Introduction to Training Routines 0-9

I am providing below a copy of the introduction I wrote for people who do Training Routines 0-9 here at Casablanca.   I am not suggesting that anyone else copy and utilize it (but they are free to if they wish).  However, I think some might find the context provided of interest.

Introduction to Training Routines  0-9 at Casablanca

The cutting edge of modern physics, quantum theory or quantum mechanics, has never been proven wrong in its predictions of phenomena.  That is why technology derived from its principles accounts for more than one third of our current economy.   These facts are not widely known, in part because quantum theory reveals unanswered conundrums that seem to set classic physics on its head.   Most confounding is quantum theory’s demonstration that consciousness affects, and may even create, the physical universe.  Scientists have demonstrated over and over that the observer affects the behavior of matter in its smallest observable form (the sub atomic waves or particles which combine to form all matter). The fact that the observer (the spirit) is not of the physical universe and cannot therefore be directly measured by physical devices leaves quantum theorists scratching their heads and posing rather clumsy metaphysical questions. The seeming convergence of science into the realm of consciousness, or the spirit, frightened many scientists in the early part of the 20th Century.  That included one of science’s most free and liberal thinkers, Albert Einstein.  On more than one occasion Einstein warned fellow scientists to be wary of the ‘spooky actions’ that quantum physics revealed when the observer (consciousness, or the spirit) met matter.  He along with the leading scientists of the era were concerned that quantum theory would turn science toward the metaphysical realms of consciousness; a taboo for the masters of the physical universe. One of the pioneers of quantum theory, Niels Bohr, proffered an agreement called the Copenhagen interpretation to allay such fears.  The agreement was that the established observation of quantum physics that the observer (consciousness, spirit) affects and even seems to create matter at the microscopic level would only apply at the level of the then-fringe sub study of quantum mechanics.  Since science was unable to demonstrate the quantum observations with matter larger than atoms – in large part due to its lack of technological means to do so – classic Newtonian physics would not be monkeyed with at the macroscopic level.  Science would leave the spirit alone. 

The Copenhagen interpretation worked for several decades.  It kept science out of the realm of the spirit. But, it also kept science largely in the dark.   As technology evolved, not in small part due to the continued brave work of the few in the field of quantum mechanics, science began to see consciousness demonstrate influence on matter – not only at sub-atomic particle level, but at increasing levels of density and mass.

Consequently, of late books have proliferated on the issue of science entering the realm of consciousness.   Many  scientists have come to recognize that ancient Eastern spiritual texts (e.g. the Tao Te Ching, the Vedas) treating the idea that spirit is senior to and responsible for the creation of the physical may indeed have been scientifically sound all along.  Still, it is interesting reading such scientific thinking authors proceeding with such trepidation, grappling with that which the Buddhist described as ‘nothing’ and the Tao described as an unmeasurable ‘emptiness.’    Unable to conceive of anything outside of,  yet affecting, the physical universe, the physicists alternatively refer to the ‘observer’ as ‘brain function’, ‘chemistry’, and ‘consciousness’ among many other labels.  

If Lao Tzu (author of the Tao) and Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) are deserving of apology for centuries of ridicule by the scientific community, then L. Ron Hubbard ought to at least be given a second look.   In the early fifties, during the height of Cold War electrification and horror at the specter of nuclear physic’s then-greatest creations (the hydrogen and atom bombs) being unleashed, Hubbard was busy attempting to marry scientific thought with Eastern spiritual truth. The author and founder of Dianetics and Scientology became much maligned in the following decades for the extreme, aggressive  measures his Scientology organizations would take in defense and propagation of what began as courageous, effective research.   That well publicized drama largely drowned out Hubbard’s more important contributions.   His definition of spirit, which he termed thetan (from the Greek letter, sometimes used to convey the concept ‘thought’) so as to distinguish his ideas from a myriad of existing, conflicting notions, used more scientist-friendly terms that fully differentiated spirit from the physical universe as:

Having no mass, no wavelength, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate.  The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things…the awareness of awareness unit.

From a spiritual approach he described a thetan’s effect upon and creation of the physical universe in terms that agree with more recent quantum mechanics findings. As we proceed we will attempt to satisfy the scientific mind by staying within the realm of demonstrable scientific fact.

First, science tells us that there is no such thing as the past.   That is, there is only evidence of the past as a creation of our minds; whether that be in the form of individual and collective memory or the recounting of past events in words, images and published, digital, visual and audio media or in divining and speculating about the past by analysis and testing of physical matter.  The past is only cognizable against the created agreement called ‘time’ (the gauge by which we measure movement of matter in or across space).

Second, science tells us that the present is only what we observe – there is no physical universe but that which we observe.  Whether we create the physical universe to observe, as some religionists and quantum theorists contend we do, or not is an interesting metaphysical question.   A solid agreement on this question is not important for practical purposes of leading a happy, purposeful and meaningful life.  

Third, we are drawn into the future by our individual and collective intention.  If Sally decides she is going to spend tomorrow planting her garden the chances of her doing so are dictated primarily by her ability to follow through on her intention to do so.  Sure, there are conflicting intentions.  Her husband might intend that she instead go to the beach with him.  Her mother might intend she bring her children, the mother’s grandchildren, to her home to play.  The weather might intend to make conditions miserable for planting a garden.   If Sally’s intention is not so strong, it will likely be modified by the conflicting intentions of her husband, her mother, and/or the weather.   But if Sally’s intention is sufficiently strong she will go ahead and create the future she initially intended.   If she has refined social abilities she will first deftly obtain the agreement of her husband and mother to modify their own conflicting intentions.   If she is exceptionally able she might even inspire her husband and mother to contribute to her original intention.   Thus, Sally’s mother winds up coming over the next day to watch the kids so Sally can concentrate on her garden work.  Her husband dons his overalls and gets into the garden to help her.   This works out particularly well where everyone’s original intentions were satisfied – i.e. Sally’s mother’s original intention to spend time with her grandchildren, and her husband’s intention to spend time with Sally, both were satisfied by modifying their intentions to coincide with Sally’s.   And even though the counter intention of the weather apparently was not modified – it poured hard on gardening day – the new, stronger collective intention of Sally, her husband and her mother overcame that hardship.

We witness in ourselves and others varying strengths of intention and abilities to garner cooperation with the realization of intentions.  One factor in determining strength of intention is one’s ability to envision into the future.  If one can rationally observe and evaluate the present so as to conceive of a desirable, achievable future scenario one has a greater chance to develop one’s own effective intention and to garner the cooperation of others in helping to achieve it.  If one’s view of the present is so clouded by fixed ideas molded by undue attention stuck in the apparent past one is liable to be unable to cleanly envision rational, desirable future goals worthy of much support.   In such a case, one will not likely even muster one’s own strength toward achieving such goals, let alone obtain the cooperation of others.   

Goal conception thus can be seen as a fundamental skill in the development of intention toward creation of desirable futures.  Hubbard coined another term to describe that skill. He called it ‘postulating’, or mentally posting scenarios or results for future realization. Precedent to the ability to effectively postulate is accurate, rational observation of the present and differentiation of that from the illusion of the past.  While I am cognizant of the axiom that holds that to remain ignorant of the past is to be condemned to repeat it, there is a stark difference between the past as rational knowledge or wisdom and the past as mysterious, dictating reactivity.  In order to realize the former it is necessary to learn to differentiate it from the latter.   To fail in that differentiation is to continually, and unwittingly, create an illusion that carries force and undue influence in the present and which has a tendency to dictate the future. The most direct and powerful way to achieve differentiation between present and the illusion of the past is to develop the ability to recognize and fully perceive the present.  

Zen Buddhist masters for centuries have periodically reminded students that enlightenment need not take a lifetime of inactivity to achieve; that one is capable of deciding to be enlightened.  They have scorned esoteric and complicated forms of meditation and instead advised coming to present time at once.  20th century philosopher J. Krishnamurti often repeated that theme in writings and lectures.   The burden of his discourse was that to focus on a mantra or an object, as meditation often requires, is as valid in focusing concentration as worshiping an icon or deity is.   It is not however very effective in increasing perception and awareness.  Instead, the most effective and immediate method by which to train the mind and spirit to observe and heighten awareness is to learn to see, or observe.

I do not negate or doubt the inherent ability of some to simply do as Krishnamurti or the Zen masters have advised.  However, I am not one of those who was blessed with that natural presence of mind to instantly achieve that ability.  I was greatly assisted in the process by Hubbard, who saw eye to eye with Krishnamurti and the Zen teachers as far as objective is concerned.   L. Ron Hubbard noted that ‘the road out’ of entrapment of the mind ‘is marked by simplicity and direct observation.’    In pursuit of making that ability attainable by the likes of myself, Hubbard developed a number of simple exercises designed to help an individual attain the ability to simply be present and perceive.  From that foundation further drills make clear, effective communication possible.  The final exercises make one aware of the power of his own intentions and teach one to increase his ability to direct them and realize them.

Ultimately, these exercises became the cornerstone of the applied religious philosophy of Scientology.  When those exercises were recognized as its foundation the philosophy thrived.   That period of expansion was occasioned by the purveying of a simplicity. However, ultimately its organizations were corrupted to become the destructive activity Hubbard himself warned of: ‘By the invitation of or involvement in a complexity, we accomplish the unfathomable and create a mystery.  We sink Man into a priesthood, we sink him into a cult.’

While I acknowledge Hubbard for having created the exercises that follow, I also re-iterate his warning.  The organizations that he created have since his 1986 passing sunk into a dangerous cult priesthood, preying on the curious with a toxic mix of mystery and complexity. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to not trust anyone but yourself in applying these drills.  The moment you encounter complexity in this – or any other – spiritual endeavor sort it out before continuing.  Do not devote your time or energy to anything you do not understand or find rational reason to pursue.   Do not accept the invitation into a complexity or a mystery. 

If you find the drills difficult to do, do not mistake that for or write that off as a ‘complexity’ or a ‘mystery.’   The road to ability is not always easy.  It sometimes requires self-discipline and perseverance.  It sometimes requires strength to overcome the resistance the physical universe (including the unconscious mind) presents to keep us within its relentless tendency to seek equilibrium.  Keep this in mind: that resistance breeds resistance.  Most Eastern thought (including its martial arts) is predicated on that truth.  A spirit is not of the physical universe; it only considers that it can be affected by matter.  When spirit acts like matter, and attempts to use force to control or resist, it provides a base for counter-force and counter-control to accumulate against. What actually is occurring in that case of putting up force or effort (in accordance with Eastern thought and quantum mechanics) is that spirit is creating matter against which more matter can adhere.  When you experience discomfort or seemingly mental mass or force impinging on you during the drills, simply be aware of them.  Do not resist them.  Do not strengthen them with resistance or counter-force.  They are incapable of affecting a thetan, except to the degree that a thetan considers they can.  After all, a thetan is not of the physical universe except only by its own consideration. Simply observe such phenomena for what they are and I believe you will witness them vanish.   When they do, take heart for you will have experienced the achievement of an ability.  Realize that you are on the road to being able to comfortably, fully differentiate the present from the past.   From that strong foundation you can proceed toward more effective communication and projection of your intentions into the future.

364 responses to “Introduction to Training Routines 0-9

  1. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    Marty,

    Those are the textbooks I was talking about. You fully understood what happened to “OT TRO” which created the big booms in the seventies and eighties.
    OTTRO is back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    ” The world begins with TRO”
    This text alone will create a huge rehabilitation in the field and suddenly OT’s are popping up all over the place !
    Talking about revolution !
    The text is honest,straight forward and uptodate.
    I can’t await to read “Dianetics today” and all other textbooks that will be written.

    Well done🙂🙂

    • I suspect this will be an unpopular comment but IMHO Scientology has never had a “big boom”. It has had periods where it did better than other periods but the idea of a big boom is nonsense. Any “big boom” was isolated to individual Missions or Orgs for very short periods of time. Point in fact: LRH stated in LRH ED 339R that Boston has gone “St. Hill Size”. This would have been circa 1975/76. I got into Scientology in Boston in May 1977. At that time there very few Div 4 public and just a couple auditors. Why? Because just like now a “Command Team” was sent into stat push the Boston Org and when they left the whole thing dell apart. The Boston Org stat range probably hasn’t changed in the past 30 years. Ditto for most all Orgs. Another example would be the SF Mission which really did boom in the late 1980s but it was short lived. It imploded due to out ethics and out tech and the loss of the Sterling Management line. IMHO Scientology Orgs have only survived because staff are are essentially paid nothing. It’s always been that way. Even back when LRH ran FCDC. I doubt you could find but a handful of Org staff (possibly some EDs, regges & bookstore officers) who have ever made a living wage in the past 30 years.

      • Portland Mission in 1977 had dozens of well trained staff and hundreds of active public. I’ve heard the same of at least a dozen other missions of the time. They trained Dianetics Auditors and produced Clears. By today’s standards that was a beyond a boom, it was a freaking RUSH.

        • I don’t doubt it but it proves my point. First it was a Mission not an Org so likely there was not a proportional pay system which has been an utter failure. Back then Missions were always considered more “upstat” at least on the east coast. And the Portland Mission “boom” was isolated and short lived. I toured through Portland Org & CC (which I believe had been the Mission) in the mid 1980s. The Org was a ghost town. The CC was better but hardly booming. Anyway I just scratch my head whenever I hear the days when “Scientology boomed” as from what I saw most Org stats were miserable and the staff have always had to moonlight or be supported by a non staff member spouse or parent. I just don’t think anyone can refute this. However it is also true that the Org network grew by leaps and bounds during the 1960s & 1970s. I’d guess that most Orgs at least in the U.S. have been around since the 1970s but the actual size of most Orgs were at the most always a dozen or two Div 4 public at any given time. I know cause I toured through almost every Org in the 1980s. Two of the bigger Orgs were St. Creek & Orange County – both of which had recently been Missions. OC took really off when it got the Hollander and Sterling lines. St. Creek to it’s credit relied on it’s own local public but it was also stat pushed to St Hill Size around 1988 and then fell part within months if not weeks of achieving “Old St Hill Size”. IMHO Scientology Orgs have always had a fairly limited stat ceiling. I don’t why but I think the stats bear out what I say. Anyway I didn’t mean to hijack thread.

          • I think if you study more closely you will find that many mini-booms happened under the light touch management of the franchise system. All killed forever when gotten under the ‘control’ of management. Same for orgs. Pioneer areas teach the lesson over and over. When allowed to get on with it growing from the bottom up (grass roots), entire regions (Italy, Mexico, Russia, etc) experienced genuine surges – all were killed when management got a stranglehold to tap into the wealth.

            • Agreed. Minimal management interference plus a strong local leader and good things can happen. However for as long as I’ve been involved in Scientology (1977) I’ve rarely seen that especially in the Cl V Org network. Org stats always seemed to be stuck in the 5K – 30K GI/VSD range. At least that’s what it was like in the EUS from 1977 until I left the EUS in 1985. From 1985 though1988 I toured through almost every US Org and I observed almost one for one the Orgs were struggling with the exception of perhaps Stevens Creek & OC.

              • Interesting. Miscavige personally destroyed those two last geese that once laid golden eggs (SC and OC).

              • FYI i worked for CCLA during what I call it’s hay day the first 5 years of it’s existance under Yvonne and can proudly say I earned around $10 a week for at least several of the 5 years!

            • Part of the problem might also be the sheer number of management points in an Org. My first post was PPO. I distinctly recall how I had to deal not only with my senior but also the FR and LRH Comm marching in and out of my office all the time. And the time spent writing frickin’ compliance reports. Give me a break. Later as the Org reg I not only had to deal with my senior but also the Org ED, FBO, LRH Comm, FR and the Programs Chief CLO! It’s amazing I ever got anything done. LOL! At least in the Mission network staff didn’t have to deal with all these “Network Execs” and their idiotic compliance reports that seemed to be “relogged” every couple weeks. Brother, talk about bureaucracy and paperwork for the sake of paperwork.

              • “Part of the problem might also be the sheer number of management points in an Org.” Kevin Tighe
                —————
                That very out-point drove me up a wall the majority of my time on staff, including as an FSM. Ron mentioned about “arbitrary decision points” as a problem as I recall (somebody help me with the reference).

                I tend to agree with your assessment Kevin, although there have beeb points of observable success. LA Org for example, back in the 80’s & even part of the 90’s. Quite PTS albeit. Even the Anchorage Mission became 27 staff and a perfect mid-town location [for a short period], now down to 2 or 3 contracted staff. Out this out that, out-2D ~ way over cooked, out- finance way over-baked due to a few crims for personal profit on the lines. Seattle Org had course room full of students when I did my MCSC in 82, but faltered not long after, and I’m not sure if it ever really recovered. They do have a nice fancy building now though…

                Perhaps -boom- is the wrong word, but semantics aside, the Church was upward spiral at key points in history that are worth mentioning. I know you remember Mt. View Mission. Would love to hear your assessment on that sit, past and present.

              • + 1 (from a former PPO). “Management” hah!

              • Theo Sismanides

                Kevin, talking about vias here. No real terminals there and of course no Thetan there to put it like that. A Thetan can blow away all vias and bureaucracy and get things done. What a complexity… back to the basics of the org board you have departmental awareness characteristics. These have to be fulfilled in order to get any flow. Even for one to perform the Production (Div 4) of Move Something he/she has to have a somehow alive Body (end product of Div 3) before he can perform that simple action. And someone has to be there before that (Div 1) and have some Purpose (Div 2, dept. 6 was originally Purposes.

            • in the late 60s and thru the 70s the missions brought in a lot of people. they had such good service the pcs didnt want to go to the orgs, which caused a problem. orgs werent getting the gi they wanted.

            • Exactly!
              The go-button in the seventies for opening a mission was:
              Do your own pet idea of dissemination! (or some such)
              That got me started and I had a booming mission with staff
              being paid AND going up the bridge!
              Until “management” knew better…

        • I worked at the Portland Mission – it was beyond a boom and a total RUSH ! The mission was producing an abundance of really well trained Auditors and an abundance Clears. The staff was incredible, every division, every post. Actually, -astonishing.

        • The Geltman Mission in NY, was jumping in the early seventies. Chick Corea, Stanley Clark, Mike Love etc. It was a jumping place. I used to bring in people all the time.
          It was a fun time.

        • Theo Sismanides

          The more vias you have the closer you are to a stop. Too many vias bring a stop. LRH managed as a Thetan not a Via and the org board is the cycle of Action… Management does not know that as a philosophical tool but used it as a “management” tool putting there vias not terminals doing a function and being Thetans at the same time.

          Each department is there as a condition for the next to create a flow. This is how this Universe operates. LRH says in the Org Board and Livingness if you built a monster and then one thing is out it can be like an avalanche. Now if I for one had to Scream about HCOBs as a TU DIR EU only to be punished to do MEST work you can imagine how many vias where there. And the first Very Via is Viascavige he cannot confront NADA, in reality. He has to have vias around him.

          There is nothing wrong with Management and org boards there is much wrong with Vias who tried to be Thetans and Terminals. You cannot build an organisation on straws but only on Thetans who then can be Terminals. Ethics first then Tech goes in and then Admin takes it off the roof. This is happening now again… in the Indie Field.

        • Jane Parker White.

          Thank you Marty, for your introductory perspective on the Training Routines. It is highly appreciated. With this kind of perspective, how could things have gone so wrong with the subject matter in the hands of Corporate Scientology?

          I got clued up about this In 1997 when I came across a book written by Cathy ‘O Brian, entitled ‘Trance formation of America.’ A disturbing book – and in my opinion a book that every adult American should get up the confront to read – especially those who are familiar with the workable Technologies of Scientology. In reading the book, it was alarming to realise that the technology of Dianetics was indeed put into the wrong hands – and was used, not to free people, but to horrifyingly enslave people. Hubbard mentions this as ‘Black Dianetics or Black Scientology.’ Achieved, by using the exact opposite technology – by using pain, drugs, hypnoses and implanting hidden messages during such ‘sessions” of pain where the individual as driven into the depths of fear. This was done to little children from infancy – to turn them into human robots.

          I phoned OSA to ask if they knew about this. No one was very much interested in this…. IMO – what DM and his subordinate agents are doing with Corporate Scientology – is nothing less than using the tech – to further enslavement. One can do ‘magic’ with people driven into the fear-band. Ask yourself what is ‘propitiation’ really? Why would ‘parishioners’ against their better judgment, bankrupt themselves and ‘offer all – even their children to the gods’?

          I just wanted to remind all that this is the kind of thing that Hubbard warned will happen to Scientology in the wrong hands.

          I came across this video, spoken in Hubbard’s own words – to warn us about the situation with DM & Corporate Scientology. I post it here if I may – to underscore what you had to say in your Introduction to the Training Routines. This is powerful and indeed life changing material if used correctly and with correct intentions towards freedom. The opposite application is frankly evil. Thank you again for your post and continued efforts to salvage people and a working technology. 🙂

          • “If you ever do use any black Dianetics, use it on the guy who pulled Scientology out of sight and made so it wasn’t unavailable. Because he’s the boy who would be electing himself the new order. We don’t need any more new orders.” – LRH (quote in his own voice in the video)

            Thank you for posting this video, Jane. It’s sobering.

            Before Miscavige, the Church of Scientology’s Freedom Magazine wrote a lot about mind control. I used to look forward to every issue in the late 70’s. There used to be serious investigation by Scientologists, then. Now look at that rag. It’s a pathetic joke!

            Ron was spot on, and indicates the exact group who are sending our civilizations into a dwindling spiral. (Griffin validates this, below.) It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s a real conspiracy. Yet, corporate Scientology has done nothing about this. Why?

            If one looks, they’ll see there’s a power trend towards totalitarianism. Also, there’s a power trend towards slavery. These trends coincide. There is a connection.

            Sadly, our third dynamic has been an epic failure at handling our 4th dynamic. Corporate Scientology was supposed to be THE leader at this.

            “The degeneration of civilization is not the result of blind forces of history operating beyond comprehension or control. It is planned and caused by a small but well defined group of people who believe this decline is necessary for what they fondly call The New World Order but which we recognize as high-tech feudalism in which mankind will be condemned to live in perpetual subservience to elitist rulers.

            The identities of these elitists are known. They have names. They belong to organizations. They meet together to create strategies and they work jointly to implement them. They dominate the power centers of society. We will not escape their plans by looking only at what they are doing. We must focus on them and remove them from their present positions of power. Any other plan of action is doomed to failure.”

            http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

            What has the Church of Scientology done to avert the trend of civilization towards slavery?

            Absolutely not a F’ing cotton-pick’n thing! It’s as if they’re not in PT and don’t know what’s going on. Or they do know what’s going on but it’s never talked about because they don’t know how to handle it. Or they do know what’s going on and they’re helping the elitists forward their totalitarianism. (I presume the later. Scientology has been sold out.)

            I recommend reading the series of essays at http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=issues#fic , the section entitled, “The Future Is Calling”. This will introduce you to the core beliefs of Freedom Force. Everything else is built upon that, and it would be difficult to understand their perspectives on other issues without this background.

            Corporate Scientology has completely ignored these issues yet they may be the most important one’s facing mankind today. IMO, they are.

            Here is a seminar with Griffin, a man of ideas of which behooves Scientologists to align, IMO.

      • This is a general reply to the various comments form my original post above:

        It seems that most of the time there were “booms” it was a Mission. This is an opinion but I think if you drill down into the stats you would find that a) the “booms” were short term b) that most people on service during these periods disappeared off lines within a year and c) the staff still never made a living wage except perhaps the Mission Holder/ED, regges and perhaps top auditors.

        My personal opinion is that if you let an able, well trained leader fully own a Mission or Org, run it using basic LRH admin tech (minus the proportional pay system), paid at least minimum wage, had no management interference, you would having viable, expanding Missions & Orgs all over the place.

        I believe the “fast flow hiring” and the “proportional pay system” might be the achilles heal of Scientology. It opens the door to running Orgs on almost no income and in most cases a very staff are carrying the weight of many hapless, untrained and unproductive staff.

        I think management’s job would be to produce materials (Bridge, Gold), national marketing campaigns (CMU) and quality control of the tech (RTC) but the Missions and Orgs would be individually owned not unlike, say, a McDonalds.

        • I think proportional pay is a brilliant and workable idea – provided the organization is wholly owned by those with a stake in the system. It is akin to employee ownership.

