Scientology’s Identity Crisis

Scientology auditing technology can be very effective in helping an individual to strip off personality jackets of others that he or she has unwittingly slipped on in life.  Paradoxically, Scientology tends to replace those jackets with synthetic ones of its own manufacture.

Scientology requires as a matter of firm policy that one must be a certain identity before one may or can do and have Scientology.  Scientology requires its supervisors to convert students into Scientologists before they learn or partake of much Scientology.  The supervisors are instructed as follows:

When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe – never permit an ‘open-minded’ approach.  If they’re going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they’re aboard; and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us – win or die in the attempt.  Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists…The proper instruction attitude is, ‘You’re here so you’re a Scientologist.  Now we’re going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens.  We’d rather have you dead than incapable.’

And so one of the first things a Scientologist learns to do is to assume an identity he or she has little to no experiential support for the wisdom of assuming.   Granted, the passage above makes reference to making an ‘expert auditor’.  If the injunction were limited to people training to become professional practitioners in a field, it might make sense – assuming the student had some reason to believe that capability in that field was more important than life itself.  But, it is not limited to professionals.  The beingness/identity of “Scientologist” is imposed – in this wise – on everyone who embarks upon Scientology study of any kind.

This type of uninformed swearing of allegiance to belief, and even to beingness or identity, is not healthy for an individual (as even Scientology technology ultimately generally teaches a professional auditor) nor for those affected by such an individual.  That was made clear by Thomas Paine more than two hundred years ago:

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society.  When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.  – from The Age of Reason

199 responses to “Scientology’s Identity Crisis

  1. Just a thought inviting more comment: perhaps the paragraph above from KSW 1 is a contradiction to the HCOB called Auditor Beingness, where LRH states that an auditor isn’t ready to establish his beingness as an auditor until later on in his training.

    • Dave & Marty, I think you both have excellent points. Dave, I was also thinking about the beingness of an auditor.

      I don’t disagree with expecting a commitment from students and I do think they should be expected to learn and apply the data expertly. When I first read it many years ago, I accepted it as hyperbole attempting to make a point about taking your study seriously or not bothering. But, I don’t think that is the way KSW1 is applied, especially these days.

      Today, the absence of thinking and evaluation in the COS demands absolute literal application. I believe KSW1 is used to enforce a false identity. If it was used to help students understand the beingness of a truly excellent auditor, it would help to produce results. And we simply cannot have that in the COS.

      So, instead it is used to enforce a particular personality type (DM) as the only acceptable beingness for a scientologist. Anyone who is not frightened away by this enforcement of personality eventually exhibits it.

      I was always a fan of KSW1. I thought it meant we would be tough about standards and quality. But the demand for unthinking slavish adherence has twisted it into a trap and helps create exactly what it warns against.

      • I agree with you Cynthia. I considered it hyperbole as well. And frankly, one of the things I loved about LRH is what you might call the grandiosity or over the top quality of many of his communications.

        Taking words or anything else literally is a sign of being quite low on the tone scale.

        Ron’s communication, whether in KSW or elsewhere, needs to be viewed and understood in the context of everything else he said and wrote. It is a low-toned person who would read KSW and conclude from those words that he or she must therefore put on a strait jacket, allow anyone else to force him or her into one, or for that matter force someone else into one.

        With respect, I think it is incorrect to state that “Scientology requires as a matter of firm policy that one must be a certain identity before one may or can do and have Scientology.”

        It is what used to be referred to on these pages as CORPORATE Scientology, that requires this, that pushes people into these “personality jackets”. It seems as though the only public left inside the current organization are those that have allowed themselves to be so pushed, and, frankly, degraded from their truest selves.

        But this is NOT Scientology, at least not in my opinion. I know many, many great Scientologists who never came close to falling into this trap, whose time in Scientology was spent becoming MORE themselves, not less.

        I think it is vital to keep making the distinction between Scientology and Corporate Scientology. Otherwise, we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to the delight of those who would love to see the subject die out altogether.

        • martyrathbun09

          Good point on hyperbole. All I am suggesting is that people lose just that, hyperbole. To the degree it is intensely defended, the baby is already gone. To the degree people can’t and don’t differentiate the technology from the hyperbole, the baby is long gone.

          • Hyperbole: the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech.

            The problem may be that the hyperbole became standard proceedures in Scientology auditing practice.
            And may be true that the hyperbole caused damage to one’s personal critical thinking capacity and opened the door to accepting imagination as fact. It is possible that some auditing practices caused this.

            Eg. Time dating incidences: I can recall in my beginning auditing when I was asked to date an incident. We were asked to date it to the minute and second. My first attempt at doing this caused my conscious mind to doubt my ability to date something that accurately because I could not do it to that degree with this life memories.

            But in Scientology “we know” and “Ron knows” and the tech is “100% standard” and the only thing standing in the way of me “knowing” is me invalidating my ” native knowingness” that comes from my bank or an implant.

            So I switched off my logic and reason and belived that I could date something from thousands or millions or trillions of years ago down to the second. All the time relying on needle reactions to ‘validate’ my time measured fantasy. But something inside me died a little.

            In a very subtle place within me, I labeled my reasoned skepticism as part of bank and denial of my “all knowingness.”

            Hyperbole became proceedure. Imagination becomes fact.

            It is not just an exaggeration that we can date that accurately, it is one of the major steps in becoming a cult member.

            Why? Because that is one of the Scientology experiences that merges imagination with reality as the same thing.

            Exaggeration and imagination became ‘knowing.’

            I am not saying that sometimes actual past life experience are not up for viewing, I am saying the enivornment in which these things were addressed (standard dating proceedures) can cause a person to label one’s reasoning capacity as bank, and assign imaginings as fact/knowing.

            When critical thinking is suspended and our powers of reason are surrendered to belief in procedures and time tracks that do not address the common understanding of a person, you have a person who cannot differentiate between truth and imagination. Can anyone say “Advanced Magazine OT success stories in the 70s”

            I am a student of metaphysics, I am not discounting spiritual powers and abilities.

            I am disputing procedures that may have caused imagination and truth to unkowingly collapse into each other.

            Sorting out the two is the work of those who bought into it.

            Ron’s hyperbole became auditing proceedures that disrupted common sense: where imaginations became Scienology ‘knowing’.

            To make matters worse, it became an ethics condition if you invalidated (questioned) the workability of ‘100%standard tech’ that kept changing it’s standards.

            • I agree with the fundamental point that Brian is making, and also the points others are making about Ron’s use of hyperbole (whether he knew it or not) and grandiosity.

              Where Ron “declares” open-mindedness, he invalidates skepticism. Skepticism in its truest sense does not mean a predisposition to disbelief in all assertions. It means a commitment to reason and analytical thinking. The “war” against open-mindedness shuts off those critical mental faculties and grooms one to become a cult member.

              This dynamic against open-mindedness (and being reasonable) tends to create a disabling literalism: KSW an d other documents tend to be taken at their denotative level. Read literally, “we’d rather have you dead than incapable” is intimidating — and ambiguous. Does “have you dead” mean “make you dead”? If so, it is an overt threat of violence. Or does “have you dead” mean we will let you expire without care or concern — which would be a callous and inhumane stance when leveled at someone who has not yet made a commitment to the system.

              Fortunately, language does not function in strict literalism. It flows into realms of context, connotation, implication, pragmatic knowledge, experiential understanding, rhetorical devices, poetic devices, analogies, similes, social norms of use, and many more subtleties.

              Interestingly, fundamentalist monotheists tend to run into a similar conundrum. For example, the scripture says the universe was created in six days, yet science shows the universe to be around 13 billion years old. Literalists then have to reject scientific evidence as a delusion from the devil, or fudge and redefine words (“day” means a vast age instead of a 24ish hour period, and so forth).

              Scientology runs into the same problem with a claim of a universe trillions of years old. Either science is wrong or universe meant something more like a multiverse with time stretching back before the beginning of this universe into other universes (this would be nonsensical, however; as Stephen Hawking put it, that would be like asking what is north of the north pole).

              Even more damaging is the evidence that time is not at all the strict, invariant movement of the pre-relativity clockwork universe. Instead, time and space behave as a unified “fluid” of sorts. Put simply, the faster you move through space, the slower you move through time, and vice versa (relative to some observer). In this sense we are all moving at the speed of light, since nothing can move slower — it’s just a matter of how much of that speed is translated into spatial movement.

              So the dating technique that Brian critiques is not a trivial matter. As he states well, it weaves into grooming people for suspension of disbelief and setting aside critical reasoning — IF it is taken literally. But what if the exercise is taken in context with two chief goals: (1) getting the auditor more acquainted with asking questions and observing needle reactions; and (2) getting the PC more in touch with “gut feelings” related to a gnostic way of knowing? In that context, there is no need for a claim that the dates are truly precise in a scientific sense — the real skill being sought is internal perception of what “indicates” — what _feels_ right.

              Of course what feels right is not what runs science, and so Scientology fits best as a religion, if it stops there. It could of course test the time location process and verify its accuracy or inaccuracy. But a proof of inaccuracy would reduce the PC and the auditor doing the exercise not to skepticism (which is healthy) but to cynicism. And proof of inaccuracy would not disprove the spiritual gradient of becoming more and more accurate with time and other perceptions by trusting that gnostic way of knowing by watching what “indicates.”

              In the end, fundamentalist (literalist) Scientology will fail by dulling down — no, straitjacketing — the minds of its adherents, and creating cult members (Ron-bots, as some have called them) who have blurred imagination and reality, and have been forced to do so through strict literalism.

      • Very insightful, Cindy.

      • I, too, have always regarded this statement and similar ones as hyperbole, but to me it’s hyperbole in a good way. I personally view these kinds of statements as being in the spirit of playing a game. It’s a game with a big back yard, but a game nonetheless. Some players are in, some are bystanders who might join in if the game is exciting enough, some will just watch from the window.

        As I see it LRH is simply marshaling his team to excel just as a sports coach, a music director, a teacher, a program manager, a movie director, the CEO, or military commander urges key players of his(her) team/orchestra/class/company/army to do their best and invest all they can so that there is in the end a satisfying WIN.

        As always, tone level of the players and group and its leader will determine the spirit in which the communication is interpreted. You have the leader and teammates enthusiastically helping one another with encouragement, good will, and a little forgiveness for human fallibility, or you have them beating each other down, pushing each other overboard, and using every error to invalidate and destroy.

        Leonore

        • martyrathbun09

          You noted: You have the leader and teammates enthusiastically helping one another with encouragement, good will, and a little forgiveness for human fallibility, or you have them beating each other down, pushing each other overboard, and using every error to invalidate and destroy. Really, those are the only two alternatives – you’re either with us or agin’ us?

          • Or somewhere in between… depending on the general tone level of the players. As I see it, people will interpret LRH’s words you quoted largely based on their tone level.
            Leonore

      • burnedbutnotbitter

        I agree. I always had respect for KSW1 because I felt it was asking people to focus and take studying and training seriously. A little hyperbole was fine, I never felt it was putting me into a valance. I am more focused than many people anyway, felt this was right up my alley.

      • make a point about taking your study seriously or not bothering

        If someone has made the exchange to be on course, that is paid the fee, what difference does it make as long as they are polite and don’t disturb other students. If non scientologists felt more comfortable entering an organization to have casual look and see what it is all about I am sure scientology would be a lot better off.

    • Scientology is to me a contradiction…..so many times I would read something and then read something else and they would conflict.
      But I was always told by the sups that maybe I needed to M-9 my materials. I look back on all that now and think to my self “we were all sort of brainwashed” trying to help each other become more so.

  2. Very interesting post and it strikes to the core of the scio system.
    When I read that policy in the late 70’s or early 80’s, I thought it
    was extremely odd since I was paying for the course!
    This is one of the primary problems I found with Scientology –
    Is it a business or a religion? Well, I tended to think it was a
    business so I discounted the words of Ron Hubbard. I had
    no intention of dying for scientology like those in the religious
    wars of the past.
    Actually, at first I liked basic auditing and I liked Self Analysis
    and Dianetics. In re-reading Dianetics last month I could
    see where it applied more to the 1960’s. At any rate, the
    “org” where I was training was too poor to have someone
    “stare me in the eye”. They appreciated the money I was paying
    for the courses and made that very clear.
    My experience is very different from other people who I have
    discussed this with. If one bought into the “synthetic scio valence”,
    the person usually joined staff and then had a paycheck interest
    in scientology.
    I was often interviewed in regard to my progress up the
    ‘bridge’ to OT8. The question was always related to why I
    was able to advance to the higher levels. The answer was always
    related to the fact that I did not get stuck in the typical fear that
    was common. The fear of somehow “not getting eternity”.
    I never saw scientology as a route to eternity because I was
    paying to find out exactly what Ron Hubbard had developed.
    In the end, scientology was a grand game which ended with
    OT8 and the insightful narratives for the future. I played
    “show me”. At present, I have not developed a keen interest
    in explaining Buddhism so I must stop here and just “let it pass”.
    For me, scientology was a what we call a “proximate cause”.

    George M. White

    • George, I get that you were exterior to Scientology from the beginning – while at the same time being open and willing and able to receive its benefits. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone express that way of having experienced Scn. The usual way seems to be to get exterior to it afterwards, if at all, and I think LRH indicated that this would eventually need to be done. But come to think of it, maybe by eventually (or words to that effect) he didn’t mean one couldn’t do so at any point, even from the beginning.

      Would you mind saying more about what you meant by “OT 8 and the insightful narratives for the future”.

      • marildi,
        Yes I was exterior to Scientology even at the beginning. I had “out of body”
        sensations during scientology and “exteriorizations” on the TR’s and
        other “exterior viewpoints” during the OT levels. I had every type of
        “spiritual experience” you can ever imagine. Later I discovered the
        compound nature of these experiences and how they all
        inter-related with matter, form and mind.
        OT8 narratives are scattered througout the writings of
        Ron Hubbard. My favorite insightful ones were learned on the
        Freewinds. The “future” was a topic of great concern to
        Ron Hubbard and he defined his role in a very unique way.
        He had eternal hope that he could continue his own efforts
        since he did believe that “theta” could independently
        exist in other dimensions. These narratives are subject to
        interpretation just as the Xenu story. Realms in Buddhism are
        vastly different from scientology narratives since the beings
        in them are impermanent and subject to suffering.
        The details of the scientology narratives are really not all that
        important and can be confusing. Thus it really comes down to what
        can be discovered only in the present moment.
        George M. White

        • Thank you, George. Your last line (“Thus it really comes down to what
          can be discovered only in the present moment”) is the subject I’ve been hearing and reading about and am inclined to think it is the direction to go in. Btw, I’ve read and enjoyed many of your posts. Thanks for all your thoughts.🙂

  3. Interesting article. Hubbard’s passage is very black and white. Either you’re with us or your not. Welcome or goodbye. You’re right, it’s not healthy at all. This type of thought-stopping policy is the ground-work for mind-control.

    It’s as if Hubbard thought that if he didn’t give an ultimatum about practicing the tech, people wouldn’t follow his instructions to a ‘T’. I disagree. It’s best to have an open mind. One can follow Hubbard’s tech as he instructed without being a fanatic But with Hubbard it seems that it was either his way or the highway. This is the exact theme that Miscavige has continued and amplified since he usurped control from Broaker back in the mid-eighties.

    • Rob Roy

      Hi.

      It seems to me that with that statement there is “no quarter given”. Ron did not offer the choice of “in” or “out”. He seems more to be saying, “You showed up, so now you are OURS. The only way out is death”.

      Personally, although I have always been uncomfortable with it, I just moved past it by seeing it as a rather heavy handed exaggeration for effect. It potentially has value to people wanting to become proficient in the technologies of Dianetics and Scientology in that it demonstrates Ron’s commitment to getting them through all their issues and turning them into “expert auditors”.

      However, taken literally, it lays the groundwork for total dominance of anyone who comes in the door. Potentially a very dangerous statement to give to anyone below boredom on the tone scale.

