Ishmael

 

Some folks have found my repeated reference to the Tao Te Ching to be puzzling.  Some Scientologists have simply used it to write me off as being lost. The Tao is such a radical departure from the ‘philosophy’ Scientologists learn and abide by – even while denying to themselves such adherence exists – that some dismiss it as philosophical gobbledygook.  I have commented on the polar nature of those philosophies (Scientology and the Tao) and noted it as an important reason to become acquainted with the Tao, e.g. The Tao of Scientology.

The fact of the matter is that a consistent construct in Scientology requires the adherent to mock up and act out the identity of conquerer.  For example, a Scientologist is taught to view the universe as an epic struggle of the spirit’s sole mission as the conquest of the physical universe.  Such a view can and often does, if not mitigated by deeper understandings, result in destruction of that which one programs oneself to conquest; not to mention the weakening or destruction of the ‘conquerer’ himself.

Many have recognized this on some level and have departed the church because of the dangerous environment such a philosophy ultimately creates.  Many of them spend years then applying an harmonic of this same warlike philosophy toward the church, ‘it is the church or current management that needs to be conquered.’  Others facilely write off the ‘conquest’ attitude as an attribute of church management and go off to apply what they call ‘real Scientology’ independently.   Inevitably, to the degree they avow to remain loyal to Scientology ‘philosophy’, those independents wind up playing the conquest game against one another.  It happened with the first independent movement in the eighties and the second one more recently.

To the extent one recognizes this mentality in himself he objectivizes it and can thus let it go.  An increase in equanimity and personal peace can ensue.  That which was useful and survival for someone in his or her Scientology experience can more easily and naturally be recognized and reinforced.  That which was of negative worth and non-survival can be recognized and let go of.

The continuing recommendation of the Tao as integral reading and understanding was meant to set this salutary evolution in progress.

But, I understand how ‘left field’ this recommendation can seem to those living the Scientology construct of ‘conquest of matter, energy, space and time’, ‘conquering the reactive mind’, ‘putting ethics in on the planet’, ‘gaining territory for Scientology’, etc.

I just read a book that may help to bridge the gap between the necessity-of-conquest think and learning to let go or living and letting live.  It communicates the essence of the Tao (without ever making any reference to it) in more modern terms.  It does so in an entertaining and currently-relevant fashion.   That book is Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit by Daniel Quinn.  It is a novel that tells a story in a creative, unique and interesting setting  – a story that is captivating in and of itself.  It explores some scientific, philosophic and religious constructs that Scientologists are taught early-on to discard in their entirety – the Bible and Evolution of Species.  In that regard, those who have bought into and scrupulously adhered to Hubbard’s wholesale rejection of such fields will learn a little something about perhaps the two most common poles of thought on this planet.  You don’t have to buy into either of those poles, but I bet you will never look at them (or those who believe in them) the same way.  You might recognize the parallels of both with Scientology philosophy and thus be more able to put Scientology and your experience with it in a sane and nurturing context. Maybe more importantly, you might begin to take a more realistic, informed view of the planet, humanity, and civilization and your participation in it.

117 responses to “Ishmael

  1. I bought the book, and will read it.

    • I can’t for the life of me imagine why anybody would criticise a recommendation towards Taoism. Even those who are dyed-in-the-wool Scientologists should recognise that LRH valued it highly; his only critique, to paraphrase, was that “it expects you to be economical”. I suppose therein lies the difference!

      I do get more of a Taoist “feel” from The Factors, and for me personally it takes a high place in the series of lectures. There is a lot of emphasis on space and beingness over anything else:

      “But let’s be very interested right now in why one is incapable of suddenly reestablishing his belief in beingness. And the first place is data. He is data-happy.”

      “What are you trying to do when you’re auditing? Change beingness. That’s it. I really shouldn’t have to say any more.”

      I do believe that there’s a valid form of “control” in the sense of integrating with something – and then it doesn’t hold the power to harm. I believe this is what LRH was ultimately teaching. But I can see how strong the emphasis is on the idea of control in the first place.

      Marty, have you read any Mantak Chia? He is a Taoist master who teaches some very powerful techniques. He starts off with simple but effective exercises such as “the inner smile”, and then gets progressively more profound, finally into total cosmic integration.