          • For me Scientology ethics, admin and auditing tech was always about workability. So wIth all due respect, based on the stats, the proportional pay system (combined with fast flow hiring) has proven to be neither brilliant or workable. I’d challenge anyone to find any Mission or Org where all staff earned a living wage for more any length of time – even a month. I would also suggest that in most Orgs you could eliminate 60-70% of the staff and the GI & VSD would actually increase.

            Perhaps a better model for Scientology Missions & Orgs would be no pay, all volunteer staff with services as the exchange including getting upper Org services after a certain amount of volunteer time put in.

            • I’ve already gone this route with you; but you have already dismissed it with a wave of the hand. I’m done with the 2.0 comm cycles.

              • It’s not my intention to dismiss your comm on this but it simply doesn’t take me long to duplicate and make an evaluation of what you say on this matter. The proportional pay system has never, ever worked over 30+ years. It’s not an opinion. It is a fact. If someone can provide evidence to the contrary I’m all ears.

                • Bat-away generality.

                  • Marty: I just want you to know I have the upmost respect for what you have done as a whistleblower and helping people like JB safely out of the RCS. Obviously I do not see eye to to eye with you on certain points so at least for awhile I think it’s best I watch from the sidelines and keep my thoughts and comments to myself. Keep up the good work!

                    • martyrathbun09

                      It is not about not seeing eye to eye. It is about your authoritatively asserting facts that conflict with the eye witness accounts of many who were there – and those assertions’ potentiality for driving people who care (and are doing something, or contemplating doing something) into apathy.

                    • I have to butt in here, the pay system does work! Circa 1987, San Francisco Msn I earned anywhere from $350 to $500 per week. The Msn was rockin’ with good Supes and Class 4, 6 and 8’s in the chair.

                • Kevin,
                  I have to agree with you on the proportionate pay from my personal experience limited to the SF Bay in the early 70’s and early 80’s. SF org had a full operating academy in the Foundation and a active div 6 that actually created future through jamming the org with new public. HQS was the course that knocked people’s socks off. There was up to 200 students at one point, and these people are still around today for the most part. Academy training was pushed pushed pushed. So, if an org is always in the top 5 orgs on the planet with high WDAHs and graduates off of Academy courses then the pay should reflect this production, but the production is never enough to support the pay needed to live.

                  The proportionate pay system may be an idea that could be workable, but I do not know anyone from any org who has ever lived on org pay alone. But, I have to concede that I don’t know of any org who bothered to fully TRAIN ALL STAFF properly according to the ESTO series with full apprenticeships. How many people bother to fully replace themselves and apprentice the person and turn over a post. The SO use ripp off staff all the time from the class 5 orgs and even missions. This is recent history. Too much “management’ and TOO MUCH DISTRESS is pushed down the line. It didn’t start with DM– he just took it to a whole new level of insanity.

                  I believe in the Chinese Proverb, “Kites Fly Highest Against the Wind”, but when you have expectations for people which exceed their abilities to ‘make it go right’ and then give them no support, things will crash. Unreal targets make people feel desperate and then its all about the ‘stat’ or making the stat look like a product when in fact the ‘product’ is an overt. This has always been a weakness on the admin lines.

                  Tell a staff member to get hatted on their own time, get trained and audited on their own time, produce on post and keep the stats up, and moonlight to get by financially and you get staff who take years and years to get fully hatted and who don’t progress up the bridge either.
                  What you get is an org which runs on group think and is carried by a few producers.

                  So, is the proportionate pay system workable? Perhaps it is under perfect conditions, but unless someone can show one example of one org where even 50% of the staff were/ are making a living on only org pay, then the ‘workability’ factor remains to be seen.

                  • Looking back on my time on staff and reading the experiences of others, it looks to me like there has been a long running program to target the most trained and productive staff.
                    Whenever there was a boom or begining of a boom, there would be a sea org mission to shoot it down.
                    The who behind the upstats would be found and declared.
                    These various who’s were the early OT’s, SHSBC and OEC grads or simply gung ho scientologists.
                    The rpf or other ethics “handlings” are an effort to make a person’s life so miserable that they blow. Then of course they are declared sp for blowing.
                    This is certainly reverse scientology at work. From my observation it began around 1980.
                    Key points of decline were mission holders conference of 1982,getting rid of the OEC grads of the 70 ‘s and early ’80’s, the dominance of the IAS, the canceling of auditor certs and of course golden age of tech (3 swing f/n) and the hole.
                    Someone’s been working real damn hard to get rid of Scientology! All the while claiming Scientology growth was straight up and vertical!

            • Roger from Switzerland Thought

              “Perhaps a better model for Scientology Missions & Orgs would be no pay, all volunteer staff with services as the exchange including getting upper Org services after a certain amount of volunteer time put in”

              ???????????????????
              Would you sign such a contract ?
              RCS at his best !

            • Kevin, you say you got into Scientology in 1977. That was too late to see the actual Golden Age whose existence you now challenge as being a myth. But you got it right that whatever boom there was was driven by missions.

              The boom formula of the early 70’s was simply this: Missions were run by entrepreneurial owners who had to find out what actually worked, in order to make a living at it. They delivered Comm Courses with real TRs, followed by Diana’s HQS Course that included co-auditing Objectives and Self Analysis. The students then went right onto Student Hat and HSDC (later NED). This was a short runway that penetrated rather than explained, and made auditors without delay. (Auditors disseminate, pc’s don’t.) Tech was pushed, and admin and ethics were light.

              Missions following this formula could and did pay living wages (albeit at a very frugal level) to most of their staff. Some large mission holders did quite well financially, but they deserved it, because they were the drivers of their missions’ success. Orgs did well based on HSDC grads moving up to the Academy. Some mission HQS grads went straight to orgs for HSDC if the org was close enough.

              What would have made it all even better would have been letting missions deliver Academy Levels. That would have strengthened the missions enormously, not only by giving them more service to sell and deliver, but also by retaining their public to continue disseminating locally to people they knew. Most of the Class 4 orgs would have collapsed, of course, but the total flow up the line to ASHO, AOLA, and Flag would have increased. The collapsed Class 4 orgs could then have been converted to missions under private ownership, and recovered to be as successful as other missions.

              What killed this Golden Age even before DM’s scorched earth campaign of the early 80’s was (a) Int Management attempts to control what didn’t need to be controlled, resulting in enormous dev-t and other suppressive interference trying to save orgs from “mission competition,” (b) Sea Org recruitment converting paying public and producing mission staff into unproductive, interfering bureacrats, (c) the watered-down Success Through Communication Course replacing the tremendously effective HAS Comm Course, (d) missions being deprived of any metered auditing course to deliver when NED was moved to after Grades and the NED course became an orgs-only service, and (e) mission grads getting ARC-broken by their experiences at orgs and especially Sea Org orgs, and coming home to muddy up their local missions’ field.

              Basically, the whole thing was a mind-boggling case of serv fac stupidity finding the causes of the affluence and removing them instead of enhancing them.

              Our lost Golden Age was real. Resurrecting it would actually be easy to do. “What caused the Affluence before it was broken can cause it again.” We just need to “do what worked before, not new things untried.” The Church can’t do that under current management, but we can do it out here in the Independent field. And, slowly but surely, we are doing it.

              • There were, of course, times of expansion throughout Scientology’s history. I am not questioning that nor the hard work of the many dedicated, amazing staff I have had the pleasure to know and rub elbows with. I guess we just have a different definition and opinion of what a Golden Age and boom would look like, especially when you look at what the real estimation of effort that would be needed to clear an area, let alone a planet. I personally have never observed any Mission or Org that came anywhere close to what it would take to really positively impact it’s city or town. I don’t why this is. I just know I’ve never observed it.

                • Kevin, again, the reason you “never observed any Mission or Org that came anywhere close to what it would take to really positively impact its city or town” is that by the time you got into Scientology in 1977, and became familiar with what was happening across a broad geographical area most likely a few years later, the Golden Age was over. It really did happen, but it happened before your time. Several orgs and even some missions had 200 students on metered auditor training at the same time. Had those missions and orgs been allowed to keep doing what got them to that size, they would have grown and grown and grown, and the successful actions would have spread to all missions. Then there would have been enough quantity to have the positive impact you wanted to see.

                  To put it simply and bluntly, the Sea Org killed it. The GPM was mature, high-toned tech (missions) vs inexperienced, low-toned admin (Sea Org). The Sea Org won, and Scientology lost. All we have to do to bring back the Golden Age is get missions going again on the old successful formula, outside the Church, so the Sea Org can’t screw it all up.

                  There was a valid function for the Sea Org when it was born, as a safe home base for LRH to live and do his research. But it should never have had anything to do with running the sales and delivery of Scientology services. The SO and GO were 3rd Dynamic Engrams that were at first needed solutions at a time of great stress, but later became what they resisted, and a much worse problem than the one they were created to solve.

                  The solution now is to start missions on the old pattern. Not just field auditors. Missions. Training auditors.

                  • Diogenes, your analysis is spot on. I came into SCN way after the “boom” time, but i’ve talked to so many old timers who where on mission staff or were mission public at that time, that i have no doubt it occurred.

                    An independent mission network can work (the RONS Orgs in Europe have had some success and is rather extensive), but in North America will have to overcome the initial resistance and attacks from DMology. But that is the way i believe.

                    Regarding pay systems: i tend to believe that a mission that pays at least minimum wage will tend to do better, but the proportional pay system can work as long as all suppressors are abscent from the org, and the group is small, gung-ho, and in high agreement. I think Marty is correct not to dismiss this pay system out of hand as it gives a path forward for a group starting without deep pockets. If i was to open a mission, i would pay minimum wage in combination with a proportional bonus system.

                    • In 1969, working at a small, growing mission as the Distrib Sec, I made about $1300/mo in today’s dollars. In 1977, as the Distrib Sec at another small, growing mission, I did a little better.

                      You can’t pay minimum wage when you don’t have enough income to do so. The problem with the proportionate pay system was not the super-low base pay, but the low income of the orgs using it, and the fact that orgs recruited more staff than they actually needed, and put too many of them on admin posts doing things that did not actually increase sales and delivery.

                      No successful private business just recruits everyone it can. Successful missions were run like businesses, hired only as many staff as they really needed, and kept their tech/admin ratio close to 1/1, with only as much admin as they really, really had to have. Meanwhile, orgs and unsuccessful missions dramatized the full OEC/FEBC system, diverting way more than half of their activity into pure bureaucracy. They also had to flow too much money up the line to support the top-heavy Sea Org management structure that was mostly not needed in the first place.

                      In terms of Esto Tech, orgs were stuck in Esto Series 16, Sit 3 — lots of activity, but activity that didn’t actually produce VFPs. Taken individually, LRH’s issues on admin are terrific. But they have to be applied with common sense and high tone level. They weren’t in orgs, where the quasi-military-government-large-corporation environment insulated staff from reality.

                      Out in entrepreneurial missions, on the other hand, business survival necessity resulted in admin being used in ways, and only to the degree, that it actually produced a profit. And you can’t keep a profitable business running if you don’t pay your employees enough to keep them working for you. That isn’t being money-motivated, either. It’s being practical enough to find a viable way to actually do your duty.

                  • Theo Sismanides

                    Diogenes (nice greek name by the way, haha), I never thought of it the way you put it there that the SO and GO were 3rd Dynamic Engrams, needed solutions at first which became later a worse problem. It is an interesting viewpoint onto how Admin, not accompanied by Tech expertise (stress on expertise), intervening with delivery can destroy Production. Thanks

                  • Hi Diogenes,
                    Since I was heavy on the line in the 70’s and my tours reg visited missions in the bay area on a weekly basis (and I went with him on occasion) I can validate what you say about missions being very active. However, there was not a good working relationship with missions and orgs, at least not in the SF Bay. Both acted like public were scarce: missions wanted to hold on to public and Orgs wanted them to push them up sooner than later. Missions made money off of auditing, not training. This is not to say that missions didn’t flow public, but there was an antagonistic relationship.

                    Never the less, people were finding out about Scientology at a grass roots level, though the press was bad (I remember weekly articles about Ron and personally handled public fear and pure antago about Ron and Scientology daily), the people who did come in and got through HQS did cognite and continue. A lot of people got introduced and started on the bridge….but, as an organization, brushing aside pr events, how many cities back in the 70’s or even now, have been impacted by the Church. SF DSA did get electro shock banned in SF which is a great win, but other than that, after all the years of being there (43 years ) I wonder how many auditors were made and how many people have been cleared an up through the bridge? I wonder what percent of the population of the city?
                    The people who DID get it, and continued are grateful for having run into or finding Scientology.

                    I look at Flag, the ‘mecca of technical perfection’ (LOL) and if you asked the community of ClearWater at any time from the 70’s to now, if they feel the church has had a positive impact, I would bet the answer would be no, and some would say it has been negative. Orgs, in my opinion, do not create good will . Despite the ‘SPs” who fought against the Church at Flag, it was ,per usual, our own covert underhanded way of dealing with public that placed us in a bad light. Scientologist are always told they are doing these great things, (individual auditors do great things), but asking the raw public is the true barometer as to the impact of the church on their community. Communities know then they have been positively impacted.

                    Making the church into this FORCE to be reckoned with and making it into this world wide enterprise with a military attitude (ready for battle and having to have an enemy) is what helped set it up for failure. I was never a mission public, as I was all about the class 5 orgs, but now I think that small groups is the way to go ….just audit and train on a grass roots level making it personal…allowing people to do it in their own time. People who are excited about their training and auditing will tell others. Keep it word of mouth and you don’t need a top heavy budget and a bunch of stupid and expensive management teams nor do we need palaces. Just tables and chairs will do.
                    I guess that is why so many mission people liked the hey day period of the 70’s as it was more personal. Though even then, getting people to pay the big bucks was very much a part of the scene in orgs and missions. Bridge loans and unusual solutions, high prices, etc just because people get money motivated and basically do what is best for self — “make a lot of money for my bridge”– or do “whatever it takes to get the money” becomes the purpose. It was never a clean, for the sake of humanity organization…despite the policies and stated intentions. I feel it could be. Maybe it really did need to happen the way Ron set it up, but I am not convinced of that. If Scientology is a business based on people paying high prices, then it naturally cuts many people off from accessibility. The Org policy is that a field person MUST charge more than the orgs so that they don’t undercut orgs. This is only important if you are trying to sustain orgs. Throw away the idea of massive expansion like a retail enterprise, and it becomes more ‘user friendly’ to deliver.

                    Why should I make someone pay more than they can truly afford? If I really want humans to be free, then I wouldn’t make a capitalist game of it. Unfortunately, this is and has been a big part of Scientology. Expansion takes money, but it has never been a continual expansion, but it ebbs and flows. I have read on line that Saint Hill expansion was short lived.

                    You just can’t sell Scientology like soap, no matter what Ron said. Yes, this is a ‘stupid planet’ but people will respond to truth and help.
                    If the tech is ‘in’, people will show up and tell others– no fanatical ‘games’ of X expansion or Thursday at 2:00. Look what Ron says about a course room. If the tech and ethics are in, the course room will be full. I have seen this for myself. Yet, look at all the Admin policies. Does one need to do the OEC and build a huge organization to audit and train someone? Does one need to have TV spots and ads in magazines and newspapers with catchy marketing slogans.
                    Well, look at history…Buddhism spread.

                    As soon as you want to create an org, all these other things come into play because the organization needs to exist as its own entity. Then, one wants to get paid well, and maintain the budget, and expand. What is wrong with people working together as a volunteer group? Who says that people must pay well for things to be valuable. That , I believe, is false data. People have a sense of exchange and they should be allowed to do so, but this does not mean that if someone gets audited when needed that they won’t keep their gains or appreciate it just because it didn’t cost alot. I am always happy to get something that is affordable or even cheaper than I anticipated. It absolutely does not lower my value for it, and in fact, it makes me value it more. However, paying a lot for something can have a bad effect if the item or experience is not as one expected. Also, exchange should be between the person helping and the one being helped, not some fixed price that can’t be adjusted. If I tutor someone, I can choose to charge what ever I want for example. If I choose to help someone, I do so on terms they will accept. This is why co-auditing is successful.

                    I feel that so much time and effort was spent on just maintaining orgs and missions and the SO, (which is not needed anymore and probably never was), just made the game complex and missed the boat entirely on getting to the goal of a ‘cleared planet’. Too much money motivation, corporate attitude from the get go. Too much fanaticism, too much “us against them, too much “force without intelligence” as Ron says in OT Doc course. So, take away the idea that the entire planet must be cleared in a day or even a lifetime, concentrate on one individual at a time, or helping (truly) one group or community with what THEY SAY THEY NEED AND WANT, and I bet the expansion will take care of itself. I have never seen social personalities who were introduced to the right piece of tech (right book, etc) for them, to shun Scientology unless there is 3rd party / false data on the line. Usually, it is about the orgs or Ron, not the actual tech.

                    • Jewel,

                      Yes, there was the antago, competitive relationship between orgs and missions you describe, and many missions didn’t do as much training as they should have. But they also weren’t allowed to offer Academy Levels, which are no harder to deliver than the HSDC or NED courses. The competition was over HSDC grads — do Academy Levels at the org and co-audit, vs. pay for professinal auditing and get your grades right now.

                      In my opinion the solution is (a) Just have locally-owned missions that are allowed to grow to deliver the entire Bridge from bottom to top, as soon as they have the public and qualified staff for each level. (b) Push the co-audit route hard, hard, hard. Have professional auditing available ONLY for co-audit students who need extra help, and just don’t bother with the pc’s who don’t want to learn to be auditors. Let them go to professional field auditors if they want to, but don’t get the mission addicted to them. The mission culture must be about co-auditing and nothing else. (c) Have students pay a monthly access fee rather than a set paid-in-advance fee for each service. That way, once they start HQS, they never have to be regged again, and the whole stat push psychosis destimulates.

                      At the second mission where I worked we did (b) and (c), and were very financially stable with almost no admin. We never had a single HQS start drop out later. They all became auditors and co-audited, and half of them joined staff somewhere. Of course, when the Sea Org found out about our payment plan, they came in and destroyed the mission.

                      The idea that we’re supposed to get the world off drugs, bring down psychiatry, fix the schools, etc. is nice. These are commendable targets, but wrong targets in terms of a workable gradient. Our devotion to them has just been a serv fac dramatization of how we’re going to show the wogs who are so primitive they need help from superior beings like us.

                      Here’s the inconvenient truth: Those undesirable conditions are the result of group case in the society. The only way we will ever really help that society is to key it out, by getting one person at a time up the Bridge, starting with just a few and growing it geometrically over time. To do that we have to put a co-audit route in place, get people to start it and tell their friends about their wins, and it will grow, entheta will be converted to theta, and slowly but surely things wil get better.

                      Expansion does NOT take a lot of money. Fancy quarters and glitzy promo are totally unnecessary. Cheap but clean facilities, students getting wins, and word-of-mouth are what worked before and will work again. It’s all about tech. Just make auditors, have them audit each other, give some free sessions to friends to get them interested, and the thing will mushroom almost automatically.

                    • Super analysis, Jewel, I think you’re correct on all points, from the covert underhanded way of handling people (exactly) to the financial aspects. I saw friends heavily onlines becoming “financial beings” rather than “spiritual beings”, and while they may have had some gains in terms of upping their necessity level to make money, I decided I wanted to be a spiritual being, not a financial being, and so chose not to participate any longer in that game. Dropping the 3D dramos and going back to basics is the way as you say.

                      I accept Ron on tech, but disagree on some of his viewpoints (selling soap, etc.) and I agree it’s better to treat people as sentient beings, and less stupid than they are generally given credit for. The problem with being the boss is that staff will usually feel compelled to say yes, when one needs people to sometimes question one and to once in a blue moon say no (even if it means getting fired off post). I think Ron could have benefited from a bit of dissent on certain points from upper level mgmt. or people he considered peers that he would respect. But one has to be willing to listen.

              • i totally agree with the above, i was there in the 70s and late 60s at asho, aola, later at flag, knew all the top mission holders, carl barney, dean stokes, peter crundle, frank geltman, howie rower, allan walther, and nmany more, they knew how to run a biz with arc. it all started with the comm course, people had wins and wanted to go up the bridge, it worked. it seems so long ago.

              • WOW. What a sane fanfreakingtastic analysis! Thank you!, diogenes.

              • “Kevin, you say you got into Scientology in 1977. That was too late to see the actual Golden Age whose existence you now challenge as being a myth. ”
                I agree. I even think this is a problem with quite a few people on this
                blog and with many Scientologists today. They haven’t really experienced
                how Scientology was like pre-Miscavige.
                The good news is, they are now able to experience it again in the
                independent field…

            • Kevin,
              I have to say that when I was on staff I hired continually from the PESOO and PES post. Fast flow hiring worked great. You just have to keep in the other policies and also utilize project prepares intelligently.
              One example is that one able guy wanted to be on foundation staff but he was in real estate (when real estate agents were selling a couple of houses a week!). HCO kept trying to get him to give up his Saturday work and wanted to project prepare him with that intention as the goal. In this case, it was a bad project prepare because the guy didn’t want to give up his most important work day. I hired him and let him have Saturdays off. He started right away because he could still make a living.

              By the way, I think it is funny how socialism is looked down upon by Scientologist that I have known (and Ron doesn’t speak highly of any financial/political ‘isms”), yet proportionate pay is socialistic and even communistic in the sense that everyone works and everyone shares, and their are better living conditions etc for those ‘on top’, who in fact may not actually do a great job. I was on a kibbutz as a visitor and this is how they operated. I don’t find fault with socialism as it works for some countries. I remember having stats in power but if others didn’t then pay still sucked.

              I like the idea of a base wage and bonus systems especially when the ‘church’ is a corporate entity anyway. If people don’t do their jobs, then they can go to qual, then ethics and then off load. It makes more sense for people to get a living wage so that their training can be done efficiently, without added time, each day before post. Then they get the significance and mass and they can have time to become an auditor and get up the bridge. Bonuses can boost the intention to do well and bring in more cash, which is entirely possible with a trained team.

      • First of all, Marty, I think this is an incredible segue to the TRs – the enlightenment cycle that makes REAL what they are all about. To contribute to this I would suggest watching, if you haven’t already, the first third of the THRIVE video, and particularly the contributions of Nassim Haramein concerning the scientific proofs of the creation of the physical universe. he’s also got other lectures on YouTube.

        Speaking to the points my friend Kevin raised, I would offer up the eval done by LRH on this very subject in 1976. (AO 516-5, 19 Jan ’76 FSC NETWORK EVAL) Incredibly interesting eval that lies at the ROOT of traumas we experience to this day.

        Ron noticed that the flow to FSO of public from around the planet went up sharply after Flag tours cam to town. He further noted that this was true even in cities where there were Flag Service Consultant (FSC) offices.

        He wanted to discover why there was not a higher flow from these FSCs. He discovered that the Flag tours were so successful because they worked with local area FSMs (field auditors, missions and orgs), and these FSMs brought their selectees in numbers for the tours.

        The FSCs, on the other hand, went DIRECTLY to the individual Scientologists in the field and regged them for service – bypassing the FSMs and thereby invalidating them.

        The FSMs were ARC Broken about this and refused to work with the FSCs, preferring instead to wait for the Flag World Tours.

        The solution of the eval was to order the FSCs to work with “local area FSMs” to get their selectees to Flag.

        The FSCs, based on an MU of “FSM” and the rules of FSMing, then “appointed” certain people in the field to be “FLAG FSMs.”

        This was the birth of Godzilla, the Monster Who Ate Our Front End.

        The stats went up for a short period because of the tripled number of regges at the FSC, but the ARC Break between the FSC and legitimate FSMs in the field – the field auditors, missions and orgs, was camouflaged and even exacerbated by the nod of Flag to these “noble Flag FSMs” who were, in reality, undermining the entire game.

        The attention of the FSM program was shifted to the TOP of the Bridge and these “Flag FSMs” went in to overdrive. This completely defeated “the whole purpose of the field staff member program is to help increase the number of new people contacted, disseminated to and started on the bridge.” (FSM Series #1)

        This error with the FSC’s was the beginning of the gutting of our front end and the invalidation of staff and field auditors. These predatory “Flag FSMs” came in to fields and picked the choice bits. Sea Org units even came in and justified the outright rip-off of certain public they deemed “celebrity.”

