Life After Death And The Scientology Axioms

L Ron Hubbard wrote the following in 1954:

The Axioms

Axiom One: Life is basically a static. (Definition: A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time.  It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.)

Definition: In Scientology, the word ‘postulate’ means to cause a thinkingness or consideration. It is a specially applied word and is defined as causative thinkingness.

Axiom Two: The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.

Axiom Three: Space, energy, objects, form and time are the results of considerations made and/or agreed upon or not by the static, and are perceived solely because the static considers that it can perceive them.

Axiom Four: Space is a viewpoint of dimension. (Space is caused by looking out from a point. The only actuality of space is the agreed-upon consideration that one perceives through something and this we call space.)

Axiom Five: Energy consists of postulated particles in space. (One considers that energy exists and that he can perceive energy.  One also considers that energy behaves according to certain agreed-upon laws.  These assumptions and considerations are the totality of energy.)

Axiom Six:  Objects consist of grouped particles and solids.

Axiom Seven: Time is basically a postulate that space and particles will persist. (The rate of their persistence is what we measure with clocks and the motion of heavenly bodies.)

Axiom 8:  The apparency of time is the change of position of particles in space.

Axiom 9:  Change is the primary manifestation of time.

Axiom 10: The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect. 

Robert Lanza wrote the following in 2011:

Does the Soul Exist?  Evidence Says Yes

and

 Is Death An Illusion?  Evidence Suggests Death Isn’t The End.

Both of these articles were published in Psychology Today.

Is it not a travesty that corporate Scientologists would be burned at the stake (figuratively) if they were to dare to even take a peek at such a magazine?  Is it not a travesty that Scientology Inc is busy using the billions you have donated to them to stage public demonstrations of their flat earth mentality while science catches up with L Ron Hubbard?

Thank God for independence in religion, science and other vehicles of truth-seeking.

Transcend or descend.

242 responses to “Life After Death And The Scientology Axioms

  1. In the early 2000’s, my then husband was no longer making any attempt to put up appearances of marching to the tune of the church. I had just completed OT 4 and was very much in step, taking courses, going to events, etc. You can imagine the rift that developed and we eventually seperated. I remember once coming in to visit him and found he’d been reading a book by Jung. I was aghast to think here was a guy who had sailed and worked next to LRH and he was reading Jung! “You must be a plant!” was my accusation. I have since left the church and much to my relief, find there is nothing wrong with being curious about and investigating all manner of Man’s beliefs, writings and teachings. Explore for yourself and make up your own mind! What a concept.

    • “The goal of Scientology is the making of the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows and the playing of a better game”
      The Fundamentals of Thought – L. Ron Hubbard

      Note—–it does not say Church of Scientology, just Scientology.

      • oh, I’m sorry, when the next basic’s releases occur in 5 years, DM will change that quote to:
        The goal of “THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY” is the making of the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows and the playing of a better game”

        • and he will copyright it.

        • “in his own estimation” is a stellar part of that quote!

        • No, it’ll be changed to “The goal of “THE SCIENTOLOGY RELIGION” is to make the individual capable of living a better life according to the group and his other dynamics, and the playing of a more ‘ethical’ and better controlled game.”

  2. I heartily agree with your statement: “Thank God for independence in religion, science and other vehicles of truth-seeking.”

    Like it or not, we all have to make up our own minds as to the truth or we are the unwitting victims of our inability to look and decide.

    Keep up your good work.

    David St Lawrence

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks David. You too.

    • You Know Who

      ‘Thank God for independence in religion, science and other vehicles of truth-seeking. Like it or not, we all have to make up our own minds as to the truth or we are the unwitting victims of our inability to look and decide.’

      Please allow me the ‘poetic’ license to marry these two pithy observations. They could have come from the same pen.

      These observations, from two mighty thetans, have in common the critical foundational assumption that no BELIEF system — meaning a system or set of doctrines or words which MUST be believed, without examination, without understanding, without comprehension — is consistent with the freedoms, abilities and personal integrity which scientology was intended to resurrect in the individual.

      Scientology is not, never has been and (if not perverted) never will become a set of “beliefs”. It is not, in that conventional sense, a “religion” handed down from on high by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being with unfailing recitude, unerring judgment and unfailing kindness and mercy. Scientology, in LRH’s own words is an “applied religious technology”. Scientology offers procedures which when employed faithfully and with an intention to help, will rehabilitate a state of control over one’s native knowledge, abilities and talents which ‘escaped’ one over the ages.

      Scientology is not something to “believe”. LRH is not someone to “worship”. And, certainly no “Church of Scientology” has any valid claim to “own” scientololgy, since, in fact, scientology is, in the end, merely one extremely bright man’s transcription of truths re-covered.

      We would do well, however, not to ignore this man’s efforts, his writings, his lectures, his original intention to help. We would do well to seek to understand HIS works, and utterly ignore anything and everything which issues from any “Church of Scientology” or “Religious Technology Center” or “Internal Justice Chief”. These are but bastardized and intentional perversions of the good which emanates from a faithful application of scientology to life.

      Make no mistake, the “faithful” application of scientology to life does not call for a slavish, unthinking, un-comprehending and robotic application of LRH’s works. THAT, in fact, is EXACTLY what allowed David Miscavige and his minions to do their damage. The “faithful” application of scientology to life starts, and ends, with just this: Make it your own. Do not rely on others to tell you what it means. Do not join a group, or enter into any agreement, however subtle, which calls for you to sacrifice your absolute right to consider and determine its applicability to life. Do not think that you can, for an instant, set aside your own personal integrity, put aside your own point of view, submerge your own doubts in the name of some “membership” in some group, and yet, still, come out the other side.

      It may come as a surpise to some that I have never considered myself a “member” of the “Church of Scientology”, or indeed even a “member” of some un-defined group called “Scientologists”. I am a seeker of truth. I am someone who wants to see things for how they are. I disdain labels and the mis-understandings and perversions that labels visit upon one’s personal point of view. In fact, I think that most labels, including the label of “Scientologist” do more harm than good … allowing the lazy and unmotivated to think they have gained some stature when they have not, when they are only engaging in a kind of synchophantic celebration of “sameness”, when what they should be learning is how to discover and once again be DIFFERENT.

      I have always … at least for the last 15 years or so … have considered myself a member of the “public”. Someone who contracted with various “Church of Scientology” organizations to provide me with specific services for the money I paid. I never joined any “Church”. I never became a member of any “religion”. I expected, in exchange for my money, to get the same skillful application of original LRH works to my situation, as a Toyota Mechanic applies standard Toyota technology, combined with his learned knowledge of mechanics, to the repair and maintenance of my car. I no more expected, or agreed, that the “Church of Scientology” could apply LRH’s works any way it liked, than I agree that my Toyota mechanic can employ the GM repair manual when servicing my car. I had a definite and well-defined contract with these organizations to deliver to me unadulterated, unperverted, effective LRH technology, and they all, and each of them, breached their contracts with me. This was not, and is not, a “religous” matter. This is simply a commercial matter in which I bought a specific product, but what was delivered was filled with ‘held-down 7’s’ and did more harm than good.

      The “Church of Scientology” cannot hide behind the “1st Amendment”, behind any purported “separation of Church and State” in defending against claims that they have not delivered what they promised, any more than McDonald’s take your money, give you nothing to eat, and then say that what you really did was donate money to the “Ronald McDonald Religious Trust” and can only have recourse to the “internal” policies of the McDonald’s Corporation, and, since, however, you have now purchased food at Arbys, you are deemed to be a “Suppressive Burger Shopper” and forfeit your money and your rights to eat meals with your family for ever.

      Do not let the “Church of Scientology” trick you into agreeing that you are, or ever were, a “member” of any “Church”. What you were, if you were like me, was someone who wanted a particular result, paid for it, and didn’t get it. You didn’t sign up to become an adherent to a specific “belief system”. …. You’d sue Toyota for fraud if they took your money and gave you a Yugo. If you donated money to Meals On Wheels, only to find that the executives were spending the money on Egyptian Cotton Shirts and motorcycles for their friends, you’d sue them for fraud. Promising LRH and delivering something else is no less fraud, and no less a breach of a civil contract.

      You are a consumer. You have a right to have what you bought delivered to you, or else, to have your money returned. Do not persist in “believing” that you are a “member” of a group who’s purpose is solely to defraud you, cheat you and deprive you of the freedom and regained abilities which LRH offered.

      Think for yourself.

      And, be well.

    • I do, too, David. But I wholeheartedly disagree with the statement and/or insinuation at the tag end of the previous paragraph which implies science has to catch up with L Ron Hubbard. This is comparable to what Muslims say about Mohamed and the Quran. Such closed-minded dogma leads to or is the antithesis of scientific exploration & discovery. It is what LRH set in place when he wrote his “Keeping Scientology Working” policy letter: No further research was needed in the realm of the human spirit and/or the mind. As Hubbard put it:

      “WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRUE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT.

      For example, Hubbard states in the Tech dictionary not to go looking for 4th or 5th dimensions, etc., when the more modern scientific theories or trend indicate there might be something on the order of 11 dimensions.

      • martyrathbun09

        Clearly you’ve never exteriorized and viewed what he viewed, and those who have exteriorized continue to view. It is all there to behold.

  3. Ahem, I have some practical experience in this area but am by no means an expert. Based on the Axioms by LRH and my experience, there’s not not a doubt in my mind about the truth of the matter.

    “Thank God for independence in religion, science and other vehicles of truth-seeking.” Absolutely yes.

    “Transcend or descend.” Transcend — no doubt about it! Rachel

  4. Tony Dephillips

    One of the things that bugs me the most about Miscaviage is that he is like a spoiled kid who selfishly won’t share his toys.
    I think that there is a lot of good in the philosophy of Scientology and that it could help the planet become more civilized if used correctly.
    The fact that dm first of all will not allow the tech to really flow freely because of his need for a monopoly has defeated LRH’s purpose. Secondly, those left in the cult that are “ok” to use the tech are getting a sabotaged version.
    It is obvious to me that dm’s true purpose is to destroy the possible attainment of LRH’s goals to bring peace on Earth.

    • It’s not so obvious to me that DM’s primary intent is to hinder LRH’s goals. If he is really ravenous for money, power and admiration he would act the same way – and would have to “frighten away” anyone who might become dangerous to his throne. That’s what every leading lion will do to his pack, to remain the boss.

      Anyway, the final results would be equally disastrous for those who want to use the Tech for the greatest good.

      • Tony Dephillips

        Ok, maybe it’snot his primary intent. Possibly his secondary, but I think he has to be aware that he is damaging the tech and that he is not letting the tech flow freely. When I was young, I looked at a lot of different religions and philosophies and didn’t see that they were going to handle the situation. When I found Scientology I thought it really had a chance. I thought that I had become part of a large movement that could handle the aberrations of the planet and really make a better world. When I found out what was really going on it sort of dashed those dreams. Maybe the Indie movement will become what I thought Scientology was when I was in the “church”. They are currently just seedlings and with water and sun and care could blossum into something great. I really do resent dm for wasting such a golden moment in history.

      • “While the State exists, there can be no freedom.
        When there is freedom there will be no State.”

        -Vladimir Lenin, Russian communist politician and revolutionary.

  5. Science really is catching up with Ron. It amuses me every so often how the “health food” community or “science” or whoever promotes a new idea or new study or new information… that Ron had back in the days of researching the Purif! I was reading SOS and came across a mention of the thyroid system, something near and dear to my wife who has been researching it because we have a baby girl with Downs syndrom. (*insert co$ declaration of how I pulled that in for being declared. well, screw you co$, that girl is a blessing, happy as can be and didn’t “pull in” a damn thing, any of us! we were one of the lucky ones!*) Anyways…

    So the wife was researching on thyroid, and I read to her what Ron said. BDFN VGIs! HUGELY indicated to her. Validated everything she had been reading and conclusions she was reaching. Then I told her the book was written in 1952. Stunned, she came to the conclusion many others have: big pharma and AMA and others are intentionally circumventing cures and remadies in order to treat symptoms for the sake of profit.

    It explains why Big Brother is currently, actively trying to censor the internet, regulate vitamins and holistic medicince, organically grown products, local farmers markets (don’t believe me? google it.) Processed foods are as much poison as they are food.

