically, a bully on a golden stage backed by the symbological power of a superstar actor, a billion bucks and an army of intimidated compliant robots have morphed the philosophy of Scientology into a Fourth Reich goose-step siege mentality that the general public rightly seems to abhor, as evidenced by the empty orgs, low stats and exodus of its own members and where high-dollar donors and flashy rich movie stars are held in far greater esteem than its own overworked and dedicated staff.

      Is THAT what L. Ron Hubbard wanted created? If so, then bad-mouthing is definitely in order. If not, then I think bad-mouthing is definitely in order.

      I’ve talked to a lot of the John Q. Publics you mention and you’re right, they do not distinguish between the corrupt Nazi-ish regime of corporate Scientology and the philosophy. That’s one of the things that’s ruining it. They’re not going to get that distinction from the Church of Scientology itself because they promote that the church IS Scientology, that their corrupt leader IS Scientology, that their frothing-at-the-mouth lust for sucking and demanding more and more money out of its members IS Scientology. If anyone dares disagree with or expose these insanities then that person is labeled as NOT Scientology. It Fascism, plain and simple.

      You’re saying things that don’t make sense, don’t fit the scene, like it’s being rattled off by someone with no viewpoint of their own. For instance, you suggest to an ‘SP’ to read a policy letter. If someone’s an actual SP, how the hell is reading The Reason for Orgs going to do anything for anyone. That’s just plain idiotic, isn’t it? That’s not how you handle an ‘SP’ and you would know that if you’d trained and formed your own viewpoint at all.

      As to your statement that Marty takes large sums of money, where did you get this information from? Does he charge large amounts of money? How much?

      As far as denying anyone OT levels, well, just show me ONE actual OT, per the definitions of the word, that the Church of Scientology has produced. Just one. Yeah, a lot of people with subjective gains and improvements in their lives, some not, but where is the product of OT? How can anyone be denied something that cannot even be produced? Pre-OT levels, yeah, but OT? No.

      Lastly, exactly how would you suggest “correcting the C of S”? From a wide spectrum of evidence it appears as though much, if not most, of what is currently wrong with corporate Scientology is generated by the self-appointed chairman of the board, who has committed perjury by saying he doesn’t manage the church while he actually blatantly micro-manages every single aspect of its operations, one David Miscavige. What are you going to do? Are you going to write him up? To whom? His mother? Go ahead and pull the string on any one of the numerous major outpoints you could be aware of with regard to corporate Scientology and I’ll bet you’ll ultimately find it exists because it was ordered and forced into place by the chief bully, COB. Go ahead, correct that one and let me know how it goes.

      PS: Just for chuckles, start with that thing he says LRH screwed up on, that three-swing F/N thing. Good luck.

      • OTDT — I enjoy reading your biting sarcasm and undeniable logic as much as your hilarious satire. You, sir, are an artful communicator.

      • martyrathbun09

        +1

      • Firebreathing Frog

        COB = Chief of Bully
        I’ve got to remember this one.

      • Cindy Pinsonnault

        You are brilliant!

      • ΘTater/GaryLerner

        You are one of a kind, OTDT. Your postings are imaginative, educational and just down right fucking fun! Can I have your autograph when you publish your memoirs?🙂

        LARC (Love and ARC),
        Gary

      • Thank you guys kindly for all your acks, but be careful, as it may tend to inspire me further and further out of control. (And you know how important it is to control. It’s unsuccessful to not have people under control!)

        So watch it, man! I don’t wanna have to do a Severe Reality Adjustment type of thing, much less an Acknowledgement Adjustment and while I’m at it, I’d have to throw in a Radical Affinity Adjustment, a Major Communication Adjustment and…and…a Kung Fu Tone Scale Adjustment and Prominent Cognition Adjustment and a Parishioner Donation Adjustment and Credit Limit Adjustment and a Net Worth Adjustment, too!

        PS: Yes, my autographs are available via auction twice per year.

    • STD:

      I read your post and duplicate your viewpoint. Even though I believe you are working for OSA and getting in a Thursday before 2:00 stat and don’t believe you’ve honestly evaluated your view to see if it IS indeed YOUR view, I nevertheless respect and will defend to the death your right to hold and express any view — a right long since eliminated in the world of corporate Scientology.

      A few thoughts come to mind in reading your post:

      1. I read where LRH warned of squirrels, but not “splinter groups.” Even if he did and I missed that, he also warned of the dangers of a monopoly on the tech. Like all of LRHs writings and lectures, judgment has to enter in. One could call the current church a “splinter” group, as many of us believe it has splintered from Source.

      2. “Remember that LRH would have never bad mouthed corporate Scientology.” Aside from being an opinion and not a fact as you state it,
      I suggest you go on the http://www.savescientology.com site and look up the corporate structure documentation, with particular attention to the contingency that allows the trademarks, etc. to be revoked so that the Church could no longer legally deliver Scientology. That one fact built into the corporate docs tells me LRH very much considered the possibility of the church being taken over. And that he may very well have “bad mouthed corporate Scientology.”

      3. To me, Rinder and Rathbun’s interviews on Anderson Cooper began the much needed process of distinguishing the philosophy from the brutish image of Corporate Scientology.

      Having watched the interview from the dispassionate view of not being interested in taking a “side” — I was hoping the church spokespersons could present themselves in a light representative of the technology I spent 30+ years studying and financing. I wanted to see dignity, humility, grace, honesty and a beingness representative of the tech.

      To my grave dismay, the wives and the panel of Execs .. Guillome, Starkey, etc came across so poorly that just to recall the scene makes me wince with embarrassment. Nothing they said stuck with me … only that they were very charged up.

      On the other hand, the “apostates” represented themselves with little to no HE&R. In fact, when Jeff Hawkins was interviewed after his ex wife spoke disparagingly about him, his demeanor and his response were so kind and representative of “What is Greatness” that there was doubt in my mind who was telling the truth. It was that moment and others watching Marty, Mike, Steve and Amy, comparing their beingnesses to the ex wives, the execs and Tommy Davis where I finally came to terms with what Corporate Scientology had become.

      It seems the “PR machine” of the church overlooks one very key factor: people are not stupid. In their own little Scientology bubble, perhaps the same one you live in, believers are afraid to do anything but accept the company “we are right” ser fac.

      But I interact 99% of the time with non Scientologists. They judge others often by “gut” instinct. When watching two people arguing a subject they know little about, they like me, form an opinion based on demeanor, beingness, ARC-level, etc. Like the Tom Cruise-couch-jumping-followed-by-Matt-Lauer debacle: a guy who was loved became an asshole overnight in the public eye. I heard people discussing it in different groups I belong to. That’s the real world, not the bubble you may live in. You can label these people all you want, but they are the very people the Church would like to recruit and they are influenced by the representatives of the church.

      It’s time to take a causative look at what the church is creating, instead of an accusatory, finger pointing viewpoint. Only that will begin the process of correcting the church, which you advocate.

      Cause includes being able to see how one is creating a situation. I have not once, EVER, in my history of Scientology, seen the management of the church take look at what it is doing to create antagonism. Yet, as a parishioner, were I to show up for service with a similar amount of antagonism in my life or my business, I would not have a sympathetic ear.

      The first step toward the church correcting, as you advocate, to to do some soul searching as to what it has become. Just like an individual must do when faced with much hostility and antagonism. He or she can blame everything on the attackers or begin to look at their own actions and identify what one is doing to repel.

      As Ghandi said: “Be the change you want to see in the world.”

      Respectfully,

    • Standard Tech Guy !

      your post starts with a lie:
      “currently the only way out of the trap is to fly down to south Texas and pay him large sums of money to crack my case when the “C of M” couldn’t”
      So please get the tech first in on you side !

      • Shouldn’t he not first get his Ethics in before the Tech can go in ?

        OMG, why do I know these things.

        http://www.freezoneamerica.org/pilot/plans.html

        “If ethics is out, tech can’t go in, and the only way we might fail to make a perfect auditor is by failing to handle the ethics blocks.” …

        • Cat Daddy, you are a laugh (a good one, not a bad one). I enjoy seeing you develop, and I wonder where you will end up, but I think it will be a good place.

          • Kitty cats grow up and get paws. Looks like Terril is doing a fine job.

            • “The free person neither hopes for any eternal, otherworldly rewards nor fears any eternal punishments. He knows that the soul is not immortal in any personal sense, but is endowed only with a certain kind of eternity. The more the mind consists of true and adequate ideas (which are eternal), the more of it remains—within God’s attribute of Thought—after the death of the body and the disappearance of that part of the mind that corresponds to the body’s duration. This understanding of his place in the natural scheme of things brings to the free individual true peace of mind.”

              -Baruch Spinoza

        • ΘTater/GaryLerner

          Go Cat, Go!! You’ve been snitching my torches again, huh? 🙂

        • CD
          R-E-S-P-E-C-T!
          You’re my favorite Anon 😉

    • The right thing to do is to correct the C of S, instead of starting a counter-movement to bring down the C of S

      Neither is possible at this point in time.

      One only has to look at Rathbun’s and Rinder’s interview with Andersoon Cooper to see that what they’re ultimately doing, which is to portray Scientology the philosophy in a very bad light.

      Not what I saw. Under discussion was the conduct of the Church of Scientology, not it’s philosophy.

      First things first, LRH HATED splinter groups, so much so that, per policy, one is not eligible for the OT levels as long as that splinter group still exists.

      There’s no real Org in existence anymore. LRH also didn’t mention IAS, Superpower Building, Golden Age of Tech/Knowledge, Ideal Building Structures not any requirement to read all the Basic Books first. Realize that CO$ has gone off its rocker, and that CST/RTC will impede those who actually wish to put a a real Scientology Organization in its place. Its not that simple anymore.

      More importantly, an “independent” movement was not the approach that LRH advocated as the way to clear the planet.

      Wakie, wakie. CO$ is not clearing any planet. And they sure as hell won’t allow anyone to fix the situation who have decided to get Standard Tech from those personally trained by LRH but not RTC-licenced. If it wasn’t a game of legalities, it’d be game over.

      I think it would behoove every squirrel and SP who reads this blog to read/re-read HCO PL “The Reason for Orgs” as to why orgs need to exist.

      I’ll count on you to get those legal rights for us.

      Remember that LRH would have never bad-mouthed corporate Scientology – why forward the enemy line???

      LRH would just have snapped DMs neck, something no one else has the power to do.

    • “Standard” Tech Guy,

      thank you very much for your post – you really made my day. And this is not a 1.1 remark, I really mean it. Sincerely !

      You have just rehabbed my release after my decision to leave an organisation (= Co$) that engages in propaganda lies, generalities, mocking up alledged enemies, blaming others for out-tech while failing to deliver the real thing themselves, etc. Like many other seekers of truth and freedom, I had been trying to achieve something in that insane arena. And when I decided to leave that madness, it was quite a release.

      Which you have rehabbed now, although inadvertently. Big F/N feeling plus VVGIs. Ah yes🙂🙂🙂

    • Oh man. I was was going to say- hey why are you guys “feeding the troll”.
      But then I read the responses and realized what we have here is an action- a low toned action that was then received, turned into something else- something high toned that completely nullified the original intent.

      It’s like someone trying to hit you with an axe and instead, before they knew what happened the axe is made into a beautiful sculpture or something.

    • Sugar Plum Fairey

      Now, that all depends on WHO is running corporate Scientology, doesn’t it. LRH does reference in several places of never letting one guy rule…..and apparently we didn’t listen…..we let him take over anyway. If LRH were here today he would grab the crotch with one hand and the neck with the other and throw the bastard off the stern of the ship!

    • StandardTechGuy, if you know of a way to correct the C of S from within it, I would like to know about it. I would like to know, first of all, if you actually see what needs to be corrected in the church, and then, what you would do about it. For that matter what ARE you doing about it? If there is something you are doing about it, what is it? And what effects are your actions creating? Are you actually creating positive effects that are leading toward a correction of the church? If you are, I would like to know about them.

      It’s one thing to come on this blog and tell its readers how wrong it is for them to be doing what they’re doing. It’s another thing to actually solve the problem that they are trying to solve. I say to you, put your money where your mouth is.

    • STG, Did L. Ron Hubbard say this?

      “Dianetics is not in any way covered by legislation anywhere, for no law can prevent one man sitting down and telling another man his troubles, and if anyone wants a monopoly on dianetics, be assured that he wants it for reasons which have to do not with dianetics but with profit. ”

      Also, I recommend you check your facts. For example, you are putting words in Mr. Rathbun’s mouth, purporting he has said something he never said.

      Secondly, IMHO the conversation opened by Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Rinder with the world has, for the first time in decades, created a public awareness and most importantly differentiation that there is a body of knowledge called Scientology, and it is not the same thing as every goon who professes it with blaring soundbytes (for whatever reasons).

      Thirdly, speaking of differentiation… people practicing Scientology and people speaking out against its abuse do not equal “splinter groups.”

      “So anybody that knows the remedy of this subject, anybody that knows these techniques, is himself actually under a certain responsibility – that’s to make sure that he doesn’t remain a sole proprietor. That’s all it takes, just don’t remain a sole proprietor. Don’t ever think that a monopoly of this subject is a safe thing to have. It’s not safe. It’s not safe for man; it’s not safe for this universe.” L. Ron Hubbard

    • Who let the dog in? I suspect it was Marty as he loves to give us something to chew on.
      LRH got angry sometimes but I met LRH and worked around him.
      Hate is just inconceivable as something that he would hold in his space.
      You obviously never met the man.
      David Miscavage is quite another matter.
      “Anonymous” appear to be rather confused individuals who lack the perception to differentiate between LRH and DM.
      Possibly the percentage of SPs involved in psychiatry is about the same as the percentage involved in Scientology. Certainly more Scientologists have been declared SP than psychiatrists – why is that?
      Wake up and smell the roses!

    • I’m gonna just jump onto to the tail end of these responses to STG and comment on the comments.
      This crew of Indies are showing me they won’t be easily fooled EVER again.
      I think our collective BS detectors, having been turned off or tuned down to varying degrees previously, stand now on high alert.
      I take heart there are many now to stand the watch and say “never again”.

    • Oh STG

      You really blew it this time. Good plan is to never start a ball rolling when you apparently have no idea on how to control where it rolls.
      Miscavige is going to have your balls for breakfast when he hears what you did young man. Hope you can get along without them, because they are as good as GONE right now.

      My gratuitous advice to you…. FLEEEEEEeeeee!

      WW

    • According to Mr. Rathbun, currently the only way out of the trap is to fly down to south Texas and pay him large sums of money to crack my case when the “C of M” couldn’t. Frankly, I don’t believe it.

      So far I have see nowhere that Mr. Rathbun indicates HE is the only one applying Standard Tech. There is no specified large sum of money owed. Rather, he states quite clearly that after completing the process, based on the results, one can decide what it was worth. Even then one pays half that amount one has decided on and flies home – to pay the rest after letting a little time pass during which the actual application of one’s gains to the real world can be seen.

      Not at all like the ASHO Day flyer just received in the mail pricing at $5,687 for a single intensive ($4,549 if I donated enough to the IAS) with various discounts for multiple intensives up to spending $37,534.20 for 150 hours. (And that’s just the intensives. If it is determined one needs Grade V and Grade VA, another $14,520 is in order. Or maybe one needs Expanded Dianetics at $8,470. Don’t forget any books that might be suggested as beneficial at one’s level on the Bridge. Oh, and let’s not forget “every” in-Church Scientologist is almost mandated to be buying Basic Books and Lectures ($1,750 package price or $2,205 piece by piece) and possibly even doing the courses which are even more.

      Tell me who wants “large sums of money” and can’t even promise to crack the case without more and more “large sums of money”? (When’s the last time you hear of someone being credited or refunded for flubbed auditing hours? Or for the auditing in which they were spun, twisted and ground to a pulp? Nope, if that happened, it was the out-ethics PC. No way the Church is taking responsibility – unless we’re willing to fork over “large sums of money” for repair auditing.

      First things first, LRH HATED splinter groups, so much so that, per policy, one is not eligible for the OT levels as long as that splinter group still exists.

      One hundred percent agreed. But he also HATED how any organization he didn’t closely and personally keep an eye on seemed to spiral out of control. Read through KSW and realize he wrote that not because of splinter groups, but because his own supposedly on-tech, on-policy organizations were failing to stay just that.

      Just about every example he provides of failures are from within his own organizations and situations he had to step in and fix. Doesn’t really speak well for what has happened since he dropped his body and ability to do that, now does it? What would LRH say and do if he reappeared (Elvis-style?) and saw the condition his organization was in? Probably rip it to shreds and then find those individuals and groups that have stuck to on-tech, on-policy application of the correct technology against all odds.

    • Hey Standard Tech Idiot Dude:

      Why dont you just do what you say, march in and reform the Church. Drive out to front gate of Gold and ask to see Heber. Ask him how is post is going, how he is getting on. Take a few photos with him and post them on the blog as a CR of how effective you have been in reforming the Church.

      Better yet, YOU pick some task that YOU feel needs to be changed or improved and you follow up on it.

      Even if you audited BK1 I am certain you can make a difference, this I am not snide about.

      But please dont come around, piss on my neck and tell me its raining outside…

    • Special Tech Guy,

      You’re priceless!! You really warmed my heart. Please keep posting because you triggered I think the longest roll of rebuttals I’ve seen so far. I’m very glad to see so many people taking a stand and fight back on their own determinism. You’ve allowed them to dePTS themselves that much and released that much more certainty to not ever fall in the same trap again.

      Thanks, Yager (?)

  3. Great post Marty, you write truth. LRH, the adventurer, has pointed the way to our own regained spirit of adventure with the tech to win and reverse losses — his true legacy — and if that isn’t freedom I don’t know what is.

    Here’s to our own adventures.

  4. Marty: “I think it is important to understand LRH was a man”

    I always thought so, I couldn’t agree more with you on this.

  5. A truly incredible piece of writing. Your comments and perspective countered poised with such beautiful wording from a piece of literature I have never read. I do have Thomas Paine, and I love it. But this, a pièce de résistance, is something to set me thinking for days or weeks. I enjoy it over morning coffee and I think coffee for many days as I ponder the nuances.

    It also covers why many of us feel at home on the wild world of the blog and less settled in the “social conditions” of an org – especially when the org’s now are more like a bastion against free thinking or any free beings.

  6. “I think it is important to understand LRH was a man, and not some special thetan visited upon earth like God sent Jesus …”

    What about Maitreya?

  7. If you want to look at the Scientology techniques and try to validate them according to the standards of other mental health practices, the character of L. Ron Hubbard is indeed irrelevant.

    Additionally, if he had framed his ideas as working theories rather than scientific truths it would be reasonable to toss them into the mix with other ideas about how consciousness works and see how they hold up as human knowledge advances.

    However, his tendency to lie about his own past and credentials, about the work having a scientific basis and his financial compensation from the subject really does have an impact on the credibility of the subject.

    I appreciate that many people here feel they have been helped by Scientology teachings but you are undoubtedly aware that many people who have been involved with it feel they have been harmed by it — and not just during the reign of Miscavige. Both experiences are valid and should be taken into account when assessing it.

    But I would argue that Hubbard’s character should lead to a skeptical approach where all of his ideas are subject to testing.

    • Former Flag Customer

      Special Frog you have a very interesting viewpoint and I can tell that you are very scientific in your approach. In fact, my impression is that your approach to a problem would be acceptable even in a quality academic environment.
      This is very good.
      Separating the observer from the empirical evidence is most astute.
      As you know, I am a Former Flag Customer so I think I can make a few points as I was witness to a great deal from the early 1970’s.
      First of all, when I first read LRH’s books, I had the same doubt as you seem to have. I was steeped in Karen Horney and I thought it was so cool because it was backed by a lot of scientific evidence. On the other hand, I found LRH’s books to lack rigorous scientific proof. The Karen Horney books were very nice to read but they really did not have any practical application. On the other hand, LRH books had a lot of very simple, easy to apply techniques which really worked. I then noticed thousands of people around me who were experiencing the same gains. Why should anyone talk of science when it was a real movement?
      After LRH died, the atmosphere and the environment changed to one of a distorted application of mechanical rules. That is part of the reason that you can now call me “Former”.
      The other thing to consider is the vastness of the material. I spent years listening to tapes and reading books. I don’t even want to think about how to construct hypotheses.
      At any rate, the very best of luck to you!

    • I understand how people who are looking at everything on the internet can come to the conclusions they do. One thing you might try to do in the future though, when you are opinionating about something you really have no real knowledge of, is to ask questions instead of preaching.

      Here is a case in point. You say, “But I would argue that Hubbard’s character should lead to a skeptical approach where all of his ideas are subject to testing.”

      Ron Hubbard says, in an article called “WHAT I THINK OF AUDITORS”
      “I don’t expect auditors or Scientologists to instantly agree with or seize upon whatever I say. I would be offended if they did and would feel they weren’t a Free People. Since they are intelligent I expect them to think over what’s said, try it, and if it’s good for them, use it. That old auditors sooner or later come back to and use what I have discovered isn’t any testimony to our relationship at all, it’s only a testimony to my being right because I meant to be right in the first place.”

      So…the author of the subject admonishes us to do exactly what you are accusing us of not doing.

      The fact is the “Church of Scientology” and the religious philosophy of Scientology are two very different things. In the CoS dogma and obedience are the order of the day. In the Independent Field, we question with boldness and decide for ourselves.

      Hubbard’s character is a non-issue to me simply because I have a deep appreciation for the efficacy of the tech. I have a deep appreciation of the man who developed it. I’ve gained that appreciation from years of diligent application of exact principles, not mere philosophic maunderings.

      There are, in my humble opinion, many scientific truths within the body of knowledge of Scientology.

      • LDW,

        Thanks for the reply. For the record, I do try to ask questions.

        For instance, what happens when an auditor tries something and finds it isn’t good for them? It is clear that many people have found aspects of Scientology did not work for them. How does this interact with, and forgive my imperfect understanding, the notion that failures are caused by missed O/Ws? What’s the interaction between the above statement and KSW? Can an auditor try their own thing if they don’t find something is good for them?

        Anyway, I’m glad to hear that you continue to question the tech.

        Regards

        • SF, here’s LRon on Personal Integrity:

          “But I think they’d all be covered very well
          If what we really observed was what we observed,
          That we took care to observe what we were observing,
          That we always observed to observe.
          And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude,
          A critical attitude, or an open mind.
          But certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity
          And sufficient personal belief and confidence in self
          And courage that we can observe what we observe
          And say what we have observed.
          Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
          Unless you have observed it
          And it is true according to your observation.
          That is all.”

          So what happens when an auditor tries something and finds it isn’t good for them?

          The only way you will ever know the answer is to audit someone and observe the results of your auditing and observe whether or not you actually did do the auditing and actually did do it the way it was intended to be done.

          Try getting the book “Self-analysis” and applying it to yourself by yourself, or apply with an interested twin.

          Until then, it is all “in your head” speculation, figure-figure, discursive thinking, the “monkey mind” described in vedic psychology just a-chattering away.

          It is speculative thought divorced from any reality. A complete lack of gnosis.

  8. ‘THETA CONQUERS MEST BY FIRST BECOMING ENTURBULATED WITH IT AND THEN WITHDRAWING, POSSESSED OF SOME OF THE LAWS OF MEST, AND RETURNING OVER THE MEST FOR AN ORDERLY CONQUEST’ – The Basic Principles of Processing, SOS.
    The greatest adventure?
    (and, incidentally, quite a good description of the actions of the Independent movement !).