        Every mission holder or field operator from those days can tell us horror stories of their publics being ripped off and their staffs being denied their appropriate commission. The FSMC is intended for the people and groups who START people on the bridge.

        There are legendary mission holders from the 70’s who created monster machines – and I guarantee they were based on the relationship they held with their public bringing people in. Crundall (who’s mission selected 35 new people every week to their org) and JC Hughes and Mongiello and a short list of other luminary mission holders and field auditors were made to compete with these “FLAG FSMs”.

        Being cross-selected by these “flag FSMs” was SOP. It was also a financial irregularity that strapped some very able being to a very corrupt operating basis. It was very damaging to the economic life of these missions and field groups. It all led up to the the Mission Holder Concference in 82 when this came to a head – and the mission network to an end.

        I was on staff through the 80’s at the San Francisco Mission and our fundamental operating basis described what these great missions had done before us: we had a HUGE FSM in the name of Sterling Management Systems who, wanting their clients to be operating with maximum potential, referred them to us for personal action. All of the big missions and groups since have been fed by groups like Hollander and Singer and Management Success and so on.

        But the FSM program has been long dead. It is the program LRH used to BOOM Old Saint Hill – and it WAS a boom. (There were 227 staff at Old Saint Hill. Only 7 of them were in Div 6! But they had 126 active FSMs every week.

        As Kevin said, there HAVE been cycles of booms and depressions – just as LRH says there will be when violations of PROPORTIONATE MARKETING occur – when MOST of our attention comes off of the FRONT END.

        Ron also says that when this happens there will be instances of cannibalizing. Welcome to the Church of Scientology.

        The game cannot be won by individuated souls. It must be independent beings in association.

        Hope this helps.

        Shreff

  2. I want to read this again as it says so very much. Just as my initial response I want to say – Thank you, Marty. This is the conversation I came into Scn to have. I allowed my inquiry to be squashed early on with the exact point of mystery and complexity that you pointed to. I would get that later when I was more OT, blah, blah, blah. Only to find there never is ANY conversation in Scn, never any discussion of various viewpoints or way of looking at the subject including LRH’s. I appreciate the opportunity to look again for myself in a new unit of time.

    • Thanks Yvonne — you have stated exactly what I feel. I’m going to read Marty’s post a couple times at least and as you said perfectly “this is the conversation I came into Scn to have.” Me too.

      As to TRs, I’ve long noted the MEST versus spiritual interpretations. MEST interpretation of some TRO phenomena: hallucination, dissociation, hypnosis, etc. Spiritual / theta interpretation: awakening, coming into present time, exteriorization, seeing as a thetan.

      A few years back, a relative was curious about some of the practices of Scn. I asked if she was willing to do TRO. I described it, communicated the purpose, and mentioned that it was possible her visual experience might change and if so just continue to be there. We began TRO at her dining room table. Shortly, we were in that remarkable space of two beings. She felt she was “waking up” and then suddenly she reacted. She said “I felt like I was being sucked out of my head.” I did not evaluate but shared that some people interpret that as a type of exteriorization. Now, several years later, that relative and I happen to live closer again, and she wants to do TRO again.

      Why — it feels _real_. Experientially it (TRO alone) can, in my opinion, just in itself result in a state of consciousness the typical human has not experienced.

      Again, thanks for the post Marty — rich in meat and substance. Thank you.

      • yes Yvonne,as we shared earlier,we got in for a personal spiritual experience. LRHS definition of spirit is the best, we are separate from the material and science cant define it,i know Gary Zukaus who wrote dancing wu li masters. a book on quantum physics, he doesnt even grasp what we do from Rons definition.
        i fell Marty is correct scientology fell apart when hubbard pasted, and i left the church 1 month later,after being a member in good standing for 25 years, i saw the writing on the wall. when i left i was ot7 with lots of ?s, i studied acupuncture in China,meditation in India and thailand. i still see great value in the trs. especially tro which i plan to do a lot of this year.
        im excited in the direction we are going here.
        what the spirit is.

    • Don’t TALK ABOUT IT!! That’s VERBAL DATA!!!

      Just kidding. But only slightly.
      Growing up, as a teenager and philosopher who had all answer to everything, myself and 2 other friends would talk and discuss and theorize about anything and everything. This topic being one of them. We had great fun, learned alot, really expanded our thought process and pushed conceptutal understanding.

      When I got into the church, data became a mystery! In order to know, you had to “listen to LRH” which was a luxury as you had to be able the lectures. Can’t just listen to one tape. And you SURE better listen to it in the acadamy, because if you listen to it anywhere else and get an MU, you’re an out-ethics dog to be reported right away!

      LRH, at my old org, was something to be revered and inspired by. He was no mere mortal. To this day… my oldlest sister still asks me,”Do Scientologists believe that Ron Hubbard was God?” She seems to be hanging on to that for fear of believing in Scientology.

      Marty, I admire what you are doing here. I do not encourage just ANYONE to do it. But like Yvonne, I need to re-read this post. And yes, I’m glad to see this discussion come up. These are the things that brought us in. Things we want to know. Talking it out, 2WC, clearing words, listening to tapes, re-reading the books from the 50’s, these are the things that will get us there.

      I saw a movie on cable the other day,”What the bleep do we know?” (Great movie by the way.) And all these Big Head PhD’s were contemplating this and that. I sat there through most of the movie thinking,”Ron figured that one out. Yup, that’s OT. That’s OT stuff there too. Man, these guys need to crack open the Tech Dictionary! Hey! That’s Ron’s line of thinking right there…almost verbatim!”

      Quantum Mechanics… or the Factors? Ponder that one.

      Ron’s problem: He was ahead of his time, yet He was right on time.

      • Theo Sismanides

        Bozz, great way to put it. We go along and view life from a higher Q

        definition of Q copy pasted from Tech Dict.

        1. Q, came from quod in Q.E.D. or “therefore” in geometry. “It follows.” (LRH Def. Notes) 2 . a mathematical designation. It can be defined this way: it is the level from which we are now viewing which is a common denominator to all experience which we can now view. The highest level from which we’re operating. (PDC 6)

        We have located a New Space and Time in which to create our Matter and Energy, hahaha. This is us again on a new plateau, a Veeeery higher one where not Much MEST is here, hahahaha!!!! And Matter and Energy is being relocated once again as we know how to.

  3. Pingback: Introduction to Training Routines 0-9 | brightfametexan

  4. Thomas Schäfer

    After having done an intro-course and some hours of book I in 86, I had left and stayed a complete atheist, not believing a second in the existence anything outside MEST. Then in 89 or 90, while studying physics in Frankfurt University, I was sitting in a lecture in quantum-physiks. And precisely this “Quantensprung”-concept struck me like a flash. No other student noticed, but I was almost falling from my chair from excitement. Right there I decided “I have to do something”. Went to Frankfurt Org, did the purif, broke up the study and joined staff.
    Well, seen from my today’s viewpoint, shouldn’t have jumped head over heals into it…
    Would have been better an organic, gradual approach.
    Anyway, thanks a lot. Great post.

  5. Wow – I’m speechless. This is truly a masterpiece! Not only as an introduction, but also in handling any and all false propaganda a person may have, while fully intriguing the science oriented and spiritually oriented minds alike and all in terms a literate person can follow.

    Really looking forward to your next book!

  6. Brilliantly positioned and cogent. Will have to order your book this week!

    Thanks for being a beacon of sanity in this turmoil, Scn has become.

  7. I really like this article Marty, It pulls a lot of ideas together. In my college days I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, (among other philosophical works of a wide range). It was an enlightening journey into being in present time, and being aware of yourself and the universe at a very basic level and a kind of meditation based on doing what you’re doing while you’re doing it.

  8. Like the title of this blog says, this is yet another step in moving on up a little higher. Thanks for writing Marty.

  9. Great stuff, but you should correct this typo: “to alloy such fears” should be “to allay such fears.”

  10. Reading this got me thinking about doing the communication course 34 years ago. Doing TR 0 was the first time in my life I was actually just being where I was in present time. I remember the poor girl who was taken off her academy course and spent 3 periods flattening my first button while bull baiting me. As a result of doing TR’s 0-4 I was, for the first time in my life, in present time and in comm with my environment. Today, I consider that doing the Comm Course created the foundation for who I am today. I work every day at having perfect TR’s with everyone I contact. I’ve found that how I communicate in present time effects the kind of communication I attract later. One other interesting note is that I’m constantly amazed at the power of an acknowledgement. It’s such a simple thing, but it’s remarkable what an effect it has when done properly.

    • I was taken off my academy course and very happily bullbaited a guy about that time in Seattle. Stuff happened that even I could not explain, like pulling up pictures of his girl friend and getting her name. Cracked him up, got it flattened, but poor guy never came back. Yikes!

      • I finally had to stop describing friends’ mental image pictures to them. Tended to make some folks uncomfortable. Like you, I even scared off a few!😉

        • Yes, this is a major taboo in many Earth societies. One is supposed to “avert his eyes” and not notice the other fellow’s mental image pictures. The result is notions of “privacy” and such. The Auditor’s Code covers this.

          I recall a bullbait during which my coach kept cracking me up by commenting on how massive my mental image pictures were, and how he had to duck when these pictures came at him. It was a hoot because I knew it was true!

      • Hi;

        I remember once when doing a 6 hour TR0, two guys were doing emeter drills on finding track dates; I knew the date the coach had written down.

  11. Theo Sismanides

    So happy to read this fresh, very live and fresh article from your viewpoint. Keeping those basics now and intending to apply more of that observation in real, everyday life. Great Article.

  12. What about the witches curse?

  13. Wonderful piece – great work here Marty.
    I tip my Poet’s Hat to you on the presentation and my Friend of LRH Hat to you as an astute observer.

    With my sincere thanks for improving the taste of my morning coffee.

  14. This is the most perfect post that I have read in the year that I have been following this blog. It resonates with me as my first experiences with Scientology were with these drills in 1978. They were so effective with me, in bring me to present time, that I adapted the purpose of telling others about them. I have not a single regret in introducing so many to this “way out” as one for one they were so appreciative of my doing so.

    Thank you, Marty for carrying the guidon of true personal freedom when it seemed all was lost.

  15. Very good Marty, Im looking forward to Casablanca.

  16. Beautifully written. I believe it requires a fairly high level of literacy to duplicate and yet I don’t see how it could be stated much more simply and truthfully.

    Any educated Scientologist, even those still “in”, should be able to see the value and truth in it.

    It should certainly be required reading for those critics who go on about TRs requiring people “stare” at each other for hours, etc., etc. They just MIGHT learn something!

    • Some of those critics may be would-be “emperors” who want their fancy suits to be admired and do not wish us to notice that they are not wearing any clothes.

    • GSM, when I was doing the TR drills, “staring” was considered a “flunk”. “Staring” is definitely not being there comfortably, looking and perceiving.

      I tend to think those particular “critics” simply live in fear of being accurately perceived as they are.

  17. Based on the theory of quantum synchronicity, which is based on the laws of quantum superposition, specifically quantum entanglement, and applying the quantum non locality principle, I guess the Co$ hate mongers (and monkeys) will post an article in Marty hate web site(s) stating that he is squirreling by mixing Quantum Mechanics with Scientology. If my guess turns out to be wrong, then, I guess this is due to the quantum EPR paradox.

    • Ever hear of misunderstood word phenomena? You just put half the readers here to sleep!

      • Then, I guess, my comment is for the other half of the readers.

        The middle (the hate monkey-mongers) is the important part. Not to be confused with the middle path.

        Do you think I really fully understand quantum mechanics? 🙂 (I like wikipedia).

    • You predicted the synchornistic entanglement perfectly by understanding the quantum enigma.

  18. Marty,
    Beautifully written as always!
    Conrad

  19. Wonderful commentary on Hubbard’s Training Routines, Marty.

    Like a lot of others who read this, the TRs were my first introduction to the benefits of Scientology. I first learned them in 1973, when they were still being taught as LRH intended. The gains I had were spectacular and life changing. I don’t think I’ve had greater benefit from anything I’ve done in Scientology, although the gains I received from other studies and auditing were pretty awesome in their own right.

    In your article, you touch on something that is very important about the subject, which is the notion that much (possibly even most) of the gains to be found in Scientology, derive from the disciplinary side of the subject, i.e., training. I’ve found that to be true for myself, from my point of first contact, right up to the present day.

    • I think their inclusion at the beginning of the route (ala COSMOD 1970’s and the other missions who followed their success) was integral of the boom of the seventies. For three reasons: a) gave a person abilities they could use to great effect for the rest of his life, and b) gave a very good reality on the difference between thetan and mind, and c) gave a real strong reality on what it is auditing adresses.

      • There’s no doubt that the old HAS (communication) course was one of the most successful courses the church ever ran. It was inexpensive, and just the right gradient for a new person coming on to the Bridge to gain immediate, and life changing wins.

        That course also gave students a strong reality on being at cause over the central practice of Scientology, which is pastoral counseling. It wasn’t a tough leap to go from Comm Course graduate to the Academy Levels. Lots did, and they created a boom that Scientology hasn’t seen before or since.

      • I have chuckled sometimes when I read Scientific American and read some of the recent articles in the area of quantum mechanics and small particle physics. These guys have figured out that there probably is something that really exists which does not consist of matter-energy, space, and time….but they can’t quite put their finger on what “it” is. Well, they should go to Casa Blanca, do the TRs course, and find out! It is even possible that they may find the answer to that, until recently, “forbidden question” in modern physics: “What was it that MADE the Big Bang?” 🙂

        So, although I am somewhere between the “first half” and the “other half”, I am tracking with you on this. The Axioms of Scientology are actually part of physics- or rather the other way around, depending upon one’s point of view. 🙂 Anyway, the only thing I would recommend adding to this very spot on write up are some FOOT-NOTES to your comments on science and eastern thought for the benefit of some of us “first halfers”, to whom Ronnie and Mabu allude.
        I completely concur with your and Ronnie’s observations about the importance of doing the TRs as an real introduction to what Scientology IS. Like Ronnie, I had the same experience back in the day when this WAS the standard public introduction to the subject. I have never lost the gains I had on that course. Doing TRs for the first time was very simple and was a very powerful experience. It also gave me reality about how auditing works and was a very good gradient for doing auditor courses. Now the COS has the watered down, squirreled “Success Through Communication Course” instead. People still have wins on that because it is “based” on the works of LRH, but it is not the real deal. Thanks for having real TRs in the beginning of your tech line-up.

        • That is one of the beauty of the drills – once you notice they have slipped out, you can simply ‘get your TRs back in.’

      • Marty,

        +++1 on your intro to TR’s. The thetan/ mind lecture always got people’s attention and made them reach for Dianetics every time. People are aware of their reactivity and do want a solution. Many people are also aware of being aware, which easily places them in the Scientology realm. The lecture hit square in the face of all humans and your intro creates the same effect. It aligns Scientology with science and religion, and even if a person wants to argue or disagree, it doesn’t matter, because in the end there is the focus on the application of TRs which brings it home.

  20. I think it was in a lecture called “Decision” where LRH mentions Krishnamurti falling short of the goal by being content with present time, whereas LRH’s goal for people was to get them mostly into the future.

    • If someone can verify the date of the lecture I’d appreciate it. Thanks Bryan.

      • 20 May 1952

      • Marty,

        My bad. I just went and located it:

        “Wavelengths of ARC” from Route To Infinity lectures.
        19 May 1952

        He talks about Krishnamurti right out of the gate and gets into present time vs the future, etc.

        • Thanks Bryan. I read the transcript. This is one of many examples I’ve seen of late where the author of a subject predicated upon infinity logic talks in too sweeping of absolutes or not quite accurate generalities. In this case mis-characterizing Krishnamurti as wanting to make people neurotic.

    • Bryan,
      Couldn’t find it in 20 may 52 under that title.

    • Bryan, this rings a faint bell in that in one of his books LRH mentions a kind of scale of sanity, in which he considered that the Psychotic is focused on or stuck in the Past, the Neurotic is compulsively focused on the Present because he is fearful of looking into the Future (and the Past), and the Saner person can realistically perceive his present-time environment in light of his goals for the Future.

      Anyone else recall reading this?

      Similarly, LRH said that “Cause is motivated by the Future.” As one falls away from being Cause, one becomes less able to cause any future, or even have much effect in present time.

      • “You want something in the future. All of your work, for instance, is motivated by the future, not the past: you want to eat tomorrow, why, you work today. So the cause is “eat tomorrow” and the effect is “work today.”
        LRH PDC 7, section 4, page 174 of the transcript.

    • What I got from my study of the Basics is that yes in the early 50’s he talked about the psychotic was in the past, the neurotic was in the present and the sane man was in the future. But in the late 50’s when he got into TR’s and the Objectives he realized the importance of getting someone into present time. You have to look at it in within the context of the evolution of the subject. That is one of the problems with cherry picking references.

      • That is true about cherry picking, but no matter about references, common sense tells you that you can’t postulate future if you are not in the present. You can’t perceive the past or the future unless you can be in the present. The difference is between being stuck in a perception or a viewpoint, as opposed to perceiving. LOL, sounds redundant.

  21. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    The first text I read in Scientology was the Scientology Picture book and one of the first lesson I learned there was the definition of a static which I knew was a strike of a genious.
    Then I learned about OTTRO, did it for 7 hours straight on, opened my eyes was fully in pt and knew that I’m operating now as a thetan.
    It was a great time. I was running around the planet and telling everybody that he’s a thetan and should operate as such, selling 1000ds of books and sending hundreds on course.
    The next lesson I learned was that is not right to do. I was told to be out ethics, that I’m pts, surely I must have big misunderstoods, I wouldn’t qualify for staff even I was producing more then most of the staffs. I was told life on planet earth is very dangerous as in the orgs there are plants, psychiatrist are behind every corner wanting to catch you and as long I haven’t done the bridge my eternity is in danger and as long as I’ve no certificate that tells I’m an OT I’m not an OT.
    My velocity went down and I agreed to be a nice sheep, behaving like everybody and not acting as an OT as it upsets too many people and finally had the cognition that probably I did’nt pass OTTRO as this must be something very complicated that only RTC understands !!!!!!!!!
    I tried several times to redo OTTRO and get those wins out of it, but I learned I got no confront, have a bank and never will be able to pass it and have the exact EP ! The EP of it can be probably reached after OT 8.

    Never I’ve seen an eval about that Has-Course, where people were teached that they are a static and can operate as a thetan caused the biggest boom in Scientology ever and was producing one OT after the other and people still remember it as their biggest wins they ever had.

    Simplicity in itself to recreate this boom.

    BUT, PLEASE AFTER PEOPLE HAD THEIR LIFE CHANGING WINS AND OPERATE AS THETANS, DON’T SEND THEM TO THE REG WHICH WILL TELL THEM THEY ARE NOT OT !!!!!!!

    Marty,

    Your post was a nice rehab !

    • The only one who can ensure your eternity is you. No one can actually take it away, and that is a lie that has been forwarded in Scientology as I have never met a Scientologist who isn’t concerned about their eternity. People think they will perish if they don’t hurry up . As an OT, I know that even if I wasn’t OT, I would still exist. We are here, even though we have been through an awful lot in the past. We were aware enough to see the truth in Scientology. The only point to question is our state of existence…will our condition improve or degrade. That is where Scientology can help.

    • Roger (or Marty or anybody), you mentioned the Scientology Picture Book and I have had a question about something I think was stated in that book in the late 70’s to early 80’s version. If I remember right, it said that a thetan is “in a little bit of mass”. Do you recall that? I don’t think later versions had that line (possibly because it was decided that it wouldn’t be appropriate for new people). It’s a very interesting datum to me and I wonder if anybody else remembers it, either from the Picture Book or some other reference.

  22. Excellent “forward” to the TR’s, Marty; does justice to Ron, providing a good differentiation between the organization and his research. As others have stated, I consider that many of the gains I had in Scientology, including the abilities to perceive, communicate, even going exterior to my body, came from just plain TR-0 and the other lower TR’s alone, and I would not want to give up those gains for anything. People who don’t really understand Scientology think it is a “staring contest” or “mind control” and it’s a shame that Miscavigage has so turned off people to the subject, that these great techniques have not been given their proper due. Tony Ortega, if you are reading these comments, you got it wrong on the TR’s, man. They are fundamental to life.

    • I suspect that Tony O. is in “hiding” as a thetan. His mantra may be, “Please, please, DON’T LOOK AT ME! Please!”

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Nicely said Thomas! Was the incredible, life changing, similar experience for me, too! ——way back in 1971.
      And ditto the message to Tony Ortega! Tony you have
      missed an opportunity to meet the REAL YOU, sans
      the false layers of “personalities”one considers are
      “normal” in conducting one’s business, one’s life.
      THAT falseness, Tony, is what evaporates, when
      abandoning all “effort”—-to just be there, with no attention on your body, or attempts to be interesting,
      or being embarrassed while sitting silently in front of
      another. The state is quite unlike anything you have
      EVER experienced, before and since it is achieved
      completely in “present time” is an experience you
      will likely never forget.(Just needed to add that punt)

      • I don’t recal inval and eval ever being a valid part of communicating what scientology is. Pretty sure it still isn’t.

        • I agree, Victoria. I think it’s ok to correct someone, but with good will.

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Free to interpret the comm. anyway you wish,
          victoria. Tony happens to operate in a tough
          environment, and is a very sharp journalist.
          He is well aware of the valences one must
          sometimes assume, in order to get a “story”
          to come forth, for his profession. Ditto applies
          to any successful salesperson. How about
          allowing the gentleman concerned, to make
          any comments, should HE so wish?

          BTW, most of us posting here, genuinely
          appreciate the sterling work Tony has done,
          in his uncompromising, no nonsense manner.
          and I feel that being truthful and blunt is his norm and he similarly would expect honesty & straightforwardness in return.
          Calvin

      • Thanks, li’ll bit! You’ve given a great description of the benefits.

  23. Li'll bit of stuff

    Marty, a most sincere thank you for putting a true literary
    masterpiece on the dining room table!
    Clearly, the preparation of this intellectual “meal” took
    a considerable amount of sourcing for, marinating of,
    and final “cooking”, before you considered it was “done”
    and ready to be served to all your appreciative guests!

    No less a guest, then Ron himself, would have been quietly
    sitting at the head of the table, smiling, as he said you:
    “Please pass my complements on to the chef, Mr.Rathbun!”

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Marty, Having re-read your intro, it occurred to me,
      that “the power of SIMPLICITY” would have served
      as a most apt description. This is probably one of
      the most resounding reflections I’ve ever seen on
      the summations of the core of LRH’s work, and
      indeed, makes an incredible statement on just so
      many fronts, apart from the obvious ones of physics,
      philosophy, spirituality and especially communication.
      In my simplistic view of things, I often use as a stable
      datum, that old trusty workhorse, made famous by
      LRH;- “Number of times through equals certainty.”
      For anyone having trouble with your intro, I would
      like to remind them: Take out your demokits &
      necessary dictionaries, for you have, in Marty’s
      intro, an enormous amount of LRH’s work distilled
      into a perfectly prepared, delectable, (theta) meal.
      And it is a “meal” that one could have time and
      time again, to enjoy and savour the “nuances” therein,
      differently, yet more definitely on each subsequent
      occasion.

      I have yet to receive your your much anticipated
      book “What Is Wrong With Scientology ” which was
      offered to me by The Oracle,and look forward to
      the day her gift arrives.

      It appears that your future cannot but encompass
      the writing of a much greater number of Scn based
      books, and you will obviously be more prepared,
      with even better market penetration & strategies
      further up the line.

      We are indeed privileged to be sharing your new
      unfolding professional life and times with you.
      Ron would be incredibly proud of what you have
      managed to achieve in resuscitating his legacy,
      and so are we too! Flourish & prosper.
      Calvin.

      • “It appears that your future cannot but encompass
        the writing of a much greater number of Scn based
        books”

        Li’ll bit of stuff, I hope you’re right. I like Marty’s concise writing style and his proclivity to use familiar words. So I will gladly buy any book he may write on the tech. If Marty does decide to write on the tech in his own words, something sorely needed, IMO, I expect his books to be good sellers, and reach out to a much larger audience than I think any book written with the stymied branding of Hubbard’s name.