    SO… Science is catching up with Ron? Yes it is. It’s almost catching up with OT material infromation, at least it’s accepting the possiblity. And the more truth that comes out, the louder the Darwin types scream. But even the leading athiest in the world, when confront by the Dahli Lama had to concede that God may exist and there might be something greater than all “this.”

    • martyrathbun09

      Bless you Bozz, and your wife and your wonderful daughter.

    • Your daughter can be lucky to have such caring parents🙂

    • Dear Bozz,

      Many years ago – after scientology – I was involved with a group who followed Toltec teachings – Castaneda – Don Juan stuff. The leader of this group, when speaking to a couple who had one down’s syndrome child said the following:

      That these children are extremely special because they knowingly “forfeit” a
      “normal” life so that can BE the gift to their siblings and parents for their parents to LEARN what is their task to learn this lifetime. (patience, humility etc etc )

      That is paraphrased but I never again looked on ANY child or person with a learning difference or disability in the same light. I always wondered what it is for ME to learn – what gift are they bringing to me.

      Love,
      WH

      • Thanks all! Thanks for that, WH.🙂
        I think all children are a gift and a miracle. Try our patience, though they might, they are totally worth it. My wife and I joined a group locally that gives special needs kids Parents… a night off. They recently started a class to teach parents how to help New parents with special needs kids all the in’s and out’s and help walk them through the emotional roller-coaster that tends to come wtih the news. My wife is really looking forward to taking the class. Personally, I think I got all I ever needed from the Pro-TRs course: Be there comfortablly, Grant beingness. I’m good to go.😉

        I told a friend of mine one time,”You know what Norah’s speacial need is? A High-Five. Can you High-Five that little girl? Good! You’re her new best friend. You can hang with us. Can you not? Then she doesn’t need you and she’ll happilly move along. Be her friend, High-five, smile and laugh and maybe blow her a “sugar” … and she’s just fine! Otherwise, look out, because she WILL move you over.”😉

        • Bozz,
          You might enjoy this article by famed columnist, George Will. It was published last week and titled “A life well-lived, given the chance”.
          http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/149923645.html

        • Hi Bozz – I have had some work experience with special needs and disabled children and their parents. I noticed that the parents are so often truly amazing – and then I had a thought (because of a particular circumstance) that, if a being knows he or shee is coming into a new life with a challenge to be met, especially in childhood, then that being choses great parents. I don’t have any proof of that – but I think of the parents of these kids as ‘the chosen ones”

    • Awesome. I’ve been promoting http://www.idscforlife.org/ on Facebook and following a few blogs I connected to there. It’s such a no-sympathy wrong indication for a “church” member to say such bull as you pulled it in. Clueless is what they are, totally clueless. I hate to always say this but even my kids know better than that! Truth.

  6. Another excellent post Marty. While reading the axioms I see some of the appear to agree with current thinking, where light is a perception of a type of energy hitting the retina for instance. It is not lost on me that Hubbard was thinking these things in 1953.

    If there is one thing that is evident is LRH was well read on many subjects, even I expect those he didn’t agree with. I also reckon his ideas would have continued to change and evolve as he refined them had he still been alive.

    I wonder what he would have done with string theory that says there are something like 12 dimensions and a multiverse of universes…

    • martyrathbun09

      Dean,
      Interesting note. Hubbard lectured in 1952 about how “particle” was a word used for convenience of understanding but that matter acted as both wave and particle which was a tad complex for enumerating succinct axioms. He claimed he flunked nuclear physics at George Washington University because he expressed that view then – and at the time scientific dogma held the smallest form of matter was indeed only solid particle. In either event, some ‘out there’ quantum physicists are saying the same today – particle or wave? Depends on the observer.

      • If experimental apparatus can demonstrate it, then it is not “out there”. The two slit diffraction experiment has been done not only with photons, but electrons and whole molecules. Still, it is true that some of the “high priests” refuse to believe in the experiments. I believe it was Max Planck who said that great new ideas eventually gain scientific acceptance not because they are more useful and workable, but simply because the old scientists die off. Science belongs to the people. The old ways have not worked. We need to enter an age of reason and discovery, meaning true observation.

        • Nice. Yes, the double slit experiment empirically proves that when an Observer is watching, the particle goes through one slit, i.e. behaves as a particle (one particle, goes through one slit). However, when there is no Observer present, the particle goes through BOTH slits, i.e. behaves like a wavelength, not as a solid object.

      • I sure wish we could search all of LRH’s works online with Google word search! Anyway, 30 years ago I know I read something he said to the effect that the physical universe was held together with a sort of “vibration”… which I assume is a wave. But, I can’t give you a reference.

        Anyway, it is certainly true that science is catching up with LRH. A true scientific cultural lag.

        • I remember that. He was talking I think about how present time was the same time in the whole universe. Possibly one of the Time Track And Engram Running by Chains HCOBs.

      • Debate on light as particle vs. wave dates back to the 1600s. Later, physicists concluded that all supposed particles had both particle and wave characteristics. Those conversations (with people like Einstein, Bohr, Planck, etc. date back to the first half of the 1900s. The wave view of light (stemming in part from the famous double slit experiments that were done in the early 1800s) began to dominate scientists’ thinking by the mid-1800s. De Broglie (in 1924) created the hypothesis that all matter had a wave-like nature. His “de Broglie” hypothesis was verified experimentally in the years following 1924, and he won the Nobel Prize for his work in 1929. By the 1950s, it was well-established in physics that things like light — an apparent wave — also exhibit particle behavior, and that things that seem to be clearly particles also exhibit wave-like behavior.

        • Every Indie needs to read the above post, especially those singing the praises of LRH’s ‘discoveries’ that he claimed for himself in the 1950s.

          I love the spirit behind the Indie movement, but at times many of you still carry a massive set of blinders around and selectively don. The above post makes very clear certain truths about the kind of man LRH was and his method of assembling and claiming other’s work as his own, please understand this.

          • martyrathbun09

            To the extent you are responding to the few who take the import of my post to mean that L Ron Hubbard was the first to discover the dual character of the smallest divisible unit of matter in the universe, fine. If you are referring to my post itself – you are setting up a straw man. To the extent you did not get the thrust of my post, I’ll try to make it real clear – which if your mind is extremely literal and sold, of course will remain more baffling than ever: Hubbard developed a spiritual technology that can lead to the observer himself to not only seeing, observing, the woof and warp of the universe (the description of which Quantum Physicists are increasingly paralleling) but to free himself from the automaticity of its processes.

            • Very well put. “Hubbard developed a spiritual technology that can lead to the observer himself to not only seeing, observing, the woof and warp of the universe (the description of which Quantum Physicists are increasingly paralleling) but to free himself from the automaticity of its processes.”

              And to Wisher, get your facts straight. Hubbard acknowledged in many books and prefaces the giants on whose shoulders he stood, as is the protocol of any man of philosophy or science. But you and others who try to minimize the originality and uniqueness of Hubbard’s actual techniques are one of two things (or both): 1. ignorant (lacking or avoiding facts) or 2. trying to justify why it’s okay to steal it or bash a genuine innovator. Get over it. and create something wonderful.

        • FOTF, particle physics/quantum mechanics and Scientology (the pure subject as created by its founder) are two completely different fields. Your logic is missing an orange by trying to disprove that an apple came first😉

          Hubbard bypassed the atoms and subatomic world and went for the realm of the observer. Therein was the man’s research — and research he did, with empirical protocol.

          So — as for the field of quantum mechanics, yah yah yah yah, Thomas Young in 1803 did the first double-slit experiment. But, do note: He in no way took away the originality of following work by Bohr, Planck, Schrödinger nor Einstein, Feyman, etc.

          Not that Scientology (the subject) is the same field as quantum mechanics, but I’m curious — why aren’t you on a soap box with a bull horn touting that none of Bohr’s, Planck’s, Einstein’s, or Schrödinger’s et al’s work is “original”?

          I also wonder why the personal lives of other philosophers and scientists aren’t dragged through mud in the world’s town square — their subjects and work are what is relevant.

          Hubbard bypassed the atom, the subatomic field, and concentrated on the other side of the coin — the observer. That be you. and me😉 Rather admirable, as others kept breakign down the atom, subatomic particles, and then….wooops…. nothing there?😉

          Whenever I hear rabid foaming-at-the-mouth attacks, or “So and So did it First” rather than specific fact, I tend to consider the source may be picking some other bone.

          Just some thoughts. Thank you for discussing.

      • Theories on Wave–particle duality have been about since the early 20th century, in fact De Broglie was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1929 for his work in this area. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

    • To assess Hubbard’s statements, it’s important to be able to put them in proper historical context. First, the discovery that vision is determined by release of chemical energy when light hits the retina was well understood decades before Hubbard stated this. I found some references that suggest this was a solved problem no later than 1911, the year Hubbard was born, though I haven’t found a single source discussing the history of research into retinal function.

      It’s simply incorrect to say that Hubbard was anywhere near the cutting edge of thinking about the phenomenon of vision, or about the philosophy of what it meant for humans to be able to perceive light relative to the actual light being emitted and absorbed. He was repeating what was already well known and understood, not coming up with an original cutting edge idea, since the cutting-edge work was done before he was born.

      Marty’s comment about how Hubbard must have been brilliant because when he studied physics in the 1930s, he bucked the scientific knowledge of the day by advocating the wave/particle duality, causing him to flunk physics. Well-documented and universally accepted evidence shows that Robert Clerk Maxwell proposed the wave/particle duality in 1900. In 1905, Einstein used the concept to solve the puzzle of the photoelectric effect (closely related to how human vision works). That proved a practical application of what had been an abstract theory in the five years since Maxwell published. So the wave/particle duality was completely and utterly settled before Hubbard was born much less before he went to school. There was no doubt, no disagreement, and no physics professors clinging to the classical model by 1930. And because there was no doubt, there was nothing to “advocate,” just as it sounds silly to “advocate” today that the earth is round. People that believe in the wave/particle duality today are hardly “out there.” They’re as mainstream as you can get in physics today.

      Therefore, it’s completely inaccurate to say that Hubbard made any contribution to the idea of wave/particle duality, just as it is inaccurate to say that physicists only saw “particle” when Hubbard was in college. It is, however, eminently possible to remember the simple statement “light is both a wave and a particle” without having any deeper understanding of why this is true and what it implies.

      • martyrathbun09

        Hey, wise guy. You are setting a great example on how to get yourself railroaded off this blog. You are quick to alter and tilt at windmills of your own creation. I never said anything of the sort. I related some facts, pure and simple with no evaluation. Now, that you have prompted me: here is an opinion. You are so stuck to what authorities say you are not even close to understanding the words I write, let alone the woof and warp of the physical and spiritual universes. Not even in the same universe. I never said “Hubbard made any contribution to the idea of wave/particle duality”. I said he saw it long before you were a glimmer in your daddy’s eye. And I’ve seen it too, thanks to Hubbard. You are the living proof of the tangible, perceivable differentiatibility of the three universes. Thanks for the demonstration.

      • John P
        You’ve got to read the 2011 Scott Tyson Physics book, The Unobservable Universe!!
        Clear up the the word Biocentrism by Dr Lanza (another Physics book) that Tyson actually set out to disprove.
        This is all cutting edge Physics. Honestly.
        Then, make a new comment here.

      • John P. John P. John P. There is nothing wrong with sounding sure of one’s self except when you get the facts wrong, then your argument turns into a big-holed colander.

        First, it;s JAMES Clerk Maxwell (not Robert), and he formulated the classic electromagnetic theory, not wave-particle duality as you represent. His formula united previous experiments in electricity, magnetism, and optics into a consistent theory

        Next, huge glaring FALSE in your claim There was no doubt, no disagreement, and no physics professors clinging to the classical model by 1930. Big wrong boo-boo there!

        Einstein first showed that particles were quantized, for which he got the Novel Prize (not for his more famous theory of relativity) in 1921.

        And 1928 was — exactly the opposite of what you claim — the actual beginning of a chasm in disputes when Niels Bohr made a breakthrough in atomic physics and quantum mechanics introducing the observer as part of wave/particle duality — and this is where Einstein got off the boat. The disputes just started getting warmed up in 1929-1930. He disagreed and argued with Bohr. In 1935, Erwin Schrödinger dded to the stretching of minds with the introduction of theories that explained the concurrent existence of paradoxes (Schrödinger’s Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and alive).