      “In 1983, Mantak Chia introduced the Microcosmic Orbit to the West. Prior to that time, most of the Eastern energy practices transmitted to the West were incomplete, dealing only with the ascending yang/masculine channel, which shoots life-force energy up the spine. The Microcosmic Orbit showed practitioners how to establish the descending yin/feminine channel of the life-force energy loop. Within Taoist systems, cultivating feminine energy has always been seen as the key to gaining balance and wholeness.”

      This is a very good basic book to start with:

      http://www.amazon.com/Chi-Self-Massage-Taoist-Rejuvenation-ebook/dp/B004DNW60W/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374895181&sr=1-1&keywords=Chi+Self+Massage

  2. Marty,

    This is indeed a very enlightening and entertaining book.

    In my absence and silence I have spent some time each day doing some fascinating reading by authors and sources from all walks of life. This includes actually studying the Bible and the Koran (for the first time) mainly to get a good grip on what they actually says. It also included some historical Bible research to dissect how the current versions came to be throughout the ages, and, I’m afraid to say, Dan Brown was not entirely accurate but rather fictitious still…

    Adding it all together with my passion for the Tao Te Ching and other classics like the Vedas, it has become very apparent to me that almost all these philosophies and early messengers of these philosophies (like Jesus, Buddha, etc) all have very similar views on life in general. They are also not far divorced from the Scientology principles that were aimed at truly helping an individual become more self-determined and freed from baggage holding him back.

    You stated in an earlier blog post, “Whether souls are actually separate units or individual manifestations of a greater, all-encompassing body of spirit is a philosophical question that has been argued through the ages.”

    I’ve had many a discussion regarding this philosophical question. For one, having it so resolved appears to bear no impact on being able to improve man in this physical universe.

    Based on the above book (Ishmael) as well as the Tao Te Ching it appears though that neither extreme could ultimately be a truth but the answer probably lies somewhere in between – meaning we are all part of some sort of oneness, but we choose how and what we are part of, as determined by each individual’s enlightened potential and only when this determination is free from all but pure harmony (no must-haves, can’t-haves, resistances, obsessions, etc) can this be accomplished. At least, this seems to be a most probable answer.

    Even regarding this hypothesis, boys like Jesus, Buddha and modern men like the Dalai Lama seem to pretty much be in accord, and, they are in accord with much of the fundamental principles of the mind as laid out in Scientology. I’m talking principles and not anecdotal opinions as voiced numerous times by LRH.

    Why then all these divergences? Based on my own look at history, it seems like every time these philosophies are turned into a religion or tried to be organized by a group which creates adherence, the resulting dogma destroys the philosophy. This is true (to me) about Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Scientology.

    Your continuing thoughts, Marty, as laid out in your blog are always intriguing to consider and your book recommendations are always excellent!

    • martyrathbun09

      It is great to hear from you again Ulf. Thanks for sharing your wisdom. As to one or all, I think you can have it both ways: https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/integration-evolution-and-transcendence/

      • Marty wrote:Is one then a separate, distinct identity or a part of a single infinity?
        It would appear that it all depends upon how one is viewing himself and the universe.
        Can one have it both ways?
        Inevitably.”

        Occasionally it is taught/discussed thusly:

        Likening “the single infinity” to the ocean …

        And the “one separate, distinct identity” to a wave …

        We can see that you cannot separate the ocean from the wave NOR the wave from the ocean. And yet they are not the same.

        Christine

        • “We can see that you cannot separate the ocean from the wave NOR the wave from the ocean. And yet they are not the same.

          -Christine

          Like friday said in the book Robinson Crusoe

          • Cat Daddy —-

            Really? That’s amazing. I guess I should reread Robinson Crusoe
            🙂

            • Very Small part in Robison Crousoe, Friday actually did not say that words but said when robison aked about hoe he perceived god, Friday sais something along the lines that God is in this tree and the fruit I eat.

              Pretty much along the lines of Spinoza and later Einstein

              Spinoza:

              God=Nature

        • I have investigated Christianity since finishing with the Co$ and I can dismiss the superficial cult stuff easily. The esoteric info leads one to realise that the scriptures had a secret code of wisdom for those that have ears to hear it that demonstrated that any being can aspire to be at one with the Supreme Being AND be a empowered individual being too at the same time. It is a hard concept for some people. To be AT ONE is the promised ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ Yheshua told people that it was within you. Identity is superficial. GOD can be all things at all times. We/You are simply a reflected facet of GOD, albeit one that still needs to experience and learn the extent of the potential of that Beingness. LOVE!