  24. Brilliantly stated, Marty.
    After reading the Holographic Universe I came to the conclusion that science and religion were finally uniting in some quarters in order to further knowledge and dispel superstition; superstition both in the spiritual and in the scientific communities.

    Be Here Now! was my quest before getting involved in scientology. HOW was my only question.
    TR 0 was the first practical answer I’d found to that question.

    I found I got more gain in one week of hard TRs than I’d had in the previous two years of Ananda Marga Yoga style meditation. Present time was just present time and I’d finally arrived. I personally arrived with 360 perception of everything in the entire room, all at once. Whoa momma…that was friggin cool.

    The world does begin with TR O.

    The Tao meets the Factors, meets quantum mechanics, meets the thetan.

    Considerations do take rank over matter, energy, space and time.

    I’ve been using this data some while introducing new people to TRs. The way you stated it is very clear, concise and (if M7 is used liberally for many) easily understood.

    Thanks for sharing.

    Les

  25. Anon, on your side

    Marty, it is hard to believe that your clear, bright, and thoughtful post, that rings true, is related to the dark, impenetrable, and murky stuff eminating out of the CoS. The hysteria of a DM, and the brutal entrapment of others that he has caused, seem to be in a different world. Thank you for the insight.

  26. If you’re going to comment on quantum physics–let alone try and force it into some sort of pseudo-scientific spiritual framework–you might first want to derive a basic understanding of it. What you’ve written is neither credible nor verifiable. At the very least, cite your sources. Generations of physicists, including those of the classical kind, are rolling over in their graves.

    • Correction: It is neither credible nor verifiable to those REDUCTIONISTs who are so thoroughly conviced they are made up of matter, energy, space and time that they cannot possibly conceive of a thetan.

      • Li'll bit of stuff

        Its okay though, isn’t it EP? Since when you’re dead
        & buried, it truly will be all over. no more tomorrows!
        Just maggots! No wonder they roll in their graves!

        • Hey! EP likely held a seance to consult those “generations of physicists” rolling overr in their graves. Here perhaps is another one who is in “hiding” and must insist that “No-one knows! No-one, I tell you, no-one knows! And by the way, DON’T LOOK AT ME!”

  27. Thank you so much, Marty for this beautifully written article. It rehabbed for me the many wins I had while doing auditor training in the late ’70s. It’s always so wonderful to recognize truth.

  28. Excellent Post Marty.
    The works of Scientology need to be understood in context with older Eastern Religions and Wisdoms and essays like this broaden the spectrum.

  29. This ties in well here:

  30. Love it.
    Love the way you write and what you write about.

    Would love to see (somewhere in the books) the reference for quotations. (Not only those from LRH). Maybe at the end of the book.

    God bless you and your work, Marty.

  31. Hey Marty, I read it, got it, didn’t fall asleep on it. It makes total sense and does align Scn with other teachings. And Yvonne is right, we are philosophers who should be in dialogue with others. I’m not sure we’ll have everyone at Dror read it, but I find your essay valuable. Thanks, Dani

  32. Marty,
    Beautifully written and put together. Takes the wind out of many sails of potential contradiction and resistance to the activity at hand. Something to look forward to to do again, especially at Casablanca.
    .
    I will NEVER forget the incredible win I had on TR 0! Talk about wishing to vanish on the spot, somatics, hopes that the course period would end NOW. That first day going ‘home’ -utterly unflat on TR 0- it took confronting myself in front of a mirror, facing an ugly drug related identity. Once that battle was won, the rest of the communication course was relatively easy. That was 1972, rough tough TRs, the REAL DEAL.
    I am eternally grateful.
    Greta

  33. Hi Marty,
    Sorry, but in trying to associate consciousnesses, quantum mechanics and spirituality together, you’ll get nowhere, but maybe some of your followers will think you’re brilliant. You don’t understand quantum mechanics and neither does anybody else, including the world’s top physicists.
    Deepak Chopra spews out the same type garbage, yet he has no clue.
    I do know enough to leave theoretical physics to science experts, consciousness to psychologists and philosophers and spirituality to the gullible.
    Sorry again, I mean no ill will, but you have so much to wake up to. Learn science, not nonsense.
    When you get as famous as Chopra, maybe one day you’ll get your own quote generator website:
    http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/
    Enjoy!

    • You give awful definitive advice for a guy who claims not to understand that of which he speaks. Thanks all the same.

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Troll-a-la-troll-a-la–lalla-lalla-laaaaaaa!
      familiar lullaby by an equally familiar sounding
      vocalist. Anon? It had to be you–It had to be yoooo!
      I wondered around, and finally found, somebody whooo
      could never be truuue! That had to beeee…..yooooooooo!

    • Quantum physics was used to create, the laser, the transistor, and various other technology that changed the face of our society. Not bad for a theory that nobody understands.

      • That is a fact, NOBODY understands quantum mechanics. The late Richard Fenyman will tell you that.
        I do know enough to know what I don’t know.
        People want certainty in life. They can’t bear to live with not knowing. I don’t. It’s fun to try to understand, but when you don’t get it, don’t pretend you do.
        I’ve tried to understand quantum mechanics and have about 10 college math courses under my hat. It’s beyond my understanding and was happy to hear that Feynman had the same problem.

        • If you want to deny quantum mechanics, start by throwing away your cell phone and lap top – they don’t exist without it.

          • Speaking of cell phones and things like that, among other things, I was the algorithm analyst responsible for the relativistic error calculations that affect GPS corrections of the WAAS GPS aircraft navigation system. I do know about that kind of stuff.

            We can USE the effects of quantum mechanics, just like we use the effects of gravity, yet NOBODY understands either.
            The most qualified people in theoretical physics will humbly state that they don’t understand gravity nor QM. Operative word here is “humility”. If they did understand, that scientific field would stop to exist and it would be called engineering.
            I hang out on a regular basis with scientists and skeptics at Michael Shermer’s group at Caltech. Here what one of my favorite presenters, Victor Stenger says about the subject:
            “Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.

            However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.”
            Please at least consider what the man says. He knows what he’s talking about. You can’t use quantum effects to explain the mind. It’s totally a bogus paradigm.
            If you get your physics from what’s on sale at Costco, I assure you, you’re reading the wrong books.

            Here are some good search terms for you: Quantum quackery, Quantum confusion, Quantum mysticism.

            • Yes, and I covered the reasons with reference to the Copenhagen interpretation. Thank you for validating my essay. If you came for an honest week of TRs, I could show you some things your reductionist friends will apparently always insist can never be seen or understood.

              • When you come by LA, I’ll show you how the e-meter REALLY works. I’ll gladly listen to your TR stuff after that.

                • Sure, but the sequence is off. The meter is meaningless to the essay and topic we discussing. Utterly irrelevant.

            • AO, what do you think of this essay, “The lazy man’s guide to quantum physics”? I get the impression that quantum physics is nowhere near as settled a field as you are making it out to be….. and that quantum physicists are far more “off the wall” than folks who believe in spirits…..

              http://www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm

              • I said that the best theoretical physicists don’t understand it, so it’s definitely nowhere near settled. You understood the opposite of what I said. I checked the link and this type of Reader’s Digest physics will get you nowhere.
                Quantum physics is at this time, “off the wall”, but scientists have the humility to state that it is not understood. On the other hand, religionists claim they have answers, yet they are even more “off the wall” without any math or measurements to back up their claims.

                • Math, measurements and words will never explain the quantum enigma. Only observation has and will continue to.

                  • Marty, please don’t get into stuff you don’t understand.
                    Math and measurements (which are observations) WILL eventually explain quantum mechanics. Best sellers as Walmart won’t.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Ok. Final piece of advice on this line of yours: ‘Math and measurements (which are observations)’; look up and clear the word ‘via.’ Peace.

                    • Li'll bit of stuff

                      AO, what an arrogant assumption! Just
                      who postulated the concept of QM in the
                      first place? WHO is reading this post,&
                      doing the eval for relevance, if at all?
                      In order to UNDERSTAND the core
                      principle of the actuality of the life static,
                      one needs to discover that it really exists.
                      One might respond by actually INVITING
                      you to experience the demonstrable fact
                      of your own “separable from the body”
                      existence, via the experience offered at
                      Casablanca. I believe though, that fear,
                      in one form or another, will inhibit you
                      from transcending the concept of ……. “getting into stuff you don’t understand.”

                    • Dont you get it AO? You’re invalidating the quackery. They will argue till they are blue in the face. Without “quacked out” theory there is nothing.

                • So “Readers’ Digest” by your definition fails to communicate meaning?
                  I guess if it’s not so abstruse it cannot be understood by the majority it’s worthless and will get me nowhere? Elitist much?

                  I think you completely missed the point of Marty’s post, which speaks to physical existence AND it’s basis. It is the basis of physical existence that is the unanswered element, thus all the speculative explanations physicists offer. They “don’t know” because in order to know they will have to think outside of the “physical box”. Because the “basis” is not quantifiable. Marty simply pointed out that some of them have, and others are trying to, think outside the box. The die-hard reductionist materialists like you then attack because, apparently, the idea of an unquantifiable efficacy gives you the creeps.

                  In the end, don’t you think any “unified theory” that attempts to explain phenomena will have to postulate a basis for the existence of phenomena?

                  That is all LRH did. “Considerations take rank over the mechanics of time and space”, he said. Now it remains to test that theory. You’re stuck there, because you don’t know how to quantify “considerations” as LRH meant the word.

                • Theo Sismanides

                  AO, when I got in Scientology I was a lawyer. Nothing to do with Physics, mathematics and for sure quantum theory. However, I got to understand some basic stuff about those sciences through Scientology. Like Mathematics is a totally made up thing, there no really 1 + 1 = 2. This is a lie (hahaha, it is if you think of it) and an assumption as there are no two identical apples in this universe to be honestly added as you can only add identical or equal things. There are no equal apples in this universe and who ever claims otherwise go have a look for yourself. He is lying to you. LRH speaks about that in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course, 1952.

                  So Mathematics is used as, what we call in Scientology, a Stable Datum, one which may not be (in an absolute way) correct but is workable. The Earth is moving in reality but we accept as our stable datum that it is firm, Stable Datum.

                  And then I got to know that you don’t have to fully understand something to use it. OK, to teach it or study it in depth, you would have to go into much depth.

                  There are no absolutes in this Universe and there is infinite logic. So I think for philosophers (I would rather name us Curious Thetans) we do have a much much better grasp of practical sciences to the degree that serve to promote our understandings.

                  Unfortunately for you, Truth (not Reality but truth) is something which is many times lost in this Universe for the sake of Reality (Agreement of the many). So getting closer so that you can Observe and finding out about Truth is Subjective. Unfortunately. Go out and say to someone they are a Spirit. hahaha, nobody agrees, so they don’t see it. However, that does not say that something is Truly True because majority says it isn’t. Beware of majorities.

                  My advice, avail yourself of this slim chance and of the high special knowledge you have on the sciences you name and laws of the physical universe and take a look into Scientology. After all we are very open here not like the old church did. You already got an invitation by one of the best auditors on the planet. Lucky you!!

                  Because nobody is going to answer that question except you, my friend, with your subjective Reality.

                  • Theo Sismanides

                    Sorry, missed a not there in However, that does not say that something is [ not ]Truly True because majority says it isn’t. Beware of majorities.

        • James Clerk Maxwell mathematized Michael Faraday’s work. Faraday is emminently accessible. Maxwell, by a handful.

          Both are describing the same phenomena (electromagnetic fields). Is it that quantum mechanics can’t be understood, or is it that the communication systems, the mathspeak, is inadequate?

          I can’t speak in multi-vectored math. But I can describe my hand moving. More importantly I can look at it. And even more significant, I moved it. Who is that moving the hand that multi-vectored math in Joe Blow Space reels off a fourteen page equation about?

          Lots of times because something is complicated, it would seem to be important. Lots of times, when that complication is unraveled, the guy wasn’t saying shit in the first place. Lots of mathspeak is like that.

          Lots of guys think Scientology is like that, as the “speak” isn’t familiar and it takes some effort, like mathspeak, to learn what the terms mean, what phenomena are being described.

          LRH eschewed mathspeak, and he admitted English speak was tough in description of what Scientology describes.

          You’ll have to unravel it yourself to know whether he was talkin’ shit.

        • “That is a fact, NOBODY understands quantum mechanics.”

          AnonOrange,

          Your first statement fails in logic in your first sentence. How can anybody in their right mind think that “NOBODY” understands something? Only God Almighty himself could possibly know this. Are you a mind reader? Have you read everybody’s mind in existence? Surely you’re not God?

          Apparently, I’m so mistaken to believe this God complex is exclusively reserved for David Miscavige. (Sorry David, it’s been revealed you have other competitor Gods who know-best, too.)

        • I think Feynman sets a very high bar for “understanding” and because we do not have anything in our direct experience to help us easily picture the way quantum systems behave, we will not be able to internalize quantum mechanics to a degree that would have satisfied Feynman. We rely on the language of abstract mathematics to navigate the subatomic world and over time our understanding deepens to where we can even translate some of it into words, but it can a life long process. And it is humbling, because you find out that the more you know, the more you don’t know. This is good for the soul, in my opinion.
          I’m half agree and half disagree with you when you tell Marty that, “trying to associate consciousnesses, quantum mechanics and spirituality together, you’ll get nowhere.” You may in the end “get nowhere”, but it sure is a fun ride and an illuminating journey.

      • heh heh – AnonOrange knows that he doesn’t know but doesn’t know why he doesn’t know. But he believes that no-one else in the world knows, either.

        I believe there is a process that resolves this state of mind.

    • AnonOrange coming up tone a little bit. This is good.

      • I’m still at -30.0 “Can’t hide” and intend to stay there.

        • There’s a Scientology Training Film you watch when you are training to be an auditor where actors demonstrate the full tone scale including all the below 0 tones. I always wondered how they knew what those tone levels looked like.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Hahaha, good you are smart. But I think you are a bit above that, at – 8.0 is that Hide, oh yes it is… So, some Sacrifice (-6.0) and you start moving up a little higher with us. Take a deep deep breath… ok Anon Orange, don’t pay attention to the world, mind your world.

    • AO, You wrote the following: “I do know enough to leave theoretical physics to science experts, consciousness to psychologists and philosophers and spirituality to the gullible.”

      I realized at an early age that my survival in this life was just the blink of an eye relative to the age of the universe. My only hope for survival was through spirituality. I don’t know the first thing about quantum mechanics but I’m really good at common sense math. Here, the odds tell me that’s it’s very much in my interest to address my spirituality. I know through studying Scientology that a lot of things can leave a person stuck and unable to move forward like misunderstandings and transgressions. I want to prepare myself for existence past this life because it’s my instinct to survive. When you use the word gullible I think it’s a nice way of saying fool and the word fool works well with a question I want to ask you. Who’s the bigger fool, the person who is attempting to survive or the person who accepts their own nonexistence? I don’t expect you to become spiritual here, but I do believe it’s appropriate to respect anyone who is taking a spiritual path.

      • I don’t use the word fool because smart people are often too trusting and get caught up in things they wish were true. Scientists get conned by magicians all the time. See Randi’s latest book “A Magician in the Laboratory.” They also get conned by priests and the like. It’s not for the lack of intelligence, but rather for the overwhelming desire for afterlife, which causes them to turn off their critical thinking abilities. That’s also way people get into cults.

      • I presume this is the question: “Who’s the bigger fool, the person who is attempting to survive or the person who accepts their own nonexistence?”
        I exist and I’ve been doing a pretty good job at surviving. Your question may get a better reply from a scientologist, because I sure can’t as hell can’t see why I would be a fool for attempting to survive or accepting that I don’t exist.
        It’s not complicated folks. We live, then we die. All your wishes won’t change that.

        • AO, Your answer doesn’t answer anything. Everyone who is alive has survived, so the fact you have survived doesn’t mean anything. You deflect the question off to Scientologists which absolves you of all responsibility. In the end you just make the statement that we all die which means nothing. Again, I’ll pose the question, who’s the bigger fool, the person who is attempting to survive or the person who accepts their own nonexistence? Please answer the question this time.

          • AO, Where are you? I’m patiently waiting for you to answer…

            • AO, I’m starting to get concerned are you OK???

              • All right AO, My wife and I live on the west coast and we have just enough time to watch a movie. I want you to know you’ve provided an evening of entertainment. I wish the best for you in you spiritual journey or for the next few years, which ever is the case.

          • Sorry Paul, but for a mere mortal such as myself, your question makes absolutely no sense.

            • AO, Actually, the question is very simple and I think you do understand it, but I’m not going to press any further. My intention here was not to arrive at any understanding with you, but to point out the absurdity of your statement that spirituality is for the gullible and I’m satisfied that I accomplished that.

        • AnonOrange,

          Yes, we live and we die. Then, we live and we die…
          It is possible to talk to people who have just died. You will laugh at this because I am assuming that you have never experienced it . Not everyone has, and some people may think they have and have not, but the fact remains that it happens. It is simple to deny something. Humans, including scientists, will even deny ‘evidence’ because their idea of it conflicts even with what they observe or with the previous status quo.

          The point is that know matter how much you are educated in physics, you can only know what has been proven to be true based on what works , which , as you say, does not mean that everything is known about it. Between what is known as factual and what is not known lies a wide gap where conjecture is placed. Marty’s intro simply places the intention of LR Hubbard to align the spiritual within the realm of scientific speculation and further relates it to an idea.

          Science can not yet explain how the universe was created for certain and does not know what a human being is, other than the physical composition. NO one is arguing facts, including you. The whole issue is about ideas…that which is between fact and possibility. Future information can make past ‘facts’ incorrect, that is historically true.

          What or who created the first particle…and before that??? Until there is an answer , there will be questions and the fact that mind affects physical matter is not a quackery view, as there are reputable scientist who will hold to that because I’ve heard such lectures and ideas one from a Scientist at Columbia and one from Princeton. Experiments have been done, as I am sure you are aware. So, the whole idea of ‘mind over matter’ if you want it in a nutshell, is really what we are talking about, and that is not a new concept ,nor is there a lack of data. This does not mean that all is known about it either. To say that is simply doesn’t exist because your physicist buddies or professional contacts say it doesn’t doesn’t make it so. Physicists don’t all agree just like doctors don’t all agree about diseases and treatments.

          I love and respect Science as a field and especially physics, but theoretical physicists deal in probabilities. Nothing is sewed up in science and more is not understood than understood, I ‘m, sure you would agree.

    • AnonOrange,
      I mean you no ill will, but I think you might be retarded.

      • I believe the word is literal.

      • AnonOrange,
        My mistake, you aren’t retarded. OK, here’s this way of looking at “things” you’ve got.

        Locality is currently an unanswered question in quantum physics. “Spooky action at a distance”.

        What Mr. Hubbard did was explore the possibility of a non “thing”, the potential of life force, elan vital, psyche, spirit, soul. If such is, then how does it bridge into the physical things etc.

        What about that possibility do you find so impossible? Is it that it can’t be physically measured?

        What I find a little bit puzzling with the so-called materialism that you espouse, is the dogged determination to discount any influence that is not material on the one hand, such as the Static as defined in Scientology, while on the other perfectly willing to posit “dark matter” as some vastly influential something that cannot be sensed or measured save from its effect theorized as an explanation for certain phenomena. It’s this mysterious something, that is apparently according to current theory, no able to be known, but is an assumption point based on observation of effect.

        Well, that sounds pretty much like God, Source, Prime Mover Unmoved, Spirits (hidden influences that can’t be sensed or measured save by effects created by them), but it’s couched in authoritative mathspeak and seems OK to materialists.

        I agree, quantum physics doesn’t explain the phenomena observed. What if the explanation lies in the area of the postulated Static, as described in Scientology?

        It’s a “leap” that could shift the entire subject to a whole new energy level.

    • AO, quantum mechanics and consciousness are inevitably associated. Consciousness refers to the perception of real things. And physics is the study of real things.

      One cannot study well, those things of which one is not conscious. Thus they are inevitably associated, whether we like it or not.

      • Save your type strokes. Reductionists are still arguing whether there is such a thing as consciousness and free will – preferring to delude themselves they are both admixtures of chemicals.

        • Thanks Marty. That says it about as well as anything I could think of. I was looking for a way to say he had completely missed your point. He’s putting mechanics senior to thought.

        • Theo Sismanides

          Hahaha, we are at a higher Q Marty, we even got speaking of myself some understanding of those guys, the physicists. I got to see videos on YouTube of the Higgs Boson and got to understand it. It was nicely explained. Is a particle and as you said rightly those sciences observe phenomena. They are vias. Who is using them to observe the phenomena. Some Life, hahaha, a Mind, a very special Mind. Yeah… chemicals. They will find the chemical formula that can Think or Postulate a Thought, hahaha.

    • The WOC site is really great. Thanks for this!

  34. Science does not tell us that there is no such thing as the past. I mean no ill will either, but you clearly need to achieve a better understanding of what science is and is not and how the actual enterprise of science is practiced before putting forth clearly unsupportable arguments based upon a faulty understanding.

    • Can only say so much without writing a book. For you a footnote, *reductionist, flat-earth ‘scientists’ would beg to differ.’

      • Funny. At least you have a sense of humor, Marty.

        But take it (or not) from someone who has been “doing” actual science for twenty years, certainty in ones “beliefs” is not a virtue but a vice.

        Don’t get me wrong, I can appreciate your having an understanding of some of the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, the limits as such being what they are. And your mentioning of Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (though not by name) only reinforces my reading of what you wrote. However, rather than focusing on how Scientology philosophy might “link” to other belief systems, I would challenge you to critically examine the very belief system you hold so dear since you seem to be filtering much of your understanding through LRH’s writings. Critical analysis of ones own beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge is a first principle for intellectual development in the scientific and philosophical realms.

        • The problem is apparently it is the pot calling the kettle black. I don’t believe anything. Please read The Unobservable Universe to find out who today’s most intolerant’true believers’ are.

          • Who’s the pot and who’s the kettle?😉

            My challenge isn’t based on any belief or disbelief in LRH’s writings, but on your claim that LRH should “be given a second look” when it seems to me many current or former true believers would probably be well served by such a critical analysis on the fundamental principles of Scientology first, rather than seeing how such principles link to other philosophies or to science, since well documented that LRH “developed” his principles, at least in part, from already discredited psych theories.

            But maybe even before that, one must first account for what Scientology is (or is not), since it seems to me that it’s trying to be both a religion (including independent Scientologists such as yourself) and a science while trying to remain impervious to scrutiny from either perspective.

            • Wrong. You have – as Tony Ortega has become so fond of doing of late – assigned words and thoughts to me that I never uttered nor wrote. This has degenerated into sophism – the complete antithesis to that which I wrote of.

              • Actually, I quoted your OP so it’s neither sophist nor as you suggest a straw man argument, though I won’t discount that my interpretation could be wrong.

                My response(s) have actually been about this mixing of science and philosophy, especially what I perceive as some misinterpretations of science in it’s application to spirituality and reality.

                Maybe if you’d provide some references for where you get your information, others could make a better judgment. Of course you are not required to but it sure makes for a more substantive dialogue, don’t you think?

                • Actually, you keep asserting a lie and can’t seem to take the slightest sliver of responsibility for your own words. At this stage you’ve reached the depths of trolltalk. Give it a rest.

            • ashura, you just posted a lot of conclusions and opinions you have not supported at all. I’m sorry, I doubt many here will support your claim to be “right by fiat”!

              You simply are not discussing things in the same realm as most of us; telling us our realm is invalid or does not exist is, as Jim Logan might say, just “a bunch of poop-poop-e-doop”. (Sorry Jim!)

              Your 20 years experiencein “science” is certainly worth something; however in order to talk cogently here, you would also need a comparable degree of experience actual studying and DOING scientology. By that I mean, you would need to know some of the basic theory of scientology, but more than that, you would need some years of working with scientology applications. The “applications” are the “tech” that you may have heard mentioned. If you haven’t any experience or understanding of the applications, then, in a word, you don’t know poop(about the applications). And if you’re still talking about “religious” and “beliefs”, then you don’t know poop about the theory part of it either. In fact, the applications are the “measurements” that prove the “theory” (or disprove it). It’s all about getting results, not about praying, duh!

    • Hey ashura, why don’t you tell us what science “is and is not”? Since you present yourself as knowing it all?