  9. Marty,

    How odd. I just felt there was a great communication about LRH coming today, and here it sits. How does one evaluate LRH? Which got me thinking about him. Especially thinking about him and his dynamics. He defined a dynamic as an urge toward survival on some line.

    Most of us have this urge toward survival of self near and dear. Some move out to have this urge for family and children and the future. Then our groups. And so on.

    To evaluate a datum, you need a datum of comparable magnitude. How does one evaluate LRH? Here was a guy who not only perceived all these dynamics and provided an orderly understanding of them, but was also keen to pursue the most optimum survival across each dynamic. Not just for himself, but for the entire universe. He was out, not just to change the world, but the universe!

    Now, examining our day to day lives, what do we have to evaluate this mindset, this inclination? What amount of personal power and intelligence do we use to evaluate this man? For most humans, it’s like watching water run from the tap and thinking, “Now I know what it’s like to experience Niagra Falls. It’s not such a big deal.”

    Only those who have approached the understandings LRH tackled can really, truly appreciate what he accomplished. Take a Voltaire or a Socrates or any great epistemologist and you’d hear them go, “HOLY SHIT!” when reading some of the philosophical accomplishments of LRH. They had an idea of what he was tackling and what he accomplished.

    These guys had a datum of comparable magnitude to evaluate and understand what was accomplished.

    Here was a guy with the spiritual horsepower to figure out so much of this grand puzzle.

    Here was a guy who was driving full force not only for optimal survival along the first dynamic but every other dynamic. And not just his dynamics, but all of ours. He was genuinely interested in taking responsibility for the optimal survival of each and every one of us.

    He was out to change the world.

    But change is Grade Three. Change is ARC-breakville. Too much change too quickly creates ARC breaks and by-passed charge. People tend to dig in their heels and resist change. All these wonderful agreements we’ve held onto for so long just make us feel so “safe”–even if we might all die tomorrow from the wars we’ve also agreed to.

    So, you’ve got a society operating beneath the awareness characteristic of “ruin” being confronted with all this change, not anywhere near “need for change” or “demand for improvement.” And this guy has spread out his arms and embraced the lot, trying to hurry them along to sanity, using all of his considerable theta force (and theta is capable of considerable force.) With each person being hurried along resisting like crazy.

    And Pow! Impact after impact after impact. Counter-force out the ying yang. The status quo is clamoring for his head. “God damned Bastard! We ought to kill the son of a bitch! He’s trying to change things!” ARC break. Too much change.

    And think of the change! Not just a little change. Not just a little self improvement, but the philosophy that we can change the universe. Not just the world, but the universe.

    That which occupies man is not only immortal, but can become aware of that immortality and control the conditions of his existence–FOREVER.

    Mind boggling.

    And you get these individuals who are stuck in the first dynamic or some inverted dynamic saying, “That Hubbard,” gnash, gnash, gnash, “he was just a con man out to make a big buck for himself. Didn’t care about anyone but himself.” Talking with this really pinched, nasally voice. “He just wanted to hypnotize us all and take us for everything we have.”

    Of course, this person only has his data of comparable magnitude to evaluate Hubbard. He has himself. And because A=A=A, Hubbard could only possibly (you betcha) only do what this person would do in similar circumstances. This individual has no clue about taking responsibility for everyone across the dynamics. None. At best, he might imagine a few friends and maybe some family. Maybe a political party. Or dogs. Depends on the inverted dynamic.

    So a man tosses a couple of fifty gallon drums of water (400 lbs each) over his shoulders and staggers up the hillside to keep the village from dehydrating today; and this wimp with a half a glass of water is following behind sniveling, “Oh, he’s not much. He’s staggering all over the place. What a weakling! Can’t even walk straight. And sloshing that valuable water! I bet he’s only doing this so he can take a shower. Look at how he’s getting water all over himself. Selfish, selfish, selfish.” Then the wimp finishes off his glass and heads back down to get another for himself, never bothering to bring any for the rest of the village.

    One of the things about processing is it tends to be a first dynamic activity. “I” want to go clear. “I” want to become and OT8. “He” is an OT3. It’s for the individual. It’s also a third dynamic activity, of course, with the auditor; but the auditor is there to handle the individual pc or pre-OT. And on NOTs it moves into other things, but mostly auditing handles the concerns of a particular individual.

    What seems to be missed, apparently, by those who reach the highest level of processing and wonder what is next is that no matter how much a person handles his first dynamic, there are all those other dynamics to handle. Just as much gain or more is available handling the other dynamics. And this isn’t necessarily done in a formal session.

    I’ll bet any good auditor can regale you with the huge wins they’ve had auditing the pc. Huge wins. But, that’s just moving into another dynamic.

    Life itself becomes a session of sorts. You start having all these impediments across the dynamics turn on “in session” and “blow away” to huge cogs and very good indicators. And the answer to “what’s the next level” becomes clear: it’s handling all the dynamics. It’s taking responsibility across the dynamics. Yours, mine and ours.

    You move up, not only the scales of affinity, reality, communication and understanding; but also knowledge, responsibility, control. You become more and more knowing cause across the dynamics. The dynamics manifest from you and through you.

    Life becomes a huge adventure.

    Just think of the unimaginable case gain LRH must have had across his life. He may have run smack into some part of the case on some dynamic that pushed back harder than he was pushing at that moment. He must have gotten furiously upset on occasion with all the entheta crashing down across his dynamics. Just huge amounts of force being thrown at him. But, goodness, to get up to the point where you’re battling the actual forces which make this universe what it is… Wow!

    That man was something else.

    So, when I see someone evaluating LRH, I wonder what datum of “comparable magnitude” they’re using. What is their standard? What are they actually looking at?

    It’s all pretty fascinating.

    And what’s also fascinating is that I don’t have to be a Scientologist to hold this opinion and evaluation of LRH. I can be what I damn well choose. And I can admire someone for any reason I choose regardless of anyone else’s evaluation.

    So,a toast! Here’s to life! Here’s to adventure!

    Maybe we can sneak in some change while the world isn’t looking. (I’m just not up to the universe kicking back at me just yet.)

    Michael

    • AWESOME!! MG

    • martyrathbun09

      Michael, thanks a lot for that. I hope people take the time to read your whole post here – packed with wisdom. It occurred to me recently while reading and listening to a lot of LRH from the fifties and sixtes that he never took his eye off the fourth dynamic. From DMSMH forward he consistently addressed the fourth dynamic. I think that may have been lost on those you talk of being all First and Second (in another great contribution you made on this thread), and of course to those who dramatize day in and day out “the Third is all there is.”

      • Marty,
        Appreciate that. Was feeling a bit guilty about being a blog hog.

        Just trying to duplicate the viewpoint of the being who originated the subject leaves me in awe. It’s one thing to understand the words a person uses, and quite another to share the viewpoint/experience from which those words originated.

    • Michael, this post of yours is just incredible. Really articulated some very important points. I’ve always been of the opinion that evaluating LRH is really hard just because of the “datum of comparable magnitude” issue. Most attempts come across like the obsessive efforts of pygmies to somehow cut him down to their size. There really is no way to do that, so the efforts to do so wind up reflecting much more poorly on the person trying than to LRH himself.

      • Publius,
        Yeah, and the other side which is almost as destructive is the tendency to deify LRH, which creates a weird alter-is of his affinity, reality and communication. I think he just wanted to be understood, not worshiped. To bring us up to being cause, rather than put us at effect.

        Admiration is wonderful. But when smaller terminals start snapping against a larger one, both suffer. I imagine Marty and Mike are experiencing some of this.

        Thus, the importance of personal integrity.

        • OUT, I completely agree with you. From personal experience (though not with LRH), I know it is possible to be in awe of someone for their intellect, achievements, etc, relative to one’s own – while at the same time, not snapping terminals with them, acknowledging one’s own beingness and abilities and achievements for what they are, and thereby maintaining a position of confidence and poise when in the presence of the person deserving of the admiration. It’s difficult, but doable. Hell, I’ve even found myself tongue-tied in the presence of someone who could run 4 minute miles, since my best pace is about a 7 minute mile. In some wierd way, I consider the 4 minute miler to be a sort of God relative to “mortal men”, at least in that area!

          Perhaps not as well stated as it could be. To make the point better, I often thought “would I have had the cojones to audit LRH if given the chance”? Honestly, I’m not sure. But ideally, I should be just as willing and able to confront and communicate with him as with anyone else, regardless of the esteem in which I held him.

          As you say, it’s a matter of personal integrity.

          • Publius,

            Gotcha.

            Also, I expect you to be half tongue-tied if we ever meet. (Can one tie a knot with half a tongue? Can one clap with one hand? Damn, this is getting hard!) Anyway, I ran a 1:59.7 half mile in high school gym class wearing a pair of Chuck Taylors. I hadn’t even been running as exercise/training. I wasn’t out for sports at all. Only intense weight training. The coach nearly shit.

            And I can guarantee that the ability to run fast does not make you a better person especially. I was still a dork. Just a recognizably faster dork than anticipated.

            As for auditing LRH, yeah, that would have been a bit unnerving. I’ve been having some fun studying why we get nervous in the presence of others. And I won’t get glib or patronizing about TRs and case phenomenon. Words are just plain useless without reality supporting them. Words can become such a pretense of knowledge.

            I think that even though “evil” may be hard to confront; for a human being, confronting a thetan is even more difficult. Actually confronting another being in their purity? Just absolute honesty, without vias? Holy Smoly! Tough!

            It’s much easier to confront indecision, confusion, problems, mass, overts, excuses–just about anything you can throw between you and another being.

            Maybe that’s part of the answers as to why we’re stuck in this universe. It’s easier to “confront” this crap.

            But, those who can confront another being tend to have such clean space that it makes confronting them easier. I think you would do fine auditing LRH, as would I. The nonsense would bubble up and cause us a bit of consternation at first, then we’d just settle in, feel more confident and move forward. When someone grants you beingness, it’s easier to grant them beingness.

            And I think LRH would have granted either of us all the beingness we needed, would have made the space safe.

            Hope this doesn’t come across as pedantic drivel. I’m not keen on someone offering me glib “advice” that’s really a subtle invalidation. I’m just chatting about things I see and feel, things that are real to me, rather than something I’ve merely read. Some of it is extrapolation, but extrapolation from personal experience.

            Michael

    • Great Post !!!

    • +1 Michael!

    • OnceUponATime

      You said a mouth-full there.

      As far as looking for something of “comparable magnitude” to LRH, I invite you to take a look at what ” optimum survival AS” each of your Dynamics would be like. (if you haven’t done it lately) Mock it up! Go for the absolute most optimum that you can postulate. In my opinion this, at least, is what you are actually capable of and , at least some part of what you are trying to achieve as a being.

      In keeping with the aspect of your post on what LRH was trying to accomplish, and viewing from the viewpoint of your own concept of “optimum survival across the Dynamics”, I propose the concept that YOU are the “datum of comparable magnitude”.
      (As are we all )

      WW

      • WW,
        “I propose the concept that YOU are the “datum of comparable magnitude””.

        That’s pretty damn sharp. Damn sharp. Good one WW.

      • Wind Walker and Once Upon a Time,

        The posts both of you made were piercing. As I duplicated what was being said and thought of and looked at how I could apply it was definitely piercing into life, my life, what I liked and disliked and what I could change. It was really nice of both of you to post this great description. It increased my think and my space. Nice! Thanks!

      • Windwalker,

        In sports, there are certain performances that just make people’s jaws drop. Like Wilt scoring a hundred points in one game. Say what?!
        The opportunity to score a hundred points or two hundred points in a single game has always existed. But who’s actually done it?

        Everything that LRH “discovered” was actually there to begin with. Just like when someone “discovers” electricity or nuclear power. I didn’t discover electricity here on Earth, but when the summer gets hot, I sure do appreciate the air conditioning. And I didn’t discover the concepts that make up Scientology, but I certainly appreciate the insights. It makes my life easier.

        As for postulate processing, yeah, I’ve done it, and I’ve explored the upper reaches of the tone scale just as a matter of course–including native state. Ultimately, we’re all sitting at the top of the scale while “pretending” to occupy all the levels below.

        It’s what’s sitting in between that reeks so much havoc.

        Comparisons usually can be classified qualitatively and quantitatively. As much as many spiritual philosophies would propose, I haven’t found that we are all equal. There are vast differences being to being. Quantitatively and qualitatively. There is a vast array of different types of “IQ.” As I’ve said before, LRH was very fond of photography and music, but his production on those lines didn’t impress me. He wasn’t Ansel Adams or Debussy.

        But, comparing self to others eventually serves to invalidate the individual who comes up short. I don’t like invalidating anyone, so I try not to shove comparisons down anyone’s throat. (despite my comparing Ron to Adams and Debussy–so someone else cast the first stone.)

        When I read what someone writes, I try to duplicate not just their words, but their viewpoint and their being. Who would write or say this and why? What were they experiencing or what had they experienced? Reading LRH’s stuff, listening to his tapes, I’m fascinated by the being who saw all this stuff. I’m looking at a guy who somehow managed to score a hundred points night after night after night.

        The physics and conditions and possibilities for Scientology have been sitting in front of each and every one of us lifetime after lifetime. It’s just been sitting there, pounding at our doors, and how many of us opened the door? How many of us originated a subject as far reaching as this?
        That’s my wonder about “comparable magnitude.” What did it take to do this? And to persist. To not give up in the face of so much opposition. Wow!
        So, it’s all well and good to look at what we can do and what we understand after the fact.

        After the fact.

        But, what would we really be talking about if LRH hadn’t taken the time to open the door and take a look? What would be our understandings about life?

        I’m not even saying that LRH managed to discover all that needed to be discovered. I’m well aware of extensive areas of existence that haven’t been addressed. But, it’s an amazing start. It’s an amazing inroad into undoing the mess we find ourselves in.

        Now, it’s just up to us to move beyond “self” and comparing “self” to other “selfs” to make this world a better place to exist.

        Just my opinion.

        Michael

        • An opinion I share.

        • Mikey — awesome.

          Indeed, Scientology, the philosophy and technology of L Ron Hubbard, is not a GOAL. It is a ROUTE. The goal is to duplicate, understand, realize and be able to judge the materials on one’s own route.

          Well, my goal, a goal perhaps shared by others.

          Bruce

        • OnceUponATime

          I’m totally tracking there Michael.
          The man was one mother of a being. ( but it wouldn’t surprise me if he occasionally got spaghetti sauce on his shirt too.)
          Just saying.

          WW

    • Brilliant comment!

    • Michael, My friend, you amaze me. You have something to say and you say it so well. You can look through the fog of other peoples egos and find the essence of the ‘ol man’. He was very special and one of a kind. Love

    • Thank you for having assumed the size to perceive those points and for communicating them.

  10. ANYONE Who thinks for a minute that someone is better, stronger, smarter or more able than themselves is in bad shape. YOU are the only one that matters and when you know that you have more ARC for others and want to contribute. LRH had flaws, many of them but his tech works and thats all that matters. And besides, we created it too, if we hadn’t it wouldn’t be in our universe. We can all be Gods

    • Summer Wind

      “big smile’

      WW

    • Summer Wind,

      Oh, I don’t know. I’ve run across individuals all my life who have been better, stronger, smarter than me in one way or another. It’s good for the soul to have your ass kicked now and then. Keeps you humble.
      Good shape, bad shape: it’s all relative. Compared to some, I’m in incredible shape. Compared to some, not so much. Compared to what I could be, I’m in terrible shape.
      Yeah, we all created this stuff we’re experiencing. Creating is not the issue. Being “Knowing Cause” over our creations is the rub. Being able to differentiate just who is creating what and where. A lot of what seems to be in “our” universe is not, and a lot that seems to not be there is. All those confusions make life such a bitch.
      As for being a god, I’ll settle for getting the stain out of my favorite shirt. One of these days I’ll learn what to wear and not wear while eating Italian.

      I’m such a slob.

      Michael

      • Michael, you’ve hit on something I refer to quite often, being the effect of barriers of our creation, very nicely stated in Summary of Scientology in Creation of Human Ability.

  11. It’s quite interesting. Rousseau tried to reconcile the ‘how much liberty’ question and ‘how much authority’ question and was of the opinion that liberty was an absolute value and could not be compromised. The assumption was that an individual could not be coerced as this would negate free will. So far so good and makes sense.

    The balancing act becomes where another’s liberty infringes, so there needs to be a degree of authority; to regulate a group, to ensure that an individual is able to be free.

    Where Rousseau seems to have gone wrong, is the computation that runs something like this: if you force a man to be free, you force him to behave in a rational manner. If he does not want a rational end, he doesn’t want true freedom, but false freedom, therefore if forced to do things that will make him happy, he will be grateful. Look at Hitler and Mussolini who would quote Rousseau as their influence, and it always puzzled me how a libertarian such as Rousseau would be cited as a justification for dictators.

    The book, ‘The Social Contract’ is a fascinating read and discusses the tension between reconciling an individual’s need for liberty with the obligations inherent in creating and maintaining the sanity of the group.

    Am going back to being heavily pregnant now…

  12. Wow, Marty, this is great! Just had a big realization about why I got attacked so much at the Austin Org. I was very adventurous and committed overts in my adventures. They thought I was evil; but I was venturing into new areas. In the end I would go back and clean up my mistakes, but sometimes they didn’t know I had done this. This was the case when I got declared. I got declared for things I had handled! Also, I think others who would like to be adventurous but are not up the Tone Scale enough to be and do so, get jealous of the adventurer; (“Why are they having so much fun? . . . . and not me?”) I found myself constantly the recipient of third party by those who, I am now cogniting, wanted an adventurous life but for some reason felt they couldn’t have one. I asked my ex-2D, my sons’s father one time, “Have you ever had a boring day with me?” He said, “I WISH; what I would give for one boring day with you!”. I am now realizing he couldn’t handle all the adventures I would go and get us into.

    Thanks Marty, a new perspective on LRH and us! All of us here are adventurers, it takes a lot of adventure to be an INDIE!

    Much love,
    Catherine

  13. What a beautiful post.
    When I went through training on how to deliver Book One auditing, when I went through training and internships to audit the Grades and NED and repairs, etc, I was constantly awe struck at what it took to accomplish what LRH did and to deliver it in a way that I – ME – could duplicate it and actually deliver it too! WoW!
    And THAT was only a small portion of what else I could accomplish because of LRH’s accomplishments. Still amazes me!

  14. I love this blog.
    It provokes the most sparkling thoughts and considerations, cleansing the confusions, clarifying the muddied, but now former for me, “now I am supposed to’s”. “I never agreed to be a slave” is still my favorite LRH quote.
    Marty, thanks for sharing this brilliant writer, Bolitho. I can see why LRH would mention him in passing. Keep it coming.

  15. Marty,

    I’m genuinely glad that you, and other Scientologists, find value in auditing and the “Tech”.

    But if by the term, “Adventurer” you mean to say that LRH was a wife abusing bully who lied about his college and military achievements, who alienated most of his own family, who made up a whole lot of “facts” out of thin air, then yes, I suppose he was an “Adventurer”, too.

    I’ve heard that if you repeat the same actions you will receive the same results. LRH did a lot of damage to his own family, and died a fugitive from the law. I hear Shelly Miscavige hasn’t been heard from in some time. One can only hope that Davey will follow that same example.

    • martyrathbun09

      Aaahhh, the bliss of anonymous oblivion…

    • Marty, no need for this kind of crap on the blog. Definitely, some critical comments add to the discussion, but not stuff like this. My opinion.

      • He/she proves the point.

      • Joe,
        It occurs to me this guy has ‘data’ as a substitute for personal observation. He’s taken his stuff from the internet. Read this bit, that bit, and moving these symbols he’s picked up around with other symbols, he’s come up with a ‘logical’ conclusion about data, bits of symbols he’s got.

        What is absurd about all that is there is NO ACTUAL OBSERVATION on his part of anything he’s prattled on about. Take ‘wife beater’. Well, was he actually there when LRH was supposed to have beaten his wife? Nope. He read about what Polly said happened. So what this woman says becomes in Fancy’s head a ‘fact’. It’s nothing more than a symbol, an idea fixed in energy, that he took from something he read with not the slightest bit of personal experience of the actual occurrences.

        It’s hard to grasp how dumbfuck this method of think-think actually is. It’s just so, so, so…well, dumb. Shut off from the fruits of observation and living at a level of figure-figure over the importance of symbols, which in the lack of space that observation requires, have become A=A=A and identified one with another. Youch. Tha’s gottas hoit.

        Dumb as my arse.

        • You’re right, Joe. I have no actual observation of LRH beating, or not beating, his wife.

          Nor do you, I might add. You cannot say with certainty, unless you accompanied LRH 24/7, that he did not, in fact, beat his wife.

          What I do have is court records and two eye witnesses. These sorts of things are called “corroborating testimony”. Its the sort of thing that convicts people in courts of law, thank God. I’ll go ahead and make an informed judgment on that.

          Just like I made an informed judgment about what Marty and Mike have gone through, because there was a *pattern of behavior* that was corroborated by other witnesses like Marc Headley and Amy Scobee. See-I didn’t have to have any ACTUAL OBSERVATION to make up my mind as to what was fact and what was “shore story”; I can put the pieces together through what others are saying and ask, “What do they have to gain by saying what they said”?

          I can also look at corroborating evidence, Just like I’ll make an informed judgment on LRH’s service record by checking LRH’s claims in Scientology pubs against what the Navy has released. Or for that matter, checking his college transcript.

          I can even go further and look at what the CoS has admitted in court as part of the discovery process, or look at what the CoS has sued people about keeping confidential.

          It’s amazing what one can do when one simply looks and uses logic to deduce what is most likely to be true.

          It came in pretty handy when my Scientologist friends were trying to recruit me into the Church. All I had to do was look at the data that the Church was putting out in its publications, and compare it to data from other sources. Claims like, “More people died in Psychiatric hospitals than in all of the wars Americans have died in” turned out to be not only ridiculous on the surface, but they were demonstrably false.

          So Jim, I want you to know that I don’t take your derisions of me personally. I really don’t. Because in the back of my mind I keep remembering that people like *myself* saw through the bullshit right away. It didn’t take me 20 years of my life to see that the CoS was a lying, manipulative, destructive entity. It was OBVIOUS from the get-go.

          But for people like *you*, Jim- well, you got stuck in the trap, didn’t you?

          And while I’m glad that you got out of the CoS, there still seems to me that there’s a piece of your mind that is still stuck.

          After WWII, the Allies insisted on forcing the Germans around Dachau and Auschwitz to come and tour the camps to confront the evil that was done there. They knew that if people were not forced to confront what was done, they wouldn’t believe it, and it was more likely to be done again.

          While not as dramatic, I see Marty’s post as a white-wash of history.

          By all means, if auditing et al is helping you out, keep at it! Godspeed and good luck-I mean that sincerely!

          But, I don’t see you getting truly free unless you can confront the demonstrable facts of all of the horrible things that LRH did to his own family, and to his followers. Who came up with Disconnection? Who came up with Fair Game? Who came up with the GO/OSA?

          Now, can you confront those facts, or is it just too, “entheta” for you to accept them as true?