        Hubbard was 24 years of age at this time, and no doubt was, like other thinks of his time, conceptualizing on the brink of this. What made Hubbard unique was his launching experiments and research that addressed the observer…which he called the “static.”

        OK? There are still ongoing disputes, and many trained in Newtonian physics have a tough time grasping (or ungrasping, as it were ) the quantum view of science.

        So please, stop letting your emotional desires to discredit one or champion another affect your good sense, skew your arguments and tarnish your comprehension.

        • correction, should be “Nobel Prize” above (not Novel)

        • martyrathbun09

          Poifect🙂

        • V.
          I love it when you stop by for a chat.

        • Hi V,
          Great comments. Much appreciated by a retired applied physics and engineering instructor.
          Vic K.

        • V – Thanks for the great detail on this subject. Disputes of whatever is “truth” will continue to exist as long as the participants have any fixed ideas. What is so different from an LRH viewpoint is the technology to actually put one in control of their viewwpoint, their understanding and thus the ability to play the game. I hated physics until I studied the quantum view of this which made so much sense having studied Scientology. Being a graduate of the PRD and up the bridge helped.

          I believe any student of science that had a good grasp of study tech and able to apply the data series could take the current understanding of the physical universe and fast forward it quickly. LRH, as posted by Marty above, wrote concise truthful statements that are like a map to understanding that which many considered “unknowable.”

          Yes, many in the 30’s dabbled in the new science of the mind, physics, chemistry, etc but LRH was able to summarize it from the viewpoint of how we as a being not only interact but have some causation in this entire scene. He then went on to give us the means to enhance our use and understanding of life. I am thankful he did that for us. Now, we just need to have the integrity to apply it as we find it to be true and live our own lives.

        • V, “a big-holed colander”😆 Thank you for that conceptual shindig.

      • Thank you for providing this context John P.

      • The same old LDW

        John P says: “To assess Hubbard’s statements, it’s important to be able to put them in proper historical context”

        Yea, you so must be right. When I have a PC who went exterior (the immortal spirit…the static…the being himself) and he crashed back into his body hard, the very first thing I do before delivering the Interiorization rundown is really examine the historical context of who invented the Int rundown, Ron or Buddha. Very important. How could I possibly deliver the rundown or get good results without the historical context?

        I also use this very vital data when I fire up my Husqvarna to chian saw a tree down. I mean, who really was the first person to invent gasoline? And how can I possibly saw down a tree without that data?

        What would we do without you John P?

        When LRH says at the beginning of several books that all of the philisophical data has been around for thousands or tens of thousands of years, and you come up with a statement like that, you deserve snide comments.

        Sorry

        • Thanks LDW. When it really comes down to the
          brass tacks these Scientology axioms are for the
          auditor to understand the pc in front of him. That
          they also give one a view of how the physical
          universe interacts with the spiritual (or the other
          way around) is also a sidebenifit anyone can use
          in everyday life.
          What I have seen is an incredible increase of
          knowledge (and betterment in life) when you
          marry the studying of the axioms with getting
          auditing. Things have a tendency to fall into
          place and start to make sense.
          No I’m not an indie but an ex, ex and ex of
          the cherch.
          Like Leah Remini said the other day “let’s get
          real” (or something like that) regarding her reality
          show.

    • The first question I asked after going clear was: “Now, how do I get rid of my analytical mind”?

  7. This is my first comment, although I have followed this blog for over a year. I left in 1978 after a very un-just ethics cycle, but have continued to use SCN tech and policy all of these years. Reading the Axioms after 30+ years ignites the same enlightenment and wonderful feelings I enjoyed as a very dedicated Scientologist in the 1970s. Once you see the truth, you can’t un-see it.

    • Ain’t that the truth ?

      I can remember looking back down that road to truth and thinking to myself “why can’t I just go back to the little kid I used to be, with the simple life that went along with that ???” But in hindsight – always a more accurate view of the world – I would have to say that what I was resenting about that road to truth was all of the added inapplicables that were being merged with the pure unadulterated truths that LRH developed and that I LOVED, and USED, and continue to do so to this day.

      In his words:
      “There is no short stop on the road to truth.
      That is the only track that you have to go all the way on.

         LRH

      • Axiom~ you are right. Back then we all loved the fact that we had the means to help society, rather than just protest and rebel. It was fun, it was light hearted and rewarding. Then (in 77-78) I started seeing truly good people getting RPFed and declared. Heavy handed over-management had become the norm. The fun and rewards were history and it became toilsome.

    • dbldan
      Great to have you here, welcome!
      Don’t be shy to share your whole story, that is if you can…
      Greta

      • Greta, thank you. Mine is an old story 🙂 Read DMSMH in 69 and moved to LA, started the Comm course. Org staff then Mission staff. OTIII Cl IV, Did Brian Livingston’s Flag internship in 1975. In the internship, Quinton wasn’t taking it seriously… I thought that odd… Cram officer was a monster, Jeff Walker I think. A month ago, I tried to contact an ol’ Mission friend… she said she’d heard I went to the “dark side” and needed clarification before she could communicate with me. I told her that I get 25-30 reg calls a week and daily SCN Mail and magazines. Does that qualify for “good standing”? This campaign started (after 20 years of silence) when all the LRH books got altered and promoted as a good thing. Who’s crazy idea was that, I thought… now I know, since following Marty’s blog.

        • Hi dbldan,
          Thanks. That gives us an idea.
          Isn’t it strange that when people on this side become enlightened, understand more and get going again training or auditing wise it is called “that they’re on the dark side”…….
          Greta

        • Hi dbldan. I’d say 25-30 reg calls surely puts you in good standing! My question is, do you answer them?😉

    • Thank you!

      ‎”There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.” – Leonardo da Vinci

  8. I remember Ron referenced The Master Therion by Aleister Crowley.

    I always thought when Ron referenced things he wanted us to look into them. It was incredibly interesting. I read many of his recommendations.

    What was the first thing that got you on the “Road to Truth”?

    Mine was “Seek the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

    • No doubt, LRH gave many good reading recommendations.

      However, it is a mystery to me why anyone would recommend Crowley. I have never read a more arrogant author than him.

      Example : “If a barking dog disturbs your meditation it is the simplest solution to shoot it and never think about it again.”

      From a book chapter about blood sacrifice (yes, lethal) :

      “For the highest spiritual work you must choose the sacrifice that bears the greatest and cleanest power. A male child of complete innocence and high intelligence is most satisfying and adequate. …
      It would be an error to assume that the victim gets damaged. On the opposite, this is the most merciful and blessed of all kinds of deaths, because the element spirit is integrated directly into the deity – which had been the goal of his efforts for countless incarnations”.

      [from Crowley’s “Magick 1”, re-translated to English]

      • I have LRH’s personal library book list somewhere .. we should discuss it!

      • Path of Buddha

        Hans Solo,
        I had to deal with this question after completion of the old OTVIII in 1989
        aboard the Freewinds. Ron Hubbard did not mention Crowley, but
        Ron Hubbard’s narratives have roots in “The Book of the Law”
        and some of Crowley’s other adventures and rituals.
        I never could accept that Ron Hubbard agreed with Crowley’s
        ethics. In fact, I read an article which suggested that Crowley
        treated Ron Hubbard just like everyone else – with disdain.
        I eventually concluded that Ron Hubbard loved narratives
        and that the Crowley material was unique. Ron Hubbard incorporated
        some of the material but changed it into something more mild and
        with an ethical purpose.
        I dropped the question to my satisfaction and went on with my
        life. In the end, it is far in the past and Miscavige deleted the
        narratives anyway.

        May all beings be well and happy!

        George M. White

        • George,
          note that LRH mentioned Crowley (“… my good friend”) and the subject of Magic on the PDC – this was a phase when LRH was kind of electrified by his research into brand new realms (OT, beingness, space…) and electrified others with his lectures.

          I doubt that he would have referred to Crowley during his GPM research in the 1960s. At that time it had become obvious what “Crowley think” is based upon.

          And yes, no doubt that Crowley treated anyone incl. LRH with great disdain. Crowley considered himself so elevated above everyone else that he was and still is a great example of individuation.

          All the best,
          Han Solo

      • Actually, you must remember that Crowley was a massive troll and prankster. By “sacrificing a male child” he actually meant masturbating.

        • I don’t feel comfortable about statements like “Crowley (or other black magic people) did not mean anything evil”.

          1. There are enough hints that blood sacrifices are practiced by certain circles until this day.

          2. There will be readers of Crowley’s books with a very strong desire for power, and they might want to follow Crowley’s advice, no matter what your opinion is, Doloras.

          3. The US is a country where a lot of power play goes on, including secret societies. Lots of children seem to be missing in some areas of the US, there are even brochures available featuring nothing else than long lists of disappeared children. Any explanation ?

      • By “sacrificing a male child”, Crowley meant masturbation. He was a prankster who deliberately obfuscated things in his writings to put off the more dim-witted followers.

      • Han,
        Read the Kybalion. It undercuts the Crowley material. The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn was a group with Moina Mathers whose brother was Henri Bergson, who used the term “elan vital”. The articles cited at the top mention that term. Fascinating how these philosophical threads weave.

        • The Kybalion is already on my to-read list, Jim.

          And given a sound philosophical basis, someone will always pick up some “useful” (to him) parts of it and turn it to the extreme …

          • The Kybalion is a good read.
            The first (earliest) book I know of, where the “law of attraction” was mentioned (literally).

            In the Technique 80 lectures (Route to Infinity) LRH picks up some of its principles (as narratives), “all angles have two faces”, “alchemists where dealing with the soul of people and tried to make golden souls”.
            And of course the characteristics of wavelenghts (wavelengts of ARC), dichotomies and other concepts where described in earlier books by different authors. The whole Hermetic idea is still in progress in the present time. Look at movies like “Thrive”. It’s using many hermetic and some Kabbalistic concepts as well.

            Crowley, for me, is a moron with too many MUs himself. A drug addict. And as you stated above, the master example of individuation.

            I am glad that LRH developed study technology and intentioned to use easy to learn words, provided definitions and that his teachings are supposed to be used by all Men (not an elite or a esoteric “inner circle”, but for anyone who reaches for knowledge). And he developed a technology where the guys bank can be discharged on a gradient.

            Eureka!🙂

        • Because I am grateful — as I said ~ a year and a half ago, for the forum that this blog has provided for those of us as we de-stimulate from the CoS — I posted here to give you the good news of a “new” blog that is contributing to the motion, as we might say, of free or independent Scientologists. I am a person of goodwill and it is not appropriate to hit me with an “I don’t know/I don’t care” antithesis of ARC.

          May I remind you of PAB No. 79, in which LRH said:
          “I consider all auditors my friends. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think. I think of auditors and Scientologists as the Free People. 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.”

          I recall, too, Grasshopper’s wonderful post http://ahgrasshopper.wordpress.com/ of 2 New Years ago, in which he said:
          “Theta is Love. When we aspire to be ‘Tone 40,’ ‘Upscale,’ to be ‘OT,’ to be free from our reactive minds and from the encumbrances of the physical universe, we are aspiring to move into a new plane of existence. What is this plane? Are we not aspiring to Total Love? Are we not aspiring to be Loving and Kind? To be free from Hate and Anger? {The Apostle}Paul describes it {in Corinthians}better than I ever could. Is this not a model for how we all should be?”

          I would add:

          “Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.” — Gautama Siddhartha

          And:

          “We must all learn to listen to one another with understanding and compassion, to hear what is being felt by the other.” — Thich Nhat Hanh

          How about it, Jim? … Is “I don’t know and I don’t care” really appropriate for an independent Scientologist? …

  9. It’s a fact that even main stream media have become increasingly open to the subjects of past lives and parapsychology.

    I remember a report from a journalist who had visited a guru in india. The journalist described how this guru was able to materialize a rainbow at will. This was in a “solid” main stream paper in Germany.

    Or a recent TV report about hypnosis ; the hypnotized subject was told it could look through the wall – and then he described what he observed in the next room. A remarkable and quite successful experiment, although most of us here would probably not advocate hypnosis.