      Eric

  4. To this commentary Marty, all I can utter is ‘Amen’.

  5. Helping someone to separate themselves from that assumed beingness is the most challenging task facing the independent auditor.

    It is not made easier by the fact that there are multiple layers of assumed identity: a dedicated public Scientologist, a staff member identity, and a Sea Org member identity.

    The different levels of indoctrination create a corresponding imbalance in the importance of the individual;s First and Second Dynamics. Auditing is supposed to be a First Dynamic experience and yet years of Sea Org life can cause a pc to view every auditing action as requiring a need to get approval from a now absent Third Dynamic influence.

    What this means is that the auditor is not auditing a preclear, he is auditing a unit of a Third Dynamic group and that charge has to be handled before the person can be audited as himself or herself. In short, the pc is in the valence of a group member and will not make real gains until returned to a first dynamic valence.

    This can take years because you and the pc may think they have returned to civilian life with it’s day to day concerns, but the pc is still evaluating every action and REALIZATION on the basis of the greatest good for the organization.

    • Thank you for this. I tried to say this in an earlier blog post comment but failed to create the precision of your response. First dynamic in good shape prior to a person being able to operate successfully on the other dynamics.

  6. LRH said something once: “What turns it on, turns if off”. I had a realization like this once. I came to realize that what turned on an issue turned it off. But this is not true of the staff of churches because LRH also says “Staff don’t have case”. That is really a difficult situation to be in I guess!🙂 I am not in it thank goodness because obviously what turns it on, turns it off! So whatever you do, don’t join staff never mind the Sea Org!🙂

    • Hi Lawrence

      Actually I don’t think that LRH ever exactly said “Staff don’t have case.”

      What he said was “No case on post”. This statement “No case on post” does not express a reality either. It is a directive to staff members to simply override their cases and be efficient in getting their jobs done effectively. Not a bad thing at all, in essence. If followed it can lead to a lot less hand holding and baby sitting of staff.

      Also, if one were to actually follow this advice, over time one is likely to find that they have a lot less case interfering with their life in general.

      Eric

      • Yes Eric, thanks for correcting me. I meant that reference “no case on post”. I read that way back when I first got in there.🙂 I saw people on staff Eric and but it looked like they had case to me!🙂 Some of them as a matter of fact were really dramaztizing a lot and to me these things are just not real. To spend one’s time in the physical universe dramatizing!🙂 Plus Eric, I think LRH should have released the OT levels first and Dianetics second, because Mankind exisited spiritually first as a collective long before assuming a physical body!🙂 Philosopher I am not, but I do believe in some degree of logic!🙂

        • Lawrence

          Yes there certainly was a lot of dramatizing going on, but certain dramatizations were not only accepted but encouraged, like yelling and screaming and tearing people to shreds, or undermining others in order to save your own butt.

          This particular quote was usually trotted out to answer to one’s balking at doing something you were ordered to do, or when you indicated that you didn’t especially like being yelled at constantly.

          The other place it was commonly used was when you suggested that since Ron had said that staff were to get auditing, you felt that it was perhaps time that maybe YOU got some. Then it was re-interpreted more in the manner that you initially said… “staff don’t have case”, …so why would you need auditing?

          Eric

          • Eric, recently I chatted with Karen De La Carriere about something she was so glad I remembered.🙂 A while back (when I was a kid actually) Karen was the “Auditor of the Year” at Flag and she went on tour to New York where I caught a glimpse of her at a Flag World Tour event. Part of the event was a new film that had come out in Scientology called “The Secret of Flag Results”. After the film aired Karen answered people’s questions and one man in the audience asked her about, something like you mentioned, why did the people in the film act that way towards one another. The man asked her “Do they always get mad at each other like that?” in refernce to the Sea Org staff at Flag shown in the film getting “the Flag results”. Karen handled it so smooth. She was so sharp in her response, because remember this was in 1978! And the man’s girlfriend said to him after Karen acknowledged him “That was brilliant sweetheart!”. I really laughed. It was so funny!🙂

  7. maxim46zbitnoff

    Marty, you are cleaning the bone right down to the marrow😉 To be or not to be, that is the question.

  8. The movement is in the criminal reg valence phase. The criminal reg has been allowed to become the movement’s winning valence.

    The movement’s auditor’s valence has been battered.

  9. This brought back a memory of the first time I read these words in 1973. I honestly didn’t know what I was reading. “KSW.” This phrase was associated with something I knew nothing about and had never experienced before. It already seemed strange that it was always written in a dark green ink. I “got it” soon enough though. I wanted on board 110% anyway. But the whole concept is pretty imposing and demanding of a brand new person on their first course, which already is presented in a totally different format than any course or class they have ever taken before.

    This was written in the mid-60’s if I’m not mistaken–in answer to the whole squirrelling thing and shortening processes and levels, therefore lessening results for everyone. But this blog entry just made me really wonder about something….the big wave of Dianetics in the 50’s didn’t have any attitude or rules like this behind it. There was no structure at all–people just got the book, found a friend and traded off running Dianetics on each other.

    I am really thankful I did have some of the supervisors I had. The rote robotic ones ignoring any concept of true communication and understanding….not so much.

  10. Marty, you bring up the pledges of allegiance.
    Interestingly, we live in one of only two nations in the world that has a pledge of allegiance to the country (the other is the Philippines and their pledge is an imitation of ours).

    Allegiance is a fascinating topic…. Is pledging allegiance to a religion good? necessary? When is a person old enough to pledge allegiance? I allegiance a liberating process, or a constraining one?

    Swearing allegiance is found in many religions, but not all. Maybe it’s good, maybe not.
    Maybe it’s was important 2,000 years ago in a world of battling feudal religious ingdoms, I don’t know. These days, such pledges may help some people, and constrain others. We are all so different. Looks to me like some people need allegiance. Others need more breathing space than allegiance. I guess what I need is what suits me..

    In Islam they have Bay’ah (literally to sell), an oath of allegiance to the leader. It is known to have been practiced by the prophet Muhammad. The meaning of bay’ah is to give oneself to a spiritual master, pir or sheikh in exchange for the spiritual knowledge which he gives. Muhammad took bay’ah as an oath of allegiance. Anybody who wanted to enter had to recite a statement expressing his faith in the oneness of God and the prophethood of Muhammad. Through this pledge the people committed to follow and obey Muhammad.

    In Catholicism, allegiance is big: Matthew says in 10-34-39: “Absolute allegiance to Christ must control the totality of our lives.” That’s a pretty radical statement. The ceremony of confirmation is generally taken at age 7, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares at this occasion: “God the Father has marked you with his sign; Christ the Lord has confirmed you and has placed his pledge, the Spirit, in your heart.”

    Paradoxically, he Sermon on the Mount is perhaps the greatest challenge to this aspect of religion ever proposed. Jesus then taught that faith has only to do with the heart, with becoming a new type of person, one whose decisions are guided by love and commitment to God. (Matthew 5-7.) So it looks like allegiance may not have come from Jesus or at least that at times he was of another view.

    Hinduism, which has neither a common doctrine nor a single scripture as the source of its various teachings, places more emphasis on correctness of action than correctness of dogma, encouraging relative freedom of thought within tight codes of conduct and morality. Hinduism does not exhort followers to declare allegiance to a particular faith, belief, or creed. However, despite this relatively inclusive approach, Hinduism rejects the doctrines that do not accept its scriptural authority, like Jainism, Buddhism, and Charvaka..
    Buddhists do not take an oath of allegiance. Buddhism is empirical, hence subject to experimentation and substantively coming from your own experience. There is no blind allegiance; there is only practice. Some converts to Buddhism do pledge allegiance, maybe to free themselves from the oath in their previous religions. When, a few years ago, hundreds of thousands of Dalits (untouchables) converted Hinduism to Buddhism because they saw it as a less prejudiced faith. They took an oath to renounce Hinduism and to follow the five principles of Buddhism.
    So the allegiance landscape is varied…For me, allegiance is to the heart, and in the heart, rooted in love. That, I see as the strongest and most durable bond.
    Thanks for bringing up this topic, Marty. As usual, a stimulating conversation!

    Enjoy some rest after crossing the finish line of writing the book!

    • Great comment. I’d say our allegiance should be to the greatest good to the greatest number of the dyamics. We must be constantly alert of what effect our actions have. This applies to all religeons.

    • Paul: “We are all so different. Looks to me like some people need allegiance. Others need more breathing space than allegiance. I guess what I need is what suits me.”

      When my allegiance was pledged to L. Ron Hubbard and his cause back in the spring of 78′, it was exactly what was needed at the time. But, that said, it wasn’t making the pledge so much as it was delivering on the pledge that was needed. The process ended up flushing a lot of old thought systems to the surface that I was previously unconscious of. Working through these antiquated thought systems was an arduous, trying process but I eventually got them all weeded out and now, it appears, that I have no need to go around pledging my allegiance to any particular person or cause. I choose the wide open spaces on which to roam.

    • PD,
      Nice summary.
      In Theravada Buddhism we “seek refuge” in the
      Buddha Gotama. The ceremony is very simple.
      We even get a new Pali name – mine is “Joti”
      which translated as “cheerful”.
      GMW

  11. After going through a year and a half of mind bending decompression, due it seems in no small way to the “seriousness of the situation” indoctrination we go through as members. Now after finally receiving a very thorough and wonderful rehab of self, finding myself, my inner peace and center recently, I can see how these “identities” a

    That passage of KSW was one of many things that hit me square in the head early on, the identities enforced and are literally glued to us little by little over the years… God I’m glad to be out.

  12. I agree with this 100%.
    It would make more sense to let the individual discuss his doubts and so forht as he trains and to “think for himself”. This allegiance seems unnecessary and I don’t really understand why LRH got into this.

  13. Indeed.

    I am always delighted when I find that rare scientologist who is without guile. More often I find that most profess a knowledge or belief not their own.

    That being said, I cannot say that I count myself among those innocent and earnest souls who live without guile. But I’m tryin’!

  14. When registrars began to make a better living than auditors, that in fact is when the whole fraudulent edifice of the cult of DM based on earlier LRH Green on White mistakes started crashing down.

    For what it’s worth, that’s my nickel.

  15. Great post! This is why the million phone calls and enforced mailings – it really ticks people off and they create so much hatred “assuming” because someone did a course, bought a book – or just came in but did a personality test and they have their address and phone number. I believe this “policy” has really done more harm than good! Where is the freedom to think for oneself? So if the organization is criminal and one see’s it – they are just suppose to keep being a true blue group member writing to RTC and getting no response because no one is there? Poor saps still trying to follow this – they are trapped. Sticky fly paper too!

  16. Very Good Post. Slice of History from LRH .
    I just reordered both of Martys books to read anew while on a break.
    The downside of being to coarse with others is that you will be ln thier Radar ever after. I did do an impromptu puppet show to a staff member once to get the messege across and she joined the Sea Org, a high ranking OSA exec now.
    Puppet shows communicated, who would have thought.
    Good work Marty

  17. It certainly seems, Marty, that the phenomena you describe has been the case for quite some time, but it was not my experience at all. I entered in ’70, trained to Cl VI, XDN C/S, DSEC, and processed to OTV, then exited ten years later when I saw the handwriting on the wall with new SMI edicts, and change in manifesto with the IAS. But I was a product of the Mission Network (in fact had 5 missions at the time I left). I was certainly aware of the admonition to supervisors you quoted, but took it as the mantle of responsibility that those with students under their charge must assume, not a command to indoctrinate those students and inculcate them into the culture of “staff member”. In fact, for the missions I ever knew or were associated with, the primary purpose in regards our public was “Find out what the person wants to do, and help them to do it better.” PERIOD! For our students, the foremost ethic was always “What is true for you is only that which is true for you”, and application, not acceptance on faith, was the only way to establish that truth.

    • Real nice (JW)! Your are part of an endangered species.

    • JW: For our students, the foremost ethic was always “What is true for you is only that which is true for you”, and application, not acceptance on faith, was the only way to establish that truth.

      Spyros: Great! My sup was a good person too, and operated on this basis most of the time. I’m sorry that I flame the COS along with all the COS people some times. Afterall, I used to be a COS person too. It’s just a pain to think up specific incidents and individuals each time I want to reffer to something about the COS. Mostly ‘COS’ for me symbolises arbitraries of the COS with regards to LRH texts. It would be cool if we all (COS, independent SCNists, others, others) didn’t cause/allow this division between groups.

  18. My question is, How did KSW #1 end up being mandated to be read by everyone including students and public, when it seems clearly to be addressed to CoS Staff?

    It never should have been considered a “pledge of allegiance” kind of thing.

    • It probably turned off a lot of people when they first read it on their first course and they decided that they weren’t willing to make the commitment that they felt was being demanded of them, before they even had a chance to really understand and know exactly what it was they were deciding about.

      • I first read KSW when it was re-issued in 1970. Perhaps I have a tendency to over-simplify, but it seemed to me to just be saying, more or less, “hey guys, the people on this planet are in pretty bad shape overall, Scientology is a workable road out for them, so take it seriously, play by the rules, make sure students learn how to do it right, and don’t F it up!”

        He was making this point in 1970 after tech in the field had gotten so far afield of anything resembling “standard”, that he figured he needed to pound the point home yet again, as clearly he had failed to do so when it was originally issued in 1965.

        If that was his point, what the hell, maybe the PL should be reissued by the Independent community here in 2013 and courier-delivered to DM over at Int. Because with help from many others, he sure has broken the rules, done it as wrong as possible, gotten rid of all the students, generally really F’d it up!

  19. Nickel’s worth five cent. Auditors are the most valuable people in the universe. If you don’t believe me, ask the PCs. Nuff said. 🙂

  20. The passage you quote was always hard for me to understand, Marty. How does it compare with integrity as knowing what is true to you? Or “How to study a science”? Perhaps if everyone were treated with the auditor’s code, including students and staff, Scientology could work. That is how it’s been for me so far at FreeZone Elma. No one has invalidated me or evaluated for me.

    On a similar note, I’ve heard that OT 3 is an evaluation of the PC. I’m not interested in hearing OT data or asking you to share it. But I would be interested in hearing whether you agree with that.

    • Gayle Smith aka TroubleShooter

      Brian, You bring up a great point. It was an evaluation for ME! I can only say that as I was auditor trained I chose to set that aside and find out for myself what was true for me by learning what else I needed to know in order to solo audit and only THEN would I decide what parts were and weren’t true for me. Even when the e-meter sang and danced I realized that I didn’t need to accept any pieces of that data that I felt weren’t true for me. That meter did what it was expected to do when I applied the procedure as it was instructed.

      However one could extrapolate this evaluation concept more broadly to other lower Bridge steps like grade II for example. It’s likewise an eval to be told that people who have withheld harmful acts will attack those who those acts were committed against? it’s an eval to be told that ALL illness to a greater or lesser degree is caused by a connection to a suppressive person? it’s an eval to be told that overts and withholds are the only reason for a blow…the list goes on and on.

      The ONLY way for any of the usefulness of the tech to be determined and carried forward is to allow the pure application of personal integrity as described quitel elegantly here:

      “WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU is what you have observed yourself. And when you lose that, you have lost everything.

      ‘What is personal integrity? Personal integrity is knowing what you know. What you know is what you know and to have the courage to know and say what you have observed. And that is integrity and there is no other integrity.

      ‘Of course, we can talk about honor, truth, nobility-all these thing as esoteric terms. But I think they would all be covered very well if what we really observed was what we observed, that we took care to observe what we were observing, that we always observed to observe. And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude, a critical attitude or an open mind-but certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity and sufficient personal belief and confidence in self and courage that we can observe what we observe and say what we have observed.

      ‘Nothing in Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it and it is true according to your observation.

      ‘That is all.

      LRH, printed in the Ability mag Feb 1961

      • Perfect response Gayle🙂

      • Thank you , Gayle. When is considered what I heard… From ESMB I should add… It didn’t bother me per se. But I was curious if other OTs would agree. I don’t mind being invalidated. As long as I’m always allowed to find my own truth, I’ve ended up fine. And it seems that, since leaving the CoS, I’ve never found anyone who hasn’t allowed me to have my own truth. 🙂

        Thank you, again.