          • With actual respect, I am going to cut you off from turning this thread into a trial of L Ron Hubbard. You all have your own forum for that. I’ve done nothing to hinder your venue. You’ve demonstrated the point I was trying to make in the post. I never said anything, nor did I intend to convey, the opinion that we “whitewash” Hubbard. I am more aware of his faults that anyone I assure you. That you can’t acknowledge that he was a man who contributed something rather more significant to the world than me, David Mayo, Bill Robertson, David Miscavige and you combined then I suggest you have blinders on that are rather more thick than any you accuse others here of wearing.

            • That you can’t acknowledge that he was a man who contributed something rather more significant to the world than me, David Mayo, Bill Robertson, David Miscavige and you combined …

              Or anyone else I know of, perhaps save the Buddah given the different circumstances.

              Amen.

              What is the value of a man? It is both his contributions and flaws he may have. Unfortunately, it takes that elusive character trait, JUDGEMENT, as in the last of the gradients of study, to do it fully and properly.

              BTW, Marty, awesome post above. I gotta work on it some more cuz I am finding it quite the morsel of prose.

              Bruce Pratt

            • Great reply, Marty. I would add: How often do we go back and examine the private lives of people like Edison, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, etc, etc ? Or do we mostly just celebrate their achievements? Why should LRH be held to a different standard?

              • John Fennessey

                Maurice, I think in time he will not be. But for the moment there are a lot of folks dramatizing M/W/H ‘s. Also some are just small jealous types, some dramatizing overt/motivators and some are overly dissapointed that he wasn’t the GOD they needed. History will mark his achievments. Lets just hope there is a history to do so.

            • Marty,

              As I’ve stated, I’m genuinely glad that you, and others, have benefited from the “tech”. Let me go ahead and acknowledge right here that LRH did, indeed, do a great amount of good. I think it is obvious that, had he not, he would not have gained as many followers as he had.

              But think on this: DM has been a Scientologist since he was a kid. He was a Commodore’s Messenger since he was a teenager. He did not receive a HS diploma-his education came directly at the hands of the Tech through the SO.

              In other words, he had every benefit of the Tech with very little “Wog” influence in his formative years. Indeed, he worked very closely with LRH himself.

              So, if the Tech is so beneficial in making people more ethical, if LRH was purely good, how did DM become an SP? :-/

              And why haven’t Scientologists put a stop to him, yet?

              • martyrathbun09

                It is covered in the technology. It goes something like this: One first conceives that another can be evil; not do evil but actually inherently be evil. Oh, there is so much testimony from the early days that Miscavige obsessed with demonstrating how anyone that opposed him was evil, had not done evil but was actually inherently evil. The individual conceiving that another could be evil then justifies overt acts against the “evil” one (s). The overt/motivator sequence then kicks in, encouraging more overts be committed. He becomes motivator hungry and begins mocking up an environment chock full of motivators, a dangerous environment that is so delusion based that no one but he sees it. As the spiral continues the person begins to see evil all about, even identities that do not exist. Alas, he is fighting martians that no one else sees. He is SP.

              • martyrathbun09

                As to your second question why has no one stopped him. He has effectively convinced them – through his seizure of control of all communication lines – that the martians (enemies) do in fact exist – in the form of the media, squirrels, independents, you name it. He’s effectively convinced them that their survival depends upon protecting him from these great forces of “evil.”

                • With respect, I gotta point out:

                  And what did LRH tell his followers to convince them that Psychiatrists are evil? That the government was out to get him because he was a threat to their power? That the Abrahamic religions were all just an implant? That Scientologists were the only force able to “clear the planet” of evil influences and protect it from enemies like the Marcabians? That “entheta” information would prohibit case gain?

                  These “us versus them” concepts not only protect the leader from criticism, they cut off the followers from the rest of humanity. It is nothing new-every cult uses them to control people. DM is just following in LRH’s footsteps, albeit with less class and ARC.

                  • martyrathbun09

                    Mr. Fancy, out of curiosity, how much dissecting of the life and words of the messenger of Alah have you been doing in public lately? Answer the question please and provide the links.

          • Mr. Fancy,
            I was not much in the mood for the…whatever.
            Here’s an idea. You have the players in a game, on the sidelines you have ‘spectators’. They just watch. Well, remove that another step and you have spectators that merely read about the game, in supermarket tabloids say.

            I’m playing the game. The things you mention have long since come and gone, they are nothing and haven’t changed the game. Some of these meaningless bits of whatever were bits of stuff thrown on the field by spectators. Spilled peanuts, some mustard they couldn’t keep on the bun, even rubber chickens thrown out on the playing field.

            The game is so much more.

            My contempt for those who would not even go to the stadium as a spectator, but would stay at home and read the National Enquirer’s comment on the footwear of the players, and then consider themselves ‘informed’, well…come on. This sort of thing isn’t even interesting as a distraction. It’s, it’s well, it’s just not any fun.

            One day, maybe, you’ll get geared up and can make it to the game. Maybe even on the field. Then you’ll be better informed.

            • martyrathbun09

              Ok – let’s move on.

            • Jim,

              I appreciate the invite.

              But I’ve been to practice, I’ve seen how the players are treated, and I’ve gotten a good peek at the rule book.

              That’s simply not a game I want to play. There are others that are a lot more meaningful to me.

              That doesn’t mean I’m not rooting for you, though! I hope your new start-up league does better than the old one!

              Regards,
              Mr. F

          • Mr. Fancy, No one is saying LRH was perfect. I have never known of him physically harming anyone. I’m sure he made mistakes and you know if he were here he would be able to defend himself. But he’s not. It’s easy to listen to other peoples opinions or natter and just see their side. Please listen to the PDC tapes or read the thousands of works or better yet go into session with a good auditor and get standard tech applied to YOUR case then re-evaluate. I feel very different about LRH than you do because I knew him. Did you? Love

            • nice comment.

              IMO if LRH was here although he would be able to defend himself he wouldn’t bother and would play some game of his own…

            • Sarge,

              Thanks for your remarks, and I received them in the spirit they were intended. I appreciate it. 🙂

              I have done some reading up on the subject, first and foremost those materials put out by the CoS, and I think I know enough about it to judge it on its merits. Simply put, I don’t buy the premise that our thetans start out perfect and are mucked up by engrams.

              It may be a useful premise to work with, but I think it misses the mark on many levels.

              OTOH, I hope that you can/are doing independent research of your own, and might I recommend that you look up what work has been done in the parapsychological and psychological fields. LRH was one man working for one lifetime. There’s a lot more out there done by others that, taken as a whole, is very illuminating.

              • Mr. Fancy,

                I hope you do some “independent research” of your own by getting a basic book and applying it. Yes, actually auditing someone. Let’s see if you can walk in those shoes instead of just talking about it.

          • Wow MF,

            Two people possibly lying about the same thing is to you “corroborating testimony”.

            To me it’s just two sources possibly telling the same lie.

            In order for it to be “corroborating testimony” the witnesses would of had to have been interviewed independently so they wouldn’t have had a chance to collaborate on their story and there is no evidence that this was done in Hubbard’s case.

            Also the person being accused in this cases is never confronted with his accuser.

            Since Ron is deceased.

            Now for example if two people told me you were a jerk I wouldn’t necessarily believe it until you were given the chance to prove otherwise.

            However by reading this post.

            I can see that you are guilty as charged.

            Good night Mr Fancy and maybe when you wake up you might think of a new screen name.

    • HCOB The Crimminal Mind

  16. Thanks, Marty, for sharing so much from that book on the role adventurers play in society! Many of the most original thinkers of the 20th century (Alfred Kinsey, Wilhelm Reich, LRH) colored well outside the line in various aspects of their public and private lives, but that almost seems to be the price of admission into the small circle of people bringing truly original work into the world!

    As Independent Scientology grows, putting LRH into the context of being an Adventurer with a capital A (i.e., someone who, by definition, is not going to blindly follow all the rules set down by others) could help
    enormously in reframing the General Public’s perception of the man and his legacy.

    Hugs,

    John in Austin

    • Independent Scientologist

      John in Austin:

      Are you someone I know? If so, please contact me at:

      independent_scientologist@hotmail.com

      – Ron Matlock (formerly in Austin)

    • martyrathbun09

      Had a friend from Dallas suggest Nicoli Tesla be added to that circle.

      • Nikola Tesla?
        Absolutely belongs in the maverick adventurer circle, IMO.🙂
        Today’s electrical grid that keeps the lights on 24/7 throughout North America would not be possible without Tesla’s dynamos and transformers. And the vast majority of the AC electrical motors are all based on Tesla patents.
        And look how he ended up.😦
        Michael A. Hobson

        • martyrathbun09

          Precisely. And let’s not forget his schemes to harness the Van Allen belt to bring free,unlimited power to all of humanity – no patents or monopoly intended. I hope the Pissed Wizard stumbles across this thread (my friend from Dallas).

      • Scott Campbell

        Marty,

        Did you ever hear of LRH being the recipient of Teslas’ research papers via Tesla’s widow?

        Someone on the ship (currently under the radar) told me that once.

  17. @Marty:
    Your post today is why I almost never use ‘LRH’ to refer to Ron Hubbard. It is to make this exact point.

    ‘LRH’ is a set of initials used at the bottom of various pieces of paper, deliberately given mythical god-like proportions through the calculated application of his own PR techniques by certain parties for ultimately malicious purposes (in my opinion).

    Ron Hubbard was a *human being* who, despite all his faults and failings, accomplished a major advancement in the knowledge of the human spirit, its cleaning from evil and its empowerment.

    Michael A. Hobson

  18. John Fennessey

    I could hear LRH in some of those passages. LRH said some high class bastards can do so high class work. I can see why he liked that book and identified with it.
    Long ago most here signed on to the adventures and battles that LRH was engaged in. We made it our own. Today we are strewn all over the battlefield. Some dead, some dying, some pretending to be dead, some reloading, some looking to run away, some weighing odds on changing sides, some still committed, some not. And now Marty reminds us with this wonderful post what it was about LRH and all of us that helps us make sense of him and where we have been and what we were doing.
    Another great post providing us perspective so we can move on up a little higher. Maybee even redindle that adventure.

    • John — So happy to see you posting under your real name! Welcome to you. SUre wish you could make it to the July 4th get together, I could return the flow and cook you a steak!

      • John Fennessey

        Mike, Thanks so much. I would love to be there. If it does not happen this year, it will happen at some point. Looking forward to seeing you again.

  19. Another post that beautifully supports “Moving on up a little higher.”
    Thanks, Marty

  20. Fascinating.

    Thomas Paine, one of the men responsible for lighting the fire of the American Revoltion with his classic “Common Sense.”

    A true American hero.

    By his death in 1809 a severe alcoholic and virtually penniless.

    Robert Ingersoll commented:

    “Thomas Paine had passed the legendary limit of life. One by one most of his old friends and acquaintances had deserted him. Maligned on every side, execrated, shunned and abhorred – his virtues denounced as vices – his services forgotten – his character blackened, he preserved the poise and balance of his soul. He was a victim of the people, but his convictions remained unshaken. He was still a soldier in the army of freedom, and still tried to enlighten and civilize those who were impatiently waiting for his death. Even those who loved their enemies hated him, their friend – the friend of the whole world – with all their hearts. On the 8th of June, 1809, death came – Death, almost his only friend. At his funeral no pomp, no pageantry, no civic procession, no military display. In a carriage, a woman and her son who had lived on the bounty of the dead – on horseback, a Quaker, the humanity of whose heart dominated the creed of his head – and, following on foot, two negroes filled with gratitude – constituted the funeral cortege of Thomas Paine”

    The “heroes” of the world Nelson Mandela, Bono, Bill Gates. You know, the corporate shills that sell out behind our back and then bask in the limelight.

    Then you have the Thomas Paine’s and LRH’s. They take on full force the powers that be. And where do they get?

    Deserted.
    Judged.
    Ridiculed.

    I am not one to think LRH was some God. It does seem like he had his faults. I know I have mine. He was a genius. He was an adventurer. He has my unyielding respect and admiration forever imperfect as he may have been.

    While I was getting auditing from Ken Urqhart, we were having a cup of tea between session. He remarked.

    “You know, the way I see it, LRH picked a fight with the universe. And he sure got the first punch in good. And they tried to get him back ever since.”

    I will always remember that. Thx Ken

    Have a great day.

    • Brian — absolutely brilliant post. Thank you.

    • While Mandela’s legacy is complex and he certainly made some mistakes, I really don’t think your assessment of him is reasonable.

      Also, Bill Gates is more of “buy out” rather than “sell out” kind of guy. You can’t sell out when you are, essentially, “the man”.

      • @SpecialFrog:
        Long before William Henry Gates, III ever became a multi-billionaire and “the man”, he was a member of the largely anti-establishment “hacker” culture. Didn’t you know that?
        Michael A. Hobson

    • martyrathbun09

      Thank you Brian. The perfect analogy in my view. Two score and something years after Tom Paine’s celebrated passing, a fellow name Abe Lincoln quipped: I never tire of reading Old Tom Paine.

    • +1 Brian!

  21. Great posting. Maybe I just latched on to just one particular phrase from Twelve Against the Gods, but I like to think that things are now “infinitely hopeful”.

    Scientology is alive and well…..outside the prison orgs. Try as he may, DM can never successfully relegate LRH to the trash heap. The fruits of LRH’s adventure can’t be killed off. People who look and see, just leave the prison orgs to get & deliver standard tech elsewhere. Infinitely hopeful.

    People like the ironically named, Standard Tech Guy, will try to hijack this particular blog post but he, despite his name, was unsuccessful. What STG fails to get is that a fancy MEST building, despite whatever official name it’s called, doesn’t mean it’s delivering standard tech. And yet I’m infinitely hopeful that some day even STG will get it. First he has to realize who developed standard tech. DM can never claim that one.

  22. This is maddening.

    This blog has, for the last two years, turned out all sorts of wildlife surrounding Scientology. For example, we have true OTs who are concerned about the future of the tech and mankind and want Scientology back the way it is supposed to be. Then there are the OSA personnel and their bots who try their best to protect Dear Leader and the coffers that he has built. Then there are the dquirrels and then SPs.

    One thing is constant in this bog and that is it is about the subject of Scientology and the future of it. After that come all of the twists and turns and spins on what is being said. But this is about Scientology and the man himself. Even this posting, today, has been derailed by OSA nd the purity of what Marty offered, which was – again – a good serving of freedom for his readers. When I see a derailer I know that it is striking a nerve in the DM camp. So I pay closer attention. But I digress.

    What is simple is this: A guy by the name of L Ron Hubbard created a body of technology unlike anything that has ever been viewed on this planet in its long and sordid history. If one actually reads the body of LRHs writings one sees nothing but empathy and love for his fellow man. Passion for helping mankind rings in every writing.

    Through the years I have grown considerably as a spiuritual being thanks to what I have read and understood from LRHs writings. I know that others have too because I’ve been a Scientologist for 40 years and I know a lot of people have gotten gains just from reading LRH.

    Now, where the fun begins is when people sit in judgement of LRH having never read DMSMH or completed an auditor training course and so forth and decide that LRH is this or that. It is annyoing at best when these folks, who have not partaken in the tech, or who has not spent hundreds of hours making someone else better with the tech time after time with standard application of the tech shoot their mouths off. It’s just silly because they have no viewpoint from which to speak. These are the people that are not free at all and are in fact still trapped.

    LRH was a man. He love his fellow man and this is apparent in his writings. He wants us to do better. Everything he did from 1948 on was to make us better. If someone thinks he was a rip-off artest, well then do the NED course and audit someone who wants to get better and watch what happens. Or go to an area where a catastrophe occured and do a locational on someone who is stuck in the secondary of it all and watch what happens: A miracle will occur. Sitting and judging LRH is pedantic and corny. Applying the tech and making another better is what is needed and wanted in this society – not silly opinions. The world has enough of that.

    ML Tom

  23. Great post.

    STG

    “THERE IS ONLY ONE TECH AND THAT IS STANDARD TECH!!!”

    Tell that to Miscavige and his adherents. And tell them to roll back all the changes, alterations and “sanitations” of LRH. Tell them to put the Bridge that LRH developed BACK.

    As for me, I am benefiting from Standard Tech, very much unlike what I was getting in the CoS.

    Go do the first release of OT8 if you’re so sold. Don’t cry hear if you die.

    Sorry Marty, if this is unkind to STG. F#@4 that guy!

  24. I really do appreciate this blog, but I don’t understand the characterization of LRH. I got into Scientology after reading DMSMH. My perspective of LRH is strongly colored by the fact that in DMSMH he gave a very specific description of the state of clear and spoke about this state as if it was being achieved, when in fact it was not being achieved at that time. To my knowledge, the state of clear as described in DMSMH is not something one achieves as a result of Dianetic auditing or doing the entire Bridge. For example, having full recall of anything that has ever happened in your life or that you have ever studied is one of the claimed benefits.

    I got into Scientology and paid and studied and worked because I thought I was going to get that. How do you reconcile the obvious deception at the very start of LRH’s foray into the mind and life with what you now believe about the whole of his work? I can’t separate the two.

  25. One of the most beautiful post ever made !
    Well done !
    My suggestion for anybody that wants to develop new tech and insist on he really did it:
    1. do the primary runddown
    2. train up to class XII and audit some 10-20 000 hours
    3. do the whole available bridge as a pc
    4. do it standardly without any Miscavige Stuff
    5. Whenever you discover something new or you think you did, find out if not already the Greek or Roman or the French philosophers already were talking about (most of the new Ideas that some self appointed philosophers are uttering are very old ideas already and not really new). Also be sure you didn’t take an Idea from Lrh and twisted it around. It must be something really new and original and you have to demonstrate it works (ultimate test).

    And perhaps if I’m in a good mood I may listen to you or perhaps not.

    If we only would start to apply the principles inherent in Scientology to the subjects (Sciences, Economy, Politics etc…) of this planet we would be busy for some centuries without having to develop new Scientology tech and we would discover so many new things for to evolve our civilization further on.
    SO LETS START THE ADVENTURE and move on up a little higher !
    All the Indies here are adventurers.🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂

  26. “Basically, a bully on a golden stage backed by the symbological power of a superstar actor, a billion bucks and an army of intimidated compliant robots have morphed the philosophy of Scientology into a Fourth Reich goose-step siege mentality that the general public rightly seems to abhor, as evidenced by the empty orgs, low stats and exodus of its own members and where high-dollar donors and flashy rich movie stars are held in far greater esteem than its own overworked and dedicated staff.”

    IMO, the most succinct, accurate statement ever of what LRH’s Church has morphed into thanks to the incompetence and (mis) management of one David Miscavige.

  27. Former Flag Customer

    Thank you for the post about ‘Twelve Against The Gods”. It is just great reading. Please keep up the very good work. You have an excellent “mix” on this blog.
    Standard Tech Guy just doesn’t get it. Bolitho is way over his head.

  28. Cindy Pinsonnault

    Marty,

    This is a wonderful post. Ron, the adventurer, not Ron, the god. I’ve been reading Paine and loving it, and this is another great book recommendation.

    Thank you.

    • Thanks Cindy, glad to hear you continued with Paine. Also I forgot to acknowledge for your having directed me toward the quote I used in the earlier post on Paine. Thanks for that too.

  29. Scott Campbell

    Inspiring post Marty,

    LRH was an adventurer nonpareil. And you’re no slouch yourself. This article has got to be one of the best things you’ve ever posted.

    The passages you quoted from “Twelve Against The Gods” were profound in their depth of meaning.

    As I gobbled up the lucidly masterful prose in the piece, (yours included) I was only slightly disappointed not to find your Honeymoon Mugshot at the bottom!

    L, Scott

  30. Marty -a great read. I am of the opinion that an adventurer can also be a gentleman and does not necessarily have to be a brute – look at you and Mr Rinder- both of you are gentlemen.

    • Scott Campbell

      I prefer to think of him as a Pirate, corsair, filibuster, freebooter, marauder, picaroon, privateer, raider, rover, sea rover, adventurer, daredevil, explorer, gambler, globetrotter, hero, mercenary, opportunist, pioneer, romantic, speculator, swashbuckler, traveler, venturer, voyager, rapscallion and scallywag.

      In other words, my kind of guy.

      On Mike, you’re right. He’s a gentleman.

  31. Bolitho writes beautifully of the adventurer. He stated that the vocation of the adventurer is parabolic-not straight and that is because it only apples to one lifetime in one body. Regarding that, he was utterly accurate in his assessment of the adventurers he brings up. But, what if he had met Ron.
    OK, now I will really let loose.This adventure in Scientology is many lifetimes.
    We’ve just gotten started. We’ve shot a lot of our wad this lifetime on numnuts DM-25-30 years is a lot on this planet. If we lived a few hundred years he would’ve just been a little blip in our memories. Ron stated that these lifetimes are way too short You get going on something and wham you’re dead! An SP can really win in the area of time. There is nothing worse than to wake up after years in an activity and realize most of your time was swimming upstream from an association with an SP-The loss of income and all the” living” one could’ve done, like trips to Zimbabwe or a house on the beach. I’ve talked to Scientologists who’ve been in 30 years or so and now they just want to “live” their life.That is exactly what the SP wants -for you to give up!
    As a group we have to start all over again. But that is the continuation of the adventure. The only thing that got old and finally died was our ptsness. I prefer to see myself, in this particular adventure, going in a straight line a Who really knows what lies ahead. I want to avail myself of as much of the Tech as possible to ensure that I can continue on with this adventure. I’m sure that there are those who think I’m nuts-But,I’m an adventurer-Of course I’m nuts.

  32. poof, really thats all I have to say..and Marty you understand!?

    poof

  33. Ok – this freaked me out . I know i am an outsider – but shit like this makes me PROUD to be one-( of all religions , lest i forget to insult everyone apparently )You write:

    “I’ve talked to Scientologists who’ve been in 30 years or so and now they just want to “live” their life.That is exactly what the SP wants -for you to give up!”

    What the hell is THAT supposed to mean ? I have no doubt that good people dwell here – But seriously ….really read that line . Step out of yourself and read it .
    “I’ve talked to Scientologists who’ve been in 30 years or so and now they just want to “live” their life.That is exactly what the SP wants -for you to give up!”

    Telling someone that they should feel bad about just wanting to ( how DARE they ..) ..”live their life” . That is NOT GOOD MOJO

    The idea -that someone making a CHOICE – about their OWN lives – and being told that doing what they know , instinctively …as HUMAN BEINGS …to be the right choice for them ..is some sort of “suppressive person ” agenda or some such bullshit …is an insult to free will . A total slap in face to the idea even . Free will is the enemy of religion .

    There are some “dry drunks ” here . Just an observation –

    • I do not even know who you are responding to – since this is a stand alone comment – but it seems to me your suffering over the single line you analyze is a tad too much. I would suggest your “living” of your life would be far more rewarding if you didn’t become so affected by a single line uttered by another.

    • Kim O’Brien,

      Ah, a good Irish name.

      “Free will is the enemy of religion.” Wonderful aphorism. Pithy. The brevity of wit. But dependent on what “religion” one uses or what definition of religion one uses.

      There have been so many religions based on free will as the essence of spiritual ascension that your aphorism doesn’t always apply. For those who seek enlightenment, “Free will is the ESSENCE of religion.”

      As for you being an “outsider,” I wonder how you classify “insiders.” Most of us are stumbling along, making mistakes, seeing things in a new light, learning a bit here and there, trying to put things in perspective. Getting pissed off, indignant, and annoyed is part of growing–just not getting stuck in those feelings.