  3. I think so too, though you laid it out in much more refined terms. I live right by the University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong and having befriended some professors from there, I can confirm that the scientific community, at least here, are also thinking along the same lines as you laid out back in February.

  4. Marty,

    Quote you:Some folks have found my repeated reference to the Tao Te Ching to be puzzling. Some Scientologists have simply used it to write me off as being lost. The Tao is such a radical departure from the ‘philosophy’ Scientologists learn and abide by – even while denying to themselves such adherence exists – that some dismiss it as philosophical gobbledygook.

    Me: Anyone who accuses you of referring to the Tao and other subjects of comparable magnitude has flunked scientology. They are not qualified to comment on anything. They have not did their homework. They have not read or understood : ” How to study a science (or Scientology)”. In this article Hubbard is in essence saying: In order to understand a subject, you have to think for your self and read and study and evaluate and apply and test all other datums of comparable magnitude (for workability) in the known universe. He is saying if you are only blindly accepting what I said as true, without questioning it and doing your own research, you are being a parrot and that is an aberration. A subject of comparable magnitude means any subject in existence that attempts to help man understand himself better, increase his ability, improve his life, understand others and the world around him, help him bring order and sanity to his life and others and the world around him, help him understand the universe and the like. If you don’t do that it is impossible to understand scn.

    Subjects of comparable magnitude are all religions, spiritual teachings, philosophies, and all personal and professional development programs and such books today. Subjects for better health. And more.

    So your critics are failures. They are aberrated parrots. Place those people on the Hubbard chart of human evaluation and see what tone level and theta level they are at.

    If you can’t build a better bridge and do it your own words, you have flunked scn.

    The biggest room in the world is room for improvement.

    What was true yesterday is not necessarily true today.

    • “What was true yesterday is not necessarily true today.”
      -Dio
      “Never regret yesterday. Life is in you today, and you make your tomorrow.”
      -L. Ron Hubbard

  5. There’s probably is a lot of truth to what you say in your post.

    I can’t help but find it a bit odd though that you are giving advice to people to not be so “conquering” when you were doing that pretty much as a career while you were in the cult for over 30 years. Obviously you have a right to change and I think that you have changed is awesome.

    It kind of reminds me of the sinner who finds Christ and then starts to tell others how they are sinners.

    I think that the Sea Org were much more heavily indoctrinated into this conquer attitude as it doesn‘t really resonate with me as a problem with most people outside of the cult.

    But in my opinion it isn’t a bad thing to help fight the cult, if you do it at a level you are comfortable with.
    Maybe you are going full circle. I don’t mean that as an invalidation either.

    • martyrathbun09

      I apppreciate your right to psychoanalyze me; I don’t accept your evaluation by my silence about it. If you ever tire of analyzing the messengers and consider thinking about any of the messages, I highly recommend this one (this book) above all others that I have made.

      • It does sound like an interesting book.
        You seem free to give your psychoanalyzing of others, I figured you wouldn’t mind the return flow.

        • martyrathbun09

          I told u I appreciate your right to do that Tony. What else do u want? Are you looking for a fight? On whose behalf? For what purpose?

        • I can recall a time when you and Marty were on the same page about everything…You cared about each other and supported one another.
          What happened? Marty’s choice to no be a part of destroying something is a good thing….It’s sad to see the animosity coming from you now.😦 What if you just cared about Marty and not judged him on anything?

          • Hi Summerwind and Marty,
            I still care about Marty. I just call them the way I see them. I thought being out of the cult was to be able to be here and communicate.
            When he write posts I like then I compliment them (see my comments on his last one) and when he doesn’t I just share my opinions. If you look at my comment here, I think that I make some good points.
            And no Marty, I don’t want a fight. Just communication. On nobody’s behalf and I haven’t heard anything about you for a long time.
            The purpose for making the comments are that you seem to take issue with people fighting the cult as being a conquering attitude and that being bad somehow. Mike RInder is fighting the cult and lots of others are too. Just because you have changed doesn’t mean that you have to take shots at others that still want to fight them.

            • martyrathbun09

              Well, I said specifically ‘conquest.’ Does that define Mike Rinder – and the others you haven’t named – that you consider I am taking a ‘shot’ at? Re-reading the post, I believe you would really need to be mocking it up to interject Mike Rinder into this discussion. In either event, your eval of me is irrelevant, and gratuitous, – not to mention inaccurate – to that dreamt up scenario. Clearly, you still have not read my latest book, right?