  21. Love you Marty BUT YOU ARE LOOSING IT ON THIS ONE.
    Way over the top. In all my 30 plus years of personal wins with Scn. I have not experienced, as you state, “Scientology tends to replace those jackets with synthetic ones.”

    Go to any school, go be a race car driver, a pro ball player or an auto mechanic. Tell any good sport team coach, ” Hey don’t give me any of that BE A GOOD PROFESSIONAL PLAYER crap, I don’t buy any identity!” And good luck Marty. You may win the argument but you’ll never be a dedicated, winning athlete.

    If one never wants to BE anything, because they are so free and evolved, well, all good in theory and blog chats, perhaps. But over the top and completely unreal in terms of real life.

    It’s been my experience that “Scientology” can and does, as you suggest, “help strip off” unwanted, destructive and or undesirable identities. SPs like DM and desperately PTS individuals dramatizing their destructive case seek to impose “Synthetic” identities on others. Not “Scientology”

    I get it. The game that LRH hoped we could all play nice at and win with got crazy. The bad hats stole the gold and the immediate power, enough to send the game into an all out SP tail spin. But let’s not loose or confuse one INTENTION with the other.

    Yes, some people are in unfortunate states, enough to be sold on the game of “Let’s be, do and have like good NAZIs.” And away they go – building Ideal Morgues. The lesser extreme is to ENFORCE the LRH reference to supervisors that you quoted above. No ARC, no TRs, just SLAM! you HAVE TO BE a Scientologist now, OR ELSE.

    If anyone believes or is open to the suggestion that it was LRH’s INTENTION to impose destructive identities on anyone that’s fine. I can respect and acknowledge their right to follow their own heart on the matter.

    But, I just don’t read it that way. THE ONLY IDENTITY SCIENTOLOGY EVER IMPOSED ON ME IS: “You are a beautiful, indestructible, eternal Being.”

    Or perhaps, that is the only identity I ever allowed any supervisor, auditor, Sea Org Member, public or staff to EVER SUCCESSFULLY IMPOSE IN ME. Either way, the SPs lost, LRH and Scientology – the pure unaltered, well delivered Tech won. And most of all, I won.

    And the net result, tallied up and all accounted for after thirty five plus years (12 years as an Independent) is this. The Old Man turned out to be absolutely correct when he said, “…If they enrolled, they’re aboard; and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us – win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists…”

    You could simply replace the word Scientologist with the words Olympic Champion, Decent Person. Cocktail Waitress, Musician, Painter, A Good Mother or …

    It’s Life and how it really works and frankly I have found no exceptions.

    I can’t speak for anyone else, of course. But in my book, your intention and your efforts to help guide us all through these turbulent, SP times, with DM sinking every last ship he can find IS TRULY ADMIRABLE and appreciated. And I for one thank you, Marty.

    But on this article I must say, I simply do not agree. But that said, ISN’T IT GREAT BEING INDEPENDENT – freely agreeing or disagreeing on any IDENTITY we choose!

    • Hi poet, I don’t think either that this is the kind of group LRH wanted, as ideal scene. I think in a good group, with no internal conflicts, the policies and ethics would have completely different significance. Like what I said below about control that I wouldn’t allow some selfish being to control me, but I might allow a kind, responsible being –same with allegiance and loyalty. I think LRH’s policies, ethics etc were addressed to a different group than I experienced. Nor do I think Marty is losing it either. He talks out of his own experience, like me and everybody else.

    • Gayle Smith aka TroubleShooter

      Poet, Hello. I hope you accept this in the kind way it’s being said but I do not think that you actually duplicated what Marty said.

      Let me ask you this, if you had known upfront that you would be forced (no matter how softly the cofs wants to put this, hide this, deny this yet enforces this) to disconnect from any friends or family who persisted in some disagreement with Scn, telling you why they disagreed, showing you data as to why they disagreed would you have moved forward? If you had been told up front that if you don’t donate your money, extended credit or even extend your credit that you have available to you including inheritances, 401Ks, life insurance policies etc etc that you will eventually be investigated and ordered to sec checking at your expense or be barred from progressing on the Bridge would you have moved forward? if you had been told and understood upfront that what is true for you would in fact become evaluated for you and if you stood your ground that you would be thrown out of the church and all Scientology family, friends, business partners and customers would cut all ties with you would you have moved ahead?

      This identity that you are fitted with is the one that was indoctrinated in to you unwittingly to become submissive to what you are told to submit to or suffer consequences in some cases so severe that you chose to give your power of choice over to the church and deal with the ramifications as best you can including justifying what the church is doing and being which is a trap, a complete and utter trap. This is NOT the movement that LRH talked about in the days of this technology being developed. It IS what is has become however. You must become a person who will do what your told, keep your mouth shut, keep all disagreements to yourself, read, listen to and believe only what your told to within the church’s walls and pr events . . . or ELSE!

      This is a false identity yes?

      • Dear Troubleshooter – Gayle:
        Your reply was not unkind in any way. Thank you for the thoughtful response.
        My answer to your question would, of course, be NO – I would not have continued. Not based on many of the points you highlighted.
        But I must qualify that answer with one observation. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE BIGGEST LOSS OF MY ENTIRE LIFE.

        To have not gone clear and OT this lifetime is a concept that is so illogical I can barely even imagine it any longer. That is a personal viewpoint, obviously, and not one I am out to enforce on anyone else.

        My difficulty with this particular one of Marty’s articles was this: “Paradoxically, Scientology tends to replace those jackets with synthetic ones of its own manufacture.”

        I do understand the point Marty was attempting to make. I also agree with it in principle. What I don’t agree with is the assignment of “cause” – ‘Scientology tends…”

        In appreciation of your thoughtful, detailed response to my post I went back and read that line again and I still feel it is off the mark and way over the top.

        Neither LRH or the Tech were perfect. No such claim was ever made by either. But The Old Man’s intention and the intention of that Tech and the intention of the auditors who applied it to me were more than spot on enough to make any wise man weep with admiration.

        “Scientology: includes the PTS – SP Tech. It was LRH’s intent that we got that information. Is that Tech wrong – unworkable – unfair? Does it split families and ruin businesses? Or is it the misuse and application of it in the wrong hands at the wrong time that is the real situation?

        My offering on the subject is this. Put you, me or anyone else on this blog in the hands of someone NAZI death camp Captain for a week and we’ll see how fast we slam in the PTS – SP Tech. We’ll apply the disconnect aspect of it so fast – POOF! We’d be gone!

        Put that Tech in the wrong hands and you have a Church of Corp. Scientology Ethics Officer.

        Is charging for a service or regging an affordable donation to help one’s group win some advancement all so evil and destructive? Or is it the same story. Put it in NAZI IAS hands and look out.

        Put it in good hands and you have a proud people building monuments to peace and Humanity. Not Idle Morgues or Vatican Art galleries.

        But is that “Scientology” slamming in a destructive “identity” or is that Fred the (&*YH)(U)(U(I direct from RTC Headquarters?

        I do agree with you wholeheartedly, Troubleshooter. When you say, “This identity that you are fitted with is the one that was indoctrinated in to you unwittingly to become submissive to what you are told to submit to or suffer consequences in some cases so severe that you chose to give your power of choice over to the church and deal with the ramifications as best you can including justifying what the church is doing and being which is a trap, a complete and utter trap.”

        I also agree when you say, ” This is NOT the movement that LRH talked about in the days of this technology being developed.”

        I’m just not too keen on the idea of Scientology being generalized and taking kicks in the teeth for deeds done by every Tom & Dick calling themselves Scientologists.

        This is just my take on the subject. And all with as much love and ARC I can possibly send your way.

        • martyrathbun09

          My offering on the subject is this. Put you, me or anyone else on this blog in the hands of someone NAZI death camp Captain for a week and we’ll see how fast we slam in the PTS – SP Tech. Easy to say from behind your computer. Did you ever read Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl?

          • arnoldsulzer@yahoo.com

            This is not much different then the Nazis oath to the Fuhrer pledging obedience “unto death” . I was as successful as I was on staff to the degree that I was willing to die for our “fuehrer” . Any perceived failures I had were mainly because I was unwilling to kill others. Hitler turned the whole world against him. DM is doing the same thing. It is certain that their fates will be similar.

        • Poet, maybe the disagreement is because not all experience SCN the same way. One can say that SCN is what LRH wrote, yes, but still there is the thing that one by reading LRH may mock up something in his universe and another may mock up other things. It has happened to me more than once to read something and then read it over again after years and make completely different mock ups with it. Also, SCN is some quantity of materials. The more the study, the more the understanding of what LRH wanted to comm.

  22. “…identity is the most irresponsible mechanism a thetan has.”
    “Well, you didn’t do that on the backtrack. You slaughtered enemy armies in the name of the Sultan. You’ve saved people in the name of the Messiah. Get the idea? YOU didn’t do it! ” (The “YOU didn’t do it” is explained as: You didn’t do is as “You”, but as an Identity, in the name of or on behalf of a group, state, church, religion etc.) Identity itself is a method to draw a line between you and other members of your dynamics and to reduce beingness and responsibility. For example, when you said “I am a man” you said at the same time “I am not a woman.” Even the subject of ownwership and subsequent troubles is hinged on Identity. Thus: “…identity is the most irresponsible mechanism a thetan has.” (“Identity”, 6 January 1960).
    Any execution of an ability goes along with the ability to withhold it self-determinedly or there would be no control of it and thus no ability. And where does “Identity”-tpye lack of beingness lead to?
    “You have to break down compulsive, obsessive withholds and overts. You have to break down this automatic structure to clear a case all the way and make an OT! You have to take those overts and withholds which are out of the control of the individual and put them back into the control of the individual. You’re breaking down overts and withholds to re-establish responsibility and the ability to do and to withhold. These are abilities. And if you just broke them down endlessly and never put them back again, never restored the individual’s ability to withhold, you, of course, would have just an irresponsible mass of junk. Scientology and Scientologists would not be a Third Dynamic, they’d be a mob.”
    (“Identity”, 6 January 1960).

  23. My mind just freezes up with,”We’d rather have you dead than incapable”.

    Ron was very good at inspiring people to action. He was very good at convincing us of the indispensability of that action. He put being a Scientologist in life and death terms, hero and villain , good and evil.

    If you did not do what he said, you would die a million deaths, become the villain and play the role of evil.

    And who wanted to do that? Golly geeze, of course I’ll fight the SPs Ron. I finally know I can save the universe. Hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray, hip hip hooray!!!!

    And we looked around the room or Lebanon Hall and knew we were the cream of the cream. Willing to work our asses off to save the world. Inspired by the only being who ever found the real truth since the beginning of time.

    With the urgency of saving the world from destruction, these extreme and fanatical calls to action put Scientologists in a permanent fire drill of ‘going up the bridge’ and ‘clearing the planet’.

    On a completely positive note: he did instill in us the habit of treating our own spiritual progress with that urgency. At least it did for me.

    Minus all the cartoon fantasy military cult psycho make believe super hero space opera drama, he kept our sights on our own spiritual growth.

    When I back out mentally and spiritually from all the craziness and I look at my experience, a part of me really enjoyed the whole thing. He made the mundane material grind of common life expload with fantasy and story. And he made all of us important players in our own personal Star Wars.

    It was fun, you have to admit. But of course the personal tragedies were not.

  24. I never took KSW or any other LRH issue in a literal, letter-of-the-law sense, because it was always obvious to me that every statement of LRH needed to be (a) understood in relation to the rest of what he said, (b) with relative importances sorted out, and (c) the result applied at a high tone level without opp term dramatization.

    Those 3 factors are fundamental to actually keeping Scientology working, and most of the criticism leveled at LRH and the generality “Scientology” is based on failure by self and others to apply them.

    Here are some contrary facts to consider:

    1) If the “mental constructs” and sci fi implant stories from the OT levels are not to be taken literally, why shouldn’t the principle of such “deeper understanding” apply to everything else LRH said, such as the KSW PL?

    2) Isn’t it placing responsibility “over there” to complain that the exact letter of any particular LRH statement, or the low-toned, out-of-context application of it, placed us at effect?

    3) Whatever happened to the principle being pushed a couple of years ago that the philosophy and technology of Scientology should be differentiated from the organization and the actions of its members and management?

    • Diogenes, I fully agree (except with 1), because I don’t take anything metaphorically. I either know it or not😛 ). Although I came to realise what you wrote bit by bit, on a gradient, and I still make it clearer, as I look at it.

      A shift of responsibility is a shift of responsibility, no matter the odds involved (SPs or others). Full responsibility for all dynamics=nothing there, by itself. This is good, as it means more or full responsibility can be assumed, and charge get as-ised etc

      I experience change when I post, my comm -and particularly my charged thing- is duplicated. So, I think that this kind of comm can have a good effect. Besides, with full responsibility, who would be there to comm to anyway?😛

      • Spyros — To clarify (1) in my post, I personally do not take the OT levels to be “metaphorical.” What they claim to handle and the stories about that are very real to me. My point in (1) was that it’s philosophically inconsistent for anyone to urge a metaphorical interpretation of the OT levels while at the same time insistiing that LRH meant the KSW PL and other “extreme” issues literally to the letter regardless of context.

        • martyrathbun09

          Diogenes, I have tried to communicate to the reality of those who have taken the vow to believe the constructs. Soon, I won’t mince words and will articulate quite plainly how folks have been imprisoned and how they might move on up a little higher after all – in a fashion completely consistent with the axioms upon which workable aspects of Scientology are based. In the meantime, you remind me of a comforting, wise piece of advice an erstwhile friend used to impart from time to time when it seemed I was taking things too seriously; ‘the only problem with you is that you think it is all for real.’

          • “Believing the constructs” is understandable in the light of history. Past perceived threats to survival have compelled all kinds of irrational, bank-generated dramatizations when re-stimulated by present-time circumstances. If unchecked by reason, these dramatizations can quickly escalate exponentially to the level of global chaos.

            Throw in some single-valued-logic “faith-based” mock-ups of divinity by large segments of a planet’s population and the occasional, random, (perhaps bored) Big Being who wanders by, notices this divinity worship and says, “Yeah, I can be that!” and you literally have a recipe for disaster.

            We all know what happens next (and don’t think you don’t). The big being proceeds to take the mostly apocalyptic beliefs predicated by the “revelations and prophesies” of those large segments of the population to their ultimate conclusion and it’s “deja vu all over again” (thanks Yogi). Really the Big Being is probably just thinking, (with a big sigh…) “Allllrigghhht… lemme put these poor son’s-a-bitches outta their misery…” Besides, it’ll be fun and make a good story to tell back at the bars when his buddies ask him, “Hey, where you been?” and he can respond, “Yeah, I had to be God again on old planet Earth… those assholes had completely lost it – just like before… nuclear war, everything – had to pull the plug on ’em… poor bastards – they never learn…”

            The real answer lies in the “Why hast God forsaken us?” question. Well, obviously it’s because we aren’t being bad enough to justify his coming back to “save” us (from ourselves?, for later? for dinner?). We must make him come back in order to prove his existence! This idiocy is the mechanism by which planetary populations collapse on themselves over and over again. Quite a neat trap.

            The trick, in this case, is to NOT “contribute to that motion” on a global scale. A way to do this is to abrogate the “contract” we have with the “constructs” by understanding and ultimately abandoning the treacherous (and current) Cartesian philosophic model of existence and creating a new “independent” paradigm for ourselves.

            I’m sure that has happened before too, right?

            • martyrathbun09

              Duality can be a bitch.

              • No Kiddin’. It’s understandable why some Buddhists take the step of swearing off any allegiance to divinity.

                • Denial of divinity or blind faith in divinity is not divinity.

                  • Divine-sanskrit-Div=to shine. Both blind believers and blind doubters do not shine. Divinty is the essence of the soul. When it is realized, it shines.