      A bit of good MOJO I apply to living my life is: focus on the goodness and rightness in others rather than the wrongness. Makes life a bit happier.

      Course, some individuals are so alarmingly horrible that only viewing the rightness is not only foolish but disasterous.

      And a boisterous knock-down, no holds barred argument just gets the juices flowing.

      • Much of religion (not ALL of it) on Earth stresses what you can do, what you can’t do and what you MUST do to be saved, achieve immortality or to reach “total freedom.” And there are almost always punishments for those who decide to act or think freely (from being burned alive to group censure or disconnection). And almost all religions on this “third rock from the sun” attempt to control its members through control of members’ thoughts, behaviour, material assets and sex lives.

        Which is not to say there isn’t ALSO great wisdom as well in each religion, which is why I continue to study religious philosophy and thought every day. I’m talking above about religious group control of individual lives.

        • Joe,

          My experience from way, way back is that the entire purpose of religions was to control a being. From the viewpoint of a thetan, why would you need someone telling you what you can and can’t look at, what the “truth” is about anything? Theta has direct and intimate access to this knowledge.

          That said, after one is entrapped, solidified and lost, it’s nice to have a roadmap to regaining spiritual freedom.

    • Kim,
      You didn’t state what poster stated that. It sounds like something posted by a troll or someone with the current regime agenda. I don’t think you find an Independent against you living your own life. The control and enforced control is over that issue that you are supposed to live your own life. That is NOT what Scientology is and that is NOT was the Independent Scientology field thinks. I don’t think we make a stand. If you want to stop study now and paint, raise sheep or sail the world it is fine with us.

      My guess is this statement was from someone trying to derail this post. It doesn’t fit the subject nor the forward motion of the Independent person and as an oddity it jumped out at you. Read the topics and you will see we are all behind you and your right and ability to make a choice. Your religious understanding is part of your basis on the choices you make – but in the end we all have the right of choice and we live with our decisions.

      Hope this helps clarify for you. No intention to lessen your observation.

      • martyrathbun09

        I subsequently saw that it was from Ingrid’s beautiful comment. Clearly not understood and taken entirely out of context.

      • Kim,
        I see now where the comment is. Ingrid is making reference to those that have their dreams suppressed until they give up. Not the goal of Scientology or the goal of LRH. In the current regime being forced to run the every revolving wheel and never getting to the end Ingrid refers to those that just give up. That is what she means when she says that is what the SP wants. The suppressive person wants you to give up, wants you to fail, wants you to doubt the goodness within and the desire to be better and help those around you.

        Please re-read Ingrid’s post with this viewpoint and you will see her comment is not about what is supposed to happen but the effect of the suppression and some who have given up. Not part of the goals of Scientology. Thanks for participating.

        • Thank you for giving me some insight to this – i like you😉 But one thing just gets to me ( and not just about scientology mind you ) but there is always this combined message ..of choice …and if you don’t make the choice we want …bad things will happen . Kind of negates the idea of choice . ( i am being “pithy” i know ..haha )

          I agree and thank you for your last paragraph (Mr. Pendelton) There are many wonderful things that can be gleaned from religions all over the world – I have enjoyed and learned from the lessons of Buddhism to Wicca to even Catholicism.😉

    • Kim, Ingrid – I can only speak for myself. After 35 years actively holding tech posts in Scientology, to me, “living my own life” means:

      1 – It is up to ME to decide what my purposes are, and whether my life choices are pro-survival or not, without having to justify them all the time to others (who usually use heavy inval and eval to get me to make THEIR choices for MY life).

      2 – I am free to have my own opinions and viewpoint on EVERYTHING Ron has written or said. I am free to agree OR disagree depending on my own observation and reality. I don’t “have to be right.” And I don’t “have to be wrong.” I don’t have to defer ALL my viewpoints about every aspect of life to LRH or ANY ONE ELSE. I can study widely and communicate to a wide variety of viewpoints about every dynamic. And then make up my own mind. I can decide which parts of Scientology I agree with and which I don’t agree with. I can”live” Scientology Axiom #2 as best I can.

      3 – Of course, I am also free to contribute to the well being of others and expand on the dynamics as I choose to.

      4- I can also HAVE all the wins and cognitions and abilities gained I’ve gotten from Scientology training and processing.

      Thus “living my own life.” I assume source point for my own life, decisions and opinions as best I can. I found FOR MYSELF that I could not do these things as a staff member or active member of the church of Scientology. It’s a lot more enjoyable living this way, I can tell you.

    • Religion can mean anything really better would be “belief system” or “system of beliefs”

  34. Standard Tech Guy,

    You ruined this blog. Goodbye,

    • I guess there is an OSA INT Internet I/C substat of “# of discussions derailed on enemy blogs and forums”.
      Michael A. Hobson

  35. Marty,

    Great post as always.

    Doesn’t Ron mention ‘Twelve Against The Gods’ by William Bolitho in his interview for the Rocky Mountain Times?

    Anyway I think I’ll go to my library and find a copy. It looks like it would be definitely worth reading.

    What you posted gave me a whole new preceptive on my and our dearest friend.

    Also I just wanted to say that you are doing an excellent job of auditing people and giving them wins.

    I’d just like to validate that.

    In closing I’d just like to say to Mike.

    Didn’t your mama tell you not to feed the trolls?
    🙂

    Look forward to meeting you some day.

    As well as all the other indies as well.

    Love ya all.

    Robin

    • I don’t know about RMNews, let me know what you find out.

      • There is a scan of that article here:

        It was printed in 1983. In that article, (5th page of the pdf, just under his picture) the journalist asks about his favorite fiction books. LRH responded: “You didn’t ask about non-fiction, so I’ll offer that I’ve always enjoyed Bolitho’s “12 against the Gods”. His introduction is especially good.”

    • RJ,
      I just ordered a used copy from Amazon, checked around and Amazon only had copies and all used.
      Kye

  36. I think sometimes we are looking for shortcuts. A faster way to go OT. To really accomplish someting. As the way up can be too long and hard to confront. The fastest process I ever did had been TR0. From the street to EP it took only 4 days fulltime 10 hours a day sitting on the chair. Later all had been too long sometimes. My IQ is way up. But it took me to read through the data series 4 times to grasp the basic concept. It took me 3 times through the PDC tapes to first time understand how to audit that staff and get some results out of it. All together many many hours of study. And even before DMs Basics and that one can read and understand a book within hours (like Scientology 8-8008) there had always been a negative touch on being slow. On auditor training a sat on a single correction list hours to drill just the reading of the lines to the PC. Those crooks are selling a faster way up. Including DM with the addition that you do not have to invest time but only money to IAS.

  37. STG: So, Mike, Marty, etal are doing it all wrong? What are YOU doing to CHANGE anything? If you are truly standard you would be all over RTC
    and the WDC and the IJC to put in tech by correcting ethics. You are just another follow the leader or ‘blind leading the blind’. Ron would not have made this tech if he worried about maintaining the status quo. Are you on some kind of ammends project: attacking the “squirrels”. You have no confront …go do some real tr’s and muster up some sense of being.

  38. L Ron Hubbard In Perspective … This is an incredibly wise and wonderful posting!

    I didn’t do a darn thing differently yesterday than I had done the day, week, month, year before. However, yesterday I did everything with a sense of adventure as a result of reading this. Additionally, I could recognize a sense of adventure in those I deal with on a day-to-day basis.

    Thanks for the brilliant posting! H

  39. It has been a pleasure reading the posts from long time, well trained and experienced Scientologists here. The best thing for me to do is to just keep reading and not post.

    D’oh!

  40. It’s an interesting thing about adventure and adventurer’s. They don’t notice anything special about what they’re doing. It’s just what they do and it keeps them on their toes. To the adventurer, it’s not adventure but fun and engaging, something new and challenging to ones abilities and wits. Others call them adventurer’s when comparing their lives to their own as the adventurer appears somehow larger than life to them.

    Criticisms of the adventurer are such a pathetic personal statement of the criticizer. All great men have their critics. Lacking courage and ability to have their own actions and reputations closely scrutinized they excel in slandering others.

    Historically, in the throws of conflict, these individuals are liability to the people they purport to serve. Civilizations fail because of such men.

    Civilizations are made from adventurers, not from the lies and slander of their detractors. Adventurers, rightly or wrongly, have vision and the daring to pursue it to whatever end. Their detractors can not even be seen in their shadows.

    Cowards and naysayers are relegated to the trash heap of history.

    LRH’s impact on history is already written and undeniably significant. As an adventurer into terra incognita of the human spirit his adventure continues in each and every one of us that avails themselves of the the path he blazed. So to, his critics will continue almost as long, such is the nature of the bank.

    While there are those working to make a better world the detractors writh and complain about this and that speaking out of the depths of their unknown past.

    Adventurer’s they are not.

    • I give you Baruch Spinoza, His Ideas help shaped Dutch Socïety
      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#Kno

      Spinoza’s conception of adequate knowledge reveals an unrivaled optimism in the cognitive powers of the human being. Not even Descartes believed that we could know all of Nature and its innermost secrets with the degree of depth and certainty that Spinoza thought possible. Most remarkably, because Spinoza thought that the adequate knowledge of any object, and of Nature as a whole, involves a thorough knowledge of God and of how things related to God and his attributes, he also had no scruples about claiming that we can, at least in principle, know God perfectly and adequately. “The knowledge of God’s eternal and infinite essence that each idea involves is adequate and perfect” (IIp46). “The human Mind has an adequate knowledge of God’s eternal and infinite essence” (IIp47). No other philosopher in history has been willing to make this claim. But, then again, no other philosopher identified God with Nature.

      doesn’t he know how to know or what😉

      What we see when we understand things through the third kind of knowledge, under the aspect of eternity and in relation to God, is the deterministic necessity of all things. We see that all bodies and their states follow necessarily from the essence of matter and the universal laws of physics; and we see that all ideas, including all the properties of minds, follow necessarily from the essence of thought and its universal laws. This insight can only weaken the power that the passions have over us. We are no longer hopeful or fearful of what shall come to pass, and no longer anxious or despondent over our possessions. We regard all things with equanimity, and we are not inordinately and irrationally affected in different ways by past, present or future events. The result is self-control and a calmness of mind.

      • Cat Daddy,

        Whoa, Baby, what a play!

        Powerful stuff. You must have some education under your belt.

        • Sorry for the Copypaste but to answer your question , I never did finish University

          • Fair enough. Whoever wrote that certainly seems to have. Unless he/she is auto-didactic.

            • He helped shape dutch thinking/socïety

              “Baruch (or Benedictus) Spinoza is one of the most important philosophers—and certainly the most radical—of the early modern period. His thought combines a commitment to Cartesian metaphysical and epistemological principles with elements from ancient Stoicism and medieval Jewish rationalism into a nonetheless highly original system. His extremely naturalistic views on God, the world, the human being and knowledge serve to ground a moral philosophy centered on the control of the passions leading to virtue and happiness. They also lay the foundations for a strongly democratic political thought and a deep critique of the pretensions of Scripture and sectarian religion. Of all the philosophers of the seventeenth-century, perhaps none have more relevance today than Spinoza.”

  41. Very nice post. I have been reading this blog for a while being shy to originate. The admiration for LRH is much more real than all the robotic claping et other “hip hip” which I can no longer stand in events.
    Now, Marty, you talked about “where’s the next level?”. I think this is the main reason people remains in the church, they hope to get the next level. And the next level, especially after OTVIII doesn’t show up more than 20 years after… But to keep the customers busy, they are programmed down the grade chart. Which in some case could be ok if there is a step which is not flat. Unfortunately for Miscavige, you’re no longer with him as you found out that the grade 4 is probably very much out on many PC’s and PRE OT. Fantastic discovery. Where is the ability to move out of fixed condition and to do new things? Gott, DM could make a big campaign called “move out of fixed condition do the new expanded service fac rundown”.
    Just to say that all of us wind up as “researchers of the lost tech”. And sometime researcher of OT levels, well only Robertson did it. But I read on internet that some people were quite happy about his work. After all Adler, Jung, Reich were creating new branches of psychoanalyse, were they squirrel of Freud ?
    Well, I’m too educated on the source idea being the only right thing to adventure myself into Robertson’s business (I’m to some degree still a member of the church). But, reading about this guy, he was also the hell of an adventurer!
    I just say that in order not to redo the narow mind of the church.
    Of course LRH is much more than any other followers, he founded the full subject. Before him, there was no scientology. He was a great man and a source of incredible data which are so much of use. Today, in my work I applied de condition of emergency and my stat went up. I believe most of us apply his philosophy any moment of the day.

  42. I think this was an excellent post from Marthy Rathbun and some of the answers were quite brilliant.

    The Church philosophy appears to be to promote L. Ron Hubbard as Super Human figure, devoid of any flaws
    and as a Paragon of perfection in every field ever dabbled in and therefore have either invented or exaggerated things.

    The result has been a back-fire when lies/exaggerations were uncovered and a complete reversal from those who worshipped him as a God, when they discovered
    he was merely Human.

    I know a lot about L. Ron Hubbard, that few people, if any, seem to know.

    This is probably due to the fact that, as a Class XII, I have been travelling the world auditing people including many old timers and ex-SO, some literally on
    their death bed, offering them over and oversome sessions.
    (generally for free, as few could afford to pay even my accomodations). For me this has always seemed to be the “right thing to do”, even though I have largely fincanced those trips out of my own pocket.
    Among those, include auditors and C/Ses who have FESed LRH folders, audited them,
    or audited/C-Sed LRH auditors and C/Ses. Most of those people have requested anonimity.

    What secrets did I learn about LRH? I am sorry, but those will stay with me, as long as I live.

    All I will say is that L. Ron Hubbard was a Human Being, meaning he had qualities and flaws like the rest of us.

    He was no Angel, no Demon, he was not Super Natural, nor like he says in an HCOB: “I do not have a special contract with a Super Being”.

    L. Ron Hubbard flaws are largely documented on the Internet, in books and various testimonies: some are exaggerated, some are accurate.

    The way I judge a man is by his accomplishments and his products.

    Gossip concentrates on the negate 2% or 5% of a person and entirely discards the rest.

    I have gotten som many results, affected so many lives for the better by my appplication of technology evolved by L. Ron Hubbard, that
    for me to say that L. Ron Hubbard was anything but a Genius in the field of the Human Mind and Spiritual aspect of Man, as impossible as
    ackowledging that the Earth is flat and the center of teh Universe.

    So nobody can expect me anytime soon to speak agsinst the Man, except perhaps in full context about errors or temporary lapses in judgment, (things that I am yet
    to see a Human Being been immune to).

    As LRH himself said in old bulletin” Even Heroes can have lice”.

    • Thanks for weighing in Pierre.

    • @Pierre: That is a very thoughtful comment and contains considerable wisdom. Thanks.

    • Thanks for your viewpoint.

    • Welcome Pierre,

      Sorry I couldn’t see you the last time you were in LA but I had so much going on the time….

      But if you are ever in these parts again I’d love to see you.

      Also I loved your comment about the Ol’man.

      One thing I can say with total certainty was that he was *real* and bigger than life.

      Personally I think the effort to magnify his flaws is done by small intolerant beings who had never lived life themselves and wished they had.

      I think the effort to make him into a paragon of some kind is to overwhelm others with some kinda impossible standard which is just as suppressive.

      Basically two sides of the same coin that have no currency as far as I’m concerned.

      I’ll always think of Ron as one of us and he considered us his people in the PAB Open Channel about auditors.

      Again thanks for being there Pierre and as we say in LA “let’s do lunch sometime.”

      Ml

      Robin

    • Mrs. Friend of Ron

      Pierre,
      Your words:
      “The way I judge a man is by his accomplishments and his products.
      Gossip concentrates on the negate 2% or 5% of a person and entirely discards the rest.
      I have gotten som many results, affected so many lives for the better by my appplication of technology evolved by L. Ron Hubbard, that
      for me to say that L. Ron Hubbard was anything but a Genius in the field of the Human Mind and Spiritual aspect of Man, as impossible as
      ackowledging that the Earth is flat and the center of teh Universe.
      So nobody can expect me anytime soon to speak agsinst the Man, except perhaps in full context about errors or temporary lapses in judgment, (things that I am yet to see a Human Being been immune to).
      As LRH himself said in old bulletin” Even Heroes can have lice”.”
      …I had to put there again. You sum it up, bottom line. Thank you.

  43. Even I, via my 866-XSEAORG phone line, learned and I can confirm, onlines FSO public, ARE reading your site.

    It is truely heartbreaking, how people on FSO lines are in such a pickle.

    LRH said human body life is so short, to accommplish all he wanted to do.

    (I’m an atheist, I have to say I have NO real bets on who wins in this Scientology game, but I support independent Scientology because they are free enough to communicate and have NO seeming wish to apply the OSA tactics nor STOP people from doing Scientology, nor do independents nor do freezoners dish out injustices and nor do any of you declare people falsely “SP”, so I think YOU are the future and are the way official Scientology SHOULD follow your lead! I think if Scientology reforms, it will also be due to the impact of this site, back on the movement.)

    Why and how people still contact me, I’m an ex member, is astounding to me. 866-XSEAORG leads people to phone me, and I advise them as best I can.

    I tell the “true blue” FSO public to read here, and they already are.

    I’m hoping Scientology fixes itself, and gets away from the bad stuff.

  44. Marty,
    This perfect post does put things into perspective. It makes perfect sense! I’m looking forward to future adventures. Thanks, Laura

  45. I like that point of view. The tension between those in the envelope and those pushing the envelope is like the Theta-MEST theory for groups: The pioneer risk-taking, rule-pushing (or breaking) adventurer challenges the status-quo, hits hard against the established Norm, and comes away “bloody, but unbowed.” (c.f. “Invictus” by Henley).

    Meanwhile the organizers of society gather up the chunks and form them into a new model – a new status quo – for the next gang of adventurers to push through!

    “An Essay on Management” (Tech Vol 1) comments on this:

    The dreamer, the planner, is seldom an actual member of the group. Usually he is martyred to a cause, overrun and overreached. Often he lives to bask in glory. But he is seldom active management itself. When he becomes management, he ceases to formulate steps to be taken as lesser goals to greater goals and the group loses sight of its goal and falters.

    So LRH referred to this theme more than once – and here he is living it!

    But, as far as people fighting over the “definition” of who is LRH, all that is really happening is people fighting over their own personal LRH synthetic valence. I love PAB 95, “Valences.” I referred to it on my first post to your blog. From the PAB:

    As another example, one is told consistently and continually that all men of force or all conquerors are bad, and one is warned never to become a conqueror. This is of course an excellent way to make nothing out of an individual, but here we have a false valence—a personality which never existed—and we discover in the lives of the conquerors that they actually were not totally possessed of bad characteristics. In order to dominate his fellow beings to the marked extent necessary in a conqueror, one could
    not possess totally bad characteristics, and the actual character of most conquerors is quite different than the assigned character given them by the society—a fact which does not make a conqueror any less liable for the crimes he commits, but which gives us an insight into the tailor-making of characters who never lived.

    The keynote of all synthetic valences is that a character has been developed or created more or less out of whole cloth, possibly with some small foundation, but certainly with exaggeration, which puts into existence a being who never breathed or coughed or spat. The police and newspapers are continually doing this. You actually don’t know whether the criminals who have been arrested by the police and tried in the newspapers were the people who were arrested or not, since they are assigned a synthetic valence and are condemned as very bad people indeed. Of course some of these criminals were or are bad, but the chances are that amongst this legion of people arrested and tried in the newspapers there were some who were quite deserving men and whose actual character and behavior did not even vaguely compare with the represented character.

    We have a flagrant case of synthetic valences when newspapers and other public media, and even word of mouth gossip, begin to take to pieces anyone’s character and put in its place some synthetic understanding which was never a real person. In this way we begin to believe there are many more bad people in the world than there are.

    That sure has happened with Ron! Marty, I think your depiction of him in this post is the most accurate I have seen.

    • Thanks for the interesting reference and thoughts GH.

    • A splendid addition to the discussion there, Grasshopper.
      Thanks!

    • Beautiful reference on synthetic valences. DM constructed one on the base that was ideal tough, dedicated SO member valence, which of course never existed, but which DM then used to keep people looking inside their heads for the reasons why they fell short of attaining that ideal. DM himself is a synthetic valence as created on this blog and elsewhere, which is why the only real measure that counts is production statistics, and by this one objective standard, DM deserves to be shot from guns on the very next projectile out into deepest, blackest space.

      • That is so true about the SO valence. The only time I saw some of the people I worked with in “their” valence (being themselves) was when they were on lower conditions or in the RPF. It was then that they were no trying to strain into the super-high efficient “Make it go right!” SO valence and could let their hair down. It was very enlightening to see some of the most cussed-up bitches I worked with melt into very nice ladies when they were “on the decks.”

        I have been having a lot of fun quoting the Bible lately. Truth is universal. Quoting LRH to prove Scientology is self-referential – like using the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible. So, when I see Truth, I use it. It builds girders of Truth that aligns with and shores up my core understandings and let me look at things from all sides.

        In this case, Matthew 7:16 is perfect for Mr. David Miscavige and his ilk:

        “By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”

  46. Very good post Marty. I deserted the ESMB in disgust some time back – I like the concept of the summering aura of morals, sums up a lot of things concerning the enforced viewpoints that group encourages. The post does a good job of defining adventure and the vistas available.
    I’d like to add a small passage of LRH from a lecture 10 Nov 52 which to me the whole lecture explaining the Qs is one of high adventure.
    “ I’m teaching you two different things. There’s two different lines of data going out here. One is simply fact, data. There is the datum and that’s all this is – this is a datum. And then you’ll hear that datum evaluated in its proper place. That, I have never under any circumstances perverted in any way. I have never slanted data in any way. I give you data as it is just for the sake of data. And the other is my opinion of the data. I’ll give you my opinion of the datum. That really is relatively worthless to you. Really. Makes life interesting, about all.
    LRH always grants you beingness as cause. So few it seems take up the challenge.

  47. Marty,
    Since you trying to get a realistic picture of LRH, I will share some information with you that I have researched in regard to claims by the COS that associate LRH with Gotama Buddha. I am on public record as a Buddhist even though I completed the highest OT levels. Many who call me suggest that I re-read Hymn of Asia, which I have, but I am very far beyond that.
    First of all, the Buddha teaches us to respect all religions. Thus I have high respect for current COS views and the views of the independent movement which I find to be excellent.
    Based on an extensive reading of the Pali Canon, it is obvious that there is no connection at all between the men(Gotama and LRH). The Pali Canon is very clear about the future Buddha and I have uncovered many passages which dissolve any thought of a connection between LRH and Metteyya.
    In addition, as part of a research project, I identified most of what LRH said about the Buddha and the teaching. In short, he studied a derivation of the original teaching and had very minimal grasp of the subject of Buddhism. I shall not repeat his words about the Buddha since many are unkind and should not be posted. LRH basically says quite directly that he did not think that Buddhism helped mankind very much thus it was by-passed.
    I do not wish to get into the other differences between the COS and Buddhism because the Buddha would not encourage the discussion.
    At any rate, I maintain respect for all religions as did the Buddha.

    • Hi George,

      Im very much of the opinion that LRH and buddha are the same being. I’m sure you have greater understanding of buddhism than me as my study hasn’t been as detailed as yours such as reading the pali canon (although I have read some stuff including the dhammapada) and I don’t consider myself a buddhist.