      • If I may reply, this is just too good to pass up.

        Scientology is NOT science. That I know.

        • Well, well, you may be right.

          Let’s see what LRH says:

          “Scientology, then, today, could not possibly be characterized as a science the way the western world understands science. Scientology carries forward a tradition of wisdom which concerns itself about the soul and the solution of mysteries of life. It has not deviated.”
          LRH, from the Phoenix Lectures, SCIENTOLOGY, ITS GENERAL BACKGROUND

          (emphasiz mine)

      • In a nutshell, science is systematic measurement or our observable world. But are you asking me if I present myself as “knowing it all”? Not even close, and would never claim such foolish notions.

        • ashura, I was taught that measurement was just a small part of “science”. Someone also needs to think about the measurements , create hypotheses to test, develop theories to account for findings, etc. Additionally, what you refer to might be called the “grunt work” of technicians. Those we call “great scientists” were trailblazers who were responding to insight and inspiration and providing inspiration to others..

          Here – Britain’s Science Council spent several years developing a definition of “science”:

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/03/science-definition-council-francis-bacon

          What do you think of that? Sounds somewhat like the definition of “scientology”…….

    • ashura,

      science does tell us that they have not found any concrete existence of the past anywhere that science can point to. There are ‘traces’of a past, like memories, scars, the fossil record, the construction plans of a structure that has been torn down, but just as the map is not the territory, the traces are not the thing itself. Thus if the “past” still exists somewhere, science has not so far located it. So for all practical purposes, science seems to show us and “tell” us that the past does not in fact exist anywhere at all. It is gone. It once existed, but when it was existing, it was not the past,it was the present. “Past” is in fact our word for things that do not exist anymore.

      • Ashura ,
        People don’t ‘believe in’ Scientology. It isn’t about belief. It is about experience. We experience gravity whether we believe in the explanation of it. Science is about postulating theories and finding answers to problems and finding explanations for what exists. It is all about matter, energy, space, and time. Scientology is not about studying that, which is why these Science vs Scientology arguments come up in the first place and lead to a ‘cats game’ so to speak.

        It is possible that some day science will find that something other than the physical manifestations of our universe caused the physical manifestations of the universe, but probably all science will come up with is a zero unless you figure out a way to study something which has no wave length and no location in space or time.That defies what you do study which is strictly the physical realm.

        Scientology is the study of “knowing how to know”, not the study of atoms. LRH bumped into the evidence…spirit can affect mind and the physical, through the process of working with people and their minds. The proof he needed and wanted was how to make people loose their psychosomatic ills etc. The proof was in the pudding, and he attempted to explain it by what he knew of physics, but the idea was to make people better, not argue physics. Some of what he spoke of was not explainable at that time. The ideas springing from the study of quantum physics only brings the ideas that LRH was wrestling with back in the day to light.

        If you are truly a scientist, what is your actual occupation? Also, as a scientist, you should first experience Scientology auditing and some training before saying that it isn’t valid. Whether or not it is currently explainable by science is of no concern to me, as the auditing works regardless. Perhaps from an experiential view, you might be able to apply scientific scrutiny to the subject as the subject was meant to be used , not debated.

        • There are still things I don’t really know.
          And I believe some of them.
          But it’s not important to my existence.
          I use the stuff I use because it works.
          Things to believe in are not for use. Scientology is for use.
          I don’t care if the Marcabians wear grey hats or if they exist at all.
          I don’t care if the charge is attached to imaginations or to real accidents.
          I like the moments my TA comes down again in session.
          That works. And I can feel it.
          I love to be exterior at times just to see if my friends are OK.
          My certainties are mine.
          What is true for me, is true for me.
          It’s not universal because my own viewpoint, consideration and my own games conditions are part of ‘my’ truth.
          My thruth is changing everyday.
          Scientology is not about “absolute” truth.
          It’s about practical truth.
          There is lots of data Ron talked which is not practical data – but it’s interesting to know. It’s challanging sometimes. But do we need to believe it?

          Most people who are ridiculing Scientology concepts don’t know enough about it to make an independent decision. This is true for most media, this is true for the most Anons I talked to.
          They just can’t study (look). They already know everything about it. Everything.
          🙂

        • Li'll bit of stuff

          Jewel, thanks for your calm, sagely presentation.
          Your invitation to Ashura, as for others to AO, will not
          be acted upon, unfortunately, as when one is sitting in
          “fear” ( lacking the courage of one’s convictions) one
          is simply NOT going to make that all important leap of faith required. Although being glib is fine, if one is satisfied with merely being able to “sprout” ad nauseam.
          The irony is, that it takes at least some courage to either
          prove or DISPROVE the tenets offered by personally
          experiencing auditing, or being willing to give a fair go
          of the “TR’s”. Ivory Tower assertions are no substitute
          for experience—-they really need to get that!!!
          Calvin.

  35. Marty, I consider this a masterpiece of free thought about Scientology from a free-thinking Scientologist. You’ve proven beyond a shadow of doubt you command the subject, and think WITH the data.

    I’m a firm believer in the following datum from the Code of a Scientologist …

    “To teach Scientology at a level it can be understood and used by the recipients.”

    IMO, we are at the beginning of a new dawn of authors where Scientology can be personally expressed and taught. You’re one of the first authors in this new “Golden Age of Free Thinking in Scientology”.

    Practically every other religion has books by many current authors, teaching their religion EXCEPT Scientology. I find this a tragic outpoint, considering Scientologists are “commissioned” to be the greatest communicators on planet Earth, and have the soundest grasp of the communication formula.

    But I know that ever since Ruth Minshull’s and Peter Gillham’s books have been suppressed, it followed that all other Scientologists, who could have and would have written books about Scientology, has been suppressed by the corporate Church of Scientology.

    I found both Ruth’s and Peter’s books followed the code of a Scientologist, and “taught Scientology at a level it can be understood”. Back when they were sold in the Church of Scientology Missions (before Miscavige’s takeover), these books were great dissemination tools.

    Ruth’s books were the first books I bought about Scientology principles. I bought her “How to Choose Your People” before I bought the more in depth “Science of Survival” by L. Ron Hubbard.

    IMO, what is sorely needed today are more Scientologist author’s who can communicate Scientology in a new unit of time.

    Does one believe that the Chinese are really worried about Dr. Wayne W. Dyer translating Tao Te Ching’s 81 verses to his own words in his book, “Change Your Life: Living the Wisdom of the Tao”?

    Then why worry if the Scientology religion is taught in somebody elses words? I’m not against this. Apparently, at one time, LRH wasn’t worried either. He approved other’s books on the tech of Scientology.

    There is more to this code of a Scientologist regarding communicating, too;

    “To stress the freedom to use Scientology as a philosophy in all its applications and variations in the humanities.”

    “To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data which would help Mankind.” (Are we supposed to interpret this as to only referring to Scientology, and not any other helpful subject? I don’t think so.)

    The following books by past Scientologist authors, in a better time for our religion, are now out of print. However, they are still available in pdf to prove in Scientology history, that at one time in the church, Scientologists were able to have free thought, and to write about and freely “teach Scientology at a level it can be understood.”

    “Ruth Minshull was a writer of Scientology also. She produced a number of books that were very well received, even sold with the approval of the Founder, Lafayette Ron Hubbard. Since his demise these books have stopped being promoted by the Church.

    “Here are two of her books freely offered as study material e-books only for those interested in her contribution to scientology. They are based entirely on the works and philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard and were originally approved by him.

    Miracles for Breakfast. A book about bringing up children. This has been somewhat of a life savior for many people suddenly confronted by these strange strong willed beings called children.

    Ups and Downs is another book by Ruth Minshull. This one covers the PTS phenomena and is a good understanding of this phenomena and how to deal with it.

    Since the death of the Founder, Lafayette Ron Hubbard, her books have been removed from the Church’s bookstores.”

    http://www.goldcenturypress.com/ruth_minshull.php

    “Peter Gillham was a chartered accountant and an Australian who entered scientology in the early days. He worked his way up the bridge to OT and a Class VIII Auditor. He wrote “Fundamentals of Success” which he apparently deliberately placed in the public domain so it would be available to everyone.” http://www.goldcenturypress.com/authors.php

    http://www.ronsorg.ch/buecher/fundamentalsofsuccess.pdf

    Hopefully, Marty, a new Scientologist author himself, has inspired some new Scientologist book authors of the future to write about their practice and application of their religion, Scientology, as Ruth and Peter has in the past.

    If it’s FEAR which is inhibiting this independent new spawning dawn, is this fear really legitimately justified anymore in our year 2012?

    • Another out-of-print book by Ruth Minshull is “How to Choose Your People”. Her book goes into Scientology’s tone scale.

      http://www.100luckythings.com/books/HOW_TO_CHOOSE_YOUR_PEOPLE.pdf

      I’m so looking forward to new books about Scientology, the subject, by trained Scientologists.

      • Ruth had started a series of short but pithy books/booklets she called “The Application Series”. One I have is called “How to Cure the Selfish, Destructive Child” which is very good.

        It would be great if all these could be collected and published online.

    • In my hunt to double check for books written by Scientologists on the subject of Scientology (post Ruth Minshull and Peter Gillham), I found this fairly recent book called “What Makes You Tick?” on Scientology standard tech, published in 2008, written under a pen-name “Clearbird”.

      I had no idea this book existed. Am I the only one who didn’t know about this book? LOL. I’m almost embarrassed I never knew! Perhaps I missed somebody here mentioning it before. It would be a shame if Clearbird doesn’t get proper acknowledgement by the entire independent movement for this amazingly clear explanation of Scientology technology. I’m so thrilled I found this golden nugget.)

      The book includes Chapters such as;

      The Cycle of Action
      Intention and Attention
      Live Communication
      The Tone Scale
      Reality
      Anatomy of Understanding
      Be-Do-Have
      Spirit Mind Body
      The Dynamics of Life: What Makes Man Tick?
      Is Life Just a Game?
      Interest and Happiness
      What is Processing?

      The book is free and you can get it here in .pdf …

      http://www.goldcenturypress.com/books.php?id=3001

      Clearbird is recognized by the Plain English Campaign “Fighting for crystal-clear communication since 1979” http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/about-us.html

      Clearbird is also recognized by APIS (Association of Professional Independent Scientologists) “Preserve, Protect & Promote”, formally IFA, for giving a technically correct rendition of Standard Technology. http://internationalfreezone.net/whatistheifa.shtml

      I consider APIS a real Keeper of Tech, a responsibility RTC has done an epic fail. Clearbirds’ book is an admirable contribution and donation to independent Scientology and the world. Thank you!

      • Thank you very much for these links. For me a possibility to study the old subject in a complete new unit of time. Far away from any stress and duress from organizations and their staff …

    • Here’s a list of BANNED books by the Church of Scientology, books by Scientologists and others who were trying …

      “To teach Scientology at a level it can be understood and used by the recipients.”

      The issue which banned these books is WDC ED 133 of 21 February 1983. It is entitled “WITHDRAWAL OF NON LRH BOOKS BEING
      SOLD IN ORGS & MISSIONS”.

      This issue states: “The following list of non LRH books have been
      found on display and for sale in Orgs and Missions. They do not have
      issue authority for distribution on Church [sic] or Mission lines
      and are NOT authorized for sale in any Org or Mission of Church [sic]
      of Scientology. Orgs have already had these books removed from their
      bookstores. Missions may sell any remaining stocks they now have
      only.”

      When these books were on the shelves at the Portland Mission, that mission was booming. Because of these books, I felt the church consisted of free thinkers and loved free thought. That in itself helped sell me on Scientology and to continue. For some reason, it was OK to have these books in our church all the way up to 1983. Then suddenly, on Feb 22, 1983, it become not OK?

      Of course, Ruth Minshull’s books were banned including:

      All The Happiness
      Efficiency
      How to Cure the Selfish, Destructive Child
      What Is Scientology (the church took this book title)
      How to Choose Your People
      What Every PreClear Should Know
      When In Doubt, Communicate
      Ups & Downs

      Three titles by Omar Garrison were BANNED:

      Hidden Story of Scientology
      Playing Dirty
      Secret World of Interpol

      Peter Gillham also fell victim to the WDC’s ban, i.e:

      Tell It Like It Is
      Fundamentals of Success

      Several other authors’ books were BANNED including:

      Drugs and Drug Rehabilitation – K.J. Pitt
      Handbook For Parents – Faust
      How Natural Childbirth Can Protect You and Your Baby – Phelps
      How To Flourish, Prosper and Survive the 80’s Despite Everything – Dennis Winfrey
      Take the Lid Off Your Income and Get Up the Bridge Despite Everything – Dennis Winfrey
      How to Have Money – Wooderson
      Look It Up – Mazzarella
      The Money Game, – Who Wins… Who Loses – Shapiro
      Pregnancy and Natural Childbirth Picture Book – Martin
      The Truth About Drugs – Chill and Duff
      The Truth About Scientology – Meldal Johnson
      The Basics of Creativity and The Arts – Morgan
      Creative Public Speaking – Morgan
      Who Are You? – Hedges
      The Learning Book – Delphian School
      Spirit In a Bottle – Ruedi and Saverteig
      Introduction to Scientology Ethics – Chronis (non LRH version)
      Scientology, Twentieth Century Religion – [no author listed]
      Sanity For The Layman – Raymond Kemp
      Scientometric Testing Booklet – Kemp and Morgan
      This Is Life – Reg Sharpe
      Summary of Scientology – J.F. Horner
      Scientology: Its Contribution to Knowledge – Gerry
      Children’s Study Course – the Guardian Office
      Grammar With Alice – Peter Paul

      Many German titles were BANNED, including:

      Wie Man Mit Geld Umgent – Wooderson
      Auf Und Ab – Ruth Minshull
      Was Ist Scientology – Ruth Minshull
      Im Zweitel – Kommunikation – Ruth Minshull
      Emotienen – Ruth Minshull
      Wenn Kinder (Zer-) Storen – Ruth Minshull
      Salmer and Sange – Salmer and Sange
      Wer Bist Du? – Hedges
      Geist In Der Flasiche – Rue di & Sauerteig

      Fourteen books written in French are BANNED, too:

      L’ Enfant Egoiste Et Destructeur Le Remede – Ruth Minshull
      Emotiorren – Ruth Minshull
      Les Hauts – Les Bas – Ruth Minshull
      Die-Moi Qui Tu Es – Ruth Minshull
      Dans Le Dut, Communiquez – Ruth Minshull
      Efficacite – Ruth Minshull
      Ce Que Tout PreClair Devriat Savoir – Ruth Minshull
      Les Fundaments De La Reussite – Peter Gillham
      Dite-Le Sans Detour – Peter Gillham
      Tout Le Bonheur – Lefson
      Vingt Huit Promenades A Deux A Travers La Philosophie – Atlan
      Decouvrir Qu’Apprendre Est Amusant – the Guardian Office
      Gestion Du Temps – Smith and Acheson
      Comment Avoir De L’Argent – Wooderson

      “Only LRH books and materials and those with per policy issue
      authority may be displayed and sold. There is only one technology
      that will take us all to TOTAL FREEDOM when applied standardly.”
      — the WATCHDOG COMMITTEE (Sic’em Davey boy!! Git dem squirrels!!)

      Church’s banning books which doesn’t have the “right” scripture has a very, very long history in religion. Corporate Scientology isn’t the only current religion doing this even to this day, either.

      • Very interesting, Safe.

        I also like your above linking to the Code of a Scientologist.
        That’s very applicable.

        And the WDC ED 133 created a huge engram amongst Scientologists.
        Very to the disadvantage of the spread of Scientology.

        The whole thing is a violation of the “Word of Mouth advertising” principles.

        Wonder why bookstores may sell David Miscavige interpretations in his “This is Scientology” (Shermanspeak) balderdash.
        “It’s not possible to grasp the 8th dynamic before you didn’t fully cognited on the seventh.”
        Fuck you, Miscavige – stupid moron. I wonder if you cognited on the second.

        • Unless a current Scientologist is 50 years old or so, all Scientologists younger than this never even knew these Scientologist’ books existed in the church, and that they got banned at the beginning of 1983.

          Clearly, Scientologists in their 20’s and 30’s have no clue what the church used to be like, and how liberal it used to be, and how happy many Scientologists were then. When I was in the Sea Org, we were actually allowed to have TV’s, and watch them, read newspapers, and have kids with no worries of having to kill them.

          I was falsely declared in secret by the ASHO F MAA (only he knew) before the suppressive Sea Org TV BAN and confiscation of Sea Org members’ TV’s, and the Sea Org’s new baby killing operation. Thank God!

          Perhaps more sadly, many will never know the life of the “old-timer” Scientologists, who listened live to LRH’s 50’s lectures, and who are likely 75 or older now, many of which are likely dead. So I’m not so sure we’ll ever get a vivid grasp into the past as to what Dianetics was like then during it’s very, very exciting times with its continued research, research resulting in Scientology, its wonderful freedom of thought, and the exciting booms and the sad busts of the Orgs then.

          Current corporate Scientologists have a huge hidden data-line on the history of their own religion. They didn’t get the same engrams implanted as Scientologists 50 and over. Of course, the younger one’s got their own NEW set of engrams implanted by corporate Scientology. Of course, those 50 and over, who still remained, got the new ones, too. I’m thankful I missed the NEW physical engrams, the NEW painful emotion engrams, and then the more subtle and covert engrams. I never suffered this new misfortune which Marty and Mike, and the so many others who have suffered.

          62 years later after Dianetics, and look at the freaking disaster of Scientologists trying to make it go right. What would Ron say to us about the fall if he were physically alive? Though, could he be out of his body watching this drama now? I’d sure like to really know what happened to the thetan with the old male identity named L. Ron Hubbard. Where is he/she? (Ron or whatever your new name is, if you’re reading this, we could certainly use your help, again. Please? Sorry, we fucked up.)

          I’m damn sure Ron would bless us independent Scientologists, and damn the Church of Scientology today.

      • What was the story on Big League Closing Techniques and Strike It Rich Sales Prospecting by Les Dane?
        Didn’t the church continue to sell those two books?
        Of course those books were about selling.

    • Safe,
      I agree with much of what you say, but for the record, it was LRH who ordered Ruth’s books off the shelf. I know because we had to stop selling them per LRH order. Someone on this or another blog gave an explanation as to why Ron changed his mind about selling them in the Orgs, and I don’t know the reason other than at the time I was told that he was source, period. I use to sell Ruth’s books to people because they were friendly, easy to read and the covers were cheerful. Miracles for breakfast was a good promo for Scientology, so it seems stupid to have taken it off the shelf.

      • Thank you Jewel. If what you’re saying is true, that it was LRH himself who created that footbullet, that is not too flattering for Ron. Yes, it was stupid decision, IMO. That “he was source” is the most ridiculous and illogical argument (justification) I’ve heard as a real reason.

        I realize most Scientologists bought into this because of KSW fear, apparently. Though KSW doesn’t say anything about a Scientologist author not being able to teach Scientology in his own words.

        This flagrant arbitrary is like Albert Einstein demanding,

        “You must only sell my book, “Relativity:The Special and General Theory”. I, the originator and God of this theory, AM the Source!

        You may NOT sell these other more simplified versions of “my” theory, which reach out to a much broader public, and make my theories easier to understand and accessible. I command only my own writing style on all!

        The following books regarding my theory shall heretofore be BANNED from my institute! All other educators of my theory are squirrels! Only *I* can be the legitimate teacher, as only I can understand my theory well enough to be capable and competent enough to write about “my” subject! ;

        Einstein’s BANNED Book List (Parody)

        “Understanding Relativity: A Simplified Approach to Einstein’s Theories” by Leo Sartori

        “Relativity Simply Explained” by Martin Gardners

        “Simply Einstein – Relativity Demystified” by Richard Wolfson

        “Readable Relativity” by Clement V. Durell”

        Are these four author’s “squirrels” of Einsteins theory? Should we get the team of the Church of Scientology’s “Squirrel Busters” to go after these squirrels of Einstein who are obviously “incapable” of communication of his theories? Is the assumption that only Einstein is capable of writing about his Theory? Did these authors get it wrong on Einstein’s theory? Can anybody see the absurdity?

        Why the hell is it any different at all with Scientology tech? Is it sacredness?

        Is it possible somebody may not like Hubbard’s writing style? Should people not get an alternative? One reviewer said this about Einstein’s book, “I found Einstein’s prose to be typical of 19th century scientific prose, that is to say somewhat tedious and less than clear.”

        Today, if there were as many Scientologists who wrote on Scientology tech as there were who have written on Einstein’s tech, and the books were sold on Amazon, we’d really be able to get a true measure with the Amazon’s rating system and reviews, and see which books were most readable and most popular. My guess, for what was trying to be communicated, Ruth Minshull would get a higher rating on Amazon over Hubbard.

        But no. Books written by Scientologists were suppressed by Hubbard himself? So what is the real reason Scientologist authors were suppressed?

  36. Marty,

    This post is a great step in the right direction. You are writing about the subject in a way that explains the background and benefits of the TRs. This reminds me of many of the passages in What Is Wrong With Scientology. It explains in a clear way, without spending most of the time in a comparison to poor practice in CoS. Eventually you will be writing about the subject for it’s own sake without reference to CoS at all.

    As a non-Scientologist and Zen practioner, I can speak from direct expreience about benefits from zazen (sitting meditation, similar to TR0) and kinhin (walking meditation, similar to other TRs). One primary benefit is being able to calmly accept present reality, regardless of what it is, without adding unneccesary inner narrative. This benefit is not premanent (I feel nothing is permanent, which probably departs from viewpoints on the thetan), but the feeling last longer and longer as I practice longer and longer (10+ years at this point).

    I’d like to share some constructive critique, with all respect:
    – Some sentences could be shorter and simpler. Your best writing is that way. Capitalize on that strength.
    – It would be great to include some descriptions of the actual TRs and purpose/benefits behind each.

    Look forward to more. Between yourself and Mark Sheffler, the rennaisance of the subject is well under way.

    • Ub,
      “I feel nothing is permanent, which probably departs from viewpoints on the thetan.”

      Nope. Permanence is a manifestation of time. It is defined by time. A thetan is not limited by time. He creates it by postulate. It is a creation. So permanence, impermanence, these things are to do with created things, not the thetan. A thetan is neither permanent nor impermanent. The whole time thing is a frame of reference of “somethings”.

      Theta/thetans have no mass, time position, spatial location, no identity (not an “ego”) to wavelength/frequency. All these are creations of the “nothing” with its capabilities of consideration – postulates. It’s qualities, which are not quantities.

  37. I loved TR’s 1978-1980. I was staff so I was a twin for almost every public that needed a twin. I was exterior, as kid, but with TR’s I was exterior with perceptions. It was the same, almost as sitting in a chair, but I could be at three different locations. Then, it was downhill since then…. Now I just feel “old”

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      DarnIt, You need 5 things:- (without Q + A!!!
      & that includes holding onto feeling “old”)

      1) You– to sit down on a chair.
      2) A twin–sitting opposite.
      3) Start!–of TR-O!
      4) Work through any discomfort/s.
      5) Regain your inherent Beingness!

      Do it! You beautiful thetan you!
      Calvin. (& ps. I’m root’n for ya!)

  38. This is a very beautiful essay which has more than a touch of genius. Brilliant Marty!!

  39. Thanks Marty for another elucidating moment and commentary,

    Onward and upward.

  40. Marty, this is the best essay on the TRs, ever! I like the way you weave in the concepts from “the old players” who taught in the East, together with the cutting edge speculations from today’s physicists and psychological researchers.

    When I saw how long it was, I backed off a little at first, but it flows right along and is crystal clear and compact for the amount of ground it covers.

    Really good job!

    LRH said “The way out is the way through”, and you have clearly thought these TRs through and have developed your unclouded understanding of them, AND communicate that understanding in an uncomplicated way.

    As for the critics, of course “no-one” fully understands quantum mechanics. If the field was fully understood, there would be no need for further research in physics or metaphysics. It is an ongoing enterprise. But you have done a really good broad-stroke synthesis of tying together the thinking to date.

    • As one wise ‘scientist’ cum ‘spiritualist’ put it, when they recognize the wisdom of the East – that there are no paradoxes in nature, the only paradoxes in the universe are those constructed in our own minds – there will be no paradoxes to study (the entire business of science).