                    • And God is not an external entity with a separate existence from all life. That idea is the problem, not the reality.

                    • With my little experience with God consciousness, this is an experience I had day before yesterday regarding directly perceiving the nature of the Supreme Being:

                      ONENESS:
                      There is no separation. The idea of being connected is even not true. Connection implies links. There are no links. Links imply separation. There is only the totality of the Holistic Universe exploding with life: ever conscious of Itself and alive. The Universe is our body. Space does not separate. Space is full, not empty. This make believe “I” that forms through the evolution from matter to Spirit is just that: Make Believe. But the Supreme Self of all is a burst of laughter in the heart, knowing Itself to be free, alert, alive, unconquerable, immortal, happy and ever grateful to all experiences good and bad. Because all experience is a prod to remembering that we are One with All. Om Shanti Om

        • Yes, I understand Diogenes. I didn’t imply that you meant it metaphorically yourself (although I didn’t make it clear either😛 ).

          ‘Unreal’ implants and implants in general used to be much more true for me in the past, when I attributed things about me that I didn’t think that I had under control to them. I think it is OK for a time to come for them to be untrue for somebody, as that would mean he/she is free from them. So, I’m not bothered if somebody says that they aren’t there. They shouldn’t be!🙂

          • The Cauliflower That Ate The Universe:

            If I were to be in a position to be perceived as a perfect sage by others, who rely upon me as a spirit boatman to guide you to the shores of liberation, I could create for you metaphors (ideas) that you would ‘know’ to be ‘real’. And you would live your life dedicated too it.

            The ‘solid reality’ of those metaphors and symbols would be clothed in energy and could be granted a seeming separate existence that would read on the meter as a separate existence.

            The running of these energies would cause realizations and cognitions because the basic mechanic of a cognition is: I am not this energy, I am not this thought impression, it is there and I am here: differentiation and resolution of falsely assumed identities.

            The significance to thought impressions are defined and given life by: strong convictions, belief, unconscious and subconscious impressions.

            If I believed that there once was a Cauliflower that chewed on various portions of the universe and cause a massive crushing of billions of bodies and that is why we have pains in our future bodies, I could create a procedure whereby you could contact the most crushing pain, run the incident and have realizations.

            It is not the existence of evil Cauliflowers that ran in reality. What ran was the associative concepts that attached themselves to the idea of the evil Cauliflower that caused crushing pain. Crushing pain is most likely a subconscious thought impression that we all have in common inherent in our past life mind bank, thus having the energy read on the meter. Once the energy reads on the meter and we audit until release and cognition, our conscious mind then says,” see it was an evil Cauliflower that cause my head ache! My head ache is gone, I exteriorized, I am a thetan. Thank you, your needle is floating.

            That is the mystery trap. There was an inaccurate assignment of form to the very real experience of function. The pain was there, but it was not caused by:

            The Cauliflower That Ate The Universe

            • The Cauliflower was the concept that attracted magnetically, the metal filings of an arbitrary meaning because of: conviction or belief in someone or some doctrine that convince the mind of the intrinsic relation between an idea and it’s meaning. And that is the nature of a personal reality.

              • Thanks for those points above, Brian. You are absolutely correct.

              • Don’t know where to start on this load of intellectualized nonsense.

                I guess us dummies are just too low in IQ to perceive the wisdom contained in your cauliflower metaphor.

                What explains this phenomenon:

                1) we have the “crushing pain”, with which you apparently agree, and 2) our “perfect sage” tells us that it’s because the cauliflower ate the universe 2 billion years ago, so we need to contact that incident to run out the pain, but 3) when we contact it, nothing happens on the meter, we really don’t get much if any change, don’t lose our headache, much less go exterior. Maybe our headache gets even worse.

                Then finally, our perfect sage twigs that he got it wrong, and that really, it was not a cauliflower after all – it was a broccoli sprout, and it happened 3.5 billion yrs ago instead of 2. And when we contact this one, the meter goes wild, our headache vanishes, and maybe we even go exterior.

                Please dear brilliant one, explain that to me. I’m sure you can – I’ve read most of your replies so far & clearly you are adept at figuring out all the possible ways LRH was full of it.

                Regardless, though my metaphor may be far from perfect, it is accurate enough and any auditor with any range of experience has observed the phenomenon I described many times over. There are any number of “stories” or auditing procedures that LRH came up with, that did NOT work all that well – most if not all of which, he subsequently refined, debugged, until they did work.

                If it was all just a matter of us lamebrains falling for anything the Master came up with, seems to me, the same great results would appertain regardless of whether it was a cauliflower or a caterpillar that ate the universe. But that’s not how it works. Spend a couple thousand hours in the chair actually working with another person, and see for yourself.

    • Excellent points, Diogenes!

  25. “The proper instruction attitude is, ‘You’re here so you’re a Scientologist. Now we’re going to make you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead than incapable.”

    I think the KEY word here is INSTRUCTION. The proper INSTRUCTION attitude.

    A LOT of people took this means to means everyone was supposed to be in the BUILDING on the same terms!

    Hubbard was NEVER there on the same terms as everyone else.

    Miscavige is not there on the same terms and anyone else.

    Everyone is different no no two people can be there on the SAME TERMS as everyone else.

    This policy was ONLY about COURSE SUPERVISION.

    YET! Yet, you have rock slammers running all around the place degrading and attacking other people because “YOU aren’t doing what I am doing” “You aren’t thinking what I am thinking.” “You aren’t seeing it the way I am seeing it.” Right up to: “You aren’t being the same kind of Independent Scientologist I am being”!

    “…if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us – win or die in the attempt.”

    OBVIOUSLY, David Miscavige is NOT here on the same terms as everyone else. Either was Hubbard. “The rest of us”…..For REAL? Nobody lived worked or experienced Scientology on the same terms as Hubbard or DM.

    YET! You have people that do not seem to notice this!

    The policy letter itself is way down into the enforce band and tone level is 1.5. Clearly that is the tone level of the policy letter. 1.5.

    When I read this, well, it was one of the first policy letters I read, I was just 16 and on HQS and a little bit high. I laughed. I thought it was hysterical. I won’t go into why. But in retrospect, I just knew Hubbard was not there on the same terms as everyone else. And I knew for sure I was not there on the same terms as everyone else. Nobody else was high and nobody else was doing HQS so they could get their mother to sign emancipation papers. I knew I didn’t come in on the same terms as everyone else. I knew I wasn’t there on the same terms as everyone else. And I knew I was nothing like the other people there and never would be.

    All of that did not stop me from having tremendous case gain. And in all honesty, I don’t think the people there at the time paid much attention to Hubbard’s being a but hysterical in that policy letter. Back then, people could honestly joke about Hubbard.

    Of course, that was before the “Sea Org”. Here are the people on the same terms as everyone else falling out of the bus. Watch this. Watch them. Look at their faces. Copies copies copies…… Spooky! Have a contact assist:

  26. Good post Marty. In retrospect, I can see that I did take on other valences in order to receive services. It is a terrific irony–to be “forced” to take on a particular valence in order to have other valences audited out. Very twisted.

  27. Be open to everything and attached to nothing.

  28. I thought to start off this post, “Off topic”. But the truth is, it is never “off topic” as the blog is a form of auditing, and whatever comes to mind when you read Marty’s post, that is what comes up.

    I have had so much case gain from this blog, I can’t begin to tell you. It is a third dynamic auditing we never had possible in the Church.

    I have often considered WHY there is so much bypassed charge when, the Church had the tech to handle bypassed charge? WHY? WHY” WHY?

    Obviously, when the CHURCH has the tech to handle it, why has it fallen on Marty’s shoulders to actually clean it all up?

    Really, it has. I have been wondering about this for awhile. I can not speak for anyone but myself. I just recall the first time I got off some “Scientology” 3D charge in a session the auditor instantly asking, “Do you have a similar overt”? It turned out I did. So from there on out, I NEVER complained. It was always about ME, even if I protested about others.

    When I went to go do the L’s, after several decades in Scientology and suppressing ALL charge, I thought I would find out what a monster I had really been. After all, I protested against child abuse, rape, sexual perverts, torture. child neglect, bullies, and a host of others. So, I figured I had been all of that, and worse, and was going to face the most evil of myself. Since I kind of repelled against those things.

    Well, I was wrong. I found the first bit of relief from the social slap down of Scientology, on the L’s. It was the first mercy I experienced in Scientology, I actually found out, I was alright. I extroverted from decades of introversion. At one point I returned to my hotel room and closed the door behind me and fell to my knees and cried. The wrong indications one can give themselves on this journey are just too vast to explain. But, the idea that if YOU PROTEST it is ALL ABOUT YOU and YOUR CRIMES is wrong.

    I mean to tell you, this is wrong. You do not have to instantly introvert when you ridge or protest.

    You see these people out here harm attacking and suppressing “squirrels”? You don’t see them getting sec checked for a similar overt right? Although I think they should since I have met some of them.

    When David Miscavige goes on a rampage, you do not see him getting sec checked for similar overts right?

    Not them. Just us.

    This has been a real mind fucking, and mind freeing GPM at the same time.

    There is truth, and lie at the same time.

    It is VERY possible to object to things that you are guilty of, and not guilty of at the same time.

    This is finest line of truth and lie I have had to straddle.

    But I can tell you this, if you are here, if you care, if you are aware, if you still you care,….you are NOT one of those people that is protesting crimes against humanity because you have similar overt of your own.

    If I could explain the benefit of the L’s, I would say it is because you can sort yourself there, between positive and negative.

    It’s alright to disagree without introversion. It’s almost a clean up from having been in Scientology!

    But don’t you see what an outpoint it is, that the Church who has the only tech to clean up bypassed charge, has SO much bypassed charge out in the filed? People are AFRAID or PUNISHED to get off their bypassed in the Church. If you have any bypassed charge on management, you are PUNISHED for having bypassed charge!

    • So the mind fucking kind of goes like this. “Come over here! We will clean up your bypassed charge! What? You have bypassed charge? Well, that is all about YOU!”

      Not for nothing, doing the math, then what did I need YOU for? To SER FAC on me?

      No. It is NOT ALL ABOUT ME ALL OF THE TIME. THAT creates “reasonableness”. Sometimes, like 50% of the time since it is a TWO TERMINAL UNIVERSE, It is about someone else 50% of the time!

      DUH! It’s basic MATH!

      • Maybe I have more 3d charge than others. I have been told over and over I should not post so much. Just recently like a few days ago, someone said, “Do you know how many posts you put on this thread?” They had counted them.

        It made me realize how much charge I had on my wrongness with Scientology. When Hubbard said, “You can be right”, that was a button for me.

        He led us in to find out why we “are right” and then we spend decades to find out how we have been all wrong.

        You can not be right in Scientology, unless you have done the L’s.

        And that was made the most illusive tech.

        All in all, Hubbard made too many people wrong too much of the time.

        David just amplified this, nobody has wins under Miscavige. The fanatics and bible thumpers just set you up for losses. Scientology has become a degrading experience. The Church admits it every time they describe a former member as “Bitter”. Who the fuck in their right mind would not be bitter? The ONLY positive processing the L’s? 1% of the community getting that?

        I FINALLY had a win on the L’s. After three plus decades of looking for all of my “wrongness”. Trying to “be right”. When all I was hoping for, was to find out how much wronger I was.

        In the end I figured out I was very wrong, but more right.

        All it cost me really , was looking.

        • Really, freedom is when you do not give a FUCK anymore if you are wrong or right.

          • And to Marty, who has never implied I have been wrong for being here and communicating, I just want to say this:

          • OM: ” Really, freedom is when you do not give a FUCK anymore if you are wrong or right.”

            A profound statement! When I read it I immediately thought, “YEAH!” Then Monte had to query why the “yeah?” Why is this statement made by OM interpreted as being profound and why does it resonate as being the truth? I instantly supplied the answer….because the concept of ‘wrong’ has never been right. It’s an hallucination. In truth, there is only right.

          • I agree, it is that too.

        • Oracle you ARE right.

          LRH surrounded his auditing technology with a lot of crap to make the group survive under pressure and attacks, etc. And frankly some of that shit was simply out of his own fucking case.

          Scientologist cannot confront that LRH could do harm and be a bad cause too. It is sort of being like the perennial PTS who cannot see the gorilla in front of their faces.

          The approach that you have to Scientology is as important as the counseling and trainning that you receive.

          Be the source to yourself, recognized that Hubbard was flawed and don’t take shit from anyone, especially if they are religious followers. As historically religious people are very close to being overwhelmed if not actually so, and they will try to overwhelm you in kind.

          YOU ARE definitely right in my book!

          Love

          • Thank you for your kind attention and beautiful ack, XXOO

          • arnoldsulzer@yahoo.com

            LRH never claimed to be always right. He said that he tried to be more right than wrong. He was trying to get people to think for themselves. So these people that don’t want you to think for yourself and only want you to bow down to an idol called LRH are not practicing SCN.

      • Oracle: What? You have bypassed charge? Well, that is all about YOU!”

        Spyros: It is always about you. It has nothing to do with me. I am too right to care😛

        • Laughter! I always look forward to the conversations that I thought would not be possible, becoming possible. That is where the case gain is, for me. This is one I look forward to now:

          Me: Blah blah blah fucking David Miscavige.

          Auditor: Do you have a similar overt of your own?

          Me: Actually, no. I don’t. Do I look like I have a similar overt of my own? If I did I would be over there supporting Quack Quack.

          Auditor: Your needle is floating. That was a clean protest. I would like to indicate you have a floating TA . We will not have to beat you up for that protest read and turn it around to be all about YOU and YOUR crimes. Feel free to go riot with enthusiasm.

          • Frankly, I think this is an abberated comm cycle:

            Me: Blah blah blah fucking David Miscavige.

            Auditor: Do you have a similar overt of your own?

            It should go something like this to feel in harmony:

            Me: Blah blah blah fucking David Miscavige.

            Auditor: I hear ya. I feel ya. This wouldn’t be the first time that fuck has stomped around in uniform would it?

            • LOL I’m so lucky to have not-experienced such comm cycles during auditing (good karma?)

              I guess it would be alright for someone to pull your O/W to relieve you. But to do it to make you wrong?…I would ask “Do you have a similar overt of your own?”😛

              (no, really)

              • Surely I can’t be the only person here, that has itsa’d some charge on a terminal only to be asked what it was I was guilty of? Because that happened every time in session for me. To the point where if I got upset I would just introvert.

                The only auditing I got where this was not the case was on the L’s. I had to get used to it, I was very suspicious for the first several hours waiting for the big slap down. I couldn’t believe I was allowed to just go and on and on and on. And my space was getting bigger and bigger and bigger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really, I felt like was doing something illegal!
                It felt weirdly out of valence to be right in a session! I was very, very suspicious. Like a kid in a war zone being given a candy bar by a soldier.

              • So, there is the guy who criticises, and then the guy who criticises the one who criticises because he criticises. And then another guy cricises them both for being critical…lol…who should get the sec check first?

                I don’t know whether there is a correct answer. The question was somewhat rhetorical. I simply think that responsibility also means some acceptance level, and that means acceptance of the other’s O/Ws too. You only pull them for that guys sake, not because he is ‘guilty’. If not, then better go home and have a beer.

            • What I am trying to say, is that I think it is aberrated, to take an ITEM from the P.C., then move it off the table and replace it with another item, and the other item being THEM.

              I think this can be mind fucking. It’s like a bait and switch. And it gets people to a point where they get inhibited about disagreeing, or protesting, or complaining, or “speaking up”.

              O.K. so if you think the P.C. has some issues themselves make a note about it and take it up some other place some other time. But you shouldn’t get the P.C. going on a rant and then get them to turn on them self. It should be O.K. to disagree, to object, to protest, without making the P.C. feel degraded.