              • I don’t like conflict but I see you both have to reach something, Mike Rinder is as I told Anonymous more of a hardcore Scientologist than you. Anonymous went all love crazy with Mike Rinder but I stuck with you.

                mikie is okay just different than you, its pretty shitty to be always in the public eye

              • No, I haven’t read it yet but I just got a copy so will read it in the near future.
                If Mike doesn’t fit the “conquest” motif in your mind then could you give an example of someone who does who is in the Indie camp? No need to mention names but just some activity that you feel demonstrates this conquest think.

                • Marty you said:”Many of them spend years then applying an harmonic of this same warlike philosophy toward the church, ‘it is the church or current management that needs to be conquered.’ ” Who do you feel this statement applies to?

                  • Tony..I truly believe in my heart that there is no need to “conquer” the current management of the church. They by their own actions are killing themselves little by little and like me…all who are still in and agreeing have lessons to learn just as all of us did…allow them to learn and they will leave like all the rest of us did….it just takes time.

                • martyrathbun09

                  I’ll answer your questions after you’ve read the book; but I have a feeling you won’t have those questions any more.

    • Well depends on what do you want to conquer, you better stay out of my country, We dutch are trying to clear the planet with Dutchology.

      We dutch are the above aware average elite. We control the world by means of the Bilderberg Group. Our Queen was head f that and now with our new KIng we anounche “The Golden Age of Orange”

      Commodore Cat Daddy

    • “… when you were doing that pretty much as a career while you were in the cult for over 30 years. ”

      I am not sure what you are aiming at Tony. Who is better to give advice about something, good or bad, than that person who has been part of it? Please explain yourself with more detail.

  6. gretchen dewire

    I have read the book “Ishmael” it is delightful. So much so, I bought many copies to give to friends.Living in the wotld of mest, maya. yin and yang etc.we can become constant victims of these dhicotomies.Spiritual freedom for me is to be able to step outside these dualities and be free to view the universe from all viewpoints at will. I dont have a clue if I will ever get there , but thanks for all your help and inspiration.

    • gretchen, I love what you wrote: “Living in the wotld of mest, maya. yin and yang etc.we can become constant victims of these dhicotomies.Spiritual freedom for me is to be able to step outside these dualities and be free to view the universe from all viewpoints at will. I dont have a clue if I will ever get there , but thanks for all your help and inspiration.”

      Thank you so much for sharing your perspective!

      p.s. I have a very strong belief that YOU are inherently free However,you can pretend, wish, believe, postulate, consider (whatever word fits best for you) that you are not. As for ‘getting there’ IMO, YOU cannot help but get ‘THERE.’ Indeed, I don’t think you’ve ever really been any place else. 🙂

  7. “There is only one security, and when you’ve lost that security, you’ve lost everything you’ve got. And that is the security of confidence in yourself; to be, to create, to make any position you want to make for yourself. And when you lose that confidence, you’ve lost the only security you can have. … Self-confidence is self-determinism. One’s belief in one’s ability to determine his own course. As long as one has that, he’s got the universe in his pocket. And when he hasn’t got that, not all the pearls in China nor all the grain and corn in Iowa can give him security, because that’s the only

    L. Ron Hubbard

  8. Thanks, Mark. I really appreciate what you do here.

    I think one of the things that Hubbard did that is so destructive to critical thinking, is that he described in pretty good technical detail the very trap you’re describing here. That gives him credibility because his
    descriptions really are the truth of it. A great
    invitation to take the bait. Next thing you know though, he is using those exact mechanisms very
    (apparently) deliberately. So if you live in the universe where “Scientology is true,” you’re screwed. Weather Hubbard meant it to be that way or not, it still has a strong aspect of a confidence game.

    “The GPM is the source of insanity. You MUST choose which side you are on, or else!”

    • GoVoluntary,

      Look at it from all angles. Yes there is a trap, a very big and clever one. There is also a gold mine of wealth as bait or even in a quagmire of bad quick sand. Those who have the yes to see, the ears to hear and the intellect to understand, will see things for what they are.

      But also don’t you see that Hubbard at the same time, provided the keys to the way out of the trap for the wise? The trap is for the fools. They deserve what they get. The wise could get the gold and find their way out of the trap and go laughing all the way to heaven. Hubbard left the keys to the way out of the trap hanging on the wall in plain sight.

      This world will punish you, steal from you, make you suffer sorrow, pain and agony, sickness and disease, and death, until you smarten up and think and do things the right way. This world will make the stupid follow a carrot on a stick that is tied to his own back.