      • Good point Marty. I hadn’t though of it that way before, but “science” studies the apparency of existence, not the basis of existence because the basis is not quantifiable.

        • Right, MEST is of quantity, THETA is of quality.

          • Theo Sismanides

            Yes Marty and thanks for bringing that up. Excellent write up indeed…

            On that note on Theta is of quality and MEST of quantity and in respect of what we are doing and what LRH did… (a bit irrelevant what I am going to say but you know me, haha) I had a cognition after some time.

            I couldn’t understand why LRH says for a business organisation etc. that for its Viability it goes Quantity, Quality, Viability. When I read Theta is of Quality I got confused. But then I understood that Theta can and should in this Physical Universe confront Quantity and Quantity and Quantity times and times again to stay relatively sane in this universe. LRH as quality, being a thetan, brought the whole thing up (or down if you please, hahaha) to the level of Quantity. He created a Game to undo that immense Quantity back to immense Quality. Just my thought tonight.

  41. Marty, I wondered about the re issuance of basic Scientology basic books and lectures that supposedly have been corrected from the previous distributions or original books and lectures from the early days.

    Are they truly improved? It still puzzles me how if they are the improved version how they ever got passed LRH and Qual in the early days with all the errors that Miscavage claims to have happened to them during that time..

    I am wondering whether or not I should re purchase the new versions or stick with the original printings from that time?

    My feeling is we as early Scientologists have spent hundreds if not several thousands of dollars to have to now repurchase those books and materials.

    Could you please weign in on this?
    thanks, mb.

    • My general stable rule of thumb is go with the earliest versions available when I have the choice.

    • As many here know, altered and deleted LRH works is a very sore point with me. To alter LRH’s original works, and call it LRH’s writings is the ultimate sacrilege against the Scientology religion, the tech, and a major breach of trust against Scientologists.

      So I will NEVER trust any of David Miscavige’s products such as the “new and improved” L. Ron Hubbard Library books and tapes/cd’s, ever. I’ve already proven RTC covertly altered LRH’s works behind Scientologists’ back, in 1999 when I was writing about it.

      Now RTC has overtly altered them right in front of corporate Scientologists, who most have apparently bought the idea that LRH was clueless about his allegedly altered works of his “By L. Ron Hubbard” versions.

      I agree with Marty. Go back to the earliest editions you can find, where it’s most plausible that LRH checked his own books first before they were published. Make sure to get the “By L. Ron Hubbard” versions.

      I can’t believe that anybody would think Ron was so stupid or negligent as to allow his works to get altered while he was alive. It’s not believable to me that Scientologists would dare alter and delete his works right in front of LRH’s face, either.

    • Richard Lloyd-Roberts (EXSO)

      I bought the 1974 version of Self Analysis and its identical to the new version. IMO I would stick to the earliest versions. How LRH never checked his works are beyond me and when they were released was the start of my questioning the church’s true motivations. As Marty has said in the past, its an invalidation of LRH. He was very big on QUAL as a division in his tapes about the Org board so why would he not qual check every piece of work he wrote. The churches line was he was too busy which is bullshit.

      • Richard,
        actually, I found differences, but it has been awhile since I did my investigating, albeit the differences may not have been technical violations, they were not word for word and things were deleted. My version was early than yours.

  42. Hi Marty
    Nice discussion, I got into quantum physics when I was doing the PDC, I found the subject to be highly validating to the lectures, and LRH freely utilized data from the main published works on the subject. Here is a wonderful quote from the founder of quantum theory:

    “All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck, 1944.

  43. Very well done write up, Marty
    I simply want to quote some Canon to show that the Buddha was silent on most of these issues in regard to the spirit.

    “The wanderer Uttiya went to the Buddha and asked:”
    ‘Then the soul is one and the body another is only that the
    truth and all else wrong?’
    “That is not answered by me, Uttiya, replied the Buddha”

    Thus I shall follow the Buddha’s silence on these issues.

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

    • Buddha was wise, because of the human tendency to take concepts literally and reify them.

      Buddha’s Silence is a very special kind of silence.

      In fact it would be just as useful as any other label, to say that the world arises out of Buddha’s Silence, as that it arises by action of the Tao or Theta.

      Freud’s word “id” is actually German for “it”. Those guys simply called it “the it”.

      George Groddeck was a Freudian dissenter who wrote a book titled “The Book of the It.”

      He was an active healer who disagreed with Freud about the primacy of the ego. Smart man.

      http://www.lets-talk.org/groddeck.htm

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Groddeck

      Cheers Mr.White!
      May all Buddhas be happily silent so as not to mislead! Saying just enough and no more is a high art. Which I am obviously not very skilled in!

      • Some of us need more words than others sometimes. Thank you.🙂

        • Tara,
          I can appreciate that. I have used a vast quantity of words both in Pali and in English over the past 12 years. I should have explained that the Buddha was silent on theoretical issues because he wanted his monks to do practical steps as much as possible. His most famous silence was when he heard the news that all of the 30,000 citizens of his home town city were killed in a regional war.

          May all beings be well and happy!
          GMW

          • Mr. White, I understand completely. I was more specifically commenting to iamvalkov, as he usually says things I find very interesting and true and I’ve never considered he says too much.

      • iamvalkov,
        Georg Groddeck is totally cool! You can see kamma or karma working in his definitions. He reminds me of George Grimm who wrote “The Doctrine of the Buddha” at about the same time. Grimm was a Judge in Germany who never became a monk but his books were very popular.
        Most serious Theravadins have some issues with Grimm’s views of the self.
        However, I have used him by carefully following the original Canon as
        a reference point.

        May Georg Groddeck be well and happy!

        GMW

  44. The post is so right on I want to make another comment. Indeed so much of the modern world is based on quantum effects and in another non-intuitive area of physics, on relativistic effects — the key item that comes to mind is that GPS devices would not work without taking relativity into account. (Well, they would work but would not be precise enough to tell you what street to turn on — they’d be off big distances.)

    Someone once pointed out that the universe is somewhat like a TV screen. Image looks smooth and complete. But as you look closer and closer you see that the it is all made of pixels that the mind then combines into a construct of reality. The universe does seem to be somewhat like that — you get down to the quantum level and it is a surging sea of things popping into and out of existence and behaving in ways that the “macro” universe does not seem to behave.

    Perceiver and perceived. What a fantastic dance.

  45. FOTF2012
    Great comment. LRH goes in detail along those lines in the first three tapes of the Factors.

  46. Marty,

    great article!

    Helps a lot especially the last section!

    TRs are fundamental on the way to true OT!! Thanks to Ron.

    Gottfried

  47. Very nice rendition for the TRs as applied to breaking free of the past.
    Scn 8008 states an OT thinks in futures… it seems to equate that the more a being is involved with their past the less abilities they are demonstrating.
    What I find amusing about all this is that the ability to be in actual present time requires a willingness to be there, do nothing and it will escape you.
    Time – that wraskly wrabbit, it fools many as to what it actually is…
    IMHO as well, the world begins with TRO.

  48. “If one’s view of the present is so clouded by fixed ideas molded by undue attention stuck in the apparent past one is liable to be unable to cleanly envision rational, desirable future goals worthy of much support. ”

    And a person’s products are a reflection of their abilities in goal setting. Just look at what people actually produce and the self is manifest. If it is losses and enturbulation and waste, you can guess where the person is at. There are people who can do nothing but set you up for a loss. Hubbard says, “Know them by their actions”. True. Also, know them by their products. If you are connected to a sane group / person, the result will always be V.G.I’s. If you are connected to an insane person, you will find yourself confused, enturbulated, with heavy losses, no wins and B.I’s. Do you honestly think the people out here with protest reads are V.G.I.’s? This is the result of David Miscavige and his influence. If you originate you are B.I.’s now in the CofS you are fair gamed. Don’t think this has not translated into the Independent Movement with some practitioners, he has copiers out here. Just look at any auditor that has fair gamed their P.C.’s. in the Independent Movement. When you reach out to touch someone and find yourself fair gamed, you have been burnt. On any level. I don’t care if you are in a hair salon or the Church of Scientology or in the Independent Movement. A burn is a burn. You were set up to get burnt. Consider the source if you have had a loss. When you reach out to someone for HELP and ASSISTANCE and pay them and they set you up for a loss, ( as in sending you to do OT 8 and then telling you you have to go back onto seven, or many other situations I do not want to get into here now, that is called UNJUST ENRICHMENT, WHY? Because you flowed power to these people to IMPROVE conditions and they set you up for a LOSS! Who pays someone to lose if you are outside of a Casino?) Unjust enrichment is a real and current situation. Hubbard called it “out exchange” and “treason” under his writings on ethics, integrity, and criminality. It is when people f*^K you over left right and central while accepting your bank transfer. And then complain you have done them some dis service while they bury you. David Miscavige is a master at this. This method of money making and bullying has been copied so far and wide Hubbard has written policies on it called “out exchange”. David Miscavige pisses me off but what is worse, is the people that float into the Independent Movement and do the same exact thing and you find you have been hit twice! O.K. now I feel a rant coming on. Please move on if you do not want to hear it. About a week ago I was floating in a pool with a friend. I said, “Who do we go to for a comm ev”? She said, “Nobody is here, we have to handle it ourself”. Some folk consider themselves an Independent because they use their real names. I consider myself an independent because I have not had to have a reg for me and an Org to keep me moving up the bridge or handle my bringing new people in, I have done it. I regged myself. I regged my family. We are not parked off the bridge. I regged myself, I regged them. I get my friends and family in and up the bridge ON MY OWN. If you have been parked off the bridge since you left, I do not consider you an Independent yet! O.K. so I realized my resources are in the community. I took on the hat of handling my own justice cycles. I have started to handle my own justice cycles too. This is what independent really means. Being a walking 21 division Org Org. Handling your own tech inspections. Being your own qual. Hiring firing transferring your own staff. Keeping your own ethics in and those around you. Getting yourself and others up the bridge. And yes, YOU being in charge of justice and ethics. THAT is independence. When you are not needy.

  49. 1. This is very nice and has a lot of wisdom there, but why do you need to add your own writing to an LRH course?

    2. I feel you are telling what to think and not letting students have their own realizations “….mental mass or force impinging on you during the drills, simply be aware of them. Do not resist them…” as I know, Ron did not tell what to do during the drill…except BE THERE.

    • “I always know what someone’s state of learning is in Scientology when they speak of Scientology as “your” ideas. They say, “I’ve been reading your ideas.” I know at once this person can’t communicate. It’s a great oddity. It’s quite wonderful. Because they reveal at once that they cannot take this first basic step of taking an idea and then communicating it to someone else. They are standing back looking at the world in some large sense and they are not any part of it, because they can’t own any of the world’s ideas. If they can’t own any of the world’s ideas, then they won’t own any of the world, because the easiest thing to own is an idea. No mass to impede it.”
      – LRH, PAB PAB 147

    • bb2626,
      Are you familiar with Effort Processing? Go back to the early tapes, in the R&D Vols, look it up. LRH had students at a lecture simple cease resisting the counter-efforts, i.e., cease THEIR effort. At that point, the counter-efforts impinged, carried through and what happened? They dissipated. Poof. Gone.

      Now, that’s not in the “TRs” either. But it is equally valid and part of them.

      How about Coaching TRO? Are you familiar with two recordings of the BC that cover this? They are listed at the back of the Tech Dictionary; 16 Jan 61, TRO Demo and TRO Lecture.

      In these there is a principle from Route 2-31, from Creation of Human Ability used to COACH TRO. Coaching TRO? It’s there.

      Have you ever coached TRO using this material?

      Have you ever coached a person, or cleared a word, by asking them how would it be that way, how wouldn’t it be that way? Would “resisting” be doing something as opposed to be there comfortably and not do anything else but be there?

      I dunno bud, but it seems to me that Marty is applying the Sup’s Code datum of:
      7. The Supervisor will be able to correlate any part of Scientology to any other part and to livingness over the eight dynamics.

      Now, if the Sup’s “lips are sealed” and any of the application of #7 above is considered the horror of “verbal interpretation”, then you’ll end up with the idiocy of the modern CofS where “find your MU” is the totality of “tool” (and that’s a double entendre.)

      • Hi Jim,
        I’ll look up these references and thanks for your complete answer🙂
        I like Marty’s article and he explains a lot there and I think he should publish it in his own book…all I wanted to communicate, that I probably would not add any interpretation to an LRH course.

      • Exactly.

        • My “Exactly” was for Jim. When I first got on the comm course it made me nuts that nobody would answer a simple question. Like, what is a “major stable win” supposed to be. It’s amazing I stuck around.

          • Simple, were you allowed/referred to read various TR Bulletins? i was and they did answer some of my questions.

            • We read the basic TRs bulletins – I seem to recall just one which laid out how to do all the drills, but I could be wrong.

      • Theo Sismanides

        Jimbo, Jimbo, laser precision Qual guy. I didn’t know about those lectures. Have to look for them. Thanks

  50. Brilliant article! it resonates very much with my current questions.

    I am currently practicing meditation, as that is the best replacement I could find for Scientology, beyond my failure in the CoS. Meditation is some kind of TR0, with indications about how to handle thoughts that present themselves uninvited. Meditation is useful to be in present time and break automaticities.

    The masters of Quantum Mechanics say they don’t understand its “why”, but the equations work, always.

    I believe that is possible to use Scientology to explain Quantum Mechanics: by considering that there is an infinite universe, Theta, and that the physical universe is a finite representation of Theta. As a result space and time are quantified: the smallest possible length is the Planck Length, the smallest portion of time is the Planck Time. Thus we have this reduction from infinite to finite that is creating strange side effects, such as the duality wave / particle.

    Currently science says that electromagnetic waves don’t really exist, that they are just a probability of presence of photons. I believe that the waves really exist in the Theta universe, but that when trying to perceive waves in our finite universe, we get discrete particles: the photons.

    • Nice post Curiosus. Echoes of Plato there.

      “According to Socrates(Plato wrote the Socratic Dialogues), physical objects and physical events are “shadows” of their ideal or perfect forms, and exist only to the extent that they instantiate the perfect versions of themselves. Just as shadows are temporary, inconsequential epiphenomena produced by physical objects, physical objects are themselves fleeting phenomena caused by more substantial causes, the ideals of which they are mere instances.”

      Evidently the “masters of QM” you mention are well on their way back to returning to or rediscovering philosophical constructs that are at least 2,500 years old. But this time, they have more measurements to back those ideas up with. Plato and Socrates intuited the knowledge directly. That doesn’t fly in today’s “scientific” climate.

  51. excellent post Marty. sooo intresting,…….grazie

  52. Was ‘Top Gun’ Director Tony Scott a Scientologist? He just bailed off of an L.A. bridge.

  53. Have you taken any courses in physics? Do you have even a bachelor’s degree in physics? Do you even have a college degree?

    What gives you the temerity to write about quantum physics so authoratively?

    • Li'll bit of stuff

      Knowing the basic truth about “you”
      How’s that for temerity?

    • He’s got giant balls. He’s a man. Not a mouse. He doesn’t have to wait for somebody with a “degree” to tell him what to observe. TO observe HIMSELF, and other than that, he’s got temerity. What on earth is your point other than being a wimped out “please somebody with a degree give me a license to observe and maybe even come up with something that others then whine about needing a degree to be able to say”.

      Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

    • James, what are your credentials, to be posting here at all?

  54. Great article, Marty.
    A little anecdote about TRs. I walked into the NY org in the fall of 1967 – after having read “Fundamentals of Thought” – and told the receptionist “I want to buy some scientology”. I was told to come back on the weekend and do the HAS (comm course) for the grand sum of $15. That’s what I did.
    By Sunday night, after 2 days of TRs, I was exterior and stayed that way for at least a week. Best 15 bucks I ever spent.

  55. I have to LOL at people who come onto someone’s blog and express their outrage that the blog’s author would dare to write about a topic and question his credentials. Seriously? It’s a blog – that it’s Raison d’être, to write about your own stuff. Argue the merits by all means but to question their right – LOL again.

  56. “I do not negate or doubt the inherent ability of some to simply do as Krishnamurti or the Zen masters have advised. However, I am not one of those who was blessed with that natural presence of mind to instantly achieve that ability. I was greatly assisted in the process by Hubbard, who saw eye to eye with Krishnamurti and the Zen teachers as far as objective is concerned.”
    This!
    Most excellent intro for TRs here.

  57. I would like to add what I noticed at a class IV organization about 20 years ago. At the time, I was young and on staff, and I noticed that the high pressure sales people would hound the course supervisor, in Scientology as most know there isn’t a teacher or instructor, instead there is a course supervisor, to send anyone doing TRs to see the sales staff.

    I do not know if this happens at other organizations, but the registrars seemed to act as if it was normal. I know the course supervisor questioned the justification for this.

    This brings up the question are people more suggestible after doing these TRs? There is a connection between meditation and suggestibility in the scientific literature, but I haven’t carefully looked into it. Would there be another reason the registrars would were so excited when someone was doing TRs?

    I prefer the term sales person to registrar, as registrar usually means keeper of records, and in Scientology, these people sell.

    • Aussie Case,
      Well, if a person could be hypnotized, or made more “suggestible” after doing a REAL TRs course, then they aren’t done with the course. They are not done on TRs.

      NOTHING could be further from the truth than what you “suggest”. My “suggestion”, DO TRs for real🙂

      • S’anyways, the point was that the sales people (registrars) were getting excited and eager to sell when someone was doing TR’s?

        And I’m asking if others have noticed this?

        If you have, simply do “two more hours of TR0 bullbait!”

        Why do the registrars do this? I suspect they learned something from practice and word of mouth?

        Any registrar’s wish to comment?

  58. To Curiosus: This statement, “Currently science says that electromagnetic waves don’t really exist …” is misleading. It is true that “the probability of presence of photons” is determined from the strength of the associated electromagnetic wave, however it is incorrect to claim that “science says that electromagnetic waves don’t really exist.” Light is electromagnetic radiation and it has a *dual nature*. At times, the behavior that dominates its interaction with the surroundings will be particle-like and at other times it will be wave-like. Electromagnetic waves are oscillating electric and magnetic force fields. They are very real. The realization that the energy they carry can only be delivered in packets (called photons) marked the birth of quantum physics.

    • To snippy
      Yes, light is real to us, but according to current science the electromagnetic spectrum cannot be continuous. When light is considered as wave-like, the equations are continuous (perfect sine wave), but a perfect continuous sine wave cannot exist in our universe due to the granularity of space and time. That is what I mean by “Currently science says that electromagnetic waves don’t really exist”: perfectly continuous equations cannot exist in our universe, when they can exist in the Theta universe.

      I posted pictures once on Geocities. Geocities is dead, but there is an archive:
      http://www.geocities.ws/curiosus_2008/samplinguniversedualitywaveparticle.htm

      Thank you for listening!

      • I believe the sine wave you have there represents a computer generated probability distribution for the interference pattern on the screen of a double slit experiment. Allowing it to build up over time, it approaches a continuous sine function. I agree with you that you will need to wait an infinite amount of time for this to become a perfect sine wave.

        However the sinusoidal pattern of the photons on the screen is not the same thing as the analytical solutions of Maxwell’s equations that describe the electric and magnetic fields traveling from the slit to the screen and from which a continuous probability function is calculated. The electric fields exist. The associated magnetic fields exist at right angles to them and they propagate together at the speed of light, regenerating each other, as one of the most beautiful actions of nature. The fringe pattern is exactly what demonstrates the wave characteristic of the light. This is not an illusion. This is your cell phone, radio, TV, microwave, etc. etc.

        As to whether or not the spectrum (range of wavelengths) is continuous or not, that is a different question. The granularity of space-time has NOT been established experimentally. (It would be satisfying philosophically if it were.) The Planck length is theoretically the smallest length that we can detect. This is not to be confused with the smallest length that may exist. The later is outside the realm of physics.
        If space-time does turn out to be granular, then at those scales, you are right — electromagnetic waves will require a modified description as will gravity and so on.

        I believe where you are headed with your Theta universe is toward what is called Hidden Variable theories. These are fine ideas to entertain, however if they do not ultimately produce testable predictions, which they haven’t so far, they are not considered to be “scientific” theories.

        Thanks for the fun discussion. Sorry for going on so long.

        • snippy, you seem knowledgeable about the details of QM, but please be aware that Marty’s post is about the RELATIONSHIP between reality, existence, the physical universe, and it’s BASIS. What is the Basis of Existence? That is where the rubber of philosophy meets the road of physics, and what Marty’s “introduction to the TRs” is about. What is the POTENTIAL from which it all springs? What should we call THAT? How should we refer to it? That is what cutting edge physicists are struggling with.

          So far none of the “physicists” here have addressed that, except to avoid it.

          • Theo Sismanides

            Hahahaha, iamvalkov, it looks like Marty’s viewpoint triggered some QM experts here who throw a bunch of incomprehensible high physics terms for us peasants and theoreticians, hahaha. We got some Tone Arm action. I suggest we throw on them a bunch of Scientology jargon hahaha to confuse their mind too and then say: “see… we know better THAN you”!! Hahaha nice game: THROW MISUNDERSTOOD SYMBOLS AND WORDS to everybody and say I know better than you! Reminds me of some priesthood over their flock.

        • to snippy

          Granularity of space and time has not been fully demonstrated.
          But Einstein had already an intuition of it:
          http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2010/10/einstein-on-discretenes-of-space-time.html

          Thus Einstein had a problem, as he believed that time and space could be granular, as a consequence of Quantum Mechanics but, according to the theory of relativity, time and space are continuous.

          By considering that Theta created MEST, that Theta is continuous when MEST is granular, we are solving this dilemma.

          Light is at the interface, a “messenger” between Theta and MEST, thus light is seen sometimes as Theta (waves), sometimes as MEST (particles).

          It has to be noted : since about 15 years, more and more physicists consider the possibility of discrete or granular space-time.

          • to Curiosus

            Yes, since Einstein’s General Relativity says gravity IS space-time geometry and gravity needs to be quantized in order to be included with the elecro-magnetic, weak and strong forces already unified by the Standard Model, a granular space-time seems a logical choice, however this is an extremely difficult problem and people have been working on it for at least 30 years. Light does represent one boundary of our physical world, with photons having the smallest mass possible (zero) and the fastest speed possible (speed of light), so it is a possible interface between this world and “other worldly” things, should they exist. I would not be to enamored of continuous functions. We like them because we experience our tiny piece of the universe as smooth and continuous, but nature is going to do what it is going to do, whether we approve or not.

            There is a nice explanation of the challenges faced in physics at this site.
            It is written by philosophers, but it’s very helpful anyway. 😉

            http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/#3.3

            • To snippy

              Thank you for the link, I need some time to digest it.

              There is something quite interesting about photons:
              1) According to scientists, photons have no mass, thus they don’t belong fully to the MEST universe where everything else has a mass
              2) Photons travel at the speed of light. Thus, according to the theory of relativity, from their own viewpoint, they have no time, as even if they cross the whole universe, the elapsed time in their own referential is still zero.
              3) They have no dimension, as according to the theory of relativity when something travels at the speed of light, its dimension is 0.

              Thus is can be said that photons have to mass, no space and no time, the M, S and T part of MEST are missing. But they carry Energy. Thus they have an intermediate status, half Theta and half MEST. They are like messengers between Theta and MEST.

              According to the axioms of Scientology, MEST was created by postulating particles. Photons are possibly the basic particles, postulated by Theta in order to create MEST.

              The process of postulating discrete particles accounts also for the granularity of space, time and energy.

              • to Curiosus – yes the article gets into the nitty gritty of it, but it is at least a good jumping off place if your interested in looking at the boundaries of the physical world. Photons are special; from “their” point of view, they are everywhere at once. They have no mass, no charge either, except they do have spin. But hey, that’s a whole nuther can o’ worms. All good stuff. Thanks for a great discussion and thanks Marty for your interesting post (and putting up with our digression)!

  59. I’ve studied Krishnamurti for the past 25 years and have only known about LRH for the past few years. Having completed the objectives (the new TR and OBJs course) I can tell you that it does work to get one in PT and exterior without much effort, unlike knowing and understanding Krishnamurti’s view point. LRH without question, certainly did make it easier for one to get immediate benefits from doing the TRs. I would like to see the difference between the current course and the old time course (if someone can provide a link).

    FOR AO: Who told you that you couldn’t understand? The better question is when did you decide to believe or agree not to understand?