              • Yes, I had what you described happen to me, but in the ‘ethics’ section of the org😛 You can never object to something, unless you are guilty about something yourself, according to the golden age of ethics. ‘Intergrity’ they say…

              • Oracle, by what you describe to me, it seem COS auditing is worse than I thought. I dodged it, because I didn’t have much $, and because I left the COS early (yes, too many O/Ws). How could you come to EP if this happened during every session except from during the Ls?

                • It seems to me that the COS has substituted the 4 flows with flow 2 alone. Or at least so I figured out by what others had figured out therein.

                  I read in the 50s bulletin that a ‘merchant of chaos’ (later called SP) tries to convince others that their overts are of great significance and their motivators are unsignificant –nothing. I guess he doesn’t do it because it is truth, nor because he wants to help.

                • It was always if flying ruds. Looking back, I am just blowing so much charge I can’t begin to tell you. I was more or less fairly humiliated and open to start the session. I guess that was having my ruds in. I realized after posting this, this is the reason I would not get trained or audit other people. I did not want to do this to someone else.

                  • That’s understandable. About the subject of O/Ws as well as other kinds of charge, I have noticed some gross alteration –the consideration that this charge is there, and then you take it out by processing.

                    That HPV & I that you mentioned the other day. It’s such a squirrel course. It’s all stuff that I agree with –the code of honor, dynamics, differentiation between ethics and morals. But then in the end there is some text (not by LRH) which explain that you should make that O/W write-up and doesn’t even define what write-up. Even If you took some expert auditor he would have trouble to write down all this lifetime’s O/Ws over a piece of paper, with no meter. Even if he managed to do it, it would take him a looooong time, and consider that it was just a Div 6 course. Afterall, if we were supposed to as-is a lifetime’s O/Ws like that, why do the grades?

                    In my estimation that part of the course was there to make one guilty. It tells you you HAVE O/Ws, which isn’t true. Before you can have them, you need to put them there –restimulate them yourself. That’s what one doesn’t during a sessions. They are not there. The auditor restimulates and handles them, if he is good. He doesn’t restimulate any more than he handles. But the course told you that you had them, and then you had to honestly attest on the e-meter that you had written everything down. You neither HAD them, nor written everything down. It’s all bull… to convince you that you have something you don’t have (alteration) , and welcome you to the game of being guilty.

                    • I was on the practical of writing my O/W’s by dynamics for seven months. Had a big callous on my finger from holding the pencil when I was done. I have to say I quite liked it. Felt like a million bucks when done.

                      But the thing about the auditing, there is an “op term” case. There are things I naturally oppose. And I will always oppose no matter how much auditing I get or how enlightened I get. I think that is true for a lot of people. Who wants to be “Lorded over” by someone incompetent? For instance. If it throws my ruds out to be if someone wants to “Lord over me” while they are depending on me to survive. I should be able to have clean convictions about that.

                      So if I am there in a session and getting my ruds flown and this comes up as a by passed charge, because at some time during the day someone tried to “Lord over me” (A covert OP TERM purpose anyway) maybe I am repelled by the entheta covert purpose to degrade me. I think that is healthy. Then the auditor is saying, “Do you have similar overts of your own?” It’s like, “I’m not talking about me, I’m not talking about overts even! I am talking about this purpose running against me that is all creepy that I am pushing away from me and disagreeing with. ”
                      But here we go into looking for my overts and my read was not on my overts! The charge is on counter purposes. And there we are, we never get to the bottom of my charge because RUDS is very limited on addressing charge the list is very short. So it gets classified as overt charge and MINE when it is all about op terms and the creepy purpose to Lord over others while you ride on their back.

                      And it is the AUDITOR who makes the call and assigns what your charge is by asking “Do you have a similar OVERT”? See what I mean? I am not even thinking about overts I am thinking about purposes but it gets classified under a category that the auditor is trained to think with. At least the P.C. could be asked to just talk it out and possibly all of the charge gone on two way comm! Which is what would happen! I would go blah blah blah and then laugh and then here it comes, “DO YOU have similar overts of your own?” When the charge was blown for me!

                      I could have said, “If I do, I really don’t give a fuck. If you do, why don’t you come around here and pick up the cans and I’ll get over there and run the meter.” Of course though, YOU do not want to set your auditor up for a loss. So you help them through whatever wins they need to have. Now it’s time for the auditor to have a win. So you sit there and dig for anything you can and let the auditor Lord over you.

                      “Well”, you think, “at least I am getting a contact assist on it.”

                      I think the ruds can be expanded as one goes up the bridge. I noticed on solo auditing I had to fly my own ruds, which were new ruds. For instance, “Being change”. You know someone next door, they come around, the same being is always there. Then one day they show up, and you see you are talking to a different being in the same body. This kind of throws my ruds out.

                      You get together on a forum to discuss these things, because you really would LIKE to build a better bridge, you bring it up and the bible thumpers are all over you in a witch hunt calling you a squirrel. I don’t think they believe there will EVER be a better bridge built by anyone! They are wholly apathetic about it! It even frightens them!

                      So who may I ask, is supposed to build this “better bridge” if it is ever to happen? If not us, then WHO? Someone who is supposed to “Lord over us?”

                    • LOL for the descriptions Oracle. Yes, I’ve had similar experiences too, wherein I let another do his thing over me so he wouldn’t invalidate himself. There was just too much ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that I perceived. If he wasn’t ‘right’ then he was ‘wrong’ he thought, and of course it was me who made him ‘wrong’ by not letting him control me, so then he made me ‘wrong’ too, because he thought I invalidated him. Quite a circle.

                      I say what’s ‘wrong’ with the COS is that it is squirrel, but it is squirrel on purpose. Given the circumpstances of this squirreling, and most importantly the ceiling over the OT part of the Bridge, I don’t think there is anything wrong, if further squirreling occurs for the purpose of making SCN more workable. If one defends some pure scn tech, what pure scn tech does he defend, that of the cos? It would make sense if I heard about pure tech from some really old timer, but from latter guys, it sounds contradictory/funny to me.

                    • What I’m trying to say is, there is this assumption that if you have an ARCX, you think someone has committed an overt against you. You can have an ARCX with someone, and not think it has anything to do with them having overts against you. So, if you get off your ARCX and the auditor says, “Do you have a similar overt?”? You’re like, “WTF? I never said Blahdy blah committed an overt against me, I just said I had an ARCX over what happened. ” But it gets qualified as an “Overt” when to you, it might have just been some co create. Nobody ever asks you if you consider an overt has been made against you, before they ask you if you have a similar “overt”. So, it’s kind of like telling you, you have overts. When maybe you were not even seeing the event along those lines. So, the more your ruds get flown, the more you start thinking you have overts and they have overts and you get this whole significance on “overts” that you never had before!

                    • It’s the same thing with with holds. You come into to the Church, you don’t know these people. They don’t live with you, they are not related to you. What your life is, is none of their business. Suddenly, it is their business and if you don’t agree to make it their business, you have a with hold! But if you go next door to Macy’s to shop, and you don’t tell the lady at the make up counter who you fucked the night before last, it isn’t a with hold. Because the people at Macy’s “don’t matter”. Even if the lady working at Macy’s asked you, “Is there something you are not telling?” You would think WTF? But if an auditor asks you, you are wrong for not saying, and you have “with holds”. But the with holds are only a crime in the Church. If you leave the Church you are not expected to share your with holds with a counter person at Macy’s. It is understood, it is none of her business. If you go to the Org to handle your reactive mind, the person can’t clear you if they aren’t up in your business. In other words, you have to exit your universe. Or hand over your universe. “Surrender” on some level. It is suddenly “taboo” to hold back. But it doesn’t say in the Dianetics book this is part of clearing. And I can tell you, I went clear without surrender. An auditor was able to clear me with me standing whole in my space and not merging universe. No matter how fun it is to pop in and out of other people’s heads, and other people’s spaces, there is no place like home.

                    • What I’m saying is, Dianetics was established as a practice simply based on the reactive mind and early similar . Hubbard saidm this is how you make a clear. It worked, I know because I went clear on old Dianetics. Later, much later after whatever million books were sold, THEN Hubbard said if the P.C. DIDN’T CLEAR , it was because of his overts and with holds. And this whole overt with holds thing got to be a bigger deal in the Church than clearing people. Now they don’t even care if you don’t clear, as long as you don’t have with holds and you have not committed any overts against them! It’s all come down to being a “good citizen” that has no secrets from the group. The only Scientology most Sea Org Members get is writing O/W’s. And then whole purpose got changed from clearing to getting ethics in. It just went from a therapy, to an investigative agency over night. I don’t know if that was really necessary. I think it might not have been.

                    • To think that you have an ARC break is already enough alteration. Leave alone to make further evaluations and say it’s because of an overt or because 3875345345 years ago……………………it’s certainly not observing anything obvious, and not a good starting point to as-is anything😛

                      That stuff was for sessions, and they aren’t truth. They break down lies, to reach some truth. If the truth was “I have this because of that because….” then it wouldn’t as-is😛

                    • Well, I don’t mind getting off my O/W’s. But I don’t like to think just because I have had an ARCX with someone, that they committed “an overt” on ME. Looking at it that way, one’s ARC is further reduced! That is kind of counter to fixing an ARCX. Usually the other person was just oblivious or didn’t care. That doesn’t mean they committed an overt on me. Maybe I expected more than I should have. But I just don’t see my ARCX’s with others, as situations where they have overts against ME. But if you just get into addressing your charge, the question is, “Do you have a similar overt?” Well, who the hell said anyone committed an overt? I just said I was pissed off. The auditor gives you that item. Then asks you for a similar item of your own. There the auditor has passed judgement on your terminal. There the auditor passes judgement on you. I have never ever once in my life said, “________ committed an overt on me”. EVER! But do you know how many times I have been asked, “Do you have a similar overt?”

                      And it is this robotic, if I was robbing a liquor store tomorrow and got shot, and was running this getting shot as an ARCX, the auditor would ask me if I had a similar overt. Like, not even taking into account it isn’t even an overt to shoot someone who is robbing you!

                      Auditor: Is there an ARCX?

                      Me: Yeah! Got shot last week robbing a liquor store.

                      O.K. you fly the rud down all the way then,

                      Auditor: Do you have a similar overt?

                      Then, if you point out how stupid that is, well, you have with holds from the auditor. And if you want to leave the room because this is looney, you have overts on the Org.

                      These are all judgements calls, and you are giving the P.C. items the P.C. NEVER originated! You can’t have BLANKET ITEMS for ALL People. That FORMS people into things they are NOT and puts words in their mouth they never said! NOW you are forming the P.C. to the auditing! And if they don’t bend the way they are supposed to, they must have overts and with holds! The assumption is always a DONE and there is no allowance that the charge could be on a NOT DONE. The auditor TELLS the P.C. it is a DONE and asks the P.C. to look for a DONE. That might not even be the P.C.’s item! To get case gain you have to take the P.C.’s WORDS. NOT give him SOMEONE else’s WORDS. I never used the word OVERT before I got into Scientology, so why would I be thinking with it on stuff that happened before I got into Scientology? You then CONVERT your track to align with the auditing. The only place I didn’t do that was on the L’s. Because it’s only your words and your meaning that you address there. I did find charged words and phrases on the Clearing Course platens. But why would you have charge on “OVERTS” and “WITH HOLDS” before Scientology? That is charge you inherit once the concept behind the word is explained to you. It is something you have to agree with then, for it to become charged. The whole meaning of the dynamics and Hubbard’s way of ethics. “The greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics”. But what if even looking at how he spread them out, that would not be ethics for you?
                      What is ethics for you is the greatest good for your seventh dynamic and to hell with the rest because you have no interest in them? Huh? Just like the Sea Org Members? They are wrapped in 3D and to hell with the rest. Other people can be that way also! These are avenues of INTEREST and CURIOSITY. What might be an overt for you as a “Scientologist” under that theory might not have been an overt for you before you had the dynamic spread out like that. And told it was your duty to decide on the greatest good for the greatest number. Why should you think about seven dynamics you could care less about? If you are only interested in one? Who do you owe that to?
                      The Sea Org?

                    • Who here thought they had overts and with holds before they got into Scientology?

                    • I mean, maybe you knew you had been naughty a little. But chances are unless you were in prison when you read the Dianetics book, you were not thinking about it heavily. It was “In The Past” or “growing pains” or “youth stupid” or “blind ambition” or “The heat of the night”. It was in a context you were comfortable with. You certainly didn’t view yourself as having committing crimes against LIFE and ALL OF THE DYNAMICS!

                      But when that auditor was asking you, it suddenly gets creepy and you start feeling horrible (because you know he will think you are) and it’s not funny anymore, and you start this subtle aggression against yourself. And your ARC with yourself crashes! And why I wonder? Didn’t that auditor have any overts? I mean, you could have laughed together about the stuff if his “tr’s” weren’t in! But there in the Church, squeezing the cans, the other person facing you without any agreement or humor or sympathy asking you, as if it were an IRS agent asking you about a deposit slip……you find in some way you would like to separate from yourself. And “THE PAST’, which you were asked to MOCK UP, becomes an issue bigger than the present.

                      Then you find out you have to run “The past” on the clearing course platens and you just mocking it all up anyway and it doesn’t even EXIST until YOU mock it up! So why the hell are OTVll’s being ordered to the base every six months to sit and pay to mock up “the past” in sec checks?

                      First you come in to erase “the past”, and by the time you get to the top of the bridge you are paying to mock it up again!

                      And the people there now are not even allowed to see or run the Clearing Course platens 99.9% of the time!

                      But who on EARTH wants to pay to sit and mock up “the past” once you have blown through your automaticity on that on the Clearing Course platens?

                      THEN you are no longer running charge that is “sitting there”. You are being asked TO MOCK IT UP so it CAN BE RUN!

                  • From the new ethics book: :”When a person finds himself committing too many harmful acts against the dynamics, he becomes his own executioner.”

                    You know, it’s like the dynamics are there and lording over you? You are supposed to worship and care for them?

                    “What Happens if the dynamics go out ethics” Page 30. Now they have taken on a life on their own?

                    Check this out, you know how those Sea Org members are locked up and locked down 24/7 right? Page 30: (I have no idea who write this) “Let us take the example of a woman who has totally withdrawn from the third dynamic. She won’t have anything to do with any groups or the people of her town. She has no friends. She stays locked in her house all day thinking (with some misguided idea of independence or individuality) that she is surviving better on her first dynamic. Actually she is quite unhappy and lonely and lives in fear of other human beings. To ease her misery and boredom, she begins to take sedatives and tranquilizers which she becomes addicted to and then starts drinking alcohol as well.”

                    Oh really? What fucking Sea Org member has anything to do with the people in town? Has friends? Is not in fear of other human beings? What if the woman holed up at her house is writing a book, or working in her garden, or working from a home computer, or painting, or reading, or watching television or cooking with her fucking Ronco rotisserie oven and she is happy with herself?

                    Who wrote this stuff in this ethics book? Today’s woman has a million ways to be overjoyed in her own home! Especially if she has a salt water pool! Her own gym! If the home is overlooking Malibu!

                    Right here in the NEW “ETHICS” Book, you are told “The group is all and the individual is nothing”. This is today’s “ethics”.

                    Women have been parked up in the house barefoot and pregnant for centuries, how do they think the civilization got here?

                    • Then from the ethics you roll into “responsibility”. O.K. that I agree is important. But then I find myself up the bridge and onto “ownership” issues. “Who’s charge is it?” Well hell, I just owned all of it and flew through nots. I didn’t feel comfortable disowning any part of it. I felt like since it was in my space I had to have some ownership over it. We don’t all have the same fingerprint for no reason. And I could see myself somewhere in all of it. That seemed like responsibility to me.

                    • A purpose was to get you to believe that you had O/Ws, once you got to believe that thoroughly, you had them. And they could also read on the meter. Another purpose was to make you unable to withold, as to withold means O/Ws -according to the COS- which means you’re guilty, dishonest etc They simply duplicated their own valence on you. They were the guilty ones, but they didn’t confront themselves. Who is ‘they’? Well, whoever he is… by definition, those who have the many O/Ws have way too much interest in the O/Ws of others. Whoever, made you guilty, had the overts. Simple.