      If you can and don’t mind could you point me to where LRH talks of the buddha personally in unkind ways, as in the specific reference?

      When I first read hymn of asia I felt a surge of theta and knew (having gotten a basic grasp of buddhism, particularly zen just before getting into scio and having already done objectives processing…) that scientology was the progression of what had gone on in buddhas time.

      I would say there is a period in scientology development namely around 1954 and 1955 which have lots of similarities to buddhism. Stuff like truth, scio axioms, exteriorization, considerations, etc. The time period is coincident with the time LRH wrote the poem hymn of asia and sent it off to the buddhist convention celebrating its 2,500 year of the buddhism (according to the note at the beginning of the hymn of asia book).

      1955 was around the time LRH reached the “the higher levels” (see “scientology, current state of the subject and materials” HCOB) and after that generally undercut for wider application for everyone.

      • Infinity,
        I can get you started with an exact reference. It just happens to be on my desk at this moment. Also, when you get material in the mail, about every year you will see a reference to the Buddha.
        The material is scattered throughout the lectures.
        – The Point Where the PC Begins to Go Clear” pp 11-15
        Lecture 1 September 1962. This is the best place to start.
        – If you receive Advance magazine, you will also get incorrect
        translations of key Buddhist terms such as Dharma and Jhana.
        – I do not keep this material near by because it is not wholesome
        for me to have contact with it.
        LRH also makes a reference to the fact that he felt “Buddha enslaved beings”. I have not retained the exact reference.
        If you really want to see the difference between LRH and the Buddha, you must take a closer look at the life of the Buddha and how Buddhas
        are developed over the eons.

        • Thanks george. I will listen to the lecture you suggested.
          I don’t get material from the church in the mail.

    • “Thus I have high respect for current COS views”

      care to eleborate ?

      and I think a hint of what you said is in this qoute

      “There is only one way, really, to get into a state of living, and that’s live! There is no substitute for an all-out, over-the-ramparts, howling charge against life. That’s living. Living does not consist of sitting in a temple in the shadows and getting rheumatism from the cold stones. Living is hot, it’s fast, it’s often brutal! It has a terrific gamut of emotional reactions.
      If you are really willing to live, you first have to be willing to do anything that consists of living. Weird. But it’s one of those awfully true things that you wonder why one has to say it. And yet it has to be said.”

      – L. Ron Hubbard

      • I think that the core beliefs of Scientology are still present in the current COS and I would say that most staff members are honest and true. The views of Scientology in regard to the universe and its nature need to be given a chance in the world forum just as any other religion. On the other hand, the behavior of members such as DM in regard to violence and the bad Karma generated should be avoided.
        You quotation is very interesting. One of the most fundamental misconceptions about Buddhism is that it is passive and that the Buddha taught only quiet meditation. Those in the “holy” life were taught to renounce the world and seek isolation. On the other hand, what is not generally known, is that there is a vast amount of the teaching with practical application for living what is called the “householder” life.
        In fact, many of the terms used by the Buddha, were mistranslated by western scholars with a bent towards making Buddism seem passive.

        • that and the translation of the word “Dukkha” into the simple word “suffering”

          Do I detect a dutch accent ?

          • Cat Daddy,
            This shows excellent knowledge.

          • so dukkha equals anything below serenity of beingness on the tone scale?

            • As the man in the Video, I would have liked a discussion. But helas. As Buddhism strives for serenity and Hubbard bnorrowed from there would be ample argument for your observation.

              But not onley in buhddism is this “serenity of beingness” touched upon. I give you the european (dutch by situation) 17th century philosopher Spinoza.

              “All of the human emotions, in so far as they are passions, are constantly directed outward, towards things and their capacities to affect us one way or another. Aroused by our passions and desires, we seek or flee those things that we believe cause joy or sadness. “We strive to further the occurrence of whatever we imagine will lead to Joy, and to avert or destroy what we imagine is contrary to it, or will lead to Sadness.” Our hopes and fears fluctuate depending on whether we regard the objects of our desires or aversions as remote, near, necessary, possible or unlikely. But the objects of our passions, being external to us, are completely beyond our control. Thus, the more we allow ourselves to be controlled by them, the more we are subject to passions and the less active and free we are. The upshot is a fairly pathetic picture of a life mired in the passions and pursuing and fleeing the changeable and fleeting objects that occasion them: “We are driven about in many ways by external causes, and … like waves on the sea, driven by contrary winds, we toss about, not knowing our outcome and fate” (IIIp59s). The title for Part Four of the Ethics reveals with perfect clarity Spinoza’s evaluation of such a life for a human being: “On Human Bondage, or the Powers of the Affects”. He explains that the human being’s “lack of power to moderate and restrain the affects I call Bondage. For the man who is subject to affects is under the control, not of himself, but of fortune, in whose power he so greatly is that often, though he sees the better for himself, he is still forced to follow the worse”. It is, he says, a kind of “sickness of the mind” to suffer too much love for a thing “that is liable to many variations and that we can never fully possess.” “

              • The reason i ask is this: if dukkha was mistranslated to mean suffering and actually encompasses the many points on the tone scale below serenity of beingness, and if dukkha was the word used in the four noble truths (mistranslated as suffering), then the 1st noble truth makes much, much more sense to me and seems closer to truth….

                • Wikipedia has a good dissertation on “Dukkha”, foundby Googling “dukkha”.

                  Enturbulation and even aberration carry some of the sense.

                  A parallel I find interesting is Hubbard’s discourse on this being a “reverse -vector universe” in which you get what you don’t want, what you want recedes from you, or you want something and get something else.

                  Or in Buddha’s words: “This, ……is the Noble Truth of Dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, sickness is dukkha, death is dukkha. Presence of objects we loathed is dukkha; separation from what we love is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.

          • Cat Daddy
            Getting in a little late on this thread because I could not watch the video due to sound problems which are now resolved.
            I hope it is OK.
            Yes, I agree that Dukkha has been mistranslated. Stress is a much better word. Actually, the simile I like the best is the one in the Theravada tradition about the mis-aligned Oxcart wheel. Dukkha in this sense is sort of a basic misalignment which is also stress.

        • George, good post!

          The “householder” as a “seeker of truth” became an important focus of the Sufic traditions, to the point that if one was not capable of being a “householder” one was usually deemed not qualified to be an initiate, either. “The accent is on ability”.
          This was expressed most recently by Gurdjieff.

          There is an awful lot of completely erroneous “everybody knows” about Buddhism in the West!

          • I’m going to google
            Gurdjieff.
            right now. Maybe you can fill me in.

            • OK George. The best synopsis of Gurdjieff’s central ideas about “the state of man” are found in books by P.D.Ouspensky. A slim volume titled “The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution” by Ouspensky is good, can probably be found on Amazon or Ebay for cheap. Maybe even on Kindle?

              The basic scheme is humans have, potentially, 4 states of consciousness , but rarely rise above the first 2 states, which are “sleep” and “waking sleep”. Thus the goal of one who aspires to “move on up a little higher” is to achieve as much as possible the 3rd state called “Self Consciousness”. Gurdjieff attempted to develop a system for achieving this, but I doubt he was able to standardize it to any great extent at all.

              Only after achieving a stable “self-consciousness”, can a person continue on aspire to the 4th state of “Objective Consciousness”.

              This corresponds to some of the scales as developed by Hubbard.

              The chief feature of a person in “waking sleep” is described as their extreme automaticity and mechanicalness, similar to the Hubbard’s statement of Man presenting as an inverted view of “the mechanics of MEST having taken rank over a person’s own considerations”.

              A person in this condition is not very aware of how much of his thought and action are other-determined, rather than self-determined. He lives with the illusions of possessing Will, a continuous Consciousness and Individuality, when in reality he is little more than a machine with the potential of attaining these qualities. In other words, he is reactive to a greater or lesser extent. The thetan is buried under all these considerations.

              I guess you can see the thread I have been following for, oh, a long time. But that’s a synopsis of Gurdjieff’s theory. “Evolution” is seen as being either a conscious process, or it doesn’t happen at all.

              • Crashingupwards

                Valkov, nice job in summing up Gurdjieff. Having studied Gurkjieff after I left the church many moons ago, I saw the many similarities between he and LRH in their identification of the issues we face and the direction we need to go. Your right that his system was not very evolved or laid out to be workable or user friendly. His “fourth way” as its called is difficult. But he knew what he was talking about. The many “I”s that make up each of us struck at the heart of the basic problem. He just was not a great teacher for broad consumption. But then he was selective anyway in whom he admitted to his groups. Definitely not a div 6 type. But worth the read. “In search of the Miraculous” by Oupensky was worth mining.

              • Valkov, Thanks for the summary
                I spent some additional time quickly reading about Oupensky/Gurdjieff. Good stuff. No conflict I can see with Gotama Buddha. In fact I see some similarities in that the concept of “MINDFULLNESS” in Theravada sort of aligns.
                Mindfullness is Theravada consists of four parts:
                body, feelings, metal formations and consciousness. It is like an awareness of these as distinct.

    • Share International is a group that fosters the notion that Metteyya is among us now and makes appearances from time to time in the media. Benjamin Creme is the prime mover behind the foundation.

    • Hi George,

      Asa Theravadist, what would be your take on this quote of the Dalai Lama from one of his interviews:

      “We Buddhists believe in the existence of a self that moves from life to life and from an ordinary state to the goal of Buddhahood.

      This self, therefore, is retained.

      Even a Buddha keeps his self. Buddha Shakyamuni had his own individual identity.

      This self exists, without beginning, without end. We believe that the individual identity – even that of a Buddha – is retained.

      This belief is contrary to the Hindu tradition, which postulates Brahman, the universal soul, that unites during moksha, or liberation, with the individual soul, and through which the individua soul loses it’s identity.”

      And just previously:

      “But the basic,subtle, innermost consciousness will always remain. It has no beginning, and it will have no end. That consciousness will remain.

      When we reach Buddhahood that consciousness becomes enlightened all-knowing (omniscient).

      Still, the consciousness will remain an individual thing. For example, the Buddha Shakyamuni’s consciousness and the Buddha Kashyapa’s consciousness are distinct individual things. This individuality of consciouseness is not lost on the attainment of Buddhahood.”

      This indicates to me that neither Maitreya nor LRH are necessarily the same individual who was Gotama. But either could be the same individual, or all could be distinct individuals.

      • Valkov,
        I missed your reply earlier because of the “goon squad” invasion a Marty’s house.
        At any rate, I hope you get my reply.
        First of all, following the Theravada tradition, I do not acknowlege the Dalai Lama as in any way representing ORIGINAL Buddhism. I interviewed a Tibetan monk asked him what he thought about the difference.
        He said “Oh you Thervadins seek personal salvation; we seek salvation of all beings.” We have had other Tibetan teachers at our Vihara and there are vast difference in the practice. As you are probably aware Tibetan monks can have sexual intercourse with nuns. This is not present in my tradition. Also, Tibetans believe in Re-incarnation; we have none of that.
        This whole idea of consciousness is not really complicated in the Theravada tradition so none of these questions arise with respect to identity. Actually in the Theravada tradition, the real role of consciousness is in re-birth linking(which is not re-incarnation). Re-birth is simply the arising of Karma. The Buddha left it all undeclared.

        • Thanks George, I appreciate your answer.

          I’m not so much into the details of any particular practice, except as to the extent to which it “hits the mark”.

          The way I see it, Buddha or Hubbard or anyone else is looking at, walking around, and trying to describe the same “elephant”.

          This “elephant” is “existence”, and ourselves in it. We are part of this elephant we call existence.

          What enters into that I see, is what windhorse posted about ‘downstream’ of this my post here – basically we are limited by the languages we speak, no matter what language we speak, it is not quite adequate.

          The reason is, “the word is not the thing”, and “the map is not the territory.”

          Eventually we get down (or up) to the level where words fail because we are starting to talk about that which is not quantifiable, is unconditioned, is not anywhere or anywhen, has no mass, meaning or mobility, cannot be said to have either beginning or end, and yet cannot be said to lack those either…..

          So all we can do is talk around it, which is why, no offense intended as I am in the same boat you are in, Buddhists cultivate a mystique and publicly state the most absurd paradoxes with a completely straight face, and have a good laugh about it out of earshot of the uninitiated, those who have not achieved the gnosis. It’s the ultimate “in joke”, that they know the temple is “empty”! Mostly, Buddhists are very careful not to say too much.

          Thus we have the “koan”, the non sequitur words or actions that don’t make any sense. They are simply the “sudden” responses which it is hoped will break the otherwise endlessly rolling wheels of discursive thinking, the ‘figure-figure’ and figure some more that humans are prone to.

          The koans make no sense, because they are in reference to that which, being unconditioned, does not partake of sense.

          After all, what can you say about the effin’ ineffable?

          • Valkov,
            You got that right “The temples are empty”. We get a lot of traffic from college students and others eeking the truth but by my observation only about 1 in 100 has a real interest in Buddhism.
            Out of that 1 in 100 only a very few get on with the practice. In addition, I have been working with a monk in editing English articles on Buddhism in Sri Lanka. The practice is on the decline as the country westernizes. I am sort of passive in regard to this
            because I have spent many hours with college students etc.
            Most people are distracted by life in general.
            It takes a large amount of effort to follow Theravada and only a very few actually do it.

  48. Additional data on Scientology and Buddhism,
    One of the ideas which has emerged in research and conversations is that Buddhism is essentially a GPM, and those who practice are stuck in a mass.
    This is very easily refuted by the Pali Canon and by the fact that LRH had very limited knowledge of authentic Buddhism.

    • martyrathbun09

      The entire universe is made up of positive and negative poles and the transference of energy flows between them. If you do not attain the ability to as-is you can’t help but get engaged in with GPMs whether your playing tiddly winks or running a temple, Buddhist or otherwise. Not saying you all can’t attain that ability.

      • I appreciate your response and find no conflict with the teachings of the Buddha. The subject of “as-is” is covered extensively in the discourses.

      • Marty, in Buddhism that is quite clear. That’s why it is said “this is Samsara”.

      • Regarding the connection of Scientology and Buddhism, I beleive, that certain knowledge in Scientology could help (only help) Buddhism to attain it’s goals (which it attains anyway).
        But the false pride and conceit, resident in Scientology which closes out any “competition” kills all the good in Scientology Scientology itself and it’s public goals.
        Scientology is no more than a self-help movement even if it goes into the “realm of the spirit”. It simply has too little understanding on the “8th dynamic”. And it makes the 3rd dynamic equal with the 8th. It is simply tyrannic as LRH designed even with the great PR on it’s humanistic side.

        • martyrathbun09

          Applied with a measure of sanity and freedom, it can greatly clarify and embrace the eighth dynamic.

        • Overdriver,

          I feel compelled to play the iconclastic spoiler here, about Buddhism, so I hope you are sitting down.
          Here’s the intro to a post I wrote a couple of years ago on another forum:

          Tibet under Buddhist Lamas: Religious Utopia or Religious Gulag?
          Suppression, human trafficking, slavery, serfdom, torture and sexual degradation in Tibet.

          Buddhism is often idealized in the West today, and the Dalai Lama is regarded as one of the supreme symbols of benevolent religious
          leadership, and a nice guy besides. Buddhists are depicted as non-violent seekers of “Awakening”, “Enlightenment”, “Nirvana”, and
          Buddhist teachings are sold as the Way to achieve these “higher states”. But are they really?

          A closer look at Tibetan Buddhism and the rule of Lamas in the Tibetan religiously ruled state shows a completely different picture.
          There are incredible parallels between how David Miscavige has been ruling the Church of Scientology, and how the Tibetan Buddhist Lamas ruled Tibet right up until 1959 when the Han Chinese invaded and took over Tibet.

          I think anyone can see the similarities between how the CoS is run,
          and how old Tibet was run. There are a lot of similarities, and I recommend reading this article on which I base much of my post available at this link:

          http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

          • There are many videos on youtube as well authored by communists. I suggest for you to watch all those and learn verbatim. Oh, yes and add to it: “China liberated Tibet”.
            I have nothing to argue with you. You have your own agenda.

      • Mrs. Friend of Ron

        Spoken like an auditor, Marty. Thanks for the smile😀

      • Schmart reply!

      • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

        “Yin yang are complementary opposites that interact within a greater whole, as part of a dynamic system. Everything has both yin and yang aspects, but either of these aspects may manifest more strongly in particular objects, and may ebb or flow over time. The concept of yin and yang is often symbolized by various forms of the Taijitu symbol, for which it is probably best known in western cultures.”

    • George,

      Is there a goal in buddhism?

      My understanding is that it’s to be goal-less, desire-less, to the point where one has stopped mocking everything up and returns to native state/nirvana.
      Buddhism tech (meditation) is a method for achieving the same *ultimate* goal as scio. LRH was researching what is stopping a being from just sitting down and stopping mocking it all up easily (which is what meditation is basically). Why can’t everyone just sit down and do that? Then you have processing to solve that issue, which is the systematic unmocking and as-ising of different aspects of the whole thing that one is mocking up…

      Meditation seems to be an attempt to as-is the whole mock up in one go, one process! Stop mocking up everything right now! Steep gradient.

      That’s how I see it.

      • martyrathbun09

        Good summation.

      • Infinity,
        Great points.
        First of all, there really is a ‘goal’ in Buddhism but it is a little difficult to understand. When the Buddha was alive, he taught his disciples to basically renounce the world and ‘put down the burden’. This burden consisted mainly in the endless cycle of birth and death. He outlined various methods of escape which center around meditation. Nirvana was described as a “cessation” sort of like the extinguishing of a flame.
        It is a reality but cannot be described in words.
        The reason the thing is so difficult to apply, and why we can’t just say the magic words, is because the Buddha used the term ‘ordinary mind’ to describe something similar but not exactly like the ‘reactive mind’.
        The ‘path’ requires moral purification and the practice of virtue.
        Once the mind has achieved what is called the supra-mundane state,
        it can advance to the goal which is , ironically, desireless.
        Meditation is not really a steep gradient. It really actually takes time and
        is like playing a musical instrument – it requires attention.

      • Infinity,
        “Meditation” is often thought of as a “one size fits all” solution, but in fact it is as broad a category as “auditing”. Just as there are dozens of processes an auditor may run, there are any of dozens of specific “meditations” a student practitioner of Buddhism may be assigned to perform by his mentor – essentially, a “C/S” is given him to do. The mentor evaluates the student’s state and chooses what he feels is the proper meditation(or contemplation) for the student to do at that time.

        It is actually a much more gradient process than trying to as-is the “whole ball of wax at one time” kind of thing. And it is expected to take possibly many lifetimes. Although the basic “major stable win” is achievable sooner than that. Kinda like doing OT-TRO.

        • Valkov,
          I have had a lot of experience with OT-TRO in the past. The comment I get from scientologists is always “Well, meditation is just OT-TRO”. Actually, as you probably know, meditation is much more that that.
          It takes some effort to get past OT-TRO.

          • George, it does indeed take some effort to get past OT-TRO! And
            I do not mean to equate it with “meditation”. I meant to draw a parallel on the basis of taking the first step, achieving the first real “win”.

            In the kind of Buddhism I am slightly familiar with, the first step is achievement of the state of “Calm Abiding”. It can also take some time and effort to achieve. I do mean to say this is a comparable initial step, to the Major Stable Win one can get, (and should get before one considers it ‘done’), from OT-TRO.

            And yes, “meditation” encompasses a whole lot more, just as there are more TRs in scientology, and auditing specific processes and so on. There is a similar diversity and variety of “meditations” and “contemplations” available in Buddhism.

            • Valkov,
              In Theravada we basically have two kinds of meditation which are concentration and insight.
              Concentration aligns with what you mention. It is for calming the mind. I have been meditating a lot over the past eleven years.
              It is a skill and in the end you get out what you put in. My practice is to the point of a nice balance sort of like riding a bicycle.

    • So true. And not just a limited knowledge. Hubbard did not understand Mahayana and Vadjrayana Buddhism at all.

      • martyrathbun09

        Such a definitive judgment. How would you know?

        • It’s his computation.

        • Hubbard mainly refers to Tibetan Buddhism as lamaism which is an imprecise and usually used in a disdainful way.

          In “Future Org Trends” when he speaks about “Lamaism” he also mentions Zen and says: “Zen Buddhism was based on the idea that if you are hit, you know.” No, this is false. You were hit to make you able to realize/recognize with a kind of shock. That “shock” could be a shout as well. It’s like taking the pin of the record-player off the track. “Much of it is a dramatization of Axiom 10.” No it isn’t. It is not about creating an effect. It is to help you to a realization at a certain moment.
          Is auditing a dramatization of Axiom 10? See? Hubbard had a huge misunderstanding on Zen as well.

          “Buddhism squirreled when it went up into Tibet and became Lamaism” says Hubbard in Scientology and Effective Knowledge a lecture given on 15 July 1957. Now, this is the general approach of Hubbard on Tibetan Buddhism. Squirrel…

          The fact is that Buddha thought different ways. He thought with words for the general people. And he had other teachings which were taught through other means. Not directly through the physical universe. And mainly these are those teachings what Tibetan Buddhism is about.

          But even the spoken teachings of Buddha can get you back to past lives and can exteriorize you, that is fact, so Hubbard again got it wrong when said in Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, Tape Notes:

          “And Buddhism civilized three quarters of Asia. But exteriorization was not generally doable, to any great degree. The Tibetan Lamas came along later and squirreled, trying to develop an explanation of exteriorization or a technology to accomplish exteriorization.”

          Sorry, to say but he either No. 1. lied and wanted to misguide Scientologists for his own benefit or No. 2. did not really know what Buddhism was about. But I can see that he had quite good grasps of certain things so I assume, assumption No. 1. is correct.

          If you would know certain things from firsthand and by experience about Tibetan Buddhism, you would be sure about this.

          This is just in a nutshell.

          • martyrathbun09

            God, you’re literalness must be personal torture.

            • Look, Marty, LRH looked down every movement “nobody was able doing what we do” and every people, the “raw meat” on Earth. He gave false data. I understand you do not want to see his faults as you are making a living from auditing people.
              I do not say that is bad. Auditing is certainly good. But can you see the point here? I am able to accept things from your point of view while you are seemingly not.
              And insulting is not a virtue.
              Everybody was a squirrel (in the mind of LRH), except he who borrowed knowledge from here and there without even naming (what LRH demands so much when quoting Scientology) the sources, than LRH said, he is the source of everything:)
              Yeah, literally.
              Did I overdrive you with saying the truth?

      • Buddhists strive to be free of enturbulation and misunderstoods

        Scientologists strive to be free of Stress and ignorance

        See what I did there😉

        • martyrathbun09

          You are wise beyond your years.

        • Cat Daddy,
          Nice transposition. I had to lo0k at it several times.

          • Thank you. I recommend additinal reading. Think valances instead of “roles” Re-enactment instead of Dramatization.

            Rest will follow almost effortless.

            http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/vanderkolk/

            “The trauma permanently disturbed the capacity to deal with other challenges, and the victim who did not integrate the trauma was doomed to “repeat the repressed material as a contemporary experience in instead or . . . remembering it as something belonging to the past.”44 In this article, I will show how the trauma is repeated on behavioral, emotional, physiologic, and neuroendocrinologic levels, whose confluence explains the diversity of repetition phenomena.”

            lol

            “This “repetition compulsion” has received surprisingly little systematic exploration during the 70 years since its discovery, though it is regularly described in the clinical literature.1″

            ORLY ?