    Or this nice documentary and its sequels at youtube :

    Sometimes the journalists ask some ultra-sceptic professor about the observed phenomena. Often these scholars display their awareness level of “only aware of own considerations” and come up with the most illogical nonsense to explain the phenomena away. Nevertheless, those who can look will see … and each documentary (seen by 100.000s of people) will increase the agreement that there is “more” than just the world of MEST.

    • And sometimes I think that physical scientists actually might get a little bit intuitive, so to speak. I remember reading an article a few years ago in Scientific American about quarks (which had recently been discovered and named) and chuckling to myself because, I read that one of the quarks had been named “True” or “Truth” and that another one had been named “Beauty”. I chuckled to myself as I thought, “hmm, that sounds familiar… like the top of the Tone Scale”. As I read further, the interviewer was asking the physicist how they came to choose these names. The physicist replied thoughtfully, (and I am paraphrasing), ” Well, it’s hard to explain but ‘beauty’ is, well, sort of BEAUTIFUL “….
      🙂

  10. If I knew how to post two-thumbs-up I would. 🙂 Nice story Bozz.
    Indeed we’ve seen for years the world has taken on certain parts of org policies and tech originated by LRH. I remember when Ron would mention about doctors and surgeons practicing Preventive Dianetics, etc., I thought… yea right. But in fact, as you say Bozz, over the decades many bits and aspects of his discoveries have reached mainstream.

    Ron stopped well short of what I believe he could have discovered about the body, nutrition, remedy, etc.

    I’ve read Dr. Atkins, and decades before looked to Adele Davis for her insights into nutrition and deficiencies. Davis and Atkins for me both impress, Atkins was the LRH of metabolism imo, and quite sane on the subject. Unfortunately many did’t duplicate the breadth of his research and stuck, misinformed on Stage 1. And again big medico, pharma and big media and big gov. attempt to shun, ridicule and virtually shut down valuable workable insight.

    Notice how not a single “cure” to anything is ever touted in western medicine. Cure is in fact now inhibited to claim.

  11. Great post Marty, as usual. You know, any ship placed on the water must be steered. Wind and waves will push any ship off course. So a course must be set — that takes good sense and leadership. The correct course for the Church of Scientology is to make sure it remains true to its own tenants — first, last and always. Any action or reaction of the Church, any public statement, must be an example of the ideals comprising the core of the philosophy: confront, ARC, Eight Dynamics, good communication, and more. If the organization does not remain true to it’s own tenants, well… then it’s not Scientology anymore. The first line of dissemination for any organization is its own actions: they either demonstrate the principles of the subject it represents or they serve to convince everyone the subject is a crock. People naturally assume an organization would live by it’s own creed and so they judge it accordingly. Violent, harsh actions against the world belies a violent harsh “philosophy” and the ideals of violence and harshness. That stops all dissemination dead in its tracks since no one but suppressives want violence and harshness.

    How many times I looked DM in the eye and was stymied to understand what was looking back. The eyes of madness. Sheer and total violent animal madness.

    • martyrathbun09

      Well stated truth.

    • The same old LDW

      I was at Flag one time back in the mid 90s. The only time I met miscavige face to face. The only thought I had when I looked into his eyes was, “what an asshole.” I very quickly left the area.
      It’s extremely helpful to hear your and other’s first hand experiences.

      • LDW, It’s embarrassing, because we were all so stupid, but I’d never actually seen real madness before. The evil crazy eyes… now we all can know what madness really looks like. Hollywood isn’t so far off. I think many people dub in they’re looking at a “powerful” being. No, the guy’s not there, fully regressed fighting attackers. His emotional tone is hate.

      • I too had a face-to-face with DM in the mid 90’s. At the time, I suppressed the thought “what an a-hole.”

        • I had my own interesting face-to-face with David Miscavige in the early 90s. Some of our renovations team members were bravely taking down some steel constructions on the sixth floor deck of the Fort Harrison in a lightning storm.

          We were on the cusp of completing a major renos target, and I was on the floor that night watching the action outside. DM was standing there, and I commented to him about how proud I was of the whole team. He gave me this quizzical, frowning look, then huffed and walked off. Right then and there, I knew there was something wrong with that duck.

          • Hi Ronnie – I so agree with you. If DM thinks of, or treats the members or staff or SO of the CofS with contempt, then on THAT ground alone he is not qualified to hold the position – or any position near it – that he does.

      • When I found myself being there and looking in his eyes across a room, he was desperate not make eye contact and just looked like he wanted to get out of there FAST, before others recognized him. This was before he had consolidated his apparent “power”. However, I have informally surveyed several others who either worked with him personally or had met him socially and it is amazing how many times the word “asshole” was used to describe him. Apparently he has more than earned that nickname. His other nickname of course is Renegade Squirrel.

    • Tony Dephillips

      You are an amazing person Steve.

    • Thoughtful, Of course, you meant to write: “true to it’s own tenets.”

      The problem is the Corporation Church of Sci-tology is indeed “true to it’s own tenants” as you write. Corporate Scientology is “true” to whomever is lea$ing. And its gross departures are indeed from its own tenets.

      (just a little free proofreading for love of accuracy)

  12. Summerbreeze and Palmtrees

    Keep in mind that it took psychology decades to write such articles, while LRH discovered these facts ages before them!

    • Dolphin Play

      That is interesting. It should be noted also as highly relevant that it is not either generality, “psychology” nor “psychiatry”, that is writing such articles. It is rather an individual (who is a stem cell research doctor and writes for Psychology Today).

      This clearly demonstrates that to demonize a generality as Corporate Scientology rabidly has taken to doing (i.e., “they are ALL evil!”) and pointing self-righteous fingers and sicing obedient lemmings to wail against generalities is simply moronic, political behavior that is unworthy of any person who knows real Scientology.

      Remember, L. Ron Hubbard himself acknowledged Sigmund Freud (among many other people) in the original Science of Survival dedication.

      Yes, the psych industry has seriously evil and barbaric practices — some is evil some is ignorance (though both arguably overlap).

      Another differentiation between what are two different fields: Psychology does not and never has prescribed drugs. Psychiatry does, and psychiatrists are also medical doctors.

      The basic problem is people who memorize and parrot theory and sound-bytes (sadly the state of many “Corporate Scientology” members and zealots of the world) no matter how enlightened the information is, cannot think (reason and apply) with it.

      In his writings, Hubbard has more than once stated (and don’t take my word for it, look it up, sorry I don’t have the references) that he will leave certain aspects of Scientology or the research to others in the future. the processes he researched and developed are *all there*, they work, and brilliantly. Only a dunce or a parasite would mess with that (as David Miscavige and others have and do). Conversely, one who understands the woof and warp of how and why Scientology processes and tech work, can think with it. And look with it. And speak with it, without fear of violating some policy and getting wrongly smashed. And doesn’t mess with the processes, because why mess with something that works? But, apart from the Bridge tech, can take it further to all areas of life!

      The Lanza article about life after death is brilliant — there is more to go though, because there is still the attempt to define “nothing” (the static) as “energy” (which it is not …energy might approximate it). That doesn’t invalidate the validity of the article or research, or this individual’s thinking.

      Thanks for listening, there is just so much to be said for not thinking in “black and white” and opp terms and polarities — something that Corporate Scientology specializes and engrains and drills into people — starting with the Us vs, Them paranoia that underlies their covertly hostile social standing.

      • Dolphin Play

        Sorry to have rambled…basic point was to note that the field of Psychology (and medicine and psychiatry) have their own rebels, individuals and geniuses that move them forward (and are often initially fought by the status quo within their profession). Ah, the ability to see differences and similarities…enough can’t be said for that! Look fearlessly!

  13. Marty — Life After Death —

    Today, shortly before you posted this article – a close friend of mine – former director of my buddhist center passed on. She had been a breast cancer survivor for 15 years, until 2 1/2 years ago when her cancer returned – metastasized.

    This afternoon we will be sitting with her. Her body is being brought to our center and we will sit with her for 24 hours – through the night. She will then be cremated and on Wednesday we will hold a sukavati (buddhist life ceremony) for her.

    I count myself as one of the VERY lucky ones at my center. I have ZERO doubt that I have lived before and will live againand while this is a KEY component of all buddhist thought, very FEW buddhists that I know of ACTUALLY KNOW this to be true.

    Those of us who frequent this blog, who have received auditing KNOW we’ve lived before. It’s not a dim hope or gee-I-wish but a deep knowingness.

    Science is indeed catching up with LRH and buddhist thought (as well a Dao, Sufi etc) — but IMHO, it is OUR minds that need to catch up and realize that what is important isn’t who is sitting on what side of what fence.

    Or who we love and who we don’t. Or who we admire and who we disdain.

    To me, the only “SIN” is to not recognize the preciousness of our human birth and therefore to spend more than 10 minutes bitching and moaning or pointing fingers, is 10 minutes poorly spent. Rather, work steadfastly at creating THE most meaningful life we can — here and now. (which includes shining the light on dm et al)

    Please hold my friend Nina in your prayers and thoughts as she makes this transition to her next adventure. (BTW — excellent read “The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying: The Spiritual Classic by Sogyal RInpoche)

    Love,
    Windhorse

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Windhorse, thank you for sharing this moment. It is so
      comforting to see your granting of beingness, so freely
      and with such genuine compassion. You have said what
      needed to be said, and done so with obvious conviction.

      Let us join you in reassuring Nina,with the beautiful
      words of Khalil Gibran(The Prophet)

      …..”A while, a moment of rest upon the wind, and
      another woman shall bear me.”

      Love & ARC, Li’ll bit

    • Path of Buddha

      Wh,
      Nina is in my thoughts. I have performed some special chanting in Pali for her. This chanting recalls the Buddha and spreads Metta(loving-kindness )
      towards her. The chanting is very effective and sometimes get the attention of the Deva’s who will also help.
      I shall re-read “The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying” since it has been at least 10 years since my last read.
      One of the great comforts of the Buddhist tradition is the enormous amount
      of valid material on the subject of death. The Buddha’s highest teachings contain much practical information especially on the structure of the last breath and the last moment of life.

      May all beings be well and happy!
      George M. White

    • Thank you Windhorse for a wonderful post.

      “Please hold my friend Nina in your prayers and thoughts as she makes this transition to her next adventure.”
      I will.
      She is a lucky being having you around, I see.

    • Windhorse,

      Right there! I’m with you 100%.
      Coincidentally, I watched this movie last night “Unmistaken Child” about a Buddhist Master that has passed away and the ensuing search for this reincarnated master! All of the monks were actively postulating his return and the one assigned to find him….well, watch the movie. I WILL hold Nina in my prayers and thoughts and postulate a very successful future for her.

      When I was on the “minister’s course” at the old CC on 8th St., we had to read a book called the Religions of Man, by Houston Smith, if I recall correctly. It gave a brief overview of all the major religions of Earth and the one, I always said I liked the best was Buddhism. Much truth.

      Every day is a gift and I am thankful for all of the life that surrounds me. I do all I can to enhance it and bring it to fruition of it’s fullest potential.
      Penny

    • WH,

      I never read this anywhere, but I had the cognition once that people can’t “come back” , unless someone is thinking of them.

      I guess it is a magnetism thing, or a Karma thing that is connected to magnetism.

      I will be glad to think of your friend Nina and welcome her back with my thoughts.

      Thank you for being such a considerate human being.

  14. The “25 Traits of a Genius” which originally appeared as some kind of limited issue in Scn, was taken straight from a book called “Towards Greater Freedom & Happiness” written by clinical psychologist, Alfred A. Barrios. Ron admired the book so much that he acknowledged the author and mentioned the fact that he was a psychologist. In recent years many seminars have been presented by corporate Scn on “The 25 Traits of a Genius.”