                      I’m talking about valences when I say ‘you’, ‘they’ etc. Not beingness, OK? All this story doesn’t negate mine and your full responsibility over it. We just make it clearer bit by bit, from identification of valences, up to differentiation of valences up to full beingness.

                    • Right! Exactly! Full responsibility over it includes UNDERSTANDING also. Yourself, and yourself with the tech, and KNOWING as opposed to believing. No matter how inconvenient the truth. 🙂 Certainly I am not complaining about what we have been gifted! Only consulting my own understanding.

                    • Yes yes and yes🙂

  29. Martin Padfield

    Well stated. Also worth mentioning that per hco pl “what is a course” the successful supervisor is “tough” and “forces” targets to be met “or else”. So right from the get-go you’ve got force, duress, pressure, all the ingredients for an education that simply doesn’t allow for the student to apply critical thinking to what he’s doing. Add the total overwhelm of ksw1 as a first action and the apparent stated goal of self-determined analytical students is already an impossibility.

  30. I’ve come to the conclusion that KSW marked the beginning of the end for the subject of Scn. If there was any hopes of integration, KSW ensured that would never be the case.
    Radical fanaticism and unthinking fundamentalism are the fruits of such a policy. After KSW, inspection and judgement (and certainly disagreement) practically became off-policy. So, instead of preserving and ensuring the workability of the Tech, it sowed the seeds of its destruction; only thinking people with a conceptual understanding of the Tech can guarantee its workability.
    Imagine being on course, say the PTS/SP Course, and telling your sup that the data on the Anti-Social Personality is not true for you? What do you think would happen? Your viewpoint will be overtly and covertly attacked as being incorrect, you will be challenged, you will spend time with the Word Clearer (because there obviously is something wrong with you), and eventually end up in Qual for further assault. At some point you are going to throw in the towel and either put on the coat or you are going to leave. If you decide to put on the coat, the church has a whole new wardrobe waiting for you.

  31. Yes, one has to have an identity in the church. Also, adopt a moral code. Mainly a puritan one, nothing to do really with Hubbard this one, but well buried into american middle classness.
    This american valence. I can’t stand it.
    I think when he wrote what you quoted from KSW, he was suddenly lyric, and all his subject has to do with auditing. He just didn’t see that what he says will be taken litteral as it looks so much like any past military group. And people propitiate with all this, they feel they have to conform to this identity of “true believer”.
    I’m personnaly oppterm to “true believer”!

  32. Marty,

    Who wrote this thing (crap) you quoted ?
    Clearly I am not a C/S so I am in the dark here. (Sorry if I’m ignorant and didn’t read possible other posts that might reveal, but I have to hit it 6 hours ago)
    This sounds like some dark magic shit.

    You are either with us or against us kind of crap.
    Who the fuck wrote this shit? And possibly equally importantly when?

  33. Hi Marty, hopefully you will forgive the off topic-ness of this post.

    I am looking for an LRH book/text that would help someone with depression. Serious question. Does any of his writing lean that way? Please let me know. Any help would be gratefully received.

    • martyrathbun09

      I think the book Self Analysis might be helpful.

      • Ordered off Amazon. Was unsure if any of the later editions had been ‘revised’, so went with the oldest I could get (1982 – Gold writing on the spine, red hardback).

        Thank you for your help and swift response Marty. Its appreciated.

  34. This quote: „If they enrolled, they’re aboard; and if they’re aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us – win or die in the attempt.“ especially the „win or die in the attempt“ I did interpret literally. Let me travel back in time and state my understanding I had in 1976 to 1984. By my understanding of the situation of Earth and my role here Scientology had been an operation of either win or die in the attempt. I had in 60ies and 70ies visions of atom bombs dropped over Germany. And on a first dynamic level sometimes applying some Scientology tech felt like almost dropping the body due to too much energy involved. I did contact OT3 core in 1967. Not the first time. This time had only to recover from that some years. Not find a new body.
    Fast forward to present time: I live now a normal life. Have basically no connection to Corporate Scientology. I do not apply the „win or die in the attempt“ attitude any longer. Before joining Scientology had the chance to be a renowned scientist. Even if I had just done a normal job I would enjoy now my big home and my money and could quit working.
    But if someone would offer me the chance to redo my life I would not want to be a renowned scientist. I would not want to miss what I experienced. Rough times indeed. But I had a very interesting life. The only question unanswered is which life is a delusion. The Scientology life, the normal life with TV, gambling and gaming or both of them or none.
    I work in a global player company. At work you have to „BE“ a certain way in order to survive there. This „BE“ needs to be adjusted from time to time according your job and position. As an electrician in a small biz this „BE“ had been quite different. At home this „BE“ is me, but not really. As I have to adjust this „BE“ in order to be able to live together with my wife. My first wife required a different „BE“. Shure I could insist to „BE“ me. Why should I? As long as I know what I „BE“ and why there is nothing wrong with it.

  35. Great post Marty. Step by step we are getting to the core of the matter, you are one incredible auditor!

    The puzzle of Scientology is that its process will knock off other-determined identities, faster and deeper that anything I know of.

    You are there now, clean, shinning, simple, you again without synthetic add-ons.
    But then Scientology begins to carefully web its web around you, starting with all the LRH mandated arbitraries on how you should become a group member.

    Now you slowly begin to be added on, manufactured goals, created duties and obligations, somebody else’s ideas of beingness, and a monster church all around you.

    You moved out of the past but went into the world of Scientology.

    I think the core entanglement with the subject and self, is that you must temporarily surrender control of yourself to the auditor so counseling can work its magic.

    Most people tend to get confused after that, especially if they had great wins, and surrender their control center to LRH and then the Church.

    That is a major flaw built into Scientology. But to be fair to LRH, it is part and parcel to about every religion and philosophy on earth, even on the few systems that state you are self determined, it is usually implied otherwise in the group approach and practices and somehow ended up being reversed anyways.

    When you enter Mind and Spirit you are the pilot, even under auditing, you are allowing the auditor to guide and assist you ONLY. You never completely surrender your control center to ANYONE, not even LRH.

    The other key step into the trap is evaluating yourself into the group given identity.
    It is very simple; you exclude any other beingness and accept that synthetic identity.
    The identity was never yours to begin with.

    We have to build tolerance to simplicity of beingness and to a lack of strong group identities.

    I really don’t think its more complicated than that.

  36. I love these recent posts of Marty’s. And this one is no exception as I chuckled to myself saying … oh boy, he’s going to really make some people mad. Of course, it will be somewhat modified by saying – I never *really* bought the party line, OR I *did* buy the party line but it wasn’t no line and you Marty have gone over the edge. But I love you anyway.

    Doesn’t matter much really because what is clearly the most real to me is that scientology offers someone the answers they are looking for at the time they are asking those questions.

    When they cease asking those questions or start asking different questions that aren’t answered within scientology – the person leaves quietly, noisily, or somewhere in between.

    I’ve never regretted my years in scientology and am fortunate cause the years of coulda and shoulda left me when I heard these words from LRH …

    You are responsible for your own condition.

    I believe these words have been spoken before LRH and will be spoken again by others.

    It’s how I try to live my life … with the comforting thought that if I created this, I can create something else if I choose to.

    Christine

  37. Nice post! When I read that part in KSW 1 I felt trapped and wanted to leave, because I didn’t want to stay in the group I was in, under those circumpstances forever.I had to get ‘handled’ to eventually stay.

    I don’t have anything against loyalty, but it must be self determined, or else it is a mockery. I could and would stay for the duration of the universe with a person(s) who operates on the basis of true ARC and KRC. But to stay to have somebody spit 1.2-2.0 ‘tone 40.0’ orders at me? Nah, find another mule.

    For long I was told that I had a ‘problem’ because I didn’t like to be bossed around. Now I’m glad I had that ‘problem’.

    • Another point over which I got myself charged, was that disobedience was a crime (I think?) in the ethics book. Was it disobedience towards LRH texts or some senior. And why was disobedience also called Q&A, would only a banky person disobey another? I really couldn’t figure that stuff out –the admin TRs, and the upper indoc TRs outisde of session. I never felt I could go out and order people and control them like that, without sort of forcing them, and thus making it an overt. Did anybody have such an EP? Did I do something wrong? I don’t know. I did feel I could controla nother in session with his agreement though, I don’t have a problem with that.

      I can imagine a group wherein it’s members would like and trust each other so much that would allow that to happen. But I haven’t observed any such group in this lifetime. I felt like me and some members who were very controlling actually played a game against each other, not with each other. I felt like they were constantly trying to get my agreement, but not with ARC –rather by enforcement or deceit. I had to donate and I had to volunteer or else I was baaaaad and I didn’t care about clearing the planet etc. I think that’s rabbish. Since the beginning I had good intention towards that group and the world and myself etc, and yet I was h(a)unted with O/W write-ups and conditions and admin that I never felt I needed and never improved my condition in any way (proof that I’m SP?). Maybe all that was wrong and bad about me, was that those controlling people never intended to help me be OT. I really can’t imagine an OT being forced into submission because blah blah admin, ethics blah.

      But because I have read totally contradictory principles in my beloved red scn tech, I don’t want to generalise and say that “this is scn”. I think it isn’t. I think all that is left of scn is a starter’s pack, a label and a flag of war to fight the bad guys. You know, SPs are surrounded by bad guys. They’ ae the bad guys themselves. Don’t (mis)duplicate that. It isn’t ‘reality’ that there are ‘bad guys’.

  38. “And so one of the first things a Scientologist learns to do is to assume an identity he or she has little to no experiential support for the wisdom of assuming.”

    That sounds right true as far as I am concerned!

    For 15 years I was trying to be in the valence of a Scientologist when actually I am not interested in controlling others. One of the reasons why I blew is that I did not want anymore to be someone else. That was really painful.

    (F/N Cog VGIs🙂

  39. …here on the same terms as the rest of us.

    Well, can somebody please define exactly what those terms are?

    • Bryan,
      Sure, here it is:
      Blind obedience to Source, an imposed goal to spread a new and improved version of the Dharma,
      Basically being and unwilling slave to the “Scientology Crew” to regain control of this sector of the Galaxy.

      How does that sounds to you?

  40. Hummmm ~ another lesson from Marty. I’ve now taken to giving myself time with the dictionary nearby and no obligations the rest of the day to read these posts.
    I’m just getting where I can begin to understand most of the concepts. I’m not saying this to make myself look stupid [as in Tech Dic 2. the definition of stupidity is simply this – having lost the time, the place, and the object.] but looking back, I was to a very large degree.
    For the last 6 years (’90-’96) of my 19 in the SO, I lived in fear of the security guard showing up at my office with a goldenrod to take me to the RPF. I wrote Knowledge reports, Dev-T chits, Job Endangerment chits, Orders Query of reports into the the wee morning several times a week since 1985.
    It seemed the entire organization was in conflict with management. No one would talk to each other about it (forbidden) so I would think I am the only one noticing but I could ‘feel’ it in the org and with the staff.

    You said: This type of uninformed swearing of allegiance to belief, and even to beingness or identity, is not healthy for an individual … nor for those affected by such an individual.
    And you quoted: When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind,as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.”

    Often I would weigh the pluses and minuses and somehow work it out in my mind how this was the ‘greatest good’. Pluses being ‘save the planet from destruction’ ‘deliver spiritual salvation’ and I promised to help. Minuses were losing a son to suicide, left four other kids rearing pretty much up to chance, never again seeing my father (who died b4 I left), or much of my mom.
    Yes, it was unhealthy!

    But… I did agree or would not have been there and I’m so much better off now – I would not want to change a thing. However – I’m not sure I would feel this way if not for this blog.

  41. Perhaps the identity crisis is in ignoring God. LRH made the mistake of excluding God from Scientology. The 8th dynamic is the highest but LRH ignored the 8th dynamic.

    • Ron didn’t really “ignore” God. He recognized it as one of the dynamic impulses beings have (to survive through a supreme being). I just think that LRH was not a believer in a single creator (supreme being, god, etc etc) and I am in agreement with him there. Though I also recognize that many people DO believe in God and they are certainly welcome to do so as long as they don’t burn non-believers at the stake.

      • I don’t mean to be rude, nor play smartass and correct you. But this was a crushing MU for me. ‘Supreme being’ and ‘A supreme being’ are totally different concepts. Also, consider it is the dynamic of infinity…
        🙂

    • Roger From Switzerland Thought

      Wow !
      This is a great insight !
      It can make a lot of sense !
      Somehow Lrh is implying (not expressing it) that there is no god but thetans are the creators of everything. Perhaps he thought he isn’t accountable to anybody and thought he is totally pan determinated !
      But Karma is a bitch !

    • Don’t mean to come off as wholly ignorant and small minded, but the only “supreme” beings I have met, popped up the second dynamic. Anyone you come to love becomes a “supreme” being in ones eyes. That is why you will see a mother spend her life to feed her children.

      Otherwise, “supremes” are usually elected on this planet.

      su·preme (s-prm)
      adj.
      1. Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant.
      2. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement.

      David Miscavige was not elected, but he certainly worked his way into greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant, importance, degree, significance. And clearly some view him as a “supreme being”.

      We find most of our “supreme” beings in the political arena.

      Sea Org Members certainly consider themselves “supreme beings” over “wogs, public, outer org staff”. Even when they drift out here! They think they have the right to “Lord over others”. Because they were in the Sea Org!

      “Supreme being” is relative. During a home invasion if you have attack dogs and they are taking on the heat of the attack, they are suddenly the greatest in power and authority.

      “Supreme beings” carry a lot of dependents. And anyone you become dependent upon, you go the effect of. I would think any true “Supreme being” would be holy enough to grant people the right to stand on their own two feet and assume enough responsibility to make their own decisions about their own survival and ethics and enlightenment and be very glad about it. To “grant beingness” to others.

  42. Schorsch writes: “Rough times indeed. But I had a very interesting life. The only question unanswered is which life is a delusion. The Scientology life, the normal life with TV, gambling and gaming or both of them or none.”

    I find what Schorch says very moving. That’s a very profound question. Questions do not get much deeper than that. The reason it is moving is that it is easy to lose one’s life deluding oneself, following some illusion. How do you know you are not deluded? Is sincerity enough? Maybe yes maybe no…

    I read his question and asked myself: “How does one answer a question like this?” First I don’t have a ready-made answer or theory about this. The roots of this question go deeper than theories can reach. If I had an easy answer I would certainly distrust it. As Voltaire once said: “It takes to be very ignorant to have an answer to all the questions.”

    Second, to shed some light on what is delusion and what is not implies answering shedding some light on..

    So… what is real? And what is delusion, or illusion?
    What withstands the passages of time? What transcends differences, space, time, death? What’s my experience of this, rather than my thoughts and beliefs?

    The answer that comes is: “ there is a feeling within, and it is stands distinct from thoughts, reason, emotions and things. And this feeling is not a feeling like: “I feel like reading a book”. This feeling comes from the heart. Not the heart of emotions. But the heart that is the most sacred place in a person. The place where love, peace, come from, where they live, outside of time.

    My sense is that this feeling is there all the time, but I am not. This feeling is looking for me always, but I y consciously look for it not often enough. This feeling was there when I was in the womb of my mother. This feeling is what I have always been looking for through the many pursuits I have had in my life. It invites me to evolve, to grow, to feel love, to see beauty, to have my life transformed.

    My sense is that this feeling will remain when I pass away. And that if I feel it enough during this lifetime, I will keep feeling it after that. My sense is that feeling this feeling and allowing to transform me is the gateway to all the secrets of life. My sense is that this feeling is the only real reality there is. So in light of that, to answer Schorsch’s question about what paths or courses of action are delusion, and which ones are not can only be answered by the person who asks the question, based on their experience of what is real for them. Then that reality becomes a guiding to sense that is real, and what is not.