      Scientology is a billion yr trap for fools and a power and a freedom for the wise.

      Dio

      • I tend to agree.

        I will probably never be able to make up on my mind on whether Hubbard was a huckster, a fool, or a Zen-type master executing an intricate koan.

        Actually, though, that evaluation is not so important, as time goes on. I have no real regrets.

    • GV,
      You make a very good point. Hubbard seemed to thoroughly understand the evil of many traps. Yet Hubbard went ahead and used those same traps on other people. That has always left me scratching my head. My conclusion was that Hubbard always considered himself so far superior (another whole species, in fact) to everyone else that he had no problem with trapping and using others.
      Fiat Lux

      • Many people think that. I think he just did it to keep out of the hands of the “law”

      • Whatever else you say about Hubbard, he is a great example of both the positive and negative sides of having a huge ego. I think one of the main problems
        with Scientology is that, regardless of what he actually said, his very attitude invited people to emulate that ego (but mostly just the negative aspects).

        • GV,
          Yes, very good point. When someone goes into a valence, they dramatize the easy (negative) aspects of the valence. Someone in the valence of Cassius Clay does not become champion boxer, they become a loud mouth braggart. Scientologists have mimiced Hubbard’s condescending superiority, but not Hubbard’s ability for insight and coallation.
          Fiat Lux

  9. Hi Marty,
    It seems to me you are on the right track.
    There is (was) some good in scientology, and the subject contained wisdom and application that this society could really use. (A society that can, and has, built terrible weapons but does not have a workable approach to resolve an upset.)
    If you could somehow extricate that good from the cult insanity that is unfortunately hard wired into scientology, and even advance that good, then you will really have accomplished something worthwhile.
    So, best of luck with that.
    Fiat Lux

  10. Yet another great post. A view in the history books or into the past eons reveals quickly that conquering is and has been a major former practice. Many, far too many have indulged in it. So many have suffered from it ( and still do ). Only a minority has profited from it. If a Scientologist despises former practices shouldn’t he despise conquering, too ?!

    Miscavige the King of Conquerors – of war chests, squirrel busters, prison holes and disappeared wife’s fame – confirms my above opinion fully and completely.

  11. Hello, I’ve found some good books through your blog! I just finished the Maslow book, I’ll look this one up soon! I appreciate your writing because though I’m a recovering Mormon (not Scientologist) I still find so much of it applicable to my situation. The rest, is all very informative and interesting.🙂

  12. For me Scientology had always been the attempt to increase my awarenss. I did start my life very unaware. Then with the age of 10 or so I found myself. I at least knew that I am different than my body. Later I found Scientology in the 70ies and I could at least increase my awareness a bit. But still knew that I do not know much. Like what happens when I sleep. What happened before this life. All in the dark. I had some very interesting experiences during my time in Scientology. Really very interesting. In the 70ies and early 80 there had been I call them real OTs. They did not run around demonstrating their power. Those had been the golden people. I could play with them. I had not been OT but I could play with them. I had now some real friends. Then between 83 to 88 they all did disappear. Dead or else.
    This is a real pitty for me. I lost all my friends. I lost my comrades I could play with. For me all what happened that time is completely in the dark. It is like the time track did chage.
    Scientology had not always been that way you paint it now and people had not been that way they are behaving now. Maybe some may remember those times too.
    But to face reality it seems that I drop my body some day, today or within the next 30 years or so, and then maybe come back again very unaware of myself. I have the hope if I am sent back here to Earth that I can again find myself like this lifetime. Otherwise I may live in some slum and be a robot. But then I do not know and would not care. If I can remember I again will join a group my friends are in. If this group is called Scientology or else does not matter. I still have the hope.

    • I acknowledge your loss

      “Then between 83 to 88 they all did disappear. Dead or else.”

      David Miscavige

      Butt be set straight Hubbard wasn’t a saint either, but at least he had a vision. He changed around 65/66

      not holding it against him, America was and is still a dogmatic place , We in the Netherlands have what Roosevelt wanted for America:

      • I have been thinking recently on what you’ve said about Hubbard changing during that time period, particularly in trying to come to terms with the later policies.

        I think it should be considered that trying to establish a vision of a new philosophical school/religion with a sole focus on mental development, all the while using a tool that isn’t commonly accepted, is quite threatening to many people, in particular to some authorities.