            • CD,
              Very impressive article on the research side. I did not really understand the bulk of it. However, I see what you are driving at.
              Only thing that comes to mind is Buddha’s story about the leper with weeping sores. Only way the leper can feel better without a physician is to cauterize the sores over a blazing fire. Later on his relatives get him a physician and cure him. He goes over to the fire and this time finds it painful. The moral of the story is it all depends in the end.

        • Buddhists try to gain realization of the nature of the Universe and get free from the endless cycle of rebirth. Mahayana, Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhism want to help all sensient beings to get free of the sufferings of Samsara.
          Roughly stated.

    • Seldom do I venture a response to a post as such but in this case I would like to put forward a little R6 data, i.e. if one quotes GPMs one needs to understand that which undercuts all considerations.
      “In studying R6, the first thing we have to recognise with vividness, is that we’re dealing with the baker, not the cake. We’re dealing with the thing that makes it, not the thing that is made. You’ll find the being, the individual, had generated the universe and part of that universe is the GPM.” LRH – Track and Bank Anatomy.
      One of the most stunning aspects of Scientology is it undercuts and explains all which occurs in this universe. The Qs, Logics & Axioms expand like crazy once understood – one still needs a game apparently, otherwise you wouldn’t be here – look don’t listen – best elixer for whatever ails ya…

      • I want to give a little more background here because I was at one time asked to read a specific policy about GPM’s. The policy was obviously intended as a dissemination tool and attempted to explain the trap which a Buddhist is in and to steer me back to Scientology. In my years in Scientology I read and listened to almost all of the data surrounding GMP’s, so I am familiar with the subject. The Buddha never really wanted to teach the practical methods which led to his enlightenment. In fact, he struggled for days before he finally decided to at least try to teach. He knew that his teaching was subtle, and that almost all would reject it. That there are millions of Buddhists is more explained by the value of the moral precepts of the religion. The great value of the Buddha’s teaching is that he would have accepted the principles of the GMP’s and how they operate. I have no problem at all with the mechanics of GPM’s or the structure of the universe as derived from the overall viewpoints. This is why the Buddha was such a great hit in 500 BCE. He conversed with kings and all of the religious leaders of his day.

        • martyrathbun09

          Great thread. Incidentally, didn’t The Buddha lead quite the discreditable life prior to enlightenment? And what proof do we have that he did not die disappointed, vulnerable, and feeble of mind all those years ago?

          • Marty, the Buddha led a very sensuous life until the age of 29. He had three palaces and all of his attendants were female.
            He listened to the Vina which is an early form of the Sitar.
            The lotus flowers in each palace were of different colors to match the seasons of the weather.
            He was married to one of the most beautiful women of his generation., and he had a son. Even his servants were fed whole rice and the very best meats. He was skilled in archery and in fact won his wife in a contest.
            He was sheltered by his father from even the slightest view of human misery.
            We know he did not die ‘disappointed,vulnerable and feeble of mind” because the longest discouse in the Canon outlines every detail of his last days. He was compassionate to the end. This has been distorted by a new book which was published last year by a former monk who talks about the “murder of the Buddha”.
            There is a great misconception that the Buddha did not eat meat and that he was vegetarian. Actually, this is not true. By standards of his day, he had to accept whatever food was offered; he could not decline meat. A few days before his death at age 80, when he already on the physical decline, he was offered a mixture of pork and mushrooms which he could not decline. He got very sick with dysentary and died a few days later. However, he was steadfast and kind to the end. His last words are faithfully recorded as
            “All conditioned things are impermanent. Strive on in the teaching with heedfulness.”
            The ironic thing about the new book which tries to discredit the Buddha is that all of the stories of danger, attempted murder,
            and revolt by some of monks are true. Of course, it is all true and Buddhists know the stories as just the way life is.
            Before his death, the Buddha gathered his monks and specifically asked if they had further question. He was coherent, sane and rational until his body gave out.

            • martyrathbun09

              Thanks George. I am so glad you joined this thread. You have made the type of thoughtful observations I was hoping to elicit by posting it. I am glad I kept it in the number one spot an extra day. I was waiting for you to arrive in a way, I guess.

              • Marty, you are very welcome and I hope to meet you someday. If you plan to be in Florida, please be sure to contact me. Now I go to the activity of the day.

          • Actually no. The Buddha didn’t lead a discreditable life prior to enlightenment, according to the tradition.

            He was a wealthy prince who was kept from seeing suffering, illness and death from his father by being kept inside the palace walls. He did lead a life of excessive luxury until he ventured outside and saw LIFE — full of suffering, illness and death.

            The story goes that he then left his family, wife and child to find out HOW to be free from suffering for himself and all sentient beings.

            He lead the life of a monastic, an ascetic, wandering throughout India until he proclaimed he was going to just sit and meditate, not get up until he reached enlightenment.

            When he did reach enlightenment, he then proceeded to teach throughout India for 40 years until his death.

            As for proof of how he died … obviously we cannot know FOR SURE; however, I would posit that it’s probably by looking at his students, even 2500 years later and watching how they die, those that practice his teachings one can then get has a fairly good idea – how the buddha died. (which is NOT to say that buddhists don’t die disappointed, vulnerable and feeble of mind; however, by at large those that I’m aware of die practicing the dharma … which means they work ALL the time at non-attachment, ego clinging, etc)

            BTW — Milarepa might be the buddhist you are referring to who DID leave a discreditable life prior to finding buddhism. He had murdered several family members using sorcery and felt remorse. He then studied and made amends for YEARS and persisted and eventually became enlightened. (He was born about 1550 years after the buddha)

            (have been out of town in NYC working since this thread started so
            I might be weighing in out of sync🙂

            Love,
            WH

            • About buddhism:

              Thank you to George White and his comments.

              I believe that when discussing buddhism, perhaps its important to understand that there are different streams or sects. Theravadans, for example, study exclusively the Pali Canon and are found mainly in Sri Lanka, parts of China, Cambodia etc. Also, called often the Hinayana. The “goal” would be for enlightenment for oneself while leading a very disciplined virtuous life.

              Then there is Mahayana. Found elsewhere with the key “goal” of reaching enlightenment for oneself SO THAT one can help other sentient beings reach enlightenment. Those that practice this, vow to return again and again to help others reach enlightenment.

              (not unlike to vow of Sea Org members)

              And then there are the Vajrayana practitioners. Who incorporate EVERYTHING in life — to reach enlightenment. This “yana” (vehicle) is predominately found in Tibet. The Dahli Lama for example is a Vajrayana practitioner. By everything, I mean rather than staying in a forest or giving up family, friends, work – they work to USE their anger (not against others) but to be the fuel for their path — that energy to keep themselves moving along the path to eventually turn CONFUSION into WISDOM.

              The “practices” of Vajrayana are debated endlessly by buddhists with each discipline having a slightly different take and Theravadans eschewe the whole deal as it is not the Pali Canon, which they say is the only TRUE buddhism.

              Get two buddhists together from different traditions and very little agreement is reached🙂 — it’s quite funny actually to hear a Zen Buddhist and a Kagyu Buddhist try to reach an understanding.

              As for LRH being the future buddha — Maitreya. No I don’t believe he was or is.

              I doubt that LRH read the entirety of the Pali Canon as it is over 45 volumes and the first translations were in 1925.

              LRH does have a great deal of truth, much of it, appears to come from buddhism HOWEVER, I think it just came from the man – LRH.

              In other words, he was able to bring forth whatever he might have learned from his many former lives into a Western workable philosophy.

              But, this is just opinion and speculation on my part.

              Love,
              WH

              • martyrathbun09

                I would simply replace “just” in your last line and replace it with the word “valuable.”

              • Windhorse, much thanks for filling in details about all of the Buddhist traditions. I practice Theravada which is centered in Sri Lanka, Burma and Thailand. My source is the Pali Canon.
                I have given lectures to hundreds of college students doing papers on Buddhism and they are always confused by the different traditions. I am very comfortable in the Theravada tradition, and fully intend to continue in it.

              • windhorse, I agree 100% that what we know as Scientology came from LRon himself, and was not derivative of any other teaching. It is what he “observed to observe”.

                I think that is true of every enlightened teacher, and that is why I think it is perfectly OK for one to consider LRon a Buddha if one wants to. He fits the profile in my book.

                What is “Buddha”? It is simply someone who has awakened from considering that the apparency of existence is the only and ultimate reality. Someone who has awakened from what the wise players have often called “sleep”.

            • martyrathbun09

              Thanks for the history WH. Always appreciated.

            • Hi Windhorse, I always like your posts. But I’m in an iconoclastic so as devil’s advocate I’ll submit that Buddha’s “Official biography” may have little or no resemblance to his real biography, just as LRon’s “official biography” appears to be largely fictional. And for many of the same reasons.

              I assume that India of 2,600 years ago already had an entrenched caste system. If so, I see little chance that the illiterate son of a common shopkeeper or beggar would ever have been able to achieve any credibility as a “teacher of enlightenment” in the society of his time. Whereas, a member of the top socio/economic/political caste who walked away from from his life of ease and became “enlightened” – ah! what a story!

              It is plausible to me that Buddha’s official biography is mostly PR designed to gain him altitude and respect among the people of his own time. And it still sounds good today!

              • Valkov,
                I read something similar in that the author made a major point in saying that Gotama Buddha’s father was not really a king, he was just an “administrator”. It was an attempt to get it all back to earth. You might also be interested to know that I have on authority from a very good scholar and a former monk that the entire story of the Buddha leaving the palace to renounce the world has been misinterpreted by most western scholars.
                Buddha Gotama only directly says that his parents cried when he left.
                The detailed story about leaving his wife in the night is from Buddha Kassapa, a former Buddha.

        • George,

          Just as a matter of practicality, the exact dates of birth/death for Siddhartha Guatama, the reputed founder of Buddhism, are in dispute. Details of his life are steeped more in myth than reliable records.

          I know that some cultures are quite adept in passing information orally from one generation to the next. I also know that humans love to alter and embellish. Human nature usually wins out over training and expectations.

          Oral traditions depend on language; language depends on words and context. Look at what we do to definitions of words over a few years. For example, take “enormity.” Does it mean “extremely wicked” or “extremely large?” Most scholar prefer to shun the later in favor of the former.

          Oral traditions depend on the clarity of what is said and the clarity of what is heard. Say the teacher has gotten older and his ears have deteriorated and his vocalization has weakened. He says “Our great master was filled with ‘muja’ (meaning endless enlightenment.) But the dominant student hears ‘mucha’ (meaning fiery passion.) The dominant student repeats, “Our great master was filled with ‘mucha,’ and all the other students repeat exactly what he said. The teacher nods his approval, believing he hears what he said. His meaning has been Hobson-Jobsoned into something else because these students understand a culture of intense passion rather than enlightenment.

          Denotation and connotation change. Grammatical structures change. Word forms change. Social understanding changes. It’s very difficult to maintain the same meaning through several hundred years of oral tradition, even in the best case scenario where what was originally said was exactly repeated.

          But these traditions were not necessarily even begun by the founder of Buddhism. He had his message, but others are passing that message forward. Just get five people to describe exactly what happened in a car accident. Five different stories.

          One of the frustrations of great spiritual leaders has always been getting others to duplicate exactly what they have experienced. Language just is not adequate. Language can only point the way. Korzybski explains this with detail.

          So, even if Buddha or Christ had actually written exactly what they wished to say (which neither did) there would still be problems of interpretation.

          Whether you credit Hubbard or not, his attempts to be understood serve as an example of this difficulty. Even his personally taught students often came away not fully grasping what he intended. Look at this controversy over Mayo–who was LRH’s auditor for Christ’s sake!

          You might claim, “Oh, but they disagreed with Hubbard.”

          And that’s part of the point. Whether someone disagrees or misunderstands, the resulting message/information becomes altered.

          So, when Buddhists or Christians say, “Our founder said so and so,” I’ve got to ask, “How do you really know?” Written works about Buddha didn’t appear for perhaps hundreds of years after his death. Christ didn’t fare much better.

          That’s a lot of time for words and meanings to change.

          The one constant in existence is the constant of existence. Physics remains the same regardless of how it’s described or understood. Chemistry remains the same–not the subject but the ways in which particles interact with one another. The laws of the spirit and the laws of matter, energy, space and time remain the same regardless of how individuals try to make statements about those underlying laws.

          How we came into existence remains the same. Who created what remains the same. Whether there actually is a God or not remains the same.

          The inconsistency is the observation and explanation about what is observed. All this sensory input and experience goes through processes of evaluation based in concepts already held. The processes themselves will influence the outcomes, the conclusions.

          Underlying every explanation of truth is the actual truth.

          To me, the bright approach to all this discussed in philosophy and religion and science is to not depend on the explanations but to experience as intimately as possible that which underlies those explanations.

          To become enamored of explanation is to court a false bride. If I must marry, I would choose to marry what is actual rather than delusion.

          Although, a sexual fantasy now and then… Yeah, baby!

          Michael

          • martyrathbun09

            Michael, if you’ve published anything, I’d appeciate you sending me info on where I can obtain some of your work. We are tracking in an interesting sort of way – check my post this morning against your great little ditty here on semantics.

            • Marty,

              Nope. Nothing published this life. Some stuff still floating around from the 1700’s, but that’s another matter. Tens of thousands of words in notebooks as I have a proclivity for writing and researching and extrapolating new ideas–including lots of stuff others later published, including works on the limits of science as an approach to gaining knowledge.

              Was going to help an old friend of LRH gather some of his stuff into a book of some sort. At first, he didn’t seem to see the possibilities, but now has taken to the idea. (But then again, I could see a book in the napkins on the table and dash off four hundred pages–most of which would be of no interest to anyone.) However, things came up and he had obligations to another friend to get some of his information published first. I’d get on that person and urge him forward but understand he’s got an overburdened plate.

              As for the mutually tracking, lately I’ve gotten ideas during the night then gotten up to read your new post that contains similar material. I used to wake up several times a week, have a song going on in my head, then hear that song begin to play when the alarm went off, at exactly the same point in the song as it played in my head.

              Theta is so intimately connected our problems are more trying not to communicate with one another.

              I read your new post. The thing that strikes me, and I hate to comment on it because it comes across as so arrogant and invalidative, is how poorly Scientology is understood. If the characters in the scenario you described truly understood ARC, none of that could have occurred. They would have sensed the breaks in communication, reality and affinity and spotted the source of them. Then integrity should have kicked in.

              Just simply grasping the concepts of how affinity, reality and communication intimately interact provides a channel for understanding all the rest of Scientology. So many questions are answered in grasping the breadth of that simplicity.

              But it isn’t broadly appreciated for what it is and how powerful it is. Which leads back to how does a person learn? How does one person gain knowledge from another? What are the factors in the individual trying to learn and the person trying to communicate which prevent this transference of information/experience/understanding?

              Therein, I think, lies the solutions found in not only Scientology but all successful paths of enlightenment. But, I think you already know this.

              So, I wonder, if ARC, such a basic component of Scientology is not being fully applied, what about the vast array of other concepts from the most basic to the truly esoteric?

              Fascinating.

              Michael

              • Fascinating. If you want, you can send me the 1700 titles. I’d be interested, unless you’ve since disowned them as lousy. Good point on ARC. Just finished listening the SOS lectures, where he defines ARC as the compenent parts of Theta. Can’t get any more fundamental than that.

                • Marty,

                  Yeah, that’s about as fundamental as you get before reaching the Great Before! (That needs some ominous and sonorous music for emphasis.)

                  I have noticed something regarding ARC and people that might or might not have validity. It seems that different individuals have a native inclination toward one part of the triangle. I’ve noticed individuals with tremendous affinity but lacking commensurate reality and communication. He or she might be very caring and willing to grant beingness and share space, but tend to sit off to the side of the group and not enter much into conversations–even after doing OT levels and grade 0. And he might not be a great student, might have trouble grasping the reality of what is being taught.
                  Another person might have high realities and just grasp material instantly, seeing the reality of what is presented and being able to adjust and alter it as needed. Engineers and scientists. But, they might also have low natural affinity, might not like talking to others especially, preferring to deal with their specialty.

                  Same holds for the high level communicators.

                  Of course, some people are balanced on all three with none predominating. And, of course, because for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, every communication has a corresponding affinity and reality.

                  But, all of this is ARC with regards to others.

                  As for earlier works, let’s lay some background. Many lifetimes in the future, we are going to find hundreds, if not thousands, of girls who were “Madonna.” Some will be able to sing, some not. But, there will actually be that person who was Madonna.

                  Same with anyone who existed. That being is somewhere.

                  So how do you know? What differentiates delusion or valence snapping from actual identity? Guy says he was Beethoven and yet can’t put together three harmonic notes to save his soul–even after being cleared. Guy says he was Ghenghis Kahn, but has absolutely no clue about military strategy and the advantages of applying psychological pressure on a population to maximize gain and minimize loss.

                  A few hundred years ago, I was sitting in a prison, surrounded by cold stone walls, thinking how badly this all sucked, mind racing, racing, racing. All these ideas. All this knowledge I’d stolen from others. Stuck in prison. Wanting to get out. Wanting to fly out of that tower. The thief who could fly. A thief whose imagination soared. So I coined a new name for myself, a portmanteau from two french words. And I took a new identity.

                  I was a scrawny little thing filled with passion and drive, with an insatiable urge to communicate. So I wrote and wrote and wrote. The guy’s name was Arouet. French fellow. You can find his stuff still.

                  I have floods of memories. The meter goes crazy. But, who knows? Maybe I just was a fan, a thief who wanted to fly. Maybe I was just a cellmate. But to this day, no one seems to have figured out the genus of a name that became a personal joke.

                  Like all jokes, it’s only old if you’ve heard it before.

                  Shhhhh!

                  Michael

                  • martyrathbun09

                    All right. All that really matters to me is who you are now. And I like that dude.

                  • Marty,

                    Thanks for the compliment. Sorry to have been so cryptic. There was a reason. You’d like that other guy. He may have been a criminal and a troublemaker, but LRH referenced him a few times by the his “stage name.” Durant earmarked him. Whoever and wherever he may be, he’s still a good read–if you’ve got a couple of years to wade through it all.

          • Yes you are correct about the problems in the oral traditions. However, I just ask you to consider this one fact – LRH said that we must judge his tech by whether it works.
            Buddha said essentially the same thing that his teaching must be practiced and the result experienced.

            This is exactly the reason why Buddhism in the Theravada tradition does not heavily promote, market or aggressively seek expansion. The Buddha only invites a person to see. He never wanted to teach anyway; yet it has spread to millions. I personally never approach or suggest to anyone the subject of Buddhism.

            • George,

              Hopefully, I didn’t give the impression that I dismiss the works in Buddhism. I was merely pointing out one of the many pitfalls of accepting a data line in and of itself without broader examination.

              Somewhere just before 500 BC (BCE), there was an influx of beings to this planet on a quest for enlightenment. Examining that era and what exactly happened has been on my list of things to do but I just keep adding to the list and haven’t had time. But, you have individuals such as Confucious and Lao Tse and Buddha and others who have been lost to history. Individuals in primitive cultures. Individuals on other continents. There were so, so many great thinkers whose voice and works were completely lost. You had those whose work lead to the Essenes which probably influenced the thinking of Jesus. There was simply a wave of increased consciousness on the planet at that time.

              As I commented to Windhorse once, I remember sitting with a great man who might well have been Buddha, might have been someone else. He was teaching his lessons to those around him and I could just feel his consternation because these students were not getting what he was saying. He and I exchanged a glance and he did sort of a theta shrug and said telepathically, “What are yah gonna do?” Meaning how could he actually get them to see? He was trying his best.

              So, my cautionary advice is never about the insights of great souls. My cautionary advice is about how the message gets transferred by the students.

              Living life through another’s insights is never quite a good idea. If you can’t make the insights your own, you only do yourself harm. Doing something because Ron said to or Buddha said to puts you at the disadvantage of operating from another’s determinism.

              Nothing wrong with operating at another’s determinism as long as you are mutually causing that determinism and contributing to the motion. In other words, you are simultaneously operating at cause.

              At the highest level of cause, Prime Cause is Prime Effect. Effect is Cause and Cause is Effect. There is no difference. And that is where as-isness occurs if you’re a Scientologist. It is also where Nirvana occurs–or glimpses of Nirvana.

              But the misconception in so many religions is that there is some miraculous state of being where the being can eternally exist in bliss. I assure you, this is not the case. Being OT is not a license to flee this universe and all universes except your own. Nirvana is not a state of eternal bliss. It’s temporary.

              We have been in communication with one another. And that knowledge links us in a special way. We share a reality, however subtle, for every communication we have with another or others–good or bad. That reality never fully disappears. It just becomes part of our understanding and our experience.

              And that knowledge brings responsibility. With knowledge and responsibility, you have to exercise some control of the conditions of existence. You can’t just sit off to the side in eternal bliss and la-de-da while others suffer. Those links will eventually draw you right back into the fray.

              Guaranteed.

              Enlightenment is a tremendous gift. But it is not always an easy gift. With true enlightenment comes responsibility and cause. And anytime you exercise responsibility and cause in this universe–such as bringing enlightenment to others–there is an equal and opposite reaction.

              Shit gets stirred up. Turbulence and trouble. So, you have to be willing to persist through that turbulence and trouble, not only for self, but for all others if you really, really want to “make it out” or reach a point of cessation regarding the endless cycle of births and deaths.

              So, by all means, study the works found in Buddhism. Learn all you can about all you can. Become the master of your own insights. Admire the great thinkers. And share all you can tolerate.

              But, be forewarned of the old adage: he who would bring enlightenment had better damned well keep one foot in the stirrup.

              Hubbard stirred up a lot of crap because this world is nearly completely benighted. Ignorance permeates the entire place. A spiritual stench oozes from nearly every crevice of the planet. When I clean my koi ponds in the spring, the stench is horrible. Cleaning can get you filthy. And Hubbard definitely got a bit filthy.

              As did Jesus. As did the Buddha. As will we all–hopefully.

              Michael

              • martyrathbun09

                Significant comment here in my view. The enlightenments (plural) one gets in Scientology are the enlightenments one discovers for him/herself in sessions.

              • Excellent, excellent, Michael. I like all of what you wrote.
                In particular, this got my attention:
                “Around 500 BCE there was an influx of beings in a quest for enlightenment” . As per my own research, this is spot on and true. I have spent many hours reading the history of India and the Pali Texts because I see this. At that time ,500BCE, the conditions were set for a huge uoward movement in human consciousness. Many of these great people have been lost to history. I am very much into continuing my own research into this area.

                • George and Michael,

                  I wonder where all those guys were busted from? There were Socrates and Plato, Confucius and Chuang Tzu, possibly Lao Tzu. Zoroaster might be a little earlier but some date him as late as the 6th century BC. He might have arrived here earlier along with Lao Tzu? And what about the blue guy, Krishna? And there was Mahavira, founder of Jainism, was about 600 BC also…..

                  And that’s not counting the North and South America or even much of the rest of the East or the Pacific cultures….

                  All exiled troublemakers? Philosophers who actually encourage others to “walk the talk” can be such a pain in the butt to an entrenched regime…..