    I took my own notes directly from this book and Marty, if it is OK to reprint them here, I will copy and paste:

    1. Drive – they had the desire to work hard and long.
    2. Courage – They had tenacity of purpose, the mental and moral strength to venture forth and persevere.
    3. Goals – They knew what they wanted and went after it, giving meaning and purpose to everything they did, never wasting time just drifting – always in control of their lives.
    4. Knowledge – They had a thirst for knowledge. They knew their field; they constantly boned up on it. They asked questions and pumped others for their ideas and knowledge.
    5. Good Health – They kept physically and mentally fit, and exercised their bodies as well as their minds.
    6. Honesty – They were frank, forthright and honorable. They had integrity and were above all intellectually honest.
    7. Optimism – They were positive in their outlook and expected to succeed.
    8. Judgment – They searched for facts, evaluated them, tried to always understand first, then judge. There was no prejudgment, prejudice or closed-mindedness.
    9. Enthusiasm – They were vital, had a zest for life and lived life fully.
    10. Chance Taking – They didn’t fear failure. They knew failure is often a stepping stone to success.
    11. Dynamic and Energetic – They were always on the move.
    12. Enterprising – They courageously took on jobs others didn’t want or couldn’t do; never afraid to try the unknown. They were opportunity seekers.
    13. Persuasive – They knew how to sell. They knew how to motivate people. They inspired action and backed it up with reason and sound arguments.
    14. Outgoing – They made friends easily and were easy on their friends. They encouraged people and ideas to grow in their presence. They were not threatened by other people’s high mentality, not having to feel insecure about their own.
    15. Good Communicators – They had good verbal skills and were able to effectively and clearly get their ideas across to others.
    16. Perceptive – The gateways to their minds were always wide open. Their senses were highly tuned to life around them. They were quick, acute and sensitive. Their mental radar was always on.
    17. Both Patient and Impatient – They were patient with others most of the time but always impatient with themselves, believing they should be doing more and doing it better.
    18. Adaptable – They were resilient – not rigid in their thinking. They were intelligently flexible, adjusting quickly to changing situations.
    19. Perfectionists – They were always striving for the highest possible degree of excellence. They would not settle for mediocrity, particularly in themselves. They tried to be tolerant with others but insisted upon excellence in themselves.
    20. Sense of humor – They saw the lighter side of life. They laughed easily – enjoyed a good laugh, often at their own expense.
    21. Versatile – They were able to do many things and do them well.
    22. Curious – They were inquisitive, always asking why. They know that questions are the creative acts of intelligence.
    23. Individualistic – They were purposefully independent. Did things the way they believed they should be done.
    24. Both Realists and Idealists – They were occupied by reality and guided by ideals.
    25. Imaginative – They knew how to imagine. They knew how to think in new combinations. They were able to conceive new relationships because of their curiosity and their habit of thinking outside the boundaries of conformity. They thought imaginatively, they judged wisely, and they put their best ideas into action. And they were always ready to write them down!

    • Thanks! Have been looking for that one for a long time!🙂
      Greta

      • It is not verbatim from the Scn issue but the ideas are the same and the wording is very similar.

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Wow pizzafreak, this is quite a serving of “pizza” you have
      dished up here. Enough “theta nutrition” to sustain one
      one for the long haul, for sure!
      Great collection, and great inspiration!

      ARC Li’ll bit

    • Michael Fairman

      LRH published this in an ED “Genius”
      Central Office of LRH ED 821 21 July 1980
      Ain’t it the truth

      • Thanks … I wasn’t sure which type of issue it was originally. But Ron took the 25 points, with descriptions, straight from the book and paraphrased them slightly.

    • Hello,
      “25 Traits of a Genius”
      actualy the original says:

      The world’s greatest geniuses have all had 24 personality characteristics in common — and you can develop the same traits in yourself …

  15. Its incredibly ironic that the world marches forward and begins to accept concepts highlighted by Ron while RCS becomes a greater and greater mass of repressions, compulsions, denials and fears. It is the only aspect that is expanding.

    How weird, but utterly true, that you can now completely describe and define RCS in purely psychological terms. Free thinking is totally repressed while Miscavige’s whims are compulsively enforced and the truth is utterly feared and denied.

    Boggles the mind.

  16. Forgotten Tech

    “while science catches up with L Ron Hubbard”.

    That’s funny. That’s really funny, Marty.

  17. Yes, at last the communication lag is closing. The Axioms were published in the 1950s, mind boggling really that such scientific explanation/evidence has been available for over 60 years. It is very true the dogmas and beliefs of man takes an incredible effort just to get them to even consider let alone look at anything else except their own cherished views & beliefs. Added to that the scientific community loves its own arrogance, thank goodness for those willing to look and not listen.
    Mankind has been too long controlled by his fatalistic views of his own mortality. You can’t kill a spirit but you sure can get it mightily confused.

    (Shame Miscavige shame – what have you done?)

  18. I had a rewarding exchange with a talk radio host today who mentioned CCHR. A group I used to be proud to be affiliated with, but with the Jan Eastgate scandal it has become just another point of shame for Scientology.
    He countered, that regardless they saved his friends ass. A friend who had the “wrong point of view”, and a loud voice politically. His friend was abducted by those who would claim to help. Drugged and detained indefinately. CCHR put a stop to it and his friend was released. I wonder what year that was. Maybe that should have been an important question. I just don’t know anymore.

    • martyrathbun09

      Hey, maybe somebody can tip off CCHR to what is going on at David Miscavige’s International Scientology Inc. HQ.

      • I sent my Declaration of Independence to one of CCHR’s key terminals (we’re email buddies), and never got a response from him on it. It didn’t bounce back, so I know that he got it. Interestingly, he still sends me email.

        • From what I understand the CCHR is suppose to be an independent organisation that uses scientology however it seems corporate scientology holds a great deal of sway over it, such that its actions reflect the rabid hatred of psychology manifest in David Miscavige’s “global obliteration” presentations. I suspect this is because they get all their funding from corporate scientology and many if their management are also corporate scientologists.

      • Corporate Scitology (can’t even call it Scientology because the Organization has so convoluted it!) advertisements pretending to champion human rights are among the most nauseating acts of hypocrisy observable in the world today.

        The tactics of OSA ( Scitology’s Office of Special Affairs) that engages in stalking, harassment, breach of confidence, betrayal of confessionals — all on the arbitray and neurotic whim (fears) of a megalomaniac dictator (David Miscavige) — have been documented and exposed. Thanks to this and other blogs, thansk to the internet. Google away!

        Hiding behind a gilded pretense of “help” and self-righteousness, Scitology seeks to censor and crush free speech. This is done by their “strategized” operations to target those they fear and destroy their income and reputations. Corporate Scitology and OSA terrorize people (with “Squirrel Busters”, google it) and slander (google “Placido Domingo Jr Scientology” for just one of many such tactics) via blogs they get half-baked dentists and such other “Enlightened beings” to fabricate against dissenters or feared former members. It doesn’t stop there. Corporate Scitology manipulates and using any “technology of the mind” they have hoodwinked into trademarks for the inverse purpose, pushing buttons, caving people in, terrorizing and lying and coercing members to lie to perceived enemies (such as society and the law.)

        Members are threatened, harassed and punished (in the guise of “help”) for communicating with selected books or information.

        Ironically, it woud be classic to report them to the Citizen Commission on Human Rights (CCHR)! Here are some of the most recognized human rights….have at it! Don’t have to reflect too long to see which ones the Scitology Corporation abuses daily.

        HUMAN RIGHTS
        –Right to live, exist
        –Right to have a family
        –Free Speech
        –Safety from violence
        –Equality of both males and females; women’s rights
        –Fair trial
        –To be innocent until proven guilty
        –To be a citizen of a country
        –To think freely
        –To believe and practice the religion a person wants
        –To peacefully protest (speak against) a government or group
        –Health care (medical care)
        –Education
        –To communicate through a language
        –Not be forced into marriage

      • CCHR’s stat is G.I..

  19. I remember vividly an LRH quote (sorry, can’t quote the actual source) where LRH points out the idiotic discrepancy of the branch of “Psychology” in terms of ‘psyche’ referring to the human spirit /soul and that branch of the humanities actually denying such.
    Refreshing to see efforts to turn this around.
    Greta

    • I love when LRH burns all those Psych books at the beginning of the Clear Congress videos.. such a mischievous spirit!

      • Dolphin Play

        Heh heh heh. Hubbard was a mischievous, playful and very courageous spirit. Science often ends up burning its own books when theories are revised and “updated.”. L. Ron Hubbard was a self-reliant thinker. Ralph Waldo Emerson would have lauded that mischievous conceptual pioneer! He sure made a splash.

  20. Dean,
    One of the most important lines of investigation LRH undertook was to determine, if possible, the finest “particle” and he assumed at that time, it would relate to “thought”. What is the “particle” of thinking. What is the frequency, the wavelength of this activity. Where, if they exist in the body, do all these itty-bitty thingies reside as “memory”.

    On the assumption point of the new “particle physics” of that era, that they indeed did seem to reside “somewhere”, he calculated the physical locations needed to retain the memories of a lifetime. There weren’t possible enough “slots”. The gigabytes of physical memory cards needed was impossible for the retention of more than three months worth of data.

    This led to a “wild variable” in the attempt to mathematically construct what was apparent by simple observation of day to day life.

    That variable was, going along with all the mathspeak of “science”, termed “theta”, plucking that Greek letter out of the list to label it. It was apropos, as that letter is used in reference to the divine principle, in such words as “theology”.

    LRH admits frequently that he “sucked” at math. He eventually eschewed mathspeak as incapable of describing phenomena without being pages and pages of symbolic representations that had so many random vectors and possibilities that as soon as you had one description done, it would have to change as the next moment entered in variables that would now have to be described in more pages.

    Plain language was chosen to describe the phenomena, and even it falls short so conceptual understanding has to be attained. And experience of the phenomena for oneself is the real deal.

    The last math construct I am aware of the LRH used was in a book entitled Scientology 8-80. I have not put that section of the book here, but instead chose a paragraph that relates to your comment on “light”.
    “The speed of light is not a constant of energy speed. The shorter the period of emission of energy from a source, which is to say, the shorter the wave length of the energy, the greater is the speed of that energy. As one ranges up the tone scale one comes into the near instantaneousness of thought. And very high on the tone scale one finds thought so close to the static that the static is capable of assigning the thought with the time into the past and into the future without regard to the time factor imposed upon the MEST universe, also evidently by some such static.”

    • Brilliant. Thank you for this, Jim Logan! I never had an interest in Physics per se but as a result of observing and subjective experience in sessions and reading L Ron Hubbard, had many realizations as I observed the relationship of consciousness (me) to the physical world. It is delightful to see much of what I saw and concluded being delved into by science. The ability to look, to see, is fundamentally what Hubbard wanted to give others. (Diametric opposite of what the morphed “church” engages in)
      Now it is of tantamount importance that the distinction is realized and differentiation made by society and men of science between Corporate MacScientology complete with its political fallout from greed-driven mismanagement and abuse, and the real deal meal, Scientology the subject.

    • Yeah. What he said…

    • I excelled at math in school. When I got into Scientology and saw the grade chart I realized I was stuck in symbols.

  21. The same old LDW

    Many years ago I did an enormous clay demo of each of the Factors, one by one. Blew me outta my head. I recall thinking that I knew more about the make-up of the physical universe than the vast majority of “scientists” on planet earth. Afterward I wondered if I wasn’t being just a bit Know-Best. Possibly even delusional.
    Lately, with all the new concepts coming out like Holographic Universe and the one’s you have posted here, Marty…it’s like I breath a sigh of relief knowing that data is being observed in a new unit of time, without bias, and more and more truth seems to be funnelling out for all of us to see.
    The old truths of the veda meet the new truths of quantum physics and our understanding of the mock up is reaching a whole new level.

    Too bad the citizens of the Church of Scientology are so stuck in their uninspected dogma that they can’t even vaguely comprehend what’s going on outside of the GPM they live in. Nor do they have any real KRC for the amazing contribution that Ron had in the overall scheme of understanding their own selves or the universe they located themselves in.

    Yes. Thank God for independence and independents.

    • Les,
      I just went through David Bohm’s stuff on “holograms” and the analogy he used in an attempt at a Theory of Everything. The articles cited in this post go to the fundamental and elan vital, life itself, the Static, as the “Biocentric Theory of Everything”. By George, I think these guys are finally taking that one step, three feet behind their heads, three feet outta all those bits of “something” and conceiving a “nothing”. Yay!!!!!

      • Indeed. It takes a nothing to conceive of nothing. And therre ya are!🙂 (sure can’t measure it with an increment something of any sort):)

      • The same old LDW

        Hey Jim, here’s my attempt at the “Theory of Everything.”