        Something that had come to mind a couple of days ago: even up until recently, many places in the world have had anti-fortune telling and anti-witchcraft laws in place; and, in some circumstances, they’re still enforced to this day. Even ordinary tarot readers and astrologers have been shut down – regardless of whether the public have an interest and wish to freely engage or not.

        One could only imagine traveling around the world with its myriad establishments and prejudices, trying to get something going that some people have a genuine interest in, amidst constant attacks and threats. I can start to see how some of those policies would begin to eventuate *for that period*. That doesn’t mean that they were the perfect way of handling it, though.

        And you’d surely start to feel quite beaten about by it all, too. However I do question whether LRH’s fundamental religious views and ideas had really changed all that much during that time period.

  13. I second Marty’s endorsement of this book. It’s been a few years since I read it, but one passage is still as fresh in my mind as this morning’s breakfast. Having been raised in a very fundamentalist Christian household, Quinn’s (or rather Ishmael’s) take on the story of Cain and Able hit me like a thunderbolt.

    • martyrathbun09

      Yeah, and the earlier events in the Garden of Eden too.

      • Some people say that event freed men. Like Scientologist get disconnected God disconnected from Adam and Eve for aquiring knowlegde throug the Forbidden fruit. God seems to be a jealous Big thetan, The beomoth

      • As I have not yet read Daniel Quinn’s book, Ishmael, An adventure of the MInd and Spirit, I cannot comment on what Ishmael said about the Garden of Eden. But, since it came up, I do have something to say about the Garden of Eden.

        As I have mentioned in earlier comments posted to your blog posts Marty, I came into the ‘Monte’ identity with an unfavorable attitude towards Christianity intact. However, after about the age of four I must have dozed off for a while and during this slumber became receptive to the Garden of Eden and original sin story. Well, around the age of 12 I woke back up and began asking questions. Questions that, even though not very well articulated, still managed to greatly annoy my various Sunday school teachers I had up through my late teens.

        Here’s a few things I find to be problematic with the Garden of Eden and original sin story (metaphor):

        a) Why would an all knowing all powerful omnipotent God have to forbid anything?

        b) If God did forbid Adam from eating the fruit from the ” tree of knowledge of good and evil” why did Eve and Adam eat of it? I mean, if God forbid something, being the creator of everything, wouldn’t that Being’s will be THE WILL void of any counter will?

        c) Why create a tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why not just create a tree of knowledge that is ONLY good and leave evil out of it?

        c) If God creates children and knows the children why would the children’s creator put them in a position where they could bring destruction upon themselves?

        Anyway, it was questions like these going unresolved that contribute to my searching out other scenarios, other paths. Eventually, I came to recognize that it was never the answers to the questions I was after. The questions themselves were all I needed.

        I went a long spell before ever encountering other Garden of Eden and original sin scenarios. I think the first was in the book The Gods of Eden by William Bramley. His scenario made much more sense to me. The next one I found in the book, The Starseed Transmissions by Ken Carey and that one made the most sense of all up to that time. Currently, though, I have an even different scenario that I find to be the most viable one yet. That said, I am aware and recognize that each scenario having to do with the Garden of Eden and original sin that I have come across has, in someway, steered me to the next, therefore, I expect there will more to come and each one (I’m sure) will make even more sense than the ones before.

        As a side note; When Adam was in the garden (before Eve was created) God put him into a deep sleep. Genesis 2:21: “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;” Oddly enough, though, there is never any reference to God waking Adam up from this deep sleep. When there is sleep there are dreams, sometimes even nightmares. Perhaps the rest of the story(s) is just coming from Adam’s dreams. Perhaps, too, we are just characters in those dreams.

    • Aeolus , The bible tries to educate in a crude way, Cain got the mark and was banished but god did not want him killed, It was the FIRST murder in the bible, God took pitty on Cain because he didnt oversee the consequenses.

      • You should read the book. There is a whole ‘nother back story there.

        • I don’t read books much anymore. The last books. I red where of Stephen King, Very last book was “The Stand” of stephen King. I onley rered it because it was first in 600 pages and later in 1000 pages uncut.

          What mostley is important is what Mosley said about not creating bagage

        • Well I just did a bit of reading in my Bible, yes I one at home, What about that Adam living up to 930 years old haha.