    My sense is that illusion and reality look very similar. Illusion has to look very similar to reality to remain illusion, and delusion looks very close to reality too. I realize that in the vastness of this life, all I have to tell them apart is a feeling that I feel in the heart and that, I believe, permeates all that is real. I guess that’s the difference between humans and other species… we can feel something deeper than daily motions, and see more than meets the eye…

    Back to Antoine de Saint Exupery: “Here is my secret, a very simple secret; it is only with the heart that one can see rightly, what is essential is invisible to the eye.”

    • Paul

      Very nicely said. Thank you.

      You got me thinking on that one too, and here’s what I’m thinking.

      If one defines “illusion” as something that is not “Heart” (to use your term, Heart, as I understand it), then any experience could be classed as illusion.

      But it also seems that all experience has a little “Heart” in it. If I understand your use of the term “Heart” correctly, that it is the very essence of true nature, then Heart is the source of and reason for everything. If you deconstruct anything, what you will ultimately end up with is what you started with… “Heart”.

      Perhaps the real illusion is only that we are not “seeing” the “Heart” in everything.

      Eric

  43. Thanks Marty and ya’ll here. This post and all the comments have been
    very uplifting.
    All those missions from INT when we all had to method 9 word clear
    KSW 1 until you could read it flawlessly half asleep. Those were the
    days. Maybe decompression has ended when there are no more
    nightmares about the church, staff, SO or RPF.

    Awaiting your new book Marty.

  44. I think Marty is essentially correct on this point. Most folks come into Scientology either to handle a specific problem(s) or just to become generally happier, more aware or more powerful as beings, and/or to help others reach these goals. LRH was saavy enough to understand (in building his new movement the way he did) that many people have a sort of inherent goal to be part of an “eternal movement” or to fight the huge righteous fight. You can see this in how many religious movements have developed (I’m talking specifically here about Judaism, Christianity and Islam – just go through their basic texts on this point; in Christian Bible Study, we certainly learned about being a “Solider for Christ”, battling the devil, etc). Scientology certainly follows in this tradition in incorporating the past “successful actions” in building the movement by appealing to Westerners who grew up with this traditional impulse. You know, the agonized future of every man, woman and child on Earth and salvaging this sector of the universe and that all depends on what YOU do here and now in Scientology. So you had better buckle down and get your shit together and get SERIOUS about your committment (it is not just some “game” we are playing in Scientology, etc etc etc).

    So …. yes, once you have become involved in our movement, you DO in fact now have a new and imposed identity and moral code (which most Scientologists actually initially delight in taking on, as we are now the chosen, the elect, the elite … and for a while, that is a VERY heady and wonderful feeling to have). Of course, eventually one learns (as in the above three religions I mentioned) that there are also penalties, punishments, severe consequences to one’s happiness and eternal existence if one does not toe the line with the required identity and moral code (which in Scientology has most definately changed throughout the years and that is another issue in the way one has to be willing to take on new opinions, viewpoints and required duties at the drop of a hat that one does not get a chance to inspect and decide on beforehand). Ultimately, I think incorporating these successful actions from previous religions will prove to have been a large error in judgment by LRH (in a religion/philosophy that most of its adherents thought initially would be a road to more self determinism and the creation of one’s own universe and realities and postulates).

    • Joe said,
      ‘’Ultimately, I think incorporating these successful actions from previous religions will prove to have been a large error in judgment by LRH”

      That will be the understatement of the century.

      The three main religions that you mention ARE the main cause of insanity, warfare, and unending conflict between human beings. They ARE the main cause of stupidity to mind and spirit.

      You will find the reasons for Scientologists acting so robotic and stupidly, within their past associations to those cults. They were already overwhelmed by religion when they came into Scientology.

      They were further overwhelmed by Scientology.

      Religious insanity is the main problem to a causative approach to the mind.

  45. Gayle Smith aka TroubleShooter

    Marty, You’re statement could not be more accurately and concisely stated. I spoke for two hours the other day with an individual who was targetted as the “reason for all the troubles this person’s spouse was having” for the most part because of the refusal of the more observant spouse to swallow all that was being fed. This believe before you know WHAT you’re believing in is the assumptive close and trap exercised inside the corporate church. I DO understand the point you’ve been making all along Marty about what it good and what isn’t good about Scientology in general. Scientology has been ruined by those who have perverted the concept of critical thinking with the hyper-critical behavior of someone who is withholding harmful acts they’ve committed and seek to hide their acts through the smoke screen of such hyper-critical comments about another. True heightened awareness only comes through the wisdom of personal observations and experience. When that isn’t allowed spiritually enlightening is suffocated.

    I have yet to find an analogy that fits this reversal as well as the frog in the pot having the heat turned up so slowly that it doesn’t feel it’s own skin beginning to cook.

    Good post, really good post Marty.

    • martyrathbun09

      True heightened awareness only comes through the wisdom of personal observations and experience. Amen to that.

  46. Margot Diaz Learned

    This post reminded me of when Joking and Degrading was released and how effectively that put a pall over the org where I worked. We were young and having fun and making light of day to day issues to release charge like any profession that deals so intimately with people’s lives and suddenly that was terribly, terribly wrong. One of my favorites was a game one of my best friends on staff devised called “Stop It with Policy.” He’d act like a game show host and we would all howl. All in good fun. When you can’t take a joke, life has gone askew.

    This was a great post and I love the dialog

    • Margot, the game you mentioned is an absolute outrage and the originator of such heresy and suppression needs to get 1,000 lashes with a wet noodle (suggest linguine, al dente, maybe with a red clam sauce). Seriously folks …. the tone level at the org definately moved south on the arrival of the J&D HCO B and the paranoia and the “on your guard – watch what you say” levels went way north.

      The humor question aside, any human activity can of course be done in a harmful way or used to degrade other beings or make them feel less, and making folks the butt of jokes has certainly filled that bill on occasion. But this was not a sit at all in my org.

      But … the really significant thing here is that peoples’ viewpoints changed on a dime. One day it was OK to be a certain way and say certain things and the next day, on the reading of the HCO B at muster, it was now all of a sudden NOT OK to be that way or say those things. And one’s viewpoints changed because LRH essentially said to change them, that this is now the way HE thought one should think and act. And this goes right along with what Marty was talking about – imposed identities/values.

      Scientology began with observations (truths if you agree) about human behavior and the accompanying auditing processes and techniques with the stated aim of raising a person’s level of awareness, happiness, causation and self determinism. LRH started slowly but surely over the years to add to his directives more and more about HOW Scientologists needed to be and how they needed to act on a whole host of issues along the dynamics. He certainly had every right to communicate his viewpoint to his followers, but I will again point out that these viewpoints became COMMANDS (with penalties within the group if not followed) and therein lay the danger.

  47. I think a prolem with (average) SCN and a reason for existence of KSW 1, is that everything is attributed to Hubbard. No matter how one may win and understand or misunderstand, or intentionally misunderstand SCN and use it to mess up self and others, it’s always Hubbard’s doing. If so much cause is attributed to Hubbard, then inevitably Hubbard is created as a tyrant, for some victims and perpetrators and spectators alike. I don’t agree with this idea, as I never had it by myself, by reading LRH texts, without being in comm with others. I felt more like that I was granted my self and pan determinism. I didn’t feel the same in the org though!!! I didn’t feel pushed by reading texts. I only felt pushed by reading that part in KSW 1, and some stuff off ethics (the analogy of free vs controlling stuff was 10.000 to 1 or something), but then again I had the context of the COS itself and I combined the data with the COS.

    If one attributes cause to a being, or something, that something then is cause for him. It is a matter of considerations. I even got to learn that by Hubbard –to not assign cause to others, to be free, and it is true for me according to knowingness and experience, not because Hubbard told me so.Did he write it down for me (and others) because he wanted to manipulate me? Some differentation needs to be made between each individual SCNist and Hubbard. I haven’t had a SINGLE instance wherein somebody reffered to SCN auditing tech without misinterpreting it or adding his own ideas over it, to show me that Hubbard was brainwasher or something of the sort. And all this even after all those alterations that the tech has undergone (I even find brainwashing elements within it myself now)

    I think it is very perfectly fine for one to move beyond SCN spiritualy, given the circumpstances. But really, to relieve oneself one ought to as-is. When did people that know that Hubbard was a brainwasher meet Hubbard to have him do all those horrible things to them? What if I told them that Gautama told me to do this and that to them, would thet then blame him?

    KSW 1 was tyranic indeed where I read it. But approximately 11 years have passed since I left that COS, and now it has a completely different meaning for me. If that COS knew KSW 1, and combined it with SCN basics, me and my friends wouldn’t get messed up because of the COSes squirreling –because it was plain squirreling, although it was done in Hubbard’s name (I can be very specific, if one asks me to.)

    • “….(I can be very specific, if one asks me to.)”.

      Ok, I’ll bite. Can you be more specific (i.e. elaborate)?

      • OK, are you interested or is it a challenge? I’m honestly asking because I don’t want to take up this task without some interest on the other end of the line. For the moment, I mentioned some stuff below on my last message near the bottom, they’re not too specific nor too general. If you want specific LRH refferences that have been altered in terms of text or misapplied, or ignored, let me know. But just so you (and others) know, others have made this work of comparing old with latter LRH materials and can be easily found on google as “scientology alterations” or other similar terms.

  48. Leonard Cohen’s song about standing firm while everyone calls you a
    traitor. His words start at 4:23

  49. The cult members are trying to be this thing a “scientologist” .
    To the cult members a “scientologist” is an object, it has mass, meaning and mobility.
    There is big and small “scientologists”.
    The celebrity “scientologists” are idolised by the cult members.

  50. Joe Pendleton writes: “Once you have become involved in our movement, you DO have a new and imposed identity and moral code (which most Scientologists initially delight in taking on, as we are now the chosen, the elect, the elite … and for a while, that is a VERY heady and wonderful feeling to have). Of course….. there are also penalties, punishments, severe consequences to one’s happiness and eternal existence if one does not toe the line with the required identity and moral code…which one does not get a chance to inspect and decide on beforehand).

    The same phenomenon goes on in most new religious movement that have attempt to grow rapidly. My sense is that it’s a founder’s dilemma: control or no control. Religions take a long time to grow, even these days with the web. Look around, there are not many new ones that have gained scale.

    If a founder intends to build followerships, infrastructure and operating assets within his lifetime, the default path is to regiment the spiritual practice into an organization, with command and control, rules, regulations, prohibitions, a moral and behavioral code, and more.

    So the dilemma is between having a regimented organization that has discipline, infrastructure, assets, helping deliver predictable growth, and on the other site, having an organic movement that grows on a “pull” basis, as the people embrace it around the world, but which may take centuries to reach critical mass. Some movements never take off due to chronic lack of resources or organizing capabilities, or ability to defend legal battles. Word of mouth goes only that far without communication resources, and full-time personnel and expensive lawyers. And, sadly, we live in a world where, even if you don’t do anything wrong, you need expensive lawyers from the moment you go public. I’ve met quite a few lawyers who pay the lease of their Ferraris just by filing nuisance lawsuits and getting paid to go away.

    There are exceptions. Falun Gong for example. They are new, their founder is alive, and they started to take off like wildfire. But they are a special case: even though they appear to be new, they are not really: they are like resurrection of Taoism. And because of that, they resonate deeply within the Chinese people. This is why the Chinese Government hurried to crush them before they would spread too far too fast. My sense is that, if left to themselves, Falun Gong could have become huge in a few years as they generated huge dedication in the followers: this was not a fashionable movement for the literati, this was something that Chinese people, when they got exposed to it, felt compelled give one’s life to, and that’s what raised a red flag for the government.

    Im glad to be outside a movement, and to be able to now be at peace with all these dilemmas of organization, policy, process and procedure. Im glad I don’t have to create and enforce policies. My view now is that I came alone into this world, and will leave alone, and I want to spend little time I have here not telling others what to do or not to do, but just being at peace with everyone…

    Love to you all

  51. I’m glad if I see that despite apparencies, the only control is the control of me, and the only fight against, is against me. This solves stuff for me.

  52. Speaking of Scientology’s identity crisis, has anyone else noticed Scientologists have issues with LOVE? I was going to do a survey once to find out how many Sea Org Members were orphans or raised in fister homes. They can cut off the love in an instant. Actually, there is no love, it is not a “purpose” that is acknowledged in Scientology. You see how mean and nasty they can get when you are not on the same mission? Agree to abortions and no children, turn their back on friends and family? Is it possible to survive without ARC and caring about the person in front of you? David threw his own wife under the bus for org board postings??????? What about his life long friends he threw under the bus as soon as it was convenient? The very people that pushed him into power. I don’t think you can trust in people that are robots without a heart. They are lacking in some form of quality the rest of the world has.

    • TO, I don’t feel how David acts and how a lot of those in his orbit act should be generalized to all “Scientologists”, ought it? I mean, we are not all like that, are we?

      I have heard that Sea Org in particular were trained early on that “we don’t use ARC”, presumably ‘on the job’. And of course they are ‘on the job’ 24/7, right? There was some discussion of that, the no ARC thing, on this blog awhile back.

      I do agree there was some kind of pressure in the direction of being super-dedicated and super-‘rational’ in a weird way, even back in the 1970s. I think that accounts for the many who were “evaporating into the society” even back then. I perceived the pressure to be emanating from the Sea Org, which I guess ultimately does go back to LRH. Yet I think LRH did love his family and others too.

      • Yes you are right, I should not generalize.

        “LOVE” gets addressed, I forget either on OT2 or the Clearing Course platens as an abberation right along side “hate”. I was on the word for four days before I was taken off because it would not flatten out. “Hate” was checked as to see if that was “behind it” but it wasn’t. I thought that was pretty weird. It was all treated as very very strange that this wouldn’t flatten out to a no read. In fact it was just blow down after blow down for four days. I was finally just moved on to the next level.

        • Sorry, I should have said it gets addressed as an implant if I recall. Maybe a lot of people just think of it ONLY as an implant or some kind of case thing? Sure didn’t feel like “case” to me. Didn’t run like everything else on that level I had run either.

          “Love” seems to be wholly dismissed as any “valid reason” in the Church for anything.

          MAA: You’re going to have to disconnect from that man.

          Public: But, but I LOVE him!

          MAA: He is a wog and he smoked pat and blah blah blah…

          Public: But, but I LOVE him.

          MAA: Sentenced! 12 intensives of sec checks, 2d FPRD, Happiness Rundown, the PTS SP DETECTION COURSE, and the Hubbard Personal Ethics and Integrity Course!

          In fact, “Love” gets filed under “out 2d” catagory in the Sea Org a LOT!

          When did you EVER hear someone in the Church say, “Oh! You Love him? Well, that is what matters most ! I’m SO happy for you! ”

          The happiness factor isn’t even considered. After two people spend the night together if they are VGI’s the next day, why would you send them to the RPF? Yet, if they were not married or did not CSW to get married and get married, they are sent to rehabilitation camp. As if they caught some kind of virus that if spreads, will wipe out the culture!

          I have heard of people getting punished and humiliated for admiration! It’s called “out 2d” flows. Or “2d flows”. Yes, admiring someone can be very dangerous if you are a Sea Org member.

          I have considered the reason children were outlawed by Miscavige and abortion became a “standard handling” is because children are EVIDENCE of love.

        • I just found a reference in the last few days that cleared up this mystery for me.

          “The basic definition of affinity is actually lost in antiquity. The word was chosen, by the way, from the ancient days of magic. The magicians, the ancient magicians, used this word consistently and continually. It actually means “occupying the same space.” L.R.H.

          On some level I was aware of this. I was getting reads on this. Of course, all of that “OT case” was occupying the same space. I might have been able to go all through NOTS just running that word.

          Funny thing is, Hubbard describes this upper level case as having “common engrams”.

          That was not true for me and I have not been able to “sever connections” through engramic incidents. There has always been a ribbon of love someplace in all of the “extra OT Case” I have had to run to get a blow.