        Thetans create stuff with postulates and make it complex for fun.

        End of theory.

  22. Thank God for independence and independents.

    Amen.

  23. Great post Marty. It’s so much fun to explore the internet and/or find books that often support and sometimes expand upon Ron’s writings.

    Here’s something I found on YouTube some of you may find interesting regarding between lives research:

  24. Marty,

    While DM is making a Stone Age Religion out of Scientology the world is progressing and new discoveries are being made that LRH already 60 Years ago, was talking about.

    It’s about time that Scientologists catch up with the world and get out out of their blinded viewpoints !

    Perhaps somebody here has the courage to write a modern book about Dianetics…perhaps he could call it “Dianetics Today”🙂 and talks about how NED is applied without all the complications of Dmsmh.

    It would probably create a bigger boom than Dmsmh in 1950 (thanks to the Internet).

    Also, we could put together with some Scientists a huge database on the Internet, where all Auditors are reporting their sessions (anonymously) and so the scientists would have Oceans of data to evaluate the effectivness of the different technologies being used !

    I think they would be fascinated and jump onto the subject.

    ” SCIENTOLOGY HAS TO EVOLVE FURTHER”
    The Technology can’t stay static. There are still infinite discoveries to be made about life and the universe !

    Lrh wouldn’t have been able to make all his discoveries, if he didn’t have at his hand the work of mankind of the last thousands years.

    Roger

    • martyrathbun09

      Keep your eyes peeled this summer.

    • Roger,
      I’ve heard and seen this “evolve further” stuff. That’s what DM did with FNs, Sec Checks, NOTs, and a host of other things, “evolved” them further.

      That’s what numerous people raise the hue and cry for in the “freezone” – they’ve just “evolved” the technology further.

      Fine, evolve away. If a person wants LRH Breand Scientolology – I deliver that. And a very fine workable technology it is.

      • martyrathbun09

        I have perhaps upsetting news. If one does not EVOLVE after emerging atop the Scientology Bridge, and I chose those words carefully, one will regress. If you need an LRH reference in order to think with that one – the Philadelphia Doctorate Course (the whole thing). Transcend or descend. What is interesting is that those anxious to change the workable Bridge that LRH constructed ain’t anywhere near realizing the top of the Bridge. But, if anyone ever forgets that Scientology is a Bridge, that can lift someone from a lower plateau to a higher one, he’ll wind up parked on the Bridge, ultimately sliding back down it.

        • Are you kidding? “Upsetting news”? Scientology is a tool, not the end of anything. With that tool I have seen so far past any need of LRH holding my hand I couldn’t begin to express it. But as you, I well know that Bridge, and where it leads – to true spiritual freedom and from there…

        • Thank You! Bravo! +1!

        • Marty,

          I suspect you of writing only only for me. Each time I think along certain lines you write a post about the subject !

          I’ll love those upsettings news !

          Indeed we are Moving On Up a Little Higher !

      • Jim,

        I knew I’ll get such an answer, but didn’t expect it from you. I wasn’t talking about changing “standard tech”. Why should we ? It’s working.

        But how do you apply this technology to the world as it is today ?
        For example education.
        The way able is applying it is so far away from standard tech. The graduates of Delphi aren’t Super literates, have no student hat, no M1 aren’t using all the tech tech re study as crashing Mu finding, debugging and all the auditing tech developed for students alone (Word clearing correction lists, student rehab lists etc…).

        My dream is a school where when they graduate they are Class 8, OT 8, Super literates, have already traveled around the world, know their History, philosopy, geography, arts,sciences by heart and then are let loose into Universities and they ‘ll apply the factors to sciences. This will create an (R)evolution on this planet and we’ll not fly to Mars but to the end of the universe.

        It’s a shame the school that says they are Scientology schools. They do a little bit of everything and have fun, but it hasn’t anything to do with core Scientology tech.

        The day I’ve got some millions I want to found such a school and would like to engage you to work out the whole system !🙂🙂🙂🙂

        ARC

        Roger

        • martyrathbun09

          That type of ‘evolving’ of Scientology is exactly what LRH had in mind.

          • You’re totally right.
            He was also talking about political Dianetics, educational Dianetics and some other kind of Dianetics I can’t remember, perhaps medicinal Dianetics ?

            If LRH would have had enough time, next to develop the bridge, I’m sure he would have written those textbooks !

            Who will write them ?
            Marty ?
            Where are all those great Scientists, Writers, Philosophers, Artists, Politicians, Businessman that graduated from a Scientology school ?

            A real Scientology Tech School/University would produce geniuses !

        • Roger,
          Years ago, when I’d separated out from the group think, sort a like it says in the Nature of A Being issue, and ended up declared by Dave, it hit home very hard that the Int Base as it had become, the Sea Org, the church was “out of valence”.

          Here I was, studying the PDCs and freeing myself from the bonds of “agreement” and there was an entity compelling me with the threat of loss of ARC, to “agree” to the exact things I was seeing were nothing more than the aberrations of this “end of game”.

          What enabled me to come through that ossified and stultified “group think”, was the exact application of Scientology technology. I didn’t end up some sort of Ford car, spit out by a factory. I ended up a thetan with different responses, and the ability to shift viewpoints and free myself from the Service Facsimile that Scientology can become. It has every bit of power to dominate one’s thinking, and that is warned about in those same PDCs.

          It has freed my ability to think. To be able to confront any subject, any situation and persist until I know. So, any “march in step” sort of regime or circumstance, done without full awareness and self-determinism and the retention of the ability to choose to do so, or choose not to do so, is the LAST thing I got from L. Ron Hubbard’s philosophy or technology. I didn’t get it at all. Again, I was warned by Hubbard it could occur.

          Having experienced that freedom with the exact application of the TECHNOLOGY, well, I want others to have similar gains to mine, so I stick to it, with duplication and an increasing judgment that has me at the best state of being I’ve ever experienced and able more and more to assist others to recover their own native powers.

          It’s also enabled an “ecumenical” sort of view. That Ser Fac of Scientology as a fixed stable datum in a confusion is gone, now it’s simply a recognition of truth in any of its manifestations and the ability to exercise the fundamental solvent of open communication, as a tool to assist others achieve their own potential wherever that may extend.

          • Wow !
            I came to the same conclusions as you at the end but I couldn’t free myself yet totally of it. Every new day is a new experience ¨
            Thank you Jim I got you.

            Roger

    • LO

      I actually have a book published in 1975 by “the Church of Scientology” called “Dianetics Today”. It is a hard cover edition of the “Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course”

      Although it gave the state-of-the-art Dianetics of its day, Quite a wonderful volume. I have seen very few copies of it. Personally I think it is a treasure.

      A New Era Dianetics version would be a wonderful addition to the Scientology library.

      Eric S

      • Li'll bit of stuff

        Hi Eric, I know we’ve both been busy (me beyond belief!)
        Yes, also have a copy of our own, as do probably a lot
        of veteran Scn’s and you’re absolutely right about it
        being a wonderful volume….. full of handwritten LRH
        C/S ‘s and session reports, etc. NED version. as you
        say, would make a great addition too. We lament on….

        ARC, Li’ll bit

      • You got it !
        This book is worth millions !
        Don’t know why they stopped to publish it !
        Who ‘ll write that book ?

  25. Thanks for this one , Marty.

    So true about independence in religion/spirituality and other truth seeking … and independents …

    Last time I posted on your blog, was writing from thetanetworker.wordpress.com (which has since become a broader spiritual blog) — which I began with several posts, back in 2010 about how far from Ron Scientology as currently constituted by DM has gone. Within the last month — in the spirit of being more overt — I moved my Scientology posts over to a new wordpress blog = http://doitronsway.wordpress.com, which of course includes links to your blog, Nancy Many’s, Dexter Gelfand’s, etc., etc.

    “Do It Ron’s Way … in safe spiritual environments where we may exchange information, ideas and opinions, freely, without dogma
    There was and is one source for the workable technology of Dianetics and Scientology {I know, btw, that John McMaster amd David Mayo may have contributed}… Source did not pass to International Management or RTC”

    In resonance and ARC,

    Al
    PS — My “native state” is Brooklyn (NY)🙂

    • Theta networker,
      John Mc Master had jack squat to do with Power, aside from confessing he didn’t understand it in that well worn write up of his. Dexter Gelfand’s alter-is of Power, auditing it randomly, even over the phone while HE holds the cans, is about as sharp as David Miscavige re-writing NOTs.

      Ron’s way? Hardly.

      • Dexter Gelfand’s alter-is of Power, auditing it randomly, even over the phone while HE holds the cans…

        The first time I saw that reported, I was a newbie Independent. I nearly fell off the floor in shock. WTF? That was my warning that everything outside the crumbling walls of Mordor isn’t Standard Tech.

        • Ronnie and Jim,

          Thank you for responding to my post.

          Please acknowledge my intent … and that we may exchange information, ideas and opinions, freely, without dogma …

          I only stated parenthetically that 2 people “may have contributed,” and I chose the word “may” deliberately.

          Re: Dexter, who I know from NY: I have no data on any “alter-is of Power” or violation of Standard Tech {To date, I hav not rec’d any auditing in the in the independent or free zone field, partly due to the fact that I am not certain how to discern who is delivering it Ron’s way}. I can say this:
          I’m almost never wrong about my perceptions of where folks are on the Tone Scale, and the man does not feel to me like a 1.1 alter-iser …

          Thank you,

          Al

          • I don’t know what a “1.1 alter-iser” is. Don’t really care either. Dexter told me personally that he has “gone in a different direction than KSW” and then relayed how he uses Power as developed by John McMaster. John did not develop Power. In fact, in his very own write up on the subject he confesses he doesn’t really understand the subject. I then spoke to a “client” Mr. Gelfand enlisted and the proposal was to audit over the phone, Dexter holding the cans. The person declined, though Dexter DID take a sizeable deposit.

            Those are the facts I have personally. As to the remainder of whatever it is he does, I couldn’t say whether he “alters or doesn’t.

  26. I wonder if one day, Robert Lanza and Marty Rathbun might be on the same radio show together. That’d be something worth tuning in to listen to ..

  27. Path of Buddha

    The Buddha was silent on the issue of
    the immortality of the spirit.
    He was silent because he encouraged us
    to follow his practical path.
    Kamma or Karma is the action element
    which leads to rebirth which is
    not re-incarnation in the Theravada tradition.
    Other traditions may have different
    interpretations.

    May all beings be well and happy!
    George M. White

    • George,

      Indeed Buddha was silent on the subject, for good reason. These quotes from a Russian philosopher named Nicholai Berdayev, I feel, point to why this is necessary. They are about freedom.

      “Freedom is the ultimate: it cannot be derived from anything: it cannot be made the equivalent of anything. Freedom is the baseless foundation of being: it is deeper than all being.”

      “The philosophy of freedom begins with a free act before which there is not, nor can there be, existence, being. If we were to begin with being as the basis, and recognize this primacy of being over freedom, then everything, including freedom, is determined by being. But a determined freedom is not freedom at all.”

      And Buddha was indicating a practical path to freedom. There is much in LRH’s writings also, that point in that direction.

      Or, as LaoTze put it, “The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao.”

      • For a more complete answer as to which questions the buddha was silent about — google — “questions the buddha never answered”.

        In summary: “The Moral of the Story

        The same point is made in all these passages: don’t become caught up in arguments about issues that can never be resolved. Questions about the origin of the Universe, the nature of the soul, and what it is like to be the Buddha, can never really be answered. Speculating about these questions is not the way to peace, to release, to Nibbana. Buddhist philosophy is very pragmatic: it is concerned with ‘seeing things as they are’. The practice of meditation, along with the other elements of the Eightfold Path, is aimed at that direct understanding of the nature of things.”

        What is important — as I understand is “seeing thins as they are” — being pragmatic, being kind and offering a way for others that they are able to follow to a more fulfilled life.

        IMHO

        Love,
        WH

        • martyrathbun09

          At least with words they can never be answered, which LRH acknowledged in the PDC, yet – being the irreppressible one he was – he kept on trying.

        • George M. White

          wh,
          Agree with the post – with metta
          May all beings be well and happy!

          George M. White

      • George M. White

        iamvalkov,
        Berdayev is totally cool. I remember a litle about him from philosophy class.
        The quotations are powerful.
        I think the Buddha would have been pleased with him.