  14. Marty, quick off-topic question: Hubbard’s concept of the “8 Dynamics” is one of the things I find most valuable in his work. (Parenthetically, Scientologists should surely all get involved in the ecology movement if they really understand the 5th Dynamic concept!) Did he originate this or did he pick it up from somewhere else without acknowledgement, do you know?

  15. Tom Gallagher

    Marty,

    That there are those who bang around the rubber walled, high security, razor wired, mental and spiritual prisons, because you dare mention some universal wisdom along the lines of the Tao Te Ching, blows my mind.

    It seems obvious to me that those folks have never drunken from the wisdom of the founder’s cup. Nor have they even read, perhaps, his Magnum Opus, The Way To Happiness.

    Here’s the point though. Was LRH the font of eternal wisdom? Or was he another, in a long line of others foisting their conclusions on others……

    Moreover, are participants wittingly or unwittingly client centered or, rather, procedurally and orthodoxy bent?

  16. I read this book about six or seven years ago. To me it was a profound illustration of the true difference between pan-determinism and self or other determinism.

    Are we individuals, or are we group centric? Are we Takers or Leavers? These questions are effectively answered by Quinn in this book. I won’t get into the ultimate conclusions that one reaches after reading this book but suffice it to say that it helps one to truly realize the “error of our ways” to say the least.

    Great recommendation, Marty.

    Question. Did you get a chance to read that other book I reconmmended to you recently? At first blush, it may seem like a piece of fluff, but I believe that it points to the existence of a paradigm that is so large in scope that it is nearly or possibly largely beyound our ken at this time.

    One other question: With man gone, will there be hope for gorilla?

    • martyrathbun09

      Scott, hit me with it again.

    • Scott

      Just a bit of off topic trivia here…

      Did you realize that the chimpanzee is more distantly related to the gorilla than he is to man?

      Eric

      • 80% of human and mouse DNA is identical, another 19% of mouse and human DNA are direct counterparts. Human bodies are largely (99%) equivalent in make up to mouse bodies.

        Speciesism makes us be bodies. Down with Speciesism!

      • On another blog, Maria posted this information:

        “Out of almost 5,000 mammal species in the world, there are only two in which males live with their relatives in social groups and occasionally make trips into neighboring territories to stalk, hunt and kill members of neighboring groups. Chimpanzees are one. Humans are the other. And we are so closely related that a blood transfusion from one species to the other will save a life, if the blood types match.”

        That’s pretty amazing.

        and this:

        “Our violent primate nature, shared with chimpanzees, is bad news, especially when you add that both chimps and humans are extremely sensitive to imbalances of power. Gangs of males — either kind — know perfectly well how vulnerable a stranded individual neighbor is. And regularly take advantage of the situation in murderous ways, as has now been repeatedly observed among chimps in the wild. It does not require an anthropologist to observe similar behavior in humans.

        But there’s good news, too, Dr. Wrangham is quick to point out. Both humans and chimpanzees are strategically very sensible species. We both can – and do – adapt our environments. We can avoid contexts in which violent behavior is likely. And evolution also offers us another model for how primates can behave: bonobos. These are apes who ‘make love not war.’

        Professor Wrangham describes both humans and chimps as sexist, but the bonobos are not. Why? For starters, there is increased social pressure from other bonobos in the wild — they live in much larger groups than do chimpanzees. And bonobo females form strong alliances with the result that females are at least co-dominant with males. Then there’s the “copulatory behavior” which is a release for the inevitable pressures of living in groups. Chimpanzees fight, bonobos … well, you know.”

        http://www.paulagordon.com/shows/wrangham/

        There are a series of interview with the author at the above URL that could be valuable information to the discussion on this blog.”

        Given that Humankind are composite beings including a genetic entity, this would indicate that part of the problem of aggression we experience derives from our genetic makeup.

  17. Marty, I find your interest in things like this and Ken Wilber to be very admirable. We will have to agree to disagree on both the kind of man LRH was, and the validity of his teachings, but I compliment you on expanding your horizons or, if they were already expanded, sharing your views about it. Please don’t interpret these comments to mean that I view myself as particularly enlightened; not the case I’m afraid. But I’m working on it. Best regards.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks Rick. What is the disagreement?

      • Part is the tech. I have to confess that I have little experience with it. I was on staff at the LA org and then a year in the Sea Org in the early 70’s. I think most of the auditing I had was more sec checking than anything else, although I didn’t realize it at the time. Became very ill and was sent back to the Excalibur for more auditing. Was then ordered to disconnect from my parents. I suspect malnutrition was more to blame from the months of a few hundred calories a day while on staff.