    Thanks for the post Marty.

  60. Well Marty, you are truly a courageous soul!

    I am absolutely delighted that you have chosen to create your own materials based on what you understand the truth to be. And you have every right to do so and to communicate your truth.

    It seems pretty clear to me that you are walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

    Kudos to you!

  61. Marty,
    You run a real TRs cycle. Just per the Bulletin, and with a mind to Study Series 2, CONFRONTING:“Thus “confronting” is actually the ability to be there comfortably and perceive. Amazing reactions occur when conscious effort is made to do this. Dullness, perception trouble, fogginess, sleep and even pains, emotions and convulsions can occur when one knowingly sets out to BE THERE AND COMFORTABLY PERCEIVE…These reactions discharge and vanish as one perseveres (continues) and at last, sometimes soon, sometimes after a long while, one can be there and perceive.”

    In LRH ED 143 INT, THE WORLD BEGINS WITH TRO, LRH points up that real TRs, per the HCOB, are not just for “druggies”, or auditors in training:

    “In a recent review of Tech, I traced the cause of course failures case failures directly to out-comm.

    “Further search revealed HCOB 17 April 1961, Training Drills Modernized was not in! Nowhere in the world!

    “This means HAS Comm Course failures, HDC auditing failures, Supervisor failures – you name it, any failure in an org is traceable to SOFT TRS.

    “This can get so bad that London once had “Permissive Public TRs” going! They wanted a rewrite so the TRs would be pale and patty cake enough for the public! Oh wow, oh wow. There went London!”

    REAL TRs are a major BRIDGE action, and there they are right at the beginning of the Bridge. This is so much so LRH wrote CS Series 38,TRS COURSE AND AUDITING MIXING MAJOR ACTIONS.
    “With the use of TRs The Hard Way on basic courses, auditors and students, a rule must be laid down:
    A PERSON ON A TR COURSE OR IN PROGRESS ON A TR CYCLE MAY NOT ALSO BE AUDITED.”
    “The reason for these rules lies in the major C/S rules:
    “DO NOT BEGIN NEW PROGRAMS TO END OLD. DO NOT START A NEW ACTION BEFORE COMPLETING THE EXISTING ONE.

    “Any course or program containing TRs 0-4, 6-9 or Admin TRs is a major
    program in itself. It produces case gain—if run right—and has an End Phenomenon.”

    “Further, by actual experience when a person is on a real (not a patty-cake and weak) TR Course and is also being audited at the same time, the C/S and Auditor if they don’t know the person is also on TRs can be utterly baffled and worried as the case does not run right. “What did I do?” “What C/S was wrong?” “Look, his TA is high.” “Now it’s low.” “Last session he____.” And the C/S and auditor engage in efforts to handle the odd case behavior. But the person, unknown to them, was also on
    a real TR Course and his case was changing!”

    So, a REAL TRs cycle, done exactly per the Bulletin, is a major case changing action. It has phenomena that occur, and as in any process or action in Dianetics and Scientology, the Tone Arm has to go UP before it comes down. That TA up, can be uncomfortable. It can have concommitant somatics, emotions, and as LRHs observes in Study Series 2, “Dullness, perception trouble, fogginess, sleep and even pains, emotions and convulsions can occur.”

    I think that one of the major issues in the whole scheme of getting case gain with Scientology is the lack of confront of just exactly what CASE entails. It has force, it has power, it can “bow your back, to say nothing of changing your ideas”. A person run on an engram chain, for real, very often experiences sharp pains, intense emotions, unconsciousness, and with the Tone Arm way up, is uncomfortable.

    What would you think of a person who would rabbit from that, run away and not carry through to the EP of the chain run, with the Tone Arm down and the person actually THROUGH, the incident with the incredible changes that occur.

    Yes, a real TRs course is quite something, with the amazing results and with LRH putting it in the HAS/Comm Course, right at the very beginning you gotta love it. There, in this simple series of steps, the world may very well BEGIN.

    (Note: CS Series 5 places TRs thusly: “Had he been on drugs as a habit (or just shaky about life) TRs O to 9 could have begun his auditing followed by Life Repair.” Just shaky about life, heck, it makes sense it is at the very entrance point of the Bridge.

    • No wonder new people have to do the STCC (Success Though Communication Course). It is full of abrevations from the working technology, the exact descriptions of the TRs (starting with the names itselt “TR 0 – sitting there” instead of OT TR 0).
      Does anyone know where this patty-cake TRs come from (who compilied its “tech”)?

      • SKM, the STCC was a good course at one time. I got a lot out of it. There are some unique drills on it that helped me a lot, and I believe it was originally an LRH course. No doubt it has been alter-ised just as other TR courses have been. I seem to recall a recent report/post here that the Bulletins about TRs have all been re-written and watered down.

        • I have never seen any of the Bulletins (HCOBs) for the STCC.
          Ever.
          The HCOB 16 AUGUST 1971R II REVISED 5 JULY 1978 (the current, official “TRs Bulleting Version”) even says: “Public courses on TRs are NOT ‘softened’ because they are for the public. Absolutely no standards are lowered. THE PUBLIC ARE GIVEN REAL TRs – rough, tough and hard. To do otherwise is to lose 90% of the results. There is nothing pale and patty-cake about TRs.”
          This is a contradiction on Church lines.
          I mean, we have this HCOB. Than there is the “Volunteer Minister Course”, with a slightly different version, and we have the STCC and nowadays, there is also the “new” HQS Course with TRs from the late 50’s beginning 60’s.

          “Someone” uplines does it intentionally. It’s no coincidence.

          There is another “TRs HCOB”, withdrawn from academies (It is said that LRH never approved this one and that D. Mayo wrote it and it has to be withdrawn and replaced in all packs) but used in the FreeZone (as they started before this HCOB was withdrawn).
          This ist the HCOB 16 AUGUST 1971RA II REVISED 5 JULY 1978, RE-REVISED 4 SEPTEMBER 1980.
          Here it says:
          Academies were tough on TRs up to 1958 and have since tended to soften. Professional TRs Courses are not a tea party.
          The TRs given here should be put in use at once in all auditor training, in Academy and HGC and in the future should never be relaxed.
          A more gradient approach to TRs is taught on specially packaged co-audits for those with no prior technical training, where the same degree of flawlessness and skill demanded of a professional auditor is not demanded of the untrained co-auditor.
          And there is still another gradient of TRs found on courses for new public in Division 6, where the person is getting his first experience in handling communication in his life and livingness.

          So yes, I think, there is something wrong with the way TRs are delivered in the Chruch and it all starts with the set up of the new Corporation of Scientology. The time of Miscaviges control of the only line to LRH.

          (I don’t say the 1980 HCOB Re-revision is a valid, LRH approved HCOB. I didn’t work it out yet. Jim Logan offered to help me go through it, but I didn’t find the time until now. But I will.)

  62. Off topic, but a theta bleep! I recall finishing L11 and thinking how Marty, and the people in the Independent had put the Church’s ethics in enough, that contributed to the safe space that made it possible for the auditing to occur. This should be shared here:

    Simone grew up in a Scientology family.

    After finishing school, she enlisted in the Army and became an
    intel officer, doing a tour in Iraq and then another in Afghanistan. She told me stories about how she had
    been stationed out in an isolated area of the Afghan Kandahar countryside, 28 men and 2 women,
    with no fresh food, long recon marches over mountainous terrain carrying heavy backpacks, and living in a compound
    surrounded by a moat and hostile insurgents. It’s hard to imagine a more difficult environment to function in
    than the conditions she encountered in these two countries.

    What is remarkable is that she did this entire tour of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan
    experiencing practically no restimulation at all. She was pretty much keyed out the whole time!

    She came to me for some auditing recently, and we proceeded to sort out her last lifetime
    track in Scientology and also, most importantly, her Bridge.

    SImone has now been confirmed, and has attested to Clear!

    Here is her success story:

    I am absolutely excited that I can attest to the state of Clear today!!!

    This is something I have been looking forward to for SO long, and I cannot
    express how important Trey’s exceptional auditor beingness has been in enabling my attestation!

    I have been incredibly lucky in pulling in amazing parents who granted beingness to my
    abilities without judgement or eval!

    And now I have found another group of exceptional beings in Trey, his wife Nicci, and all the other
    kickass high integrity members of the Independent Field!!

    I want to promise all of you that my abilities will be used for positive change, the sanity of this planet,
    and for the 4th Dynamic, the same way I have always used them!

    I appreciate the safe, in-tech environment that you ALL have fought for and generated.

    I am SO looking forward to the future!

    Love,

    Simone Isabella Luca

    • To The Oracle
      That is nice to have success stories.
      This reminds me of the academy of Scientology 30 years ago: students were reporting their wins at the end of the course. That was very uptone. That was no more done in 1996, I don’t know why. That was replaced by a Chinese school at the beginning of every course period. Chinese school made me feel like a robot!

  63. I read every blog post and have loved all……..until today. I have no doubt it’s my MU’s on quantum theory and quantum mechanics but I don’t have enough interest to clear the words. Call me stupid; that’s okay. I really was interested in reading about TR’s but after trying to read this post 3 times and each time I ended off at, you guessed it, quantum mechanics. I guess I’ve got a quantum MU.

    • Pat, I am totally with you!

    • I think you might be on to something there. It seems like there is some upset or enturbulence created by this one. It’s possible it’s MU phenomena going on. I feel like spot checking people.

    • Pat, I have to chuckle at least a little, because I just happen to be homeschooling for the first time and really getting into study tech with my youngest for the first time. Wow, the M.U. phenomena on that kid – the drama!!!!
      You’re probably right and it’s understandable. I spent some many hours not too long ago clearing a lot of these concepts, otherwise I’d be right there with you.

    • In the last few years I’ve been reading a lot on Quantum Theory and Cosmology. As a matter of fact, that’s what got me back into Scientology since so much of what I read reminded me of LRH. A good introductory book is “Alice in Quantumland” by Robert Gilmore. It’s an allegory, but after finishing it you will be comfortable enough to go on to handle more technical material. You can find it on the net in .pdf format. There’s no shortage of physics books written for lay people! I happened to love the title of this one since Alice seems like an old friend after spending so many hours with her.

  64. O.K. ladies just my two cents. Big unusual words are like big unusual men, overwhelming at first but very sexy once you understand them and bring them under your command! Find a dictionary on the net and empower yourselves!

  65. Hi Marty;

    Back in ’72, doing the TRs was simple, and had astounding results. The notion of ‘major stable win’ shortly became lost as MANY versions of how to do the TRs were introduced, as really weird alterations appeared.

    My first and completely major stable win came with in a few hours of sitting down and doing TRs. From that moment on I knew I was in the right place. The TRs made Scientologists.

  66. Marty,
    Thanks so much for this! I can relate so strongly to “However, I am not one of those who was blessed with that natural presence of mind to instantly achieve that ability.” That 0-9 comm course of 1975 was the BEST!

  67. Try Googling for “quantum mechanics” definitions and wading around in there. The term was a murky black hole for me until I did so.

    Basically it seems to be the search for and study of the smallest possible physical particle(s) that can exist, and how they behave. It’s an attempt to identify and measure the fundamental particles of “reality”.

    • This post is intended for Pat and Carol above. Really, “mechanics” isn’t that tough to grasp, so once you get a handle on “quantum”, you’ll be good as gold.

  68. A very reliable report from the inside: Flag staff are very confused as they believe they are doing all the right things yet they see there are very few new public coming on lines and veteran public are disappearing. They can’t understand how this can be. The frustration level is very high.

    • They may be frustrated, but they shouldn’t be surprised or confused. All they have to do is to look around and see how the public are treated. Not to mention all the out tech for which the public is throwing away money. “Friendliest Place on Earth”? HAH! Mecca of Technical Perfection”? Double HAH!

  69. I’m going to escalate my unpopularity by discussing the lack of expansion touched on by other posters.

    If accept that there have been mini booms from time to time as oppose to a general regular expansion of Scientology, which I believe we all do not see, then I have to ask why have there only been localized mini-booms which were not sustained? Is it because people only followed Ron Hubbard’s policy for a short, and in time they then stopped?

    If I suppose that most Scientology organizations and missions are run by decent average people doing their best to follow Hubbard’s so-called technology and policies, then it seems a boom is not the general result of decent average people doing their best to follow Hubbard’s so-called technology and policies.

    As you suspect, I am no longer a Scientologist. LRH’s so-called technology and policy together have **not in general and consistently produced booms**, they have not even generally and consistently produced organizations with anything resembling a living wage. This is during both Hubbard’s and Miscavage’s time. There are exceptions, but I am discussing the average organization over the last 40 years.

    Of the two choices: 1) most of the time people have not followed Hubbard’s policy, and 2) staff members tried to follow Hubbard’s policy, at least to the level one would expect of an average staff member; the second is more likely.

    If we accept the second then one should begin to question Hubbard, and the idea if we just do what Ron said it would all be fine.

    • God is love.
      Love is blind.
      Ray Charles is blind.
      Ray Charles is God.

    • I can tell you that I have seen LRH admin tech applied in the secular world with spectacular results over and over again by those who really duplicate a) basic LRH admin & ethics tech and b) the ideal scene of the activity they are consulting.

      Why over the past 30 years orgs have generally struggled is a mystery to me.

      • It seems to me the answer is obvious. Way too many uneducated, unskilled, unhatted people given way too much authority. Which practice or policy (unstated) was standard procedure probably from the earliest days of Dianetics and Scientology, implemented because LRH did not consider it a priority to pay a sufficiently high wage to attract educated and skilled people.

        Sorry to have to say that, and others may reference policies or whatever that appear to indicate that he did want to pay people more – but that it NEVER happened, despite the PRODUCT of the organization being the most desirable of all (going free), tells me that it simply was not a priority.

        I don’t consider myself the most observant being on the planet, but I saw this outpoint for what it was, by the end of my first year in Scientology. And so, for the next 25 years, avoided any and all entreaties to be on staff or (especially) SO. My opinion was, who the hell would want to live like that? Who the hell would tolerate being treated like that?

        It was occasionally indicated to me that I was less than committed on the dynamics above 2; otherwise (the indication went), I would have sacrificed all – decent salary, time with family, ability to lead a “normal” life – for the cause of clearing the planet.

        It just never made sense to me. Why was it that a company like IBM or HP or Apple, just to name a very few, expand, make money, reward good execs and employees with bonuses and salary increases, TREAT THEM WELL in other words – while an organization with what I knew to be a very powerful, workable technology badly needed by every being on this planet wallowed in continuous workplace turmoil, staff turnover, insanely poor living conditions??

        I could go on, but let me cut to the chase: outnesses like the ones I’ve mentioned are not accidents, they are CAUSED.

        If this organization had been set up properly from the start, and run on basic organizational knowledge gleaned from the “wog” world, Scientology would have made Quantum Leaps into the society especially compared to the pathetic condition it is currently in.

        As others have said, responsibility for much if not most of the current debacle goes straight back to Miscavige. But as to basic organizational policies and treatment of staff, it goes back quite a bit further.

        (Sorry, I had to get that quantum reference in there, given the subject of much of the discussion on this current blog post).

    • AC, your conclusions are your conclusions. Based on what data? I wonder how much of this blog you have read, because there are many viewpoints from folks who were actually there in various places and at various times, who have posted what they actually saw of boom times versus bad times.

      I don’t know how you can quantify “averages” on this. What in the world is an “average organization”? It’s kinda like talking about the average American family having 2.1 children. What does that .1 of a child look like?

      This blog is largely about identifying what happened and why. Why were there booms, why were there downs and failures? It’s called learning by experience.

      We know that organized scientology has been on a severe downtrend since the 1980s. We think we know some of the reasons. There has been a LOT of inspection of it on this blog. Are you up to date with that?

      Marty published some of them in his book. Have you read it? If not, OK. You may feel you have enough data to make your conclusions. But if you haven’t read this blog including comments and Marty’s book, you have nowhere near all the available data.

      The fact that you were not able to make scientology applications work very well for you, is indicative of something in itself.

      • I can answer the average question. What does it mean if there are 2.1 children per family?

        One way to think of it is that if you survey 100 families at random then you can expect to find about 210 children. Some families may have no children while some may have many, but it doesn’t say anything about any one particular family. It just gives you an idea of how many children there are per family in general.

        I haven’t read Marty’s book, and I have read many, not all the posts, in this section, and I think the discussion is interesting. It was after reading several threads that I added this post.

        The policy of staff pay has been discussed on this post, and unacceptably low pay, in the proportional pay system indicates an unsuccessful organization for various reasons.

        If it truly were that case that during Ron’s time most organizations were going well, and paying reasonably well than I admit my underlying premise is incorrect. If however there were at best localized short-lived booms then I think my assessment stands.

    • Aussie Case,

      You are uninformed. Go to the Friends of LRH website and you will see the actual stats for auditors, Clears, and OTs made. On trend they increased up to 1990 when Miscavige took active control of sales and delivery of services, at which point they began decreasing and have continued decreasing to this day. This uptrend-downtrend pattern has also been confirmed to me by continental management execs who have access to the actual internal stat graphs, and Marty and other who were in Int management have confirmed it on this blog.

      When missions and orgs deliver standard tech, and follow successful promo actions, they expand. Chiseled in stone fact. The problem was unhatted, low-on-the-Bridge “management” staff interfering with tech trained, high-on-the-Bridge mission and org staff. I know because I was there starting in 1968 and saw it all happen, year by year,

      It doesn’t all trace to Miscavige — he just made it horribly worse. It was some kind of Nazi cult GPM dramatization triggered by the quasi-military nature of the Sea Org. If the Sea Org had stayed out of sales and delivery, and just let the mission holders of the 70’s expand by adding Academy Levels to their service offerings, the uptrending stats of the 70’s would have continued and accelerated all the way to today. It’s not that Scientology didn’t have what it takes to expand. It’s that the stats were MADE to go down by the actions of insane people in management.

      • If your speculation is correct, how is it that Scientology management procedures allowed, or even encouraged, so-called insane people in management?

        • Aussie Case,

          LRH experimented with many auditing approaches in the 50’s and early 60’s, many of which turned out to be dead ends, before he settled on the modern Bridge. I believe he also experimented with admin approaches, beginning seriously in the mid-60’s when Scientology was under attack from actual SPs. Some great policies came out of those experiments, but not everything worked, and some aspects of the experiments were harmful in the long run.

          The original 12 Sea Org members were all Class 6, OT 3, and experienced on staff at St. Hill. They were tech people first and foremost. But within a year Sea Org quals were lowered to Class 4, Clear, and no staff experience required. Within another year it was “given and received case gain.” Eventually it seemed like any teenager who could fog a mirror could get in. This loaded up the Sea Org with the exact opposite of the original members — a lot of totally unhandled cases.

          I believe the Sea Org was an LRH experiment to see if ethics, admin, and esto tech could make an effective team out of people who knew almost nothing about auditing tech and had received almost no auditing. The experiment failed, because the quasi-military, saving-the-world nature of the Sea Org was too restimulative to the vast majority of recruits. To survive, they went out of valence, and the culture of the Sea Org became Nazi case dramatization in the name of “no case on post.” And, because 90% of Sea Org members were on admin posts, they got programmed for more admin training instead of the tech training and co-auditing that might have saved them, the Sea Org, and Scientology as a whole.

          I also believe that if LRH had lived long enough, and had been freed of the legal and organizational distractions of his last years, he would have made major changes to the Sea Org to correct this situation. He actually had been trying to solve it since the early 70’s, with Esto Tech and then Super Power, which unfortunately was never implemented.

          I never said LRH was perfect. Finding his mistakes isn’t hard, and I don’t know of anyone in the Independent Scientology community who wants to create an alternative organization to the Sea Org — you know, the same general idea, just “done right.” We’re evolving the “lightness of organization” LRH spoke of in the late 50’s — a free-market network of auditors and small groups, out of which auditor training operations will inevitably emerge, but without any overarching “save the world” cult.

          My suggestion is that you quit trying to find LRH’s mistakes, and get on with implementing what he did right.

          • Brilliant suggestion: My suggestion is that you quit trying to find LRH’s mistakes, and get on with implementing what he did right.

          • Diogenes,

            If one doesn’t fully look at and fully understand the history of LRH’s mistakes, how does one avoid being condemned to repeat them?

            • Safe,

              “Fully looking at and fully understanding the history of LRH’s mistakes” so that we CAN “get on with implementing what he did right” is a good thing, and I personally have done a lot of that. It’s sensible, and makes LRH’s life work more effective in our hands. He wasn’t perfect, and he’s depending on us to carry on in a way that works.

              But continuing to bring up one LRH mistake after another, in the spirit of “continuous carping criticism” masquerading as “critical analysis” or “just trying to be sure,” etc. is very different. It’s 1.1 and intended to dead agent LRH’s work in its entirey by fostering doubt about parts of it, and about various aspects of his personality.

              The proof of this is that almost none of the various commenters who focus on LRH’s outpoints ever maintain a comm cycle after being challenged on what they said about an outpoint. They may reply to the challenger, but without actually answering the challenger’s arguments. Then they pop up later with some other criticism. I’m all for ACTUAL “critical analysis,” but I can spot actual natter, too.

              Also, the guys who do this are always NOT involved in using Scientology currently. They’re either “studying” it from afar in a pseudo-academic sense before DOING it, or they’re ARC broken over their experiences as Scientologist in the past, and not in a specific, legitimate way that we could all understand and empathize with, but in a way that makes LRH, the tech, the Church, and Miscavige all one big uncertain A=A=A=A, and all of us still weak-minded robots who haven’t “cognited all the way yet.”

              I’m very, very definitely not one to jump to the conclusion that anyone with a critical thought or ARC break is just motivating based on his own overts and witholds. That card has been way, way overplayed by the Church and is part of Miscavige’s Black Dianetics. LRH said to handle ARC breaks as ARC breaks first, but IF that doesn’t work, THEN you know it was mwh in the first place. I put legitimate upset about real abuses in the category of ARC breaks that clear up with ARC break handling. But these guys who never clean up no matter what intelligent answers they get to their concerns, and who just keep bringing up one “yes, but what about this other outpoint” compaint after another, are in the “mwh in the first place” category, in my humble opinion.

              • Addendum to the comment I just posted: We do need to understand LRH’s mistakes, so that we can succeed in implementing what he did right. The test is simply this: When someone expresses concern about some real or imagined LRH mistake, is it in the context of “how do we get what LRH did right used more and more?” Or, is the concerned person not doing or planning to do anything with the tech, but just wondering if the subject should continue at all. That’s the test. Are any products (auditors, clears, and/or OTs) emerging or planned to emerge from the concerned person’s musings?

              • Diogenes,

                I agree with most of what you say. However, because of the extent of abuse which has gone on in the Church of Scientology for so many years, it seems wise to be very extra slow at judging that a question or compliant is anything other than an ARC break or just plain fear talking, and to offer an extra long extending hand of patience, empathy, and listening. There is an undeniably huge amount of feeling of betrayal and distrust right now towards Scientology.

                So to tolerate questions or statements, which might be irritating right now, and to answer them seems like the best possible way to allow healing, IMO. I’ve dialoged with many critical anonymous people, including on Amazon, and it’s been very irritating for me at times, but my continuing to answer has calmed down the ad hominem attacks on Marty. I never assume there are evil intentions. I only assume either I or they are confused. I also believe questioning everything is sacred, not a sin.

                • Basically, I agree. Like you, I have gone onto critical blogs and calmed down some of the ranters and ravers posting there. I’ve even had some of them comment that they would now take an honest look at Scientology in a new unit of time. But it was quite time consuming to deal with those guys.

                  I’m all for compassion, and I believe that most Scientologists, when faced with people speaking critically of Scientology, default to “it must be mwh” too quickly. A close chronological reading of everything LRH said about ARC broken Scientologists reveals that he actually thought the problem was more often overts by the org than overts by the “disaffected” person. (And yes, I can back this up with LRH references.)

                  But there’s a limit, too. At some point one has to be able to recognize that ARC break handling isn’t working on a given person. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the person is running on evil intentions. Some are, and some aren’t. It’s just that the help-giver has to make productive use of his time, so he can help the maximum number of people.

                  Like I said, I basically agree with you. But, one doesn’t have to be a Nazi to use ethics. Buddhism is full of ethics.