        May all beings be free!
        Greorge M. White

  28. “… knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts.”

    LRH, indeed, was ahead of time.

    “Many infer its existence without scientific analysis or reflection. Indeed, the mysteries of birth and death, the play of consciousness during dreams (or after a few martinis), and even the commonest mental operations – such as imagination and memory – suggest the existence of a vital life force – an élan vital – that exists independent of the body.”

    Way ahead of time.

    He was so much ahead of time, that he was forced to organize as a religion.
    For the sake of the tech.

    Now the tech is there but the church is corrupted.

    2012 is an interesting year.

    cheers

  29. Thanks for this article! Great post. Excellent reading, the Axioms juxtaposed with this research. Via a process of elimination, the Static (otherwise immeasurable) has been identified. It quenches the thirst for justice to see L. Ron Hubbard’s work and character vindicated. Eventually, time and truth will wrest the name L Ron Hubbard free from the politically-fabricated cardboard deep hooplah of polar sides.

    “Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When you watch a particle go through the holes, it behaves like a bullet, passing through one slit or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave and can pass through both slits at the same time. This and other experiments tell us that unobserved particles exist only as ‘waves of probability’ as the great Nobel laureate Max Born demonstrated in 1926.”

  30. Its funny– when the movie “What the Bleep Do We Know” came out. I watched it in amazement.

    I had never even been in a Scientology church at the time … and then to realize Hubbard was talking about this 60 YEARS AGO.

    The nothingness of the Static that creates everything. Its the Kingdom within that Christ spoke of and the ‘no mind’ of the Buddha.

    To put it in scientific terms of “no mass, no motion, no wavelength” it was so ahead of its time … truly

  31. Thank you Marty. Excellent post! Love reading all the interesting comments too.

  32. Lets all take a deep breath and have a moment of silence for all those poor souls stuck in traffic on their way to the gym to ride stationary bicycles … and all those at Flag who just bought another intensive … 😉

  33. Arrogance. That is a big problem with Scientology/The “Church.” The “We have all the answers and everyone else (wogs) are idiots” mentality. The disregard of hard data from other sources, the disregard of competence by “wogs” (which abounds), the disregard of utter failures by Scientologists and the “Church” (“If you’re critical you have overts!”). It’s a joke how “No man has a monopoly on the wisdom of the universe” is skewed in its interpretation to mean “we know everything and you are know nothing” instead of “We know things and others know things too.”

  34. Barrier to learning: thinking you know everything already.

  35. Hi Marty, You’ve probably come across the Alex Jones Channel as he’s based in Austin. What he says sounds crazy but so closely reflects what we have experienced in the UK. And the church of scientology seems to be involved in some way eg odd police behaviour whenever the name is mentioned. Thought today’s item about Re-Education camps might be of interest. This isn’t for you to post, just connecting dots.

    • Jane: If I may …

      Alex Jones is someone that when I HEAR him – I asked my ex-husband to please turn off the radio OR I was leaving.

      NOT because of his message PER SE — but because of the wavelength he was carrying his message — frantic, fear based, agitated, angry. Test to see how YOU feel after listening to him. Tune out his MESSAGE if you can, just try to FEEL the vibration.

      NOW — Rush Limbaugh — the OTHER side of the spectrum has THE SAME wavelength — frantic, fear based, angry, agitated. Test to see how you FEEL after listening to him. Tune out his MESSAGE, just try to feel the vibration.

      Two opposites — two the same — both delivering to their public a vibration of anger, upset, fear etc.

      LIFE really isn’t this complicated but for some it’s a great way to earn TOP dollars — just keep people frantic, in fear, angry and agitated.

      Sort of the stuff dm does —

      Or so I believe.

      WH

      • martyrathbun09

        1.5 to 2.0s are as 1.5 to 2.0s do.

        • just the fact you wrote the words “science catching up with Scientology” just shows how insane you really are…

          • martyrathbun09

            You misquoted me, and called me insane for that which YOU made up. Just shows how badly you need Objective processing.

      • Thanks windhorse, wise sentiments. As the medieval English mystic Julian of Norwich, said, ‘All shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well.’

        Yes it’s obvious that Alex Jones was spooked and hysterical. The only way to effectively deal with negativity is to stay firmly grounded in love and peace oneself. His tone didn’t affect me. I was interested in his words only because I have become increasingly concerned by the increasingly cavalier way British police interpret the law. So, for instance, they think it is totally permissible for 4 police to turn up late at night with no search warrant (because there is no reason in law they could have one) and insist on entering the very isolated house where an 80 year old woman lives alone….and then lie and lie and lie throughout the complaints procedures. This includes lying about the identity of one of the police officers concerned. Or, when someone is the victim of an assault by someone using their car as a weapon, to threaten to charge the victim in order to shut them up. And then to lie and lie etc throughout the complaints procedure: even to the extent of telling lies that contradict each other. Again, it is unclear who exactly the police officers were as the police record itself disagrees with itself. That’s the tip of the iceberg.

        The underlying reason appearing to be that there has been a decision made somewhere that certain individuals are criminals and then the job of the police is to act in illegal ways in order to create the illusion that those people are criminals. These tactics rely on an angry and/or fearful and/or hysterical response which could then be used to justify legal action against that person.

        So the only sane response is to be calm, considered, grounded…..

        Peace to you all, and thanks so much for the dialogue.

  36. Perhaps science is already catching up with Ron. Didn’t the Japanese use ‘water hoses’ to clean up all that radioactive mess? And didn’t Ron already try to tell the stupid scientists that radioactivity was removable by water? (all about radiation?) Well there you go.

  37. Psychs and Scientology. Something I did in 1967 when brand new in the
    church was to disseminate broadly mainly through my own successes from
    the auditing. Never read the books nor any courses but had several intensives of one process with 3 commands over and over until I had wins
    that were more than wonderful, producing OT abilities (please, no hidden
    standard now). I did learn the first 10 axioms backwards and forwards and
    tested them after each session. And I found out about ARC. Those were
    my tools when I met this practicing psychiatrist through a family member.
    Asking her what she did to help people she amongst other things mentioned how they cured bed wetters by sending electrical shocks through their bodies. Was nasty stuff. When she was done proudly
    enumerating the things they did she finally asked me what I did. As I
    had not done anything and I had no Tech under my belt plus did not know
    the dissem drill I decided to go for the core concept. So for 2 long hours
    I went through Axiom 1 but only the 2nd line (it has no…) and as this was
    a very “educated” person I had to somehow impinge on her level so I gave
    her the old lawyer routine “isn’t it true that…” and went over each part of
    what a static has not and what he can do. She got more and more into
    it and after a couple of hours of this when she was engrossed into this
    up to her eyeballs and all her animosity towards me was gone I asked her
    what life was and she blurted out the first line of Axiom 1 with excitement
    and genuinely meaning it. She got it. And she was happy. Never found out
    what happened to her – no cell phones or internet. This little encounter
    was a lesson in what can be done with pure ARC. There need not be
    arguments, attacks nor demonstrations or oppositions but a flow with what
    peoples “R” is and close open comm but it takes one on one and can take
    some time. CCHR has its work cut out for them but is only utilizing one
    roadway to get there.
    Of course David Miscavige is beyond comprehension of this. I rather talk
    to a psych!

    • Lars,
      What a great story that is. Wonderful application of material. And the care and attention to see that another duplicated a concept, no matter how long it took, and had a win and a cognition. That is what it’s all about dude. Wonderful.

    • Jean-Francois Genest

      Excellent, Lars!
      No wonder you became a State-of-the-Art Class 6 auditor.

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Lars,
      Great recounting of a massive win. THIS is the real power
      of ARC, and I’m often surprised at how often, our fellow
      Scns, completely miss duplication of this dynamite tool!

      Your application of a patient TR-3, went and achieved
      what can only be termed a miracle and again serves to remind us, just how fortunate we really are, to have had LRH hand us down such incredibly potent, simple, life changing tools, to better our lives and those of our fellows.

      Add to that, the Comm Formula, particularly TR-2 (ack’s)
      Allowing a person to end cycle, by letting them KNOW,
      they have been heard (or read!) and understood, is also
      just simply old fashioned “good manners” but in itself
      creates ARC.Wonderful tools, all, for every day usage.

      Thank you, again Lars, for sharing your beingness with us.

      Much ARC, Li’ll bit.

    • Dang Lars, Man, you really get what Scientology is all about. I think I saw something recently where LRH said ARC was one of the most powerful discoveries in the universe. And Mi-scab-itch won’t use it. Shows you where he’s at. You were more qualified to head International Scientology when you were brand new in Scientology and had done no courses but only one process. Thank goodness for people like you.

  38. Serious thought to ponder: “I’d rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.”

  39. Well said. Travesty indeed. It’s actually very sad.
    Glad to be Independent after all these years. When I disseminate, most know Scientology is good and the corporate church is not. Let’s all do what Source said–share the knowledge. It’s FREE.

  40. Tom Gallagher

    Beautifully, brutally gentle and provocative as usual Marty. Thanks again for your strides. We all benefit and the world will continue to heal. If LRH were looking about, I sense he’d acknowledge you as KOT (keeper of the tech).

    Thanks for standing up to the challenge.

    Folks, when was the last time we heard of Kha Khan bestowed inside RCS?

  41. Most important question:
    “Is there a life before death?”

  42. Thanks for this Marty.
    I want to relay my own reality on this. When I was in my last years of high school, I studied psychology. I enjoyed it at the time, though it was apparent to me that they seemed to do a lot of assigning names to conditions but not really understand what or how to handle those conditions.
    When I got involved in Scn a short while later and within a few years was into the SO, it came up that I had studied psychology at school and this was deemed to be a real outpoint. Particularly when I was on clearance lines to go to Int, I had to go into much detail about it, to explain how I was not, by association and past study, deemed unqualified.
    I spent more than 17 years in the SO, limited in what I could study, read, learn of. And I, along with everyone else, never dared to read a book that was not LRH or a text OKed for study for hatting purposes.
    When I left the SO, I started to read — and whilst I have no where near come close to the study you and many others have (having two small children challenges one’s time to read), I came to see very quickly that the world changed in 20 years – significantly. I also came to see that the whole anti-psychology and anti-anything other than LRH arbitrary policies that get enforced, are so destructive.
    For one, people in Scn and in the SO, end up on a diet of just one source of knowledge — yet LRH was an avid researcher, scientist and student or all sorts of information, fields and industries. It is so wrong, and is what has made it a cult, an “ism”, and so close-minded. It totally violates the basic principles that LRH details in Dianetics 55! written in 1955. One has to study and learn and understand ALL of life, in order to be able to control and have responsibility for it.
    This is a datum that DM could never understand.
    And I found — one coming out in 2005, that people’s awareness of spiritually is vastly increased. It is not unusual for people to consider that they do not die when their body dies. And I keep coming across basic Scientology principles being promoted and applied in life by all sorts of different organisations and people — with them having no idea that the principle is part of Scientology knowledge or practice.
    Scientology knowledge – as it permeates society — destimulates, and calms the raging waters. It works — and that alone, has people adopt it and use it.
    I think in about 30 years time there will be so much of Scientology that society uses – without even knowing or understanding its source — but which helps and moves the 3rd and 4th dynamics up!
    Meanwhile — Radical Scn and its followers, close their eyes and their ears, they denounce and pounce on anyone who dares look or read something on the internet, or in a book on psychology or by a philosopher, or on a religion. Oh my! They are on a one-way trip down. While claiming they are the only way out — they are going out in the wrong direction!

  43. “life and consciousness are the keys to the universe” which “challenges this traditional materialistic mode of reality”
    Oh my gosh! In Psychology Today! That is remarkable!
    The involvement of the spiritual side of man, no matter what the religion, in mental healing is acknowledged.
    I’m excited and I think Ron would be, too!

    • What I find silly is that Scientologists, being so brainwashed into thinking that psychology is bad and being unwilling to look at anything under it, don’t realize it is a VAST field covering many areas. One of those is the paranormal. I recently read The Relaxation Response, a 1975 book that took a scientific look at Trancendental Meditation. They also studied Tibetan lamas who could meditate in the snow and generate enough heat to dry a wet sheet wrapped around them.