  53. Chris from Germany

    Dear Marty,
    don´t get what you wanted to communicate with your article. Of course, EACH paragraph from EVERY author can be misunderstood and subsequently be misused and leading to a lot of harm on the dynamics. So I do understand that people might have experienced trouble due to what Scientologists might have made of that paragraph.
    But it seems like you wanted to introduce the thought that Ron was already very much mislead in the year 1965 when he wrote KSW 1, still in the year 1980 when he reissued it and the same so in 1985, when it was reissued again.
    I understand that anyone – in order to become really free – in the end also has to free oneself from the concept of Scientology and Ron, too. Even Ron himself shared and promoted that concept.
    Was this your article an effort to “show” how weird Ron was – from 1965 on? In order to forcefully pull your readers away from their “Guru”?
    Do you really believe that KSW 1 is bullshit? Until now I haven´t understood you that way. Gave me a little ARCX.

    • martyrathbun09

      I did not convey any of the things or exert any of the efforts you ask about. So, apparently no need for an upset.

    • Wow, Chris. All of us who have been involved in the church go through re-evaluation. We need to look at things squarely, especially after having spent years keeping things suppressed in the misapplied name of “greatest good,” or whatever. It is no easy process. It can be restimulating at times, and we may find that we need to backtrack if we are heading toward some kind of erroneous conclusion. It takes courage to do this, but without looking and saying what we see, we are reduced to robots.

      There is no higher show of support to Ron and his discoveries than taking an honest look. Far from showing how “weird Ron was,” I believe that Marty’s intention is to respectfully look and find the truth in Ron’s work. And, I don’t think Ron would have wanted it to be any other way. . . . his information should be looked at honestly . . . and discrepancies, if any, should not be hidden.

      From my experience in Scientology, Ron’s fear was not that people would be discerning of his tech. Rather, he wanted to avoid having people misapply perfectly GOOD tech, resulting in its not working, and then blaming it on the perfectly workable tech. He, therefore, had strict rules regarding following the tech exactly.

      However, I also know from listening to tapes that Ron did not consider himself to be god, and he corrected or edited HIS OWN work if, after making an inspection, he found something in need of a revision or restatement.

  54. This is really a great article Marty. I realized not too long ago that KSW was the main reference point that turned Scientology into the cult it is today. It says it right in there, that you got to be the guy with the dedicated glare. That’s not me. I cannot be this person. I cannot be a zealot.

    KSW really messes with your head. You got to assume this new identity. You are now on a mission. On a jihad, It’s a wrong identity. Most people just want to be happy, be successful, have friends, have sex, this does not make them happy it turns them into zealots on a mission from God. (yikes)

  55. Hi;

    I think that the degree of enforcement of a valence upon Scientologists is directly relative to their ‘position’. For staff, or for those who were ‘up and tight’ with the org, those who were there a lot of their time but not on staff, being forced into a valence was more … ruthless, as compared to those who came in for a service and then immediately left. For the latter, they could go for years and not really get hit by it.

    I’ve noticed over the last 20 years, those who hate the subject, who hate LRH, are those who were the most intimately connected. No one hates the subject or LRH more than an X-SO. The upset is proportional to the original ARC. Those who just took a service and went home, who never were tightly bound to the subject except for first dynamic reasons, when they leave the CofS, they have less to say, probably because there was less ARC to begin with.

    There are exceptions, but the above is pretty accurate.

    My opinion.

    • Bob: I’ve actually noticed that the ones who are the most vociferous in their apparent hatred of LRH and the entire subject of Scientology are those who have never been involved OTHER than as critics. They are ones who carry the torch of hatred … at least that’s what it looks like to me when reading other blogs/websites.

      Those who were intimately connected, who were ex-SO actually tend to be at some point with enough communication willing to acknowledge that indeed that did get something out of the experience – even if was only a spouse or two🙂

      • Hi WH!

        Yes, that is true, but I was commenting on those who have been involved with Scientology.

        My view on the X-SOs is from observations over the last 21 years, reading and participating to some degree since the early days of ARS and ACT. Without a doubt, those X Scientologists who are the most upset are X-SO, hands down, no other ‘group’ comes even close. Of course, I suppose some public pc or student may rant and rave even more, but generally speaking, the X-SO are at the top of the list.

        LRH comments somewhere, I don’t know where exactly, and it is obvious, that ARCXs, upsets, are in direct proportion to the original ARC, so that X.SO top the ‘upset’ chart is of no surprise to me.

        What did surprise me was just how many of them are so completely disconnected from any benefit from their CofS experiences, that they attack the tech and LRH. That really did come as a bit of a shock. I can see why someone is upset, and even to a great degree, as was I, but I found it odd that they’d decry anything to do with auditing tech. To me, it shows just how great the ARCX really is.

        I think these days, there are more options open to those who leave. Now there is the internet, so one can probably destim quicker than those poor souls of yesteryear because of all the comm available. When you are a ‘lonely only’, things can stick with you for quite a while. But, even to day, on this and other blogs, there are X-SO who swear that there is no value to auditing whatsoever, or anything in Scientology and will have nothing to do with it.

        None of this is meant to be a criticism, just an observation.

        b

  56. Ron said that the lower parts of the tone scale mocked the upper parts. If ARC could be twisted to mean communicating with stone cold TRs, if KRC could get twisted to mean forcing control, if pan determinism is mixed with other determinism, if ethics is morals, if SPs handle your PTS conditions, if altering SCN is ‘golden age of tech/knowledge’, if we need to create a safe environment for OTs (lol), if ‘going free’ means blind obedience, if ‘OT’s make jokes about OT abilities, if life is basically a dumb, wrong, guilty bad preclear who needs to have ethics put on him because… if if if if…no wonder why an ani-squirreling issue became a tool of suppression in the hands of squirrels. It is all so ironic, in that COS. The contradictions are just too crazy to figure out. Maybe this madness is what seals the fraud. Things are just too crazy to be believed. Moreover, If one (for instance, me) thought about all that stuff and dared to comm about them, it would be pointed out at him that he is guilty or very guilty (SP). But I’m glad I can laugh about all this now, looking from outside. I had lots of fun making myself so stupid, while ‘my IQ went up’ lol another contradiction. If there were numbers to measure sanity, mine would had reached some point near psychosis though, with such (basic) conflicting ideas that I carried. Fortunately, I’m neither a dianeticist, nor a psychologist so I don’t mind to be crazy –but in a different sense now.

    This stuff simply cannot be figured out. So better truly confront, and don’t think –no additives! Just perceive.

  57. When I first read this quote I took it as a hyperbole as well but thought it was an inappropriate one in the context of a movement dedicated to help. so I didn’t take it seriously. The trouble was that people tried to enforce the valence. In the eighties when I was training it was still relatively easy to humor the staff and get them to lighten up but not so as the years went by and consequently I had my fair share of fear and feeling of not being up to the task.The whole idea is ridiculous and damaging as we have observed .
    Eventually The workable aspect of Scientology solves the problem for some but why enforce this problem in the first place?
    The workability of the subject is way enough to create self determined dedication.

  58. This becomes an issue when Div 4 training policies are rotely imposed on Div 6B training environments, without regard for the clearly posted awareness characteristics of the org board and Div 6 policies generally. Oi vey.

  59. “When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe ……..”

    What I would like to understand is ‘why’ Ron would author such a seemingly (if not blatantly) anti-scientology directive in the first place? Already the phrase “Ron was a con” has garnered enough traction in society at large to effectively prevent millions of potential scientologists from even dreaming of becoming an actual one. And quotes like the one above would appear (absent clarification) to provide more jist for the proverbial mill. Most especially given his/the immediate following line:

    “……….never permit an open minded approach…..”

    Never permit an open minded approach? Really? Thus an individual, in order to be a scientologist is hereby (or thereby) saddled for the rest of their entire life with a demanded and mandated closed-mind (regarding any and all future personal ‘freedom’ of association, of choice, of self determinism, of will, etc) by way of Ron’s absolutist (unexplained) executive anti-freedom ‘identity’ decree?

    “And so one of the first things a Scientologist learns to do is to assume an identity he or she has little to no experiential support for the wisdom of assuming.”

    Surely Ron’s demand had the intellectual underpinnings of both motive and intent. Based upon either raw (or refined) data or raw (or refined) opinion (or both) which justified (to Ron) the otherwise absurdity of issuing such a totalitarian directive/decree in the name of producing freedom producing individuals (i.e. auditors) no less. After all, the Science of Scientology, is the science of Identity when it’s all been said and done. How they are created, started, changed, stopped etc. etc. As well as how they are enslaved and how they are set free. And Ron was a Master at it. So why the creation of ‘enforcement’ of a Scientologist identity? Surely Ron knew……

    “…..This type of uninformed swearing of allegiance to belief, and even to beingness or identity, is not healthy for an individual…”

    ……and demanded it anyway (of his followers).

    Was it an oversight? a misjudgement? a stroke of brilliance? a game?

    • Larry, my take on it is speculative, but here it is:

      He wrote it in 1965 and it was directed specifically at those who were responsible for training new auditors, no-one else, and LRH had his own definition for “open-minded”. By which he meant a person who was actually incapable of making up his own mind about the truth or untruth of things, and lived in a perpetual state of “maybe it’s true,maybe it’s not”, no matter how much evidence they see one way or the other. He wanted such people to “quit fast” because they would never be effective auditors.

      I have read this issue over and over and I have never been able to see anything in it except an exasperated LRH saying “Follow the instructions dammit and you’ll get the best results!” Subsequently he developed the Class VIII auditor training course to hammer this attitude in.

      I think auditing was relatively easy for LRH; the basics, like having his TRs “in” and maintaining a Comm cycle with ARC came pretty naturally to him, as it actually does to some people. I think originally he had no idea how many people would simply not be easily able to just copy(duplicate) what he did, and this exasperated him because he knew that if folks would just do what he did, they would get good results.

      If you listen to some of his early recordings, his ‘auditing’ is very conversational yet sticks to the basics of auditing very well.

      Maybe other commenters can expand on or correct what I have written here?

      • martyrathbun09

        Frustration with the student belongs nowhere in training. If a good teacher cannot get across his point he looks to improving the communication of that which he is attempting to get across. If he flips his lid and starts blaming the student and attempting to scare him into understanding, then I think we’ve got a problem, Houston.

        • I think LRH was frustrated with the ‘trainers’ or those who were responsible for training, perhaps mainly those who were a couple of degrees away from those he had personally trained, and wrote KSW for them, not for the students.

          But that’s just how I read it.

          “Send four and sixpence, we’re going to a dance”.

  60. I have heard a very disturbing explanation…

    I went to lunch with an old friend still involved with the Church. He had been in contact with a Class 9 auditor and wanted her to talk to me. I said I am not interested.

    Of course she and some other woman show up to my door. I had to handle them, with an “I am not interested”. It stops all comm. They tried to dig for awhile and finally gave up.

    I told an old friend, that is off line, and we had a discussion about the situation. I told him my Scientology friend was told he was not clear after being so for over 30 years. I said if it was a grass roots organization it could never happen.

    He said this:

    ‘It’s an avenue to generate income…They can’t get new people in so have to extort from the old to meet income targets.’

    Sigh… Can that be true!! Or is he being too cynical??

    Groups… I never have trusted them..

  61. This is an interesting point because I always thought that anyone to really keep in KSW #1 or KSE #33 (How to Defeat Verbal Tech…) would have to not just have the book but be very learned or even fully schooled in the subject of Scn.

    Also, knocking out and hammering out of existence would require the same background.

    So, we have a wonderful science but should keep point number one that everyone reads and hears or should read and hear, “What is true for you is true for you” and then be very watchful to make sure that this point is not overstepped.

    Thanks for your mailings.

  62. Oraclemysticism writes: “…Has anyone else noticed Scientologists have issues with love?……. There is no love, it is not a “purpose” that is acknowledged in Scientology.
    And Iamvalkov echoes: “here was some kind of pressure in the direction of being super-dedicated and super-’rational’ in a weird way”. I also do not see Scientologists mentioning that their path leads to an experience of Love, and by that I melove with a big L, a higher form of love, independent from people or circumstances. The kind of love that mystics have talked about throughout the ages.

    Oraclemysticism’s observations show how diverse religious/spiritual paths can be. I’ve been involved in spiritual paths which, by contrast, saw reason as of little relevance, and instead relied on inner experience that is independent from thought and reason which it sees as unable to understand and connect with reality. The way it worked was very different from Scientology: no auditing, no training, nothing to read. Videos of the master to watch and a secret technique that was shown when the person is ready, to enable this person to connect within, experience the self, and then it was a matter of practicing this breath after breath. And practicing this practice led to the person having an experience, a new understanding, and being transformed.

    The journey was about experiencing. feeling, understanding, not thinking nad not reasoning. And the feeling was not the kind of feeling one feels with the senses, but a “divine” feeling from within that is independent from worldly circumstances.

    Scientology appears to reside on the other extreme of the spectrum of religious experiences. Marty once wrote a great post about Scientology having an excess of Yang. For an outside observer of Scientology like me, this rings very true.
    The paths I’ve been involved in had excesses of Yin. I see that balance is good…
    I’m fascinated by the fact that some people find fulfillment Scientology, with that much “Yang”, while other people find satisfaction in paths and practices that are “Yin intensive..” Such is the diversity of people and spiritual experiences while, ultimately, the nature of reality is one….

    This convinces me even more that developing a keen interest in other paths is not just helpful: it is important. It is beneficial to embrace a holistic, integrated approach to the knowledge of the self. So if I rely too much on reason, I can integrate more Yin, heart, feeling, and if I rely too much on Yin I can embrace a bit more reason. If everyone did this my sense is that this would be a small but decisive first step toward having more shared understandings among people on this planet!

  63. This fits perfectly with my experiences of SCN valences, ‘ethics’, and O/Ws”

    *ABERRATIVE VALENCE**, people from whom one felt that one could not withhold anything were the most *aberrative valences** on the case. We thus have a new definition for *aberrative valences**, namely the “cannot withhold from” *valence**. (PAB 128)

    • Wow! That sums it up! Great post! Thanks! I had never seen this!

      • Tee-hee😀

        I hadn’t paid any particular attention on this one either. I was just browsing through the ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ before (I hadn’t in years, but it’s the only SCN dictionary I would consult), and stumbled upon it, out of holy randomity.

  64. gretchen dewire

    Paul, I always love your comments. I was in scientology for awhile and now have been meditating for some time. The balance between the intelectual understanding and the “feeling” of spiritual freedom seems to be very important. However I will say that when I did my scientology objective processing, what I experienced was not intelectual by any stretch. I felt totally free and had that great feeling of love in my heart that scientologists call high ARC . I cannot say if other auditing would accomplish the same feelings as things with me and scientology started to then go south very quickly. As for identity and all that ksw stuff, I just ignored it and plunged ahead to get the promised gains. I figured I could pay more attention to that when I understood more. However I do have alot of bipassed charge on what went down with me and the church, but Marty and Mike Rinder are helping that unpleasant feeling go away. Thanks guys

  65. “Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.”

    ― Dr. Seuss, Happy Birthday to You!

    “It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. – from The Age of Reason”

  66. @Gretchen Dewire thank you for the kind words, and for the explanation about ARC, I understood what the acronym ARC means, but I was not clear on the underlying experience. Your comments help!. Thank you again Paul

  67. Marty,

    Great thought-provoking post.

    Conceptually I agree with KSW 1, despite its off-putting hyperbole and 1.5 tone level. I agree with it because I think LRH wrote it as a solution to training auditors, in volume, quickly. And, I believe, to that end, he was concerned about students and supervisors following standard auditing tech, whether they understood why it was workable and correct or not. Now, this is just my opinion, but it is how I’ve always “thought with” KSW 1 – as an auditor-training-in-volume tooL.

  68. And, contextually, I think the hyperbole, stuff like, “On board for the duration of the Universe, live or die in the attempt”, “we’d rather have you dead than incapable”, was also a tool, a colorful writer’s tool to grab attention of the reader so as to drive home his point about out-tech and what it can do to people’s cases. My opinion.

  69. Very good article. I am going through many
    of these issues as well..

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