    • Oh, please. Who cares if you, or anyone else, is a “Scientologist”. Or like’s what Hubbard ate for breakfast. Or has ever eaten dinner at the fine restaurant they used to have at CCI?

      All that really matters, vis-a-vis Hubbard, is do “his” processes work? Do they, if used with an intention to understand and apply them accurately, do they work? For you. For me. For whomever uses them.

      They work for me. Always have. Just, mind you, from the books, and lectures. Even the CofMiscavology squirreled books. Literally everything I have ever read of Hubbard’s has improved my life. Even the stuff I did not agree with. And, the stuff I did “agree with”! Wow, that really worked!!

      But, that is just for me.

      If Hubbard’s works don’t work for you, then, I am terribly sorry. You’ll just have to find something else to take their place, and there is no purpose to you monitoring this list.

      Sweet dreams, and Vaya Con Dios.

  70. Roger from Switzerland Thought

    LOL !
    Robert Jastrow — a self-proclaimed agnostic — to write: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

  71. What strikes me most awesome regarding Marty’s post is not the content itself, though I find it very juicy and intellectually satiating.

    What I find so amazing about Marty’s preamble to the TR’s is that he wrote his very own preamble in the first place, using HIS OWN fresh thoughts. By corporate Scientology standards, isn’t this is sacrilege, heresy, and blasphemy!? Hasn’t all the truth there is to know about life already been stated by Hubbard, and has already been communicated through Hubbard’s scriptures the best way it can possibly be communicated? ;p

    How DARE Marty add to Scientology in his own words!

    (For me, the last question parallels Christianity’s “Word of God”, the ultimate authority and the last word about “truth”. The zombies, er … fanatics … er, I mean corporate Scientologists carry this exact same “worship the authority” dogmatic attitude as fundamentalist Christians. Unless it comes from the “Word of God”, it’s not true. Unless it comes from Hubbard, it’s not true.)

    Marty had the courage to breast against a very fixed idea in Scientology, which I find quite admirable, and then had the audacity to share it, and boldly give it away for other Scientologists and non-Scientologists to use. The SIN of it all! How dare he! It’s verbal data! It’s not by Ron! I can hear the fundamentalist Scientologists ranting about this “squirreling” already.

    Keep on trucking, Marty! Again, great work. You got stones!

    • I would like to add a quote from the book, The Sins of Scripture by John Shelby Spong which I consider equally applicable to the Scientology religion, as to the Christian religion …

      “My contention, which I will seek to defend in this section of the book, is that the moment any religious tradition claims certainty, it turns demonic. It also gives up at that moment the very reason for which it was originally created. [The search for Truth] Whether such a tradition lives or dies, therefore, becomes of little significance. Above all, I contend that something called “the faith of the church” has never existed; truth, whether it be religious truth or any other kind, is always evolving and changing, and the moment truth is codified, it begins to die.”

      “Christianity was born in an experience. It moved, as all forming experiences do, into the apparently human necessity to explain that experience. Next, it codified its own explanations so that they became creeds. Then it claimed for those creeds the authority of absolute truth. In time, it began to persecute and even to kill those who would not acknowledge the authority that was attributed to those creeds. In the process, it revealed ever so clearly what believers are loath to admit – namely, that religion is not primarily a search for truth; it is overwhelmingly a search for security.”

      See the parallels of Scientology and Christianity? … How the same bullshit in Christianity has happened in Scientology?

      After reading this book, it’s become clear to me that Scientology isn’t the only religion who fell into the worshiping of authority crap. As I investigate, it becomes clearer and clearer to me that the fate of religions seem to inevitably fall into the trap of authority and to never question it.

      The idea of any kind of unquestioned authority in the subject is the one thing which seems to separate science from religion. IMO, turning the subject of Scientology from the “science of knowing how to know” into an applied religious (authoritative) philosophy was a fatal mistake to the free thought in Scientology.

      Why can’t science embrace spirituality? Don’t we believe spirits are scientific? Why does the subject of spirits have to fall under the category of religion? Doesn’t that put a subject of spirits at risk of being dogmatic? Hasn’t this finally proven to be the fact?

      My issue is with Scientology having moved from science to religion. I’m willing to bet that many old-timers have the same contention.

      History has demonstrated that religion is apparently incapable of the continuous search for truth, something which science is purportedly doing, albeit way too slowly in the field of spirits. Instead, religion turns into a means of security.

      Had Scientology stayed its course with its original definition as a science, would what have happened in corporate Scientology, have happened?

      Is Scientology a dead-end subject now with no room for growth in knowledge about the spirit realm? Doesn’t the word “technology” indicate in the word itself it’s open to be bettered and refined?

      Do we dismiss what Ron said in Dianetics, “For God’s sake, get busy and build a better bridge!”? Is this ancient “no longer used” data?

      Do we ignore the research line? … a hat that has been apparently abandoned (at least by corporate Scientology). Should we just wait for Ron’s “second coming” to get a full report by him about his out-of-body research, the alleged reason told by David Miscavige that Ron dropped his body?

      Is anybody today actively refining the technology? If so, who are they? What are they doing?

      That Hubbard ended his communication the way it did, it’s difficult for me to imagine he was finished with his research. So if he was in the condition of Power, who did he pass his Power Change Formula for his research hat to? I find it hard to believe it was David Miscavige.

      (This remains a big mystery to me still. I’m serious about this part, though not exactly the rest. :))

      Though, perhaps, it will all work out with LRH’s second coming, and he returns to the beautiful mansion that’s waiting for him, built by David Miscavige, who has been comfortably “taking care of” LRH’s very expensive flat “on Ron’s behalf”, of course. LRH, whatever his new physical identity is, should be around 26 years old, provided he found a new baby body right away, and one David Miscavige hasn’t ordered killed, first.

      Are corporate Scientologists waiting for LRH’s second coming, just like the Christian church is waiting for Christ’s second coming? Who will get here first? My sister tells me Christ is coming very, very soon (as in months from now, a year at the latest). So my fanatical Christian family are extremely worried about me being “Saved” in time. At least they care enough about me to not want to see me go to Hell for eternity. Christians claim it’s too hot down there to live comfortably.

      So if Hubbard is coming back, he better hurry and get here before Jesus does. Time is running out quickly! (According to many Christians) Or else we Scientologists will be either be in heaven or hell before Ron comes back! It will be too late. Ron will be caught holding the bag with a very lonely and empty planet.

      Of course, Earth will be finally Clear’d then, as Ron will be the only Clear on the planet … because he’s the only one left ON the planet … if Christ comes too soon. However, it won’t matter by then. David Miscavige from Hell can finally say to Admiral LRH, “Mission accomplished, Sir. Look at me! You now have a Cleared planet! By the way, Sir, will you put in a good word for me to the Good Lord? I don’t like God’s version of “The Hole.” He’s such an extremist sociopath!” ;P

      (I hope somebody appreciates a little sarcasm and satire, here. It helps me lighten to write it.)

  72. It’s so interesting to see topics that fire up lively debate. “The T.A. is a movin.”

  73. I wouldn’t call quantum theory “cutting edge”, since its principles were mathematically formulated starting in the 1920s, almost a century ago. Quarks wouldn’t appear on the horizon for almost a half century. Richard Feynman was a toddler. Quantum chromodynamics, the Higgs field, nowhere in sight. I know almost nobody who understands quantum mechanics, but I read comments from many people who pull out some particular facet such as entanglement and try to apply it to spirituality or some such. Who knows, they may be right, but I seriously doubt it’s because they understand the physical basis of their speculations.

    • Ho Tai,

      True greats do not discourage people from exploring quantum mechanics conceptually by pulling the “You-don’t-really-get-it” card as you seem to be scoffing a bit here (about people who pullout” this or that). About quantum theory, renowned physicist, Professor Richard Feynman is famously quoted, “It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it.”

      To that, I add that there are people whose disciplines are strictly physics who are concentrating on the aspect of a quantum world that is not explainable by mechanical physics, and the specific overlap into “spirituality.” Among them are Dr. Amit Goswani (“Consciousness Does Matter”) and Robert Lanza (to name only 2).

      I’ve done TRs and never needed quantum theory or explanations or opinions to get blown out. But then again, I also have always been a very curious sort who observed constantly and read a lot of quantum mechanics material, so — fundamentally speaking, if you want to learn about enlightenment, don’t just stay in one room looking at the light bulb. See where the photons take you. Or where you take them:)

      TRs are a tool. Like a car, they are a means to an end. If the car works great, get in it and drive.

      As for your contention that quantum mechanics is not “cutting edge”, I disagree. Just because Max Plank originated quantum theory decades ago and it’s been a century since he was awarded the Nobel Prize (1918), many are carrying it forward to this very day, on the very forefront of not only science, but technology (as in qubit computer processors etc). The Higgs boson was postulated to exist 50 years ago. That doesn’t make its observation (“proof”) this year any less cutting edge.

      One thing I particularly admired about Hubbard was that he did not consider others beneath him but instead provided gradients, gradients, gradients so that his observations could be available by following procedures. Since I clearly make up my own procedures in life and livingness, I’ve never had an importance button that prevented me from giving full credit to his genius. And my conclusions were empirical.

      Anything to do with personal thought and universe could arguably be called subjective, but it is possible to be empirical and objective to a great degree about results.

      Cheers.

      • Li'll bit of stuff

        J.d,
        Very “interested” (intentionally stated) posting indeed!
        And I must say that you demonstrate a refreshing
        change in viewpoint, in expressing humility, with a
        light touch, while not distracting from the fact that,
        you really to “get” (duplicate) whatever you put your
        attention on.

        Hope to see more from you!
        Calvin.

      • Great post, jump.dophin!

    • Well, certainly you don’t understand quantum theory. That much is obvious.

  74. It looks like CC Int is also delivering intro services for blood. About 100 PE course comps are listed in the latest Celebrity mag. Unfortunately though they have New OT 8s padding their intro services stat. None other than OT 8 Michael Duff completed the PE Course. Yup, an OT 8 just did a service that explaained to him the basic concepts of ARC, the comm formula, and the reactive mind. I hope he learned something.

  75. Pingback: Add Child Endangerment to the List of Miscavige Crimes | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  76. A true masterpiece, as an introduction to Training Routines!

    • It’s a well-expressed set of personal opinions but why do TRs need an introduction? (Genuinely wondering)

      Speaking from personal experience, the conceptual definitions in the Tech Dictionary of “Static” and “postulate”, “responsibility” and “counter-intention” were the only introduction I needed.

      What I like about Scientology is coming to one’s own conclusions about definitions, significances, processes. In fact, that is one of the key fundamental elements that makes Scientology Scientology. (That is not to say I don’t appreciate full-out communication about anything, including personal opinions, wins, epiphanies (cognitions), whatever).

      Also, about postulates, making them stick happens outside the thinking or significance band.

      • Are you really curious, or are you acting like you are curious in order to create an effect? What tone level are you operating from?

        • Acting curious to create an effect would have nothing to do with genuinely wondering, which I am. I don’t lack any abilities to create lots of effects, but I’m not low-toned.

          • It all depends on what one considers ‘low’.

            • I guess you’re trying to insult me for having asked a question to explore my considerations. I don’t understand but the reason why is not for me to know.

              • No. But your suspicious evaluations speak volumes as to your itent and tone. I was just testing your honesty.

                • Testing my honesty? And calling me suspicious. And covert.

                  I didn’t think it was productive in Corporate Scientology to be jumped all over, called 1.1 and/or vilified for voicing a question to 2 way comm considerations & get data — and it’s not appropriate even if a fully concluded disagreement were stated. It bordered on a systemic condition of suspicion, to where supposedly long term and deep friendships could be turned on a dime.

                  I had a question. I voiced it. stated my genuine experience and consideration. Mark Shreffler replied and the conversation was productive in that I was able to view considerations, false datums and make some distinctions.

                  As for the other thumpfest Q &A, it’s been mildly interesting, somewhat sad, but ultimately — like all experience — enlightening and amusing.

      • “It’s a well-expressed set of personal opinions but why do TRs need an introduction? (Genuinely wondering)”

        Curious,

        Uh, let’s look for a moment. Perhaps, to give the student a better background and appreciation about what they’re about ready to study and do? Perhaps, to give a reason WHY they’re doing it? I’m sure others can add to the reasons.

        Why don’t you just forthrightly state you have a problem with Marty adding content to the TR’s for his students, instead of being covert about it? That’s how the question communicated to me, disingenuous. You appear resistive to expounding knowledge.

        Do you have a problem with Scientologists teaching Scientology in their own words? Do you have an issue with scholarly Scientologist authors? Should one be limited to what they should teach in Scientology? If yes, by whom?

        Please answer these questions as it will help me to see where you’re coming from, and to determine if you’re genuinely being genuine, genuinely being naive, or genuinely being 1.1. Thanks.

        By the way, the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary can be found here:

        http://e-meter-star.com/books.files/TECHDICT.PDF

        It is the 1975 edition, and was compiled by a team of Scientologist researchers and editors.

        • Safe,
          Your name is ironic in my opinion. Why? Because our comm is two boats passing in the night. The time to ask questions to ‘help you see where I was coming from’ was BEFORE telling me I am being covert. Thanks for the dictionary.

          • “So there is no barrier in Scientology to good communication. There are no fixed convictions across the boards, one way or the other. The only thing you’re invited to do is just, please, understand what is going on. Don’t make a wild guess at it and a fixed conviction and jump down somebody’s throat.” -L. Ron Hubbard

          • So your answer to my questions is punishment for offending you by my stating my belief that you’re original statement was covert. OK.

            • However you want to twist it is not in my control. Punishment was nowhere in my universe. You called me “covert”, then rattled off a bunch of questions to get where I was coming from. That’s backwards. And not conducive to getting in comm, or getting answers, and not really safe. That is my point. The attitude sort of reminded me of Corporate Scientology. I also quoted LRH and thanked you for the dictionary.

              • “The attitude sort of reminded me of Corporate Scientology.”

                I find that ironic. lol. The original question you asked drenched in the tone of corporate Scientology. Then the “genuinely wondering” tag sent a confirmation in my radar. I don’t know who you are, and don’t know your name. My name is not hidden, and it’s clear that I’m not in corporate Scientology, and it’s clear what I represent. That’s not so clear regarding you.

                If you really want to understand where I’m coming from, then read my post below. And if you’re done with your withholding punishment, feel free to answer the question.

                • Your perceptions are right, imho. Now, let’s move on.

                • Safe, Okay, I get now what you meant by “withholding punishment”. LOL! You thought I didn’t answer the question to punish you. Not so, I didn’t answer because I didn’t feel you were addressing me, because I got put off by your initial “jumping down my throat”.

                  I think your questions are excellent questions. Thank you for being truly interested in my pondering this, which I get now.

                  Do you have a problem with Scientologists teaching Scientology in their own words?
                  I had some considerations about that. Some of it is vestiges of indoctrination against “verbal tech” — which I know within the corporation is taken to total roboticism. But the purpose of the no verbal tech is for the purpose of achieving duplication, i.e., so materials and not alter-is’d, and also so people don’t get “evaluations” or “evaluated”. I think being able to put Scientology “in their own words” is vital and crucial to Understanding, on all flows.

                  Do you have an issue with scholarly Scientologist authors?
                  No. Even LRH said there is the subject of Scientology and then there is his own personal opinions about Scientology. Ultimately, as long as the subject and personal opinions are recognized as being two distinct separate things then the evolution is productive. However, ultimately what I see as the best goal is for the *real expert* to be each individual his or her self.

                  Should one be limited to what they should teach in Scientology? If yes, by whom?
                  No, I don’t think teaching or learning should be limited — and particularly not by Corporate Scientology because their stated objective of “protecting the tech” is not the real agenda, which to me appears to be profit, conquest and control of people and society.

                  At first I ridged on the thought of adding something to a course. In the course of this conversation — although is was a little bumpy — I took a look at the important differentiations.

                  Thanks for persisting in communicating. And for making it safe to do so.

                  I think Marty knows who I am, and I’m not hiding but don’t use my name on the internet.

                  I suppose it’s time to move on, but I think this topic is an important one.
                  With appreciation.

          • Curious,

            Since you don’t seem inclined to answer my questions, let me explain where I’m coming from and the less than friendly response you got from me.

            Your question to bull-baited me, whether it was intentional or unintentional. It evoked righteous indignation regarding the issues I have about the suppression of Scientology. These are my hottest items;

            1) Altering LRH Works (Written and Oral)
            2) Squirreling the Tech
            3) Oppressing Scientologists with a monopoly of the Tech using copyrights and trademarks as a hammer
            4) Oppressing Scientologist authors and scholars from speaking or writing about Scientology in their own words, instead of encouraging this action.

            These aren’t my only items regarding the suppression of Scientology and Scientologists. They’re only the one’s relating to getting Scientology known, properly taught, and well thought of.

            Your question bull-baited my Item #4.

            Your question, to me, intonated a “make less” of Marty’s writing, didn’t appear to be encouraging Marty to write, seemed to have missed completely the WHY for him having written it, and also missed the fact that a very scholarly Scientologist is exercising his right to communicate, in defiance of what corporate Scientology would allow if he were still a member. It came across to me as a bit hostile in the form of an allegedly sincere question. That’s why you got my initial reaction.

            Do you agree that my four listed points are antagonistic to the expansion of Scientology Tech, and that doing any one of those is wrong?

            • Safe,
              I did reply to your questions (see above).

              To answer this one: Yes, I fully agree the four points you list are antagonistic to the expansion of Scientology! That was where I was coming from, but in good faith.

              Your # 4 point is one of the most oppressive aspects of the Scientology Inc. regime. This. I think. is because observation and personal conclusions by “members” are discouraged — which is fear-based bad control. (Ignorance that breeds more ignorance). Hence, it breeds the climate among members of an inability to think, reason, observe, and differentiate between 1) The Subject and 2) personal opinions about the subject. It’s ironic and tragic because the very purpose and nature of the Subject is the liberation of Thought.

              The distinction and differentiation between 1) The Subject and 2) personal opinion and theories about or based on the subject are KEY in an Independent practice of the subject.

              (I’ve realized this even more consequent to this conversation, thanks.)

              And that differentiation puts the onus and responsibility on persons interested to find out what they are getting.

              It is a concern of mine — and I don’t want to refrain from using the word ‘genuine’ to tiptoe around being called 1.1. — it is a genuine that the concern of mine that the SUBJECT remain intact.

              I understand how you took my communication, and I appreciate your following through on communicating to understanding. There is one key difference I’ve noticed in “scholarly” environments that would help the scholarly discussions of Scientology: Debate is welcomed and is, in fact, the cornerstone of testing, improving and verifying theories and ideas. The “space to speak” (so to speak) is vital. If someone initiates debate for nefarious of off-topic reasons, it becomes apparent soon enough (without derailing the topic by going off on shooting the person for Tone Scale Duck practice).

              I’ve noticed in Scientology culture there is a touchiness that is almost a trigger-happy jumping on the the accusatory 1.1. and SP bandwagon. I’ve seen it it happen on this blog, and I’ve also seen some real 1.1s nicely targeted. know the environment, all flows. It really often derails the REAL point…which is discussion and exploring ideas toward the best survival of Scientology, self and all life dynamics.

              In voicing this, I was not invalidating or making less of Marty or his writings.

              You are right that I may not have thought through some of the context, and did not read all the comments. I took the liberty of “thinking out loud.” Spontaneously. I had not yet made a conclusion or judgement because I was missing data, and recognized this could be to any number of reasons, including my own “blind spots” (from words, false data, any number of things.)

              Anyway, my respect and thanks to you for this communication. It was ultimately good and I arrived at my own personal answer to my question. Thanks. That’s what I call safe. And I love the dictionary!! And your communication follow through! Thanks.

      • Hello Curious! Yours is actually a good question, and it is answered by the fact that before someone does his first comm course – which would include TRs 0 -9 – he is often not aware they even exist, or that there are exercises that do what these drills do – or even that his situation suggests the strong probability that these drills are exactly what he most needs.

        Too often we find people going in to the HGC or to the courseroom without a full orientation or enlightenment on precisely what they are doing or why. This is the role of the “registrar,” but in recent times most registrars will tell you that their product is “Gross Income.” It is not. It is an enlightened individual or a person who is so oriented to what they are about to do that they go in like a bottle rocket and get the full benefit from what the service offers.

        Marty’s intro is not for the veterans particularly – though I found it to extremely interesting and was casting for reasons to do them again myself – and I have a better than average understanding of these exercises.

        Scientology works when you apply it, and when you don’t understand why you even need to know something, there is a barrier to learning in place which is “not having your own purpose for studying this material.”

        Marty’s intro accomplishes this enlightenment in a brilliant way. It brings a person from no awareness at all that these exercise exist, to a keen interest in devouring the material to accomplish the promise of this brilliant intro.

        I hope this helps you grasp the need a for segue to services. Too many have failed for want of a little orientation – such as I have just given you.

        • Mark,
          Thank you for your direct and comprehensive reply. I can see that it works as an orientation and giving a reality if used as a Div. 6 action. And also as discussion in the greatest tradition of philosophy. Thanks for your lucid and kind reply.

  77. To me, the two most critical passages in this remarkable explication are the following:

    “Having no mass, no wavelength, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit is not a thing. It is the creator of things…the awareness of awareness unit.
    ….
    ” … discomfort or seemingly mental mass or force impinging on you … are incapable of affecting a thetan, except to the degree that a thetan considers they can. After all, a thetan is not of the physical universe except only by its own consideration.”

    These truths are, of course, the central truth of Hubbard’s life works … and when one understands them, everything else he developed, and I mean Everything, follows as day follows night.

    Thanks for reminding us!

  78. Marty,
    This is a great essay! Wonderful synthesis of concepts and observations and wonderfully written. I enjoyed it very much and found it inspiring.
    Leonore

  79. Marty, I want to make sure you get truly acknowledged; You are a leader of scholarship in Scientology. Your new book, and this preamble here clearly demonstrate that.

    I’ve always wondered, “where are all the scholar authors of Scientology?”. Christianity has hundreds of them. By setting an example, you’re showing that the chains of this stymied communication of Scientology can be broken, and one can still survive, and even prosper. No licenses to survive by corporate Scientology are needed. Nobody needs Hubbard’s or Miscavige’s approval.

    You give fresh light and breath to Scientology. You’re helping put our religion in a new unit of time, thinking outside the box. IMO, you’ve been a major catalyst in resuscitating what Scientology really is. For that alone, you deserve a huge acknowledgement.

    Perhaps more scholars of Scientology, like you, will finally help fully integrate the religion of “the science of knowing how to know” with science, so the subject is easily known, non-mystical, and accepted to be real technology as much as any other technology.

    Integrate or disintegrate, as you say. Your message is not only true of Scientology, but religion itself.

  80. Small points – it isn’t (necessarily) consciousness which is at the heart of the quantum mechanical observation problem, but the technological interference required (ie. a measuring device of some kind) in observing something normally undetectable by human consciousness.

    – Non-duality is actually the crowning achievement of Hindu, Buddhist, and some neo-platonist thought (notably, Plotinus). Duality and monism both fail alone, while being ineradicable observational positions on reality. This is due to the nature of consciousness. Some strains of modern scientific materialism (notably Hofstadter, and maybe Dennett) also play at resolving the hard problem of consciousness in this way (crude formulation: the problem of a supposedly non-physical but physically causal (or correlated) substance called mind/spirit/consciousness) . I may be wrong but the concept of the Thetan as formulated by Hubbard seems to be mired in dualism.
    All the best in your quests for integrity and spiritual understanding Marty.

    • True, that is interesting isn’t it? That a measuring device of some kind, an inanimate instrument, can cause the wave to collapse.

  81. Great Marty,
    I want to THANK Y O U especially for your following passage:
    “When you experience discomfort or seemingly mental mass or force impinging on you during the drills, simply be aware of them. Do not resist them. Do not strengthen them with resistance or counter-force.”
    This blew a MU I had on doing these drills for a long time and keeps blowing arising discomforts!!!!!!!
    Thank you so much again,
    Gottfried

  82. This article is an exquisite masterpiece.Thank you.

  83. Hi Marty,
    super-phantastic your following encourage:
    “Realize that you are on the road to being able to comfortably, fully differentiate the present from the past.”
    Can you confirm to have received this message?
    Gottfried

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