      Frankly I think a lot of people are clueless as to what info is out there. It’s been out there for decades if not centuries, it’s just not mainstream. Psychology and neuroscience and biology have tons of fascinating, useful observations, truths if you will, more and more all the time, and some of them are not found in Scn.

      • Path of Buddha

        Obnosis,
        You have hit on a key point. This is something that
        I have investigated because you find in Scientology
        very few real instances of extra-normal powers.
        The only one I ever saw that amazed me was about
        35 years ago. On a TV game show in California,
        a self named Scientologist won the top prize.
        He literally had the ability to move a ball through
        a maze with very little mechanical control.
        The game was rigged for a big loss by anyone who tried.
        After he did it the first time, the game host was so amazed
        he actually rejected the result and made him do it again.
        The contest player did it a second time perfectly!
        Even 2,600 years ago, many amazing feats were recorded.
        Examples of transcendental experiences or
        ‘super powers’ are quoted in the Pali Canon.
        The Buddha discouraged the display of ‘super powers’.
        However, when pressed for an answer, he did admit that
        500 very peaceful monks at the monastery at Jetavana
        had full powers of levitation and mind reading.
        You have observed something very subtle.

        May all beings be well and happy!

        George M. White

        • heh heh – try playing pool with someone who did the original OT levels, is a Class VIII, and likes to show off a little at times…..

  44. A few days ago i was reading freedom magazine on line and it seemed psyched to me . I won’t be reading that in future . Who has been writing that dribble ?

  45. Marty,
    Thank you so much for this post and thanks to everyone for the stimulating comments. It was Quantum Theory and Particle Physics that got me back into Scientology after a forty year hiatus! I had some auditing on the Grades and read a few books way back then, but nothing further. A few years ago I began reading popular books on Quantum Theory by authors such as Brian Greene and Nick Herbert and kept thinking how this paralleled much of what I had read in Hubbard’s work. This led me to read the Basics and become entangled in the Cof$$$ for several years (a whole other story). I didn’t have a “ruin” or anything I particularly wanted to change – I just wanted to “know.” Well, I still don’t have my own Theory of Everything, but the quest is the challenge. For anyone who has taken TRs & Obj. or Pro-TRs, I recommend Alice in Quantumland, an allegory by Robert Gilmore. I just found the title rather apropos, fitting my perverse sense of humor, after having become so overly intimate with Alice in Wonderland.
    Since there are so many parallels between LRH and “other practices,” including many concepts in Psychology, I do not understand the Church’s war on Psychology. Psychologists do not administer drugs or electric shock. CofS has major MU’s on Psychology vs. Psychiatry. They may as well include General Practitioners and Internists since they currently prescribe most of the psych drugs. The people I know who went into the research side of Psychology were just looking for answers, like everyone else, and those who chose therapy were just trying to help others. Much of Psychology may not be valid but, like religion, I don’t think most field practitioners are prompted by nefarious motives although they might have exalted views of their effectiveness.
    And while I’m off topic, I would please like someone to explain why Scientology uses the word reasonable as a pejorative when most people think being reasonable is a good thing to be. It seems it’s used in situations where the psychological defense mechanism of rationalization would be a better fit. This usage always throws me – I’ve looked it up in several places, but just don’t get it.
    I’m sorry this is so long. Although I’ve read every blog entry and every comment for over two and a half years (even read from the beginning retroactively), I rarely post – so please excuse this one time lengthy response. Just an irresistible urge to outflow!

    • martyrathbun09

      “Reasonable” in LRH’s works took on a somewhat negative connotation as he used in the similar way that “rationalize” has been popularly used to connote a negative process of denial. Not even a problem; except that SCIENTOLOGY INC in all it literalness took ‘reasonable’ further to connote ‘weak’, ‘stupid’, even ‘treasonable’ – mainly through the process of making ‘unreasonable’ (which originally was used by LRH to mean ‘have the integrity to not alter through rationalizing what one observes’ (my paraphrase) to mean ‘be ruthless and cruel’.

      • except that SCIENTOLOGY INC in all it literalness took ‘reasonable’ further to connote ‘weak’, ‘stupid’, even ‘treasonable’ – mainly through the process of making ‘unreasonable’ (which originally was used by LRH to mean ‘have the integrity to not alter through rationalizing what one observes’ (my paraphrase) to mean ‘be ruthless and cruel’.

        So true! Good for documenting yet another of the numerous and insidious alterations by Scientology Inc. The zealot’s bark “Be unreasonable!” has indeed been morphed & twisted from the original Hubbard usage to being ruthless and cruel!

      • Thanks. That helps…and I’ve sure noticed the literalness. I was accused of “joking and degrading” and almost sent to Ethics when I told a Word Clearer that I thought LRH didn’t mean what he said literally; he was just being sarcastic to make a point. Ouch!

  46. It could be that following Happened in the fifties:

    ” When the factors were published and all other discoveries of LRH That the american Government was quite upset about the potential of LRH’s discoveries, sent in some spies and wanted to get it under control.”

    ” Perhaps one of those spies reported to a scientist that helped to build the atom bomb and this scientist was bonded by the government, so he couldn’t tell to the world what the work of LRH means, but was only aloud to tell his evaluations to the american government.”

    It could also be:

    ” That this scientist saw the potential of LRH’s work and perhaps even said: ” My god ! He achieved what I always wanted to achieve and he found the final answers to my riddles, but we will not let the government know of this potential as they’ll use it to build a better bomb, I’ll not do that again, so I tell them it’s rubbish and it hasn’t any scientific basis at all ! ”

    And it could be that since then those words are repeated by any scientists !

    Just a fairy tale !🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂

    Roger

    • Interesting ‘fairy tale’ there, Roger. It’s been said many times, that if the true history of this planet were revealed, it would be too fantastic for most to believe.

  47. On the lighter side, here are two movies I recommend:

    YESTERDAY’S CHILDREN – Great story. Based on the book “Across Time And Death: A Mother’s Search For Her Past Life Children” by Jenny Cockell. Hard to find in the US, though. I bought it from Amazon France (the DVD is Region 2). It has an English audio track and optional French subtitles.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264192/

    http://www.amazon.fr/YESTERDAYS-CHILDREN-Clancy-Claire-Seymour/dp/B00006AV7G/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1336473574&sr=1-1

    CHANCES ARE – Lightweight but charming, complete with Hollywood’s vision of an implant station. Fun.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097044/reviews

    Enjoy.

  48. When is your book out by the way? Can’t wait to read it

  49. BillyJackIsBack

    Excellent discussions! Love the William Wallace quote!!1

  50. Marty – this article and all the discussions are just amazing. I am in complete awe! This blog is so compelling – my own learning curve has gone into a steep upward trend. Thank you!

    • I was going to say something like this, but you said it so well I’ll just piggyback – hope you don’t mind!

      Thanks Marty.

  51. Remember the make-wrong stories in “Advance!” magazine about Mount Olympus, Valhalla or shamanism? They were all about how these creeds kinda represented man’s search for his soul, and of course they kinda had it all wrong even if their hearts were in the right place, but hurray, the search was over now because Scientology had all the answers and would lead you to that state of OT they’d been trying to achieve for eons, and so forth. Too many “scientologists” have interpreted these stories as meaning: “Scientology is THE religion and every other religion is crap.” Sad. And arrogant.

    • I think all here are well aware of the many times LRH acknowledged the valid parts of other philosophies and religions.

      He said on more than one occasion, that many philosophers and religions had discovered a great many truths about life and the universe, but that none of them had discovered or developed a workable route out of the MEST universe trap. He went on to say that Scientology stands alone in that regard.

      For what it’s worth, that is still true for me. It’s why I’m not personally interested in following any other path but Scientology to its end. Perhaps when I arrive at the end of that path, I’ll have a look at what other isms and teachings have to offer, but not until then.

      Others’ mileage may vary.

      • Once again, Ronnie, your words perfectly duplicate my thoughts.

        It is that LRH gave people a way to take apart the bank, to release, as-is the charge accumulated over the trillenia, that sets Scientology apart.

        This has nothing to do with superiority, or “mine is better than yours”. It is simply, as you say, something that makes Scientology “stand alone”, completely unique in the annals of life on this planet.

  52. Another very interesting book is “The Holographic Universe” by Michael Talbot, with discussions of Bohr’s work and others. The author makes the case for the participation of the mind in the creation of matter, and claims that when you look at matter through the most powerful electron microscopes, you find smaller and smaller particles, until you eventually find – nothing! : )

  53. The Economist

    Comment unrelated to the topic…just received promo from the old Org. It is amazing that kids of staff are manning so many posts. Instead of educating themselves or building careers they are spinning their wheels in an empty org. Reminds me of the communist approach in Cuba or Cambodia…give the young ones positions of power and a gun because they are easily controlled and manipulated. The older more educated parts of the population that may question the regime are either killed and dumped in the river, or in the case of Cuba, sent packing to Miami. The Scientology version is to use ethics actions and disconnection to silence the detractors.

  54. “It is amazing that kids of staff are manning so many posts. Instead of educating themselves or building careers they are spinning their wheels in an empty org.”
    ———-

    It is amazing, yes indeed, the new breed that will “clear the planet”. They sure have bought into the glossy promo pieces, the hard sell recruit cycles. They are now the elite who join staff or the SO. What these poors souls don’t SEE nor LOOK nor are TOLD to LOOK into is the fact of you, the Economists, mentioning the orgs are EMPTY. These poor souls have been sold a bill of worthless false lying PR by the CO$ hidden under the guise of Scientology and got them to not LOOK. But we got a nice fancy building here, so something must be good about it. Never mind that we don’t tell you that the fancy building was paid for by suckers donations, it has nothing to do with expansion, it just appears that way, we won’t tell you that part of it all.

    • And these poor souls, new breed, do not know there is real scientology out there being delivered by real scientologists. There’s that monopoly thingie.

      • from above———

        Axiom 10: The highest purpose in the universe is the creation of an effect.

        ———————–

        The purpose of my posts above, is to create the effect of people looking here on martys blog, is to LOOK, don’t listen or view glossy promo pieces as the truth.

  55. ‘transcend or descend” catchy and so true. I am sure that I appreciated Scientology because of my education and because of my interest in eastern religion, and I am also sure that other areas that I have studied only create more ARC with the tech, and likewise, the tech helps me to see other areas better. It truly is knowing how to know.

    Here’s somthing cool: babies that are adopted can grow up with this feeling of betrayal or a sad effect or confusion. This is something psychiatrist and psychologist know and teachers can also verify as often being true, no matter how much the family loves each other, there can be this case sitting there (as an auditor knows).

    A psychiatrist has established this procedure whereby the newborn baby is taken to his new mom and dad, and the baby is R factored why he/she is getting adopted, and then is introduced to the new mom and dad : ‘this is your new mommy” , then the new mom looks at the child and the other person holds the baby so that they are in eye contact. They stay that way until there is a bonding.This is the nutshell version. I don’t know about the longitudal studies yet, but I talked to a psychologist/teacher who does this, and she said it is remarkable.

    Now you could just drink a big cold koolaide and think the Dr who put the program in place is an SP becasue YOU KNOW that all psychiatrists et al are 100% evil. You can simply ignore your own ability to observe the obvious and therefore remain ignorant. Sadly, people in the church are not making the choice to be ignorant, they no longer posses a viewpoint; just automatic responses.

  56. Captain Bob ++1

  57. “To find a parallel to the nuclear theory… we must turn to the epistemic problems that thinkers like Buddha and Lao-tzu have already faced, if we want to find a balance between our position as observers and actors in the great drama of existence.”

    Niels Bohr –
    Danish physicist (Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922)

  58. As I kill myself yesterday, tomorrow no longer exist! For Now is key, as to see nothing of yesterday, and nothing tomorrow! Everything happens Now, Pay Attention not to miss what matters, as matter builds in the moment, this will be the only chance in your awareness you will have to work with creation! For me to understand we are from nothing, as we will go with nothing! As the flow of energy that exist in this body will perish and the body returns to mother Earth! Here it’s clear as my energy of spirit is free to be, in the flow of the heavens as I see, and this is to eternity, in the freedom of frequency I will flow, building substance that matters I know not where goes! Never ending cycle as we see, freedom is an object, a choice, for you and me!!!!!!

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