                  • Valkov, My wife and I were reading a book this evening about the “historical Jesus and Buddhism.” We found some very statements and a few small issues. However,
                    one paragraph hit me :
                    In India, just before Buddha and Mahavira, the Brahmins had monopolized religion and turned it into rituals. Those in search of truth flocked to the Ganges and to the acsetic life because the Vedic tradition was blocked to them. They had to “do it yourself”.

                  • Valkov,

                    Yeah, all those and more. Lot of activity over those few centuries. Interesting how widespread it was. I came in with whatever initiated all that–which is why I’m aware of this phenomenon rather than from having read about it.

                    Usually, the urge to get rid of trouble makers is accompanied by a bunch of mental and spiritual blocks to thwart the unwanted activity. But this whole group was up to looking. So, it wouldn’t surprise me if LRH were also part of this group. Lot of keyed out OTs who were actually capable of examining the condition of the soul. Awareness of “conditions” is pretty high on the awareness scale.

                    And this particular MEST universe is not the only universe inhabited by beings who are aware of something going on here. Lot of cross experience. Lot of cross interest, postulate, creation, communication, etc.

                    Which leads to all manner of craziness in those confused about the source of their ideas and experience.

                    Like I said, one of these days I’ll get around to exploring the cause/source/origin of that influx. Right now I’m busy researching the teleology of all life, rather than taking an anthropocentric view. Such a small portion of theta is invested in the human condition it strikes me that concentrating solely on the lower four dynamics has severe limitations.

                    Auditing attacked, rightly, the problem of the human condition: theta, mind, body as applies to the individual operating that body. But, as we’re finding out, there’s a big chunk of something else.

                    Michael

              • Michael, here’s one for you to sing as you clean your koi ponds!

                • Valkov,

                  Sixteen tons! How ironic. I thought, “Hunh, wonder how much the water weighs in that pond. It’s approximately 4,000 gallons times 8 (8 lbs per gallon) equals 32,000 lbs. Or sixteen tons.

                  With lots of “mud” at the bottom–silt.

                  Michael

                  • Michael I’d love to say “I knew that!” about your koi pond’s water, but I did not. Perhaps something in me knew, but it was not “I”.

                    Check out Georg Groddeck on wikipedia…..

                    • Michael, I like the idea that all those guys came knowingly.
                      Not sure when I entered the scene, retaining a lot of occlusion here/now, but I seem to have as one purpose, to assemble a concordance and heal the ‘confusion of tongues’ mankind has been afflicted with.

                    • Valkov,

                      You’ve given me a load to explore with your exchange with George. Pretty impressive stuff. Wish I read faster so I could cover all the stuff piling up.

                      I just got to say, you’re a very interesting individual. Very analytical–in the good sense. A pleasure to have met you.

                      Michael

                    • Thanks Michael. It’s one of my few pluspoints and has definitely helped me survive. I really am a kind of “man from mars” as in Heinlein’s novel “Stranger in a strange land”. I was born in the Manchurian hills near North Korea into a small group of stateless White Russians and grew up in Korea, Japan, and the US. Talk about growing up severed from any cultural matrix.

                      I read Groddeck’s “The Book of the It” only. The Wiki article pretty much says all you need to know about him. Evidently he was “one of us” in some sense.

                      But even more so is Nicholai Berdyaev, who wrote:

                      “Philosophy … is the creative perception by the spirit
                      of the meaning of human existence.”
                      — Solitude and Society

                      Here’s a good page about him with lots of quotes:
                      http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/

              • Just re-reading your reply. I forgot to mention one thing.
                Yes, nirvana is not considered eternal; it is considered as “unconditioned” in the Theravada tradition.
                Had to do that for the record.

                • George,

                  Initially, I assumed your reasoning would be more fixed. You’ve proven me incorrect. Very pleasing fluidity from you.

                  • OUaT,
                    Thank you for the kind words. After I sought refuge in the Buddha, I realized that I did not ever need to defend viewpoints or try to convert others.

              • Once Upon a Time,
                Read part of a book last night which cited Carl Jaspers as the originator of the idea of the “AXIS”. This is what we were talking about earlier – a period when their is an influx of beings seeking higher consciousness.

            • John Fennessey

              George, reminds me of the old adage of when the student is ready the teacher will come. I also think there is some spiritual progression involved with our destinies which explains why we are born into the religions we are and why we find the paths we do during each lifetime.

    • George,
      I think that the main disagreements that LRH had were not with authentic Buddhism but with strange practices that had borrowed its name.

      • Personally, I do not think that LRH ever really encountered authentic Buddhism. His comments such as :
        “Twenty five hundred years ago, Buddha [.] sat down under a bodhi tree and said ‘I wonder what it feels like to be three feet back of your ‘ead’.” (Lecture 1 September 1962, The point where the PC begins to Get Clear). This was his personal translation of a well documented event, and I could cite at least ten other instances where he places his own view on something which deserves better treatment. He used Buddhism as a springboard mainly. Even Hymn of Asia was written for a Buddhist event in Asia where he felt he could basically market.

        • Come on George, don’t get so literal. It’ll put you more at ease, I promise.

          • Well, OK, Marty maybe LRH was trying to be funny. You know one of the first questions I ever asked a very senior monk was:
            “Did the Buddha ever encounter a comedian?”
            If so, what did he say?

            • “Authentic Buddhism” might be a little hard to identify now, 2,600 years later…..

              • 2,600 years is just a brief period in Buddhist time. Actually a 27 year old monk gave me the best reply to that question.
                He said: “You know the Dhamma when you experience it. The words then have meaning”.

                • Exactly George, but how many actually “get” that?

                  You (and windhorse, actually), might enjoy visiting this:
                  http://isene.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/an-aspect-of-freedom/

                  We have some wild-and-wooly philosophical outings there, revolving about just such ideas and experiences

                  • And, put that way, it’s not unlike JC’s injunction that “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you!”

                    I was questioning the likelihood of spotting “authentic Buddhism” in the myriad temporal forms in existence today, who all call themselves “Buddhism”.

                    It’s been only about 60 years for Scientology, and the search for “authentic LRH Standard Tech” is already on…..

                    I can only imagine what 2,600 years can do in terms of producing alter-is.

                    • George White

                      Valkov,
                      I think you are touching on the key to the early split in Buddhism. Actually, the Buddha predicted that the teching would fade in a few hundred years. That it is even available today is amazing. But the Buddha knew that only a few would follow it.

                  • Valkov,
                    That’s a nice site. I need some time to check it out.

                  • Valkov,
                    I visited the site and found some interesting discussions.
                    I get the impression that Isene has some fundamentals in Scientology especially when he uses MEST.

                    • George, Geir is a “renegade” OTVIII. He rejected and left the CoS. He is a great guy, still on his own personal journey and a very rational, warm and accepting individual.

              • George White

                Valkov,
                Attached is a link to a video which I prepared for VESAK which is 2,600 years since Buddha’s birth.

  49. Hi Marty;

    I’m really glad that you put up this post! It gives me an opportunity to put out an expereince that I had when I decided that the future of the Bridge was not to be found in the Cofs and walked away. To do so was not easy, and I was brain dead for a while, but after a year or so, I started to revive and decided to see what was what via the internet. I felt very lonely and lost, and needed to ‘go home for a visit’, in a manner of speaking.

    I forget exactly when it was, but I guess it was around 93, 94, or thereabouts, I started to research Scientology and what was being reported about it. I was still pretty much in my Scientology ‘box’, so to speak.

    I found ARS, ACT and other sites, the wild west with wings. Anyway, my first post ever was done with my eyes still closed, and I defined Scientology as LRH did, and defended it. I was, er, challenged shall we say, to actually look deeper. This was during the period the OSA was picketing peoples houses and places of work, and using suppresives to harass critics at their place of work. This was completely unacceptable to me because it was unnecessary and so utterly stupid, and guaranteed t create enemies.. It compelled me to look further, to get out of my ‘box’, and see how things really were.

    What hit the most was what I was reading about LRH. Things were not as I was lead to beleive, there were falsehoods in his history, both personal and professonal, (navy), and I was shaken by it. I realized he was not who I and all the others were lead to believe he was. I didn’t understand all the lies, or even the need for them. ‘Someone’ was attempting to white wash him.

    This had it’s effect upon me. I can’t say I went into doubt or anything like that, but … still …

    Then, as I read more and more about LRH, the ‘true’ history, or the ‘alternate’ history, something interesting began to occur.

    I knew what the man had done, tech wise. I knew the magnitude of what he had uncovered and what it meant to me, and all of us, even those who fought against it.

    If LRH was god like, or a super genius, or a prophet, then what he had done tech wise was to be expected. It didn’t mean much that he did it, he had a kind of ‘hidden data line’ or something the rest of us didn’t have. No great accompishment there, not really. What took him so bloody long!!. If he did anything less, he’d have been a lazy or imcompetent god, genius, or prophet.

    But from what I had learned on the net about his true history, his weaknesses and such, he was none of the above, he was a person like the rest of us, really, human, unique for sure, but one of us.

    As he went up the Bridge, those weaknesses fell away.

    I remembered on the SHCBC a tape where he commented why he decided to create the grade chart. If he didn’t create the grade chart, only him and those who had travelled with him on that path at that time would be free. That wasn’t good enough, he wanted everybody to be free.

    The tech can be made to work. That is the sole measure of the man.

    • martyrathbun09

      Bobo, great post. If you study deeply of the technology, there is no question how it was discovered through persistent pursuit of truth and workability; and not by divine internvention. To believe in the latter obstructs attaining a complete understanding of the subject.

  50. Yeah, it’s an adventure:) But where is the Bridge to total freedom?:)

  51. iconoclast
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclast
    An iconoclast is someone who performs iconoclasm — destruction of religious symbols, or, by extension, established dogma or conventions.

    Iconoclasm
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm
    People who engage in or support iconoclasm are called “iconoclasts”, a term that has come to be applied figuratively to any person who challenges established dogma or conventions. Conversely, people who revere or venerate religious images are (by iconoclasts) called “iconolaters”. In a Byzantine context, they are known as “iconodules”, or “iconophiles”.

  52. Speaking of the lot of an Adventurer, Chris Guider just posted the story of Paul Schobel over at Scientology-cult.com. http://www.scientology-cult.com/paul-schobel-a-friend-to-all.
    That is another real-life example and will raise the blood pressure of anyone who knew Schobs.

    • martyrathbun09

      Dan, truth be told Paul was a victim of the insanity that I describe in this morning’s post, King of the Squirrels.

  53. Things in perspective🙂

  54. MARTY
    ” Caught up in the Miscavige or Robertson or Mayo or some other iconoclast mythology that Ron didn’t really mean what he said in HCO PL The Hidden Data Line (and the many lectures and policies where he re-iterated that ‘if it is not in writing, it isn’t true’), they remained tractable followers.”

    Positioning CBR and Mayo with DM is, for want of a better word off the wall.

    Two of them worked towards the rehabilitation of the spirit.

    You quote:-

    “The first adventurer was a nuisance; he left the tribal barricade open to the risk of the community when he left to find out what made that noise in the night. I am sure he acted against his mother’s, his wife’s, and the council of old men’s strict orders, when he did it. But it was he that found where the mammoths die and where after a thousand years of use there was still enough ivory to equip the whole tribe with weapons. Such is the ultimate outline of the adventurer; Society’s benefactor as well as pest…”

    Such describes those looking to expand our philosophy.

    The ” Old Men” call them squirrels.

    • martyrathbun09

      Terrill read KSW 1, where Squirrel is defined. And find your own identity.

    • martyrathbun09

      You know, you have lost a lot of credibility with your snivelling obsequiousness to your OLs. I used to tolerate it. But, in response to this post? Go back to ESMB, with Mayo, “Ex-Scientologist Message Board.”

    • I like you Terril but you just don’t seem to get it Miscavige, Robertson and Mayo are not squirrels because Old Men call them such.

      But because they *are* squirrels by the definition of the word i.e. one who alters workable Scientology techniques as covered in the HCOPL ‘Safeguarding Technology’.

      Mayo by mixing Major RD actions with repair actions.

      Robertson by creating Excalibur or as I call it the Bridge to nowhere and of course Miscavige is like Elvis of the Squirrels.

      • RJ, I’ve read some of the history of the RonsOrgs, and I just don’t see, based on the little I know, how you can equate Robertson with Mayo, and especially with DM? From Scienowiki:

        “From the start, CBR promised Standard Tech and delivered standardly to OT 3.” Here’s the link:

        http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Rons_Org

        I tend to think that in 1984, when Robertson started what came to be called the RonsOrgs, in his own mind he was doing much like what Marty’ s doing now – ditching the CoS because he could see the Bridge becoming degraded in the CoS with DM’s ascension. Robertson wanted to preserve the standard Bridge as he knew it at the time, which in his mind was firmly established up through OTIII, and he did so. As far as I know, it remains standard to this day, in the Rons Orgs, which is not exactly the case in the CoS.

        This was also the year the Declare of DM was published after his CommEv by the OT Committee in Europe. I think a lot of people back then saw the writing on the wall.

        I won’t venture an opinion about where he went with it after OTIII, but the account in the Scienowiki article seems credible. I won’t venture to say whether that “CBR tech” works or not, or how well it works, or how it compares to what Marty, or maybe you, would deliver as the “advanced courses”.

        However, I tend to think if CBR tech were entirely an overt product, the RonsOrgs would not be having the success and expansion they have been having for over 25 years now.

        Call me from Missouri if you like, but that’s my(academic) opinion. If you have contrary stats or information, “Show me”.

        • Valkov,

          He “developed” ‘Excalibur’ by claiming he received it telepathically from Ron.

          (Like DM2 they both claim to be somehow channelling the Ol’man.)

          ‘Excalibur’ is basically altered or squirrel OT III procedure.

          • RJ, that doesn’t jibe with what the article says, that there was more to it than that:
            “From the start, CBR promised Standard Tech and delivered standardly to OT 3. Meanwhile, he and a colleague, Ulrich Kramer, began to research how it was that NOTs (OT 7) seemed to be such an “endless” level, sometimes running to many thousands of hours without a stable EP. The story of this research is told in Admin Briefing 1. CBR and Kramer studied all that was known about the Tech to that point, checked each other out for a month and a half, and then began co-auditing on the last levels which they knew had come from LRH: NOTs. They discovered the reason why no-one had truly progressed beyond this level, and a new level which included NOTs and also transcended it – all using LRH basics – was called first Super-NOTs, later Excalibur, or OT 8.”

            http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Rons_Org

            As I already said, from everything I have seen, the CBR orgs deliver a standard LRH Bridge up to and including OTIII using only original LRH materials from before 1984(obviously).

            I am in no position to judge their upper levels beyond OTIII, anymore than I am in a position to judge the CoS’ or Marty’s or Pierre’s, not being tech trained myself.

            But reason and logic tell me the Ron’s Orgs have produced thousands of HQS and Academy grads and many Clears, as well as OTIIIs, and it does not sound right to me, to invalidate all of those people who achieved those gains by labeling it all “squirrel”, which is how your posts come across.

            Whatever the status of the CBR “upper levels”, it is a huge omission in my book, to not acknowledge them for delivering straight standard LRH scientology to thousands of people over 25 years including the Grades and making Clears, when hardly anyone else was doing it, by comparison.
            Big omission.

            • martyrathbun09

              Bill Robertson was in dire need of an Introspection RD. I have validated RO for their lower bridge successes. I will never valiadte them for delivering an upper level bridge by a keyed in nut case.

            • martyrathbun09

              Incidentally, you can judge my stuff by reading the tech volumes and the all LRH’s lectures.

              • Thanks Marty, so I trust, that someday I will actually be able to make my own judgements about the advanced courses. I am a long way from that now, with a lot of ground to cover. As has been said, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”, and I’ve just taken the first step or two on the lower Bridge.

                That leaves me only logic and observation of results to go on, and your results are receiving much genuine praise.

                There is no call from me for you or anyone to validate CBR tech; it will stand or fall on it’s own merits, just as LRH tech will. My call is for an eventual thorough examination of it. In the meantime, there are a whole lot of people in Russia and Europe who can get a lot of standard tech from RonsOrgs, and nowhere else at this point in time. Who else is getting people up to Clear and even OTIII over there?

                And I see no reason not to point out that the R.O upper levels are not LRH; I am saying that in the case of the RonsOrgs, the glass is way more than half-full of LRH tech from what I have heard. The lower Bridge is very important, because without it, there is no upper Bridge for anyone at all. We have to learn to walk before we can learn to run.

                In the long term, and it may be a long time indeed, each application of tech will need to judged on it’s own merits, as compared to other applications. I think it would be great if someday the top tech terminals from the divergent branches that are based on LRH’s researches would “compare notes” and arrive at the optimum and most standard way to proceed.
                It has taken 2,000 years or so for the Christian churches to develop such an “ecumenical” attitude, hopefully it won’t take the already-diverging major scientology-based organizations that long to communicate enough to get the kinks out.

                It is conceivable to me that just as the L rundowns are not part of the Bridge, but nonetheless have value as parallel actions and “boosters”, so some parts of CBR tech may have value too. Or it may not, it may be found to be useless and unnecessary when LRH tech is fully known and standardly applied.

                My point is it (CBR tech) won’t really be fully understood until it and it’s products in terms of it’s results on pre-OTs, is studied objectively, and by folks like yourself who are very conversant with the standard LRH tech of the advanced levels.. I don’t expect this is the highest priority right now, everyone’s plate is more than full, but it is an ideal scene to me, to have the differences be fully examined and studied in an ecumenical spirit.

                There are calls for LRH tech to be considered apart from any questions of his character and that is consistent with rational science. Scientific and technical discoveries are most accurately and most usually judged on their own merits; that the discoverer may have been a fruitcake doesn’t necessarily invalidate his discovery. Even a psycho has lucid intervals and “conflict-free” areas of functioning in which he may produce something of genuine value. That’s why a person’s mental condition or character does not usually figure in, in the evaluation of scientific/technical discoveries.

                Well, I’ve beat this poor nag long enough. Just wanted to clarify my perspective on it. Recognize value where it exists, and acknowledge decent intentions where they exist, is all I’m saying.

                It may have been excellent for CBR to have gotten that IR when he needed it, but why didn’t it happen?

                From Robert Burns’ poem “To a Mouse”, 1786. It tells of how he, while ploughing a field, upturned a mouse’s nest. The resulting poem is an apology to the mouse:

                But, Mousie, thou art no thy lane [you aren’t alone]
                In proving foresight may be vain:
                The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
                Gang aft a-gley, [often go awry]
                An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
                For promised joy.

                I tend to think CBR did pretty damn well under the circumstances.

            • Valkov,

              I agree RO has done some remarkable work at the lower levels and I’m even on Max Hauri’s mailing list but this doesn’t change the fact that by definition lovable Cap’n Bill *is* a *squirrel* by the definition.

              You yourself pointed it out in your comment.

              As you wrote he and “Ulrich Kramer, began to research how it was that NOTs (OT 7) seemed to be such an “endless” level, sometimes running to many thousands of hours without a stable EP.”

              There are various technical reason for someone running “endlessly” on NOTs that is already covered in the materials so why “research” this point and invent something “new” which doesn’t work at all or only works on a few?

              This is *exactly* what squirrels do.

              Instead of standardly apply the tech they invent some *unusual solution* like for example the “Golden Age of Tech” to “solve” the “problem” of lack of comprehension or misapplication of the tech.

              By the way NOTs wouldn’t be an “endless” level if the Pre OT completed OT III and OT III X then completed the full OT DRD if needed before going on to it which is already covered in the materials.

              As follows:

              (Begin fair use)

              HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
              Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
              HCO BULLETIN OF 3 FEBRUARY 1972
              Remimeo
              Franchise
              Registrars IMPORTANT
              BPI
              Advance Mag
              R6EW—OT III NO INTERFERENCE AREA
              Note: (The following HCO B is broadly released despite the fact that it contains
              technical terms and upper level tech programs. A person who is taking this route has a
              right to know where he should go and where he shouldn’t.
              The amount of improvement a person can receive is so great that it takes a long
              series of actions to do it. As for “handling bad mental conditions” this is too simple and is
              not the business we are in. Just by handling the current upsets, problems, overts and
              withholds of a person in an hour’s session, Scientology can make more case advance than
              was possible in any past century. So there is a vast difference between handling disturbed
              people and obtaining all the advance of which a person is capable of obtaining.
              The data in this HCO B is issued to straighten out a current error being made in
              routing some cases.)
              A long series of tests and many case results have for some time demonstrated that
              there is a NO INTERFERENCE AREA between R6EW and OT III.
              A study of many cases and their results demonstrated conclusively that one does
              NOT audit Dianetics or Lower Scientology Grades on a pre-clear or pre-OT (Operating
              Thetan) AFTER he has begun Solo VI (the 1st Solo step) or BEFORE he has reached OT
              III (a higher Solo step per grade chart).
              Upsets of varying degree were found in ALL cases tampered with in the NO
              INTERFERENCE AREA.
              Repair actions to repair errors made by the Solo Auditor are all that can be
              beneficially audited on a person between R6EW and OT III.
              Even the powerful L10, when done between R6EW and OT III will fail. Above and
              below the No Interference Area L10 is fantastically successful.
              Nothing is superior to the Solo Grades.
              THEREFORE, it is vital that a case be fully set up before beginning actual Solo
              Auditing.
              For information, the following list, taken from HCO B 8 Jan 72, Issue II, is what
              constitutes a “set-up”.
              1. C/S Series 54 (former injuries, illnesses, etc., run out by Dianetics) completed?
              2. GF40XRR (Resistive Cases List) assessed? Engrams of it handled?
              3. Dianetics Full Flow Table run? To Dn Completion?
              4. Full Drug, Alcohol, medicine handling done?
              5. Dianetics ran well? To End Phenomena?
              6. All Grades run, single, triple or Expanded?
              7. Green Form (case repair) items handled?
              8. Attained End Phenomena of each grade?
              20
              9. Interiorization Rundown done? INT is okay?
              10. C/S Series 53 (any abnormal Tone Arm positions) handled?
              11. Power to End Phenomena. Single? Triple? Power Plus?
              12. Tone Arm Range okay?
              13. Power, no illness after?
              14. Power, no ethics troubles after?
              15. Success stories okay?
              16. Director of Processing Interview okay? Pc not wanting something handled?
              17. Graph of Oxford Capacity Analysis Personality Test (or American Personality
              Analysis Test) with no point below middle of graph?
              A. Pc set up and okay to go to R6EW Solo?
              B. Pc needs further set-up and repair before Solo?
              The above is a checklist used by Solo Course Case Supervisors. (It is NOT the
              program sequence by which the case is handled. This is given in the Grade Chart.) These
              are the points checked.
              Once onto Solo, whether these points are in or not, that’s it, HANDS OFF.
              Once on Solo the pc is into the Non Interference Area. He may not have Dianetics
              or Grades. He may only have the lists and repairs given to Solo Auditors.
              Of all these actions a full thorough drug-medicine-alcohol rundown is the most
              important. People who have been on heavy drugs, pot, etc or who have been alcoholics
              get things turned on in their banks and sometimes become terrified of them and will not
              Solo. They are unable to confront their pictures.
              The remedy is to have a thorough drug-alcohol-medicine rundown.
              The ONLY people who can’t Solo are these poor devils who got onto these
              psychiatric type drugs.
              These can be handled by a competent drug rundown.
              The ideal program appears on the Grade Chart, displayed in most orgs and often
              sent out.
              The chart has many symbols on it. A full glossary of these symbols and terms exists
              in HCO B 20 Aug 71, Issue II, “Classification and Gradation Chart, Abbreviations
              Explained”, which should be posted alongside the chart.
              A fast summary of the steps would be
              C/S 54 (handling illnesses, accidents, injuries)
              Dianetics
              ARC Straightwire
              OBJECTIVE Processes
              Grades 0-IV
              POWER
              POWER PLUS.
              21
              Into this program can be placed the engram handling GF40RR for resistive cases,
              past practices, etc.
              A Drug Rundown would occur in the area of Dianetics.
              An Interiorization-Exteriorization Rundown would be given after the pc
              exteriorized. This usually occurs early on in processing and has to be handled.
              A C/S 53 (for TA misbehavior) could be given anywhere.
              The actual program run on the pc varies according to what the Case Supervisor
              requires, but it follows the Grade Chart.
              TEST
              The Oxford Capacity Analysis (OCA) or the American Personality Analysis (APA)
              is a graph which shows desirable and undesirable characteristics in a case.
              The points on the graph are moved up by processing. And Dianetics and
              Scientology processes below R6EW are very capable of moving these points into desirable
              range.
              Above R6EW, the first Solo step, the graph can change but the person is moving out
              of the normal range of humanity and the Solo grades are not designed to change a
              human test graph and in fact these tests do not measure the OT band of abilities.
              The test graph should be in normal range before Solo is begun.
              Auditing below Solo is quite capable of handling the graph points and bringing
              them up to desirable range.
              SOLO PROGRAM
              The Ideal Solo Program is as follows:
              1. Set-up done and all items on the checklist okay.
              2. Good training as a Solo Auditor. Can include the Professional Route of Class
              VI. Or the Social Counselor Course plus Solo. Or (at this time) the Solo
              Course only. One Solo Audits as well as he is trained and no better.
              3. R6EW Solo Auditing to End Phenomena and attest.
              4. Clearing Course Solo to CLEAR.
              5. Operating Thetan I to attest.
              6. Operating Thetan II to attest.
              7. Operating Thetan III to attest.
              8. Operating Thetan VII (audited by an auditor level) to attest.
              9. OT III Expanded to attest.
              10. OT IV.
              11. OTV.
              12. OT VI.
              13. OT VIII as released.
              After 7 above (OT III) or after 9 above (OT III Expanded) one can run more
              Dianetics, Expanded Grades, GF40, the famous L10 or do any other case action. One
              cannot profitably do these actions between Solo R6 and OT III. That’s just the way the
              bank is.
              22
              You will note that “OT VII” is apparently out of sequence. It originally went OT III,
              OT IV, OT V, OT VI, OT VII. Then it was found that there was a level OT III Expanded.
              So it can go OT III, OT VII, OT IIIX, OT IV, OT V, OT VI or it can go OT III, OT IV,
              OT V, OT VI, OT VII, OT IIIX. One gets the most out of it by taking VII after OT III and
              then OT IV, OT V and OT VI really bite. Many persons were too nervous of OT III to do
              it well until a drug rundown and OT VII were done. Others thought OT III was endless
              and OT VII handled that.
              The actual materials of these levels are held under tight security at Advanced Orgs
              because when they are shown to persons who haven’t moved up the grades, they usually
              cave in. Thus the materials are only available in Advanced Orgs.
              AVAILABILITY
              Auditing at levels below Power is available from field auditors, Franchises and
              Scientology Orgs.
              Power is available at Saint Hill Orgs in LA, Saint Hill UK, and Denmark.
              All Solo levels are only available at Advanced Organizations.
              A person goes from Field Auditor to Franchise to Scientology Org to a Saint Hill
              Org to an Advanced Org to obtain auditing of the whole Grade Chart.
              Going from Clear back to lower grades—or from an Advanced Org back to a
              Franchise within the No Interference band—is liable to upset his case as it is being run out
              of sequence. He could go to a Franchise or a Scientology Org after OT III for Dianetics,
              Drug Rundown or other actions but not between R6 and OT III.
              Processing and the mind is a technical subject. In Dianetics and Scientology, the
              answers have been found.
              Like all technical material, you can’t apply it poorly or backwards and expect
              results.
              I try-and very successfully in most cases—to hold the lines straight and keep the
              materials purely and workably applied.
              In the past year alone, fantastic tech advances have been made and are available in
              terms of refined application within the existing framework of the Grade Chart.
              But the fundamentals do not change, the progress of the person up the Grade Chart
              must be regular and on course. Otherwise he will not receive full benefits.
              It is my job to do all I can to make sure that full benefit is received. This is not
              always easy to do on a rather aberrated planet. But if it weren’t so aberrated we wouldn’t
              be here doing something about it. Right?
              L. RON HUBBARD
              Founder
              LRH:ne.rd
              Copyright © 1972
              by L. Ron Hubbard
              ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
              (end of Fair use)

              Of course there has been some changes with the advent of Dn Clear and not running lower level Dns on Clears and above but the basics remain the same.

              This is covered in C/S Series 2.

              So basically all Bill and his trusty friend Padro were doing was *reinventing the wheel*.

              • Thanks for posting this RJ, it is a step in the right direction. Those are pretty much the Grade Chart steps as I was shown them back in the early 1970s.

                However, I still have some confusions. “Upstream” of these posts, CD posted a link to a Grade Chart which I think is a later Grade Chart, and to me there is something omitted on it – I think. It is not completely correlating for me with the HCOB you posted from 1972. Here’s that link:

                Part of what I am not understanding is how OTVII fits in, and what is with the “New” OTIV, “New”OTV, “New”OTVI, and “New”OTVII that are on the Grade Chart CD posted? I don’t see “Ability to project intention” there for OTVII, for example.

                I do not have any clear idea at all of the time track involved in the evolution of the grade Chart. I am guessing I am not the only one who was “lost” along the way, either.

                How many Grade Charts have been published? Which one of the published ones, if any, are definitive? When were they published and who compiled them?

                To me this seems like a big murky area, along with other areas of the late 1970s and 1980s time track.

                No wonder there is so much debate and confusion about “What is standard tech”, in terms of the Grade Chart. How many people actually have a clear idea of what the standard Grade Chart IS.

                And it still leaves unanswered questions about CBR and what happened there. Why did he “reinvent the wheel” of the very upper levels, if the entire Bridge was available to him? He was Class VIII I’m pretty sure. Had he not kept up on latest developments from LRH? Did he not have the data?

                There’s a lot of sorting out that needs to be done, about the 1980s, is my feeling.

                • Valkov,

                  Actually if you align NOTs up to the Grade Chart in the above issue and C/S series 91 ‘The New Grade’ plus what Ron says in RJ 30 you’ll find that NOTs (audited and solo) can be done after OT IIIX and before OT IV just like it says in RJ 30.

                  Also like OT IIIX it can be done after original OT VII.

                  This would probably be left to the C/S discretion.

                  Something there isn’t really too much left of in the Church of Squirrelotology with its “one size fits all” programming these days.

                  You know:

                  Everybody does basics, everybody does Golden Age of Tech, everybody gets run endlessly on objectives etc ad nauseam.

                  All Simple Simon idiocy.

                  For instance according to the HCOB ‘Expanded Grades’ not all PCs require Expanded Grades prior to the Advanced Courses as you can see they can be done at practically any point on the Grade Chart.

                  HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
                  Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
                  HCO BULLETIN OF 5 APRIL 1977
                  Remimeo
                  EXPANDED GRADES
                  Expanded Grades can be done:
                  – After Drug RD
                  – After Full Dn RD
                  – After Quad Grades
                  – After Expanded Dn
                  – After Power (but before Solo or Clear or OT I to III and not during these)
                  – After OT III
                  – After OT IV
                  – After OT V
                  – After OT VI
                  – After OT VII
                  In other words they can be done after any full completion of any one of the above.
                  A typical and IDEAL program for a pc would be:
                  – Sub Grade Handling
                  – Drug Rundown
                  – Full Dianetics RD
                  – Quad Grades
                  – Expanded Dn
                  – Expanded Grades
                  – Power
                  – R6EW
                  – Clear
                  – OT I
                  – OT II
                  – OT III
                  – OT III X
                  – OT IV
                  – OT V
                  – OT VI
                  – OT VII.
                  However, due to bit and piece auditing done on some pcs Expanded Grades is
                  sometimes entered at other points.
                  Quad Grades (or even Single Grades for that matter) never should have been
                  abandoned and are restored.
                  Expanded Grades is NOT a requisite for Power but Quad Grades are.
                  Pcs flubbily can be programmed backwards like Expanded Grades, Drug RD,
                  Expanded Dn—etc. etc. But it is far from ideal.
                  L. RON HUBBARD
                  Founder
                  LRH:dg.nt
                  Copyright © 1977
                  by L. Ron Hubbard
                  ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

                  Yet orgs robotically run them after ARCSW or HRD which isn’t even a Grade Chart action yet some idiot stuck it on the Grade Chart.

                  As far as dear Ol’ Cap’n Bill is concerned.

                  He hadn’t been on Tech Lines for quite some time.

                  So he was an VIII.

                  Mayo was a XII when he went kinda funny.

                  Like any other auditor or C/S they need their cramming ,their occasional mis us found and their False Data stripped.

                  And someone like Jimbo asking them “What situation they ran into that they felt like they had to invent something about it.” or they go strange.

                  That’s why there is a Qual Div.

                  To handle these guys before they go Loony Tunes and “th…a..tha..that’s all folks”.

                  • Thanks again RJ.

                    At this point my feeling is, “Boy, there’s a lot of tech and I hope that there are some people who really do understand how to use it and C/S it properly from top to bottom.”

                    Since I am not up to those levels, I think I have said all I can say on the subject, and go on trust from here on. That’s why I am trying to get at least an academic understanding of the actual layout of a true Grade Chart.

                    What I have gotten out of this so far is that NOTs is not actually on the Grade Chart but some rundowns that are parallel to the Grade Chart like the Ls are, and are C/Sed individually as needed?

                    They are not OTVII as I understand OTVII and did not even exist in 1972.
                    It appears that NOTs somehow “bumped” the original OTVII on later Grade Charts, right? Or does NOTs actually replace some of the earlier OT levels?

                    Well, I’m not up to those levels so I guess I’ll let it rest for now. I think I have made my general POV pretty clear, as well as some of the things I am confused about.
                    Hopefully eventually I will come across data that will help the confusion blow off.

                    I am just trying to get an accurate overview of what the standard Bridge actually looks like today.

                    • You’re welcome Valkov,

                      Actually NOTs is a prerec for OT VIII.

                      Therefore it is part of the Grade Chart though there is nothing I have read that was ever issued by the Ol’man that says NOTs cancels or replaces any earlier OT Levels.

              • OK RJ, I have a question about this, where you reference a previous post of mine. This is not to argue, but entirely for my own clarity about things. You quoted me in this quote from your post above:
                RJ writes:
                “As you(Valkov) wrote he(CBR) and “Ulrich Kramer, began to research how it was that NOTs (OT 7) seemed to be such an “endless” level, sometimes running to many thousands of hours without a stable EP.”

                There are various technical reason for someone running “endlessly” on NOTs that is already covered in the materials so why “research” this point and invent something “new” which doesn’t work at all or only works on a few?

                This is *exactly* what squirrels do.

                Instead of standardly apply the tech they invent some *unusual solution*…….”

                OK, I get this about what ‘squirrels’ do. My question is what were the circumstances, when CBR left and went off to Europe, in what – 1982?

                It’s easy enough for us to look back from 2011, almost 30 years later, and say “He squirreled”. But what was the scene then?

                Was there a ‘Class IX’ course or the equivalent? Was NOTs tech standardized as to workability? How well-known was it, in 1982?

                Apparently there were some problems with that tech, as it seems for many people it was endless, and was that being corrected? Why or why not?

                (I get the feeling it’s going to take a lot application of the ‘multiple viewpoint system’ to the 1980s, to get that decade’s track straightened out!)

                • Not to get into any confidential material.

                  NOTs was the rundown to designed handle what can’t be handled by OT III or IIIX which is why it is called the “second wall of fire”.

                  In my opinion from a technical viewpoint probably the most optimal route would probably be OT III, Original VII audited, IIIX , the OT DRD or NOTs DRD, the full NOTs RD now known as “New” OT V then Solo NOTs.

                  Personally I think what hangs many Pre OT up on NOTs is that they don’t fully do OT III and IIIX.

                  Nor do they have their intention rehabilitated by Original OT VII which would definitely help in the running of NOTs.

                  Since it has helped many Pre OTs who had difficulty in getting the full EP of OT III.

                  Back in the day there where Pre OTs who ran endlessly on III before VII was added to the line up who were called “Lifers” since they complained of being on the level “forever” which was the opposite of what were called “false IIIs” those who never actually ran the level.

                  VII to a large degree handled both types and probably could handle those who run forever on NOTs

                  Most of this data was known back in the early 80’s.

                  So there is no reason that Cap’n Bill wouldn’t have known it back then.

                  How do I know this.

                  Because all the HCOBs and written instructions relevant to these rundowns where issued before the end of 1979.

                  The only change that allowed Pre OTs to audit NOTs solo was the introduction of the Mark VI E-meter.

                  So instead of doing the usual he and someone else (who I can’t remember) *invented* Excalibur which is a gross alteration of OT III that attempts to handle aspects of the case that could best be handled by standard OT III OT IIIX and NOTs which is already covered in those technical materials relating to *those* levels.

                  So I understand you wanting to cut good Ol’ Cap’n Bill some slack here but there is really no slack here to cut.

                  He should have known better

  55. Marty,

    I think the key word here is *ex* as in as in formerly was but is now no longer a part of which is the reason I never joined the *ex* Scienologist Message Board.

    Personally I’ve always considered myself a Scientologist as in the basic definition of one who is improving conditions or one who is knowing how to know.

    Although I am no longer a member of the Tax Exempt Government Approved cult of personality.

    I still consider myself a Scientologist and not an apostate which is mostly who inhabit Emma’s board over there including the biggest apostate of all who sought to hijack the subject who according to rumor is now posting over there.

    Not to mention the little lunatic who actually succeeded in doing so under the color of law.

    Both false messiahs as far as I’m concerned.

    As far as I am concerned both them and their supporters can all go to hell.

    They deserve each other.

    Sorry for the outburst Marty but as Sargio says I just got *sudden*.
    🙂

  56. RJ
    “But because they *are* squirrels by the definition of the word ……..
    Mayo by mixing Major RD actions with repair actions.”

    Don’t know the tech details of this. However cramming is the correct
    action not a running program he was told he would never leave alive.

    Very quickly Their were 30 plus groups aligned with David once
    he decided to carry on delivering tech. Perhaps the only example ever of ” Unprecedented expansion”.

    Karen has listed some of his other plus points.

    • Terril,

      I’m not saying that DM1 didn’t have plus points or that he wasn’t mishandled by the coup.

      I’m only saying that because he alters technical procedure he is by definition a squirrel just like DM2.

      The difference is that at least DM1 and most squirrels are more honest than DM2 who still calls it “Scientology”.

      • Well RJ you’ve cleared a lot of it up for me.

        I can now identify my reservation about lumping Mayo or Robertson in with out beloved D(emonic)M(idget) – they are simply a different breed of cat from him. Mayo and Cap’n Bill may have ‘squirreled’ at some point, but the difference is in their intentions. I don’t know much about Mayo, and not that much about CBR, but I doubt that either of them fundamentally hated LRH or Scientology as DM appears to hate LRH and Scientology.

        As LRH himself said, when a person’s action produces a bad result, you have to look at his intention. I do not think CBR had any evil or destructive intent in creating the Ron’sOrgs and Excalibur etc levels, and I doubt Mayo had any either, in creating the Advanced Ability Centers.

        Now, I don’t know what DM’s actual basic motivation, back in the day. Maybe he believed he was doing what LRH would have wanted himto do. But it seems more likely, based on the circumstantial evidence, that he was an SP from the beginning.

        So that is the basis for my objection to lumping CBR and Mayo in with DM. They do not belong in the same category with him, no matter they ‘altered’ some of the tech or whatever.

        There is a big difference between being a social personality of good intentions but having an MU or a “not understood” or “missing data” which results in’squirreling’, and being an SP of destructive intentions who alters tech in order to harm and destroy the subject and the people it was intended to help.

        So if CBR and Mayo are to be classified as ‘squirrels’, then some other classification needs to be applied to DM because he is in no way a ‘squirrel’ in the same sense they may be understood as such. It creates a false impression and does them a real disservice to be lumped in with him.
        It is the commission of the omission of a very important distinction to tar them with the same brush. At bottom they are not similar.

        • Yeah I know what ya mean V,

          And besides Squirrels are cute😉

          • RJ, I don’t think you do know what I mean.

            • I most definitely know what you mean.

              The point is that “squirrel” means a certain thing and is defined a certain way in Scientology.

              Precisely it is someone who alters standard technology or procedure.

              DM1, DM2 and Cap’n Bill all therefore qualify as squirrels solely by that definition.

              DM1 altered standard procedure by mixing major RDs with repair actions.

              This is so obviously *squirrel* to anyone who has studied the C/S Series.

              Cap’n Bill decided that NOTs wasn’t good enough so he created his own version of OT III and called it Excalibur.

              Miscavige with the help of RTRC altered tech in other words squirreled the tech by introducing “The Golden Age of Tech” which are so called “drills” that are supposedly “exclusively” based on the HCOBs (which is the source of what we call *Standard Tech*) but are not and include such additives as running justifications as part of *rudiment procedure* thus directly violating the HCOBs known as ‘Standard Tech Data’ and ‘Class VIII’ The Basic Processes’ plus various HCOBs going back to the early ’60’s on flying ruds.

              To sum it up:

              You never run a process in rudiments.

              Also if a rud doesn’t fly after putting in Suppress or False per the HCOBs ‘Flying Ruds’ and ‘Rudiments Definition and Patter’ you don’t diddle around putting in left and right hand buttons and chasing down dirty needles you *assess a freaking Green Form* just like it says in C/S Series 1 ‘Auditors Rights’ and if you are not qualified to assess one then you turn it over to an auditor who can.

              Just as the auditor would do if int read on a RL or CL and they didn’t have the technical skill to handle it.

              Simple!

              Yet with these additives and alterations to rudiments RTC with the help of RTRC have turned flying ruds into some kind of torturous ordeal!

              This is squirreling in its most *basic* definition.

              Because this puts the PC on the endless wheel of endless rudiments like those in a squirrel cage.

              So what ever else Miscavige is.

              He is first and foremost a *Squirrel*.

              He may not have personally altered the technology himself but he had others do it for him on his behalf based on his won idiotic “eval” that only a moron could have written!

              I read the damn thing myself and the only suitable application for it would be for use as toilet paper in Orgs that don’t have any.

              (remember the old joke?

              “What’s the difference between a mission and an org?

              “Missions actually have toilet paper in their rest rooms!”)

              This is only one of the many curves in these so called drills which don’t totally jibe with the actual tech under the False Flag of quote preserving the purity of the technology unquote which is supposedly RTC’s job.

              Instead of preserving it he is altering it under guise of preserving it.

              An act of *Treason*.

              So the difference between Miscavige and other squirrels as in those who alter the technology who are more likely in doubt about its workability.

              Is that he pretends he is preserving or protecting it while in fact *squirreling* it!

              However this doesn’t change the fact that like good ol’ Cap’n Bill and David Mayo *he is still a squirrel*.

              Suffice it to say that

              • Thanks RJ, for the additional details. They are valuable because I am not technically trained, so it helps me understand where you are coming from.

                The reason I said I didn’t think you did understand where I am coming from:

                I do understand that all of those guys have altered the Tech in some way or ways, but I think they have done so in very different ways and under very different circumstances. I think simply lumping them all together as ‘squirrels’ is too indiscriminate, and may represent insufficient justice to 2 of the 3. (If we believe that DM is an SP who hates or fears beings and LRH, and wants to obliterate the Tech, andthe other 2 do not fall into that class. Which I tend to think, on my limited knowledge, that they do not.)

                I am seeing this in terms of adjudication. Here’s a legal analogy: Let’s say DM has premeditatedly killed a man. First degree murder, right?

                Can the other two be charged or convicted of a similar crime? I think not.

                If they killed anyone, then perhaps another degree of murder could apply, like 2nd degree murder.

                But in fact I think it might be an even lesser degree of crime – perhaps manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter could apply. Those are a far cry from 1st degree murder.

                As it happens, if DM is seen as a a first degree murderer, I am not sure either Mayo or CBR could be judged to have committed the same degree of crime,or even the same category of crime. More likely they could be found guilty of some lesser crime than DM, and it is possible that extenuating circumstances existed.

                I would suggest there are degrees of squirreling, and DM is in a class by himself. So technically it maybe correct to classify all three of them as ‘squirrels’, that tends towards classifying anyone who disagrees with the government as an ‘enemy of the state’. Not quite that bad, but it just doesn’t fit with my sense of nuanced justice. Call me theetie-wheetie I guess, but it smacks of lumping someone who smokes some weed and shares it friends in with with a major drug dealer, or a driver who accidentally injures a bicyclist on a dark road, with a cold-blooded hired murderer.

                Yes, perhaps all are ‘criminals’, but not the same class of ‘criminal’.

                I wasn’t there,I don’t know why CBR or Mayo squirreled and what went through their minds, but I doubt it was much like what has been inferentially postulated as DM’s motives.

                You mention”CBR decided NOTs wasn’t good enough.” Perhaps. Perhaps he didn’t understand NOTs and that led to his squirreling. His intent was to have a complete Bridge, and for whatever reason, he thought he didn’t have one. He certainly doesn’t seem to be alone in that belief to this day. So that baton was dropped long ago, somewhere along the way. That’s hardly in the same class as a desire to destroy Scientology, which we are postulating is you-know-who’s motive.

                So I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that CBR and Mayo squirreled. For reasons we probably don’t know much about.

                And I am glad there are people like yourself and Marty, Jim Logan and many others I hope, who have a clear and consistent grasp of how Scientology tech is supposed to work and how it needs to be applied.

                But I draw a distinction between ‘squirrels’ like CBR and perhaps Mayo, and DM, and I feel my distinction is valid.

                That’s what I felt you did not understand about my previous post.

                • Valkov,

                  I agree there is a difference between DM2 and Bill or DM2.

                  Since I don’t believe that either of them were actually suppressive.

                  Yet David Miscavige is.

                  The fact is that not all squirrels are suppressive but all suppressives if they ever all involved on tech lines tend to squirrel because they are trying to handle a present time problem of long duration.

                  I guess we could get mawkishly politically correct and call the ones who aren’t SP something else but personally I think it is just Q&A.

                  Personally I never considered squirrels to be criminals.

                  Just someone who may have a few mis us probably a crashing one, probably false data and definitely an earlier practice in the road.

                  All that can be handled with some good ol’ word clearing some false data stripping and Remedy A&B.

                  Whereas a suppressive squirrel like Miscavige could only be handled with something like power processing if you could get the lil’ rabid rodent in an auditing chair and you had an auditor who could deliver it *standardly*.

                  Definitely ExDn particularly what is known as right side handling which includes culling all R/S and finding the Ev Purps behind them.

                  Funny how the lil’ guy has undeclared so many actual clears and declared clears that weren’t.

                  He’s probably dramatizing his own false attest to the level.

  57. Awesome! Its in fact amazing post, I have got much cleear
    idea regarding from this post.

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