        In terms of Hubbard, I have just read a great deal about him, much of it documented, about the kind of man he was. I consider him a charlatan and capable of cruelty. Perhaps a touch mad. As far as horrible things being done in the church, they were certainly happening on his watch, presumably by his direction. I was sent to my home town in the midwest to reg a young woman who had lost a leg in a car accident. She believed that Scientology could restore her leg. Once I realized that was the reason for her interest, I called for advice. I was told that it didn’t matter what she believed, it was for her own good and I was to bring her back with me. And her checkbook. That was my last day as a Scientologist.

        I think my distrust of LRH began with his wildly fictional biography. It was so absurd, so laughable. I always questioned his veracity on everything after that.

        Thanks for the invitation to speak. I don’t know you at all but find myself pulling for you, even though I disagree with some of your actions on the church and DM’s behalf. I still find the Lisa MacPherson matter terribly disturbing. Best, Rick

        But what do I know? I kind of like Mike Rinder, too🙂

        • martyrathbun09

          Thanks Rick. My view is that the character of people, including Hubbard, at the end of the day don’t have a lot of bearing on their product. Unless of course people are looking to other people to emulate or obey.

          • I guess you have a point. Some of my favorite musicians, and music is my passion, are not exactly people you would want to emulate. However that doesn’t impugn their art. I’ll have to mull that one over. Thanks for giving me something to think about.

          • I like that. I’ve always been the same way. My only criteria for people is “Can he/she get a good product?”. Otherwise, a high toned person is always best in a supervisory or leadership position too.

          • Marty, i agree with your view point somewhat. If you look at somebody as a role model, you will tend to trust his product. In the case of LRH, one has to examine the product carefully before accepting it.

  18. Brian Thomas Lambert

    “Some Scientologists have simply used it to write me off as being lost”

    Their interpreting your reading a book of wisdom as being lost, is just silly.

    Sleep walkers mumble jibberish. Expecting to be understood by ‘only wayers’ is a created disappointment.

    Expecting people to live up to higher values that they don’t have will always disappoint.

    Expect people to be who they are, in their present state, will never disappoint.

    A teacher once told me,” go out and find someone to give you a good slap. How you react will tell you are far you’ve progressed spiritually.”

    A lesson not for the faint of heart. Each person that misjudges, condemns and gossips about us, ressurects within our own consciousness the desire to retalitate and get angry.
    That reactive dynamic within the mind is the cause of our uncomfortable feeling towards that person.
    At some point we get so good at neutralizing the reaction that being judged or misjudged ceases being an issue.
    Then we can thank all the people that helped to see the hiddenstory of our own causation in human relations.

    The enemy is the greatest teacher.

    When we can absorb all criticism with grace and gratitude, feeling unity with all is close at hand.

  19. I have long viewed the universe as a sandbox made to play in. The object of sandbox play is to make stuff – beautiful, or ugly – for fun or to learn how to make it better. This may be viewed as conquest but it may also be viewed as we would view an aspiring sculptor learning his craft and mastering his tools to bring a harmony out of a chaos.

    I see nothing wrong with learning those tools. They are, indeed, the ability to be at cause over matter, energy, space and time, but it is only a matter of how and why you use the tools that is important, not that they are intrinsically evil tools which should be accessible only by a few or, heaven forbid, one!

    That we have lost most or all ability to use the tools of the universe should be the thing to give us pause. I believe LRH was pretty spot-on about how the ability to use those tools was lost.

    One can choose to re-learn how to use the tools, or not. I would just hope that those wishing to re-learn the use of the tools will also learn how they lost the use of them so long ago and adjust future doingness and behavior accordingly.

    • martyrathbun09

      That is a good reason for you to read the recommended book.

    • 2ndxmr, I enjoyed reading your post. For a period of time I had a scenario very similar to the one you describe that I had plotted way up high on my ethereal sliding scale of probabilities. In other words, I had the opinion at the time that this particular scenario had a high probability of contain more truth than not. As it turns out it was a sturdy rung on the ladder going up. As the ever changing scenarios demonstrate, there’s an earlier beginning and more to the story.

  20. practice humility

    I first read Stephen Mitchell’s translation of The Tao te Ching a few years ago, when you first recommended it.

    Since completing OT 8 I had been looking for more fundamental truths to life; wisdom that more closely reflected my own concept of spiritual enlightenment.

    It was not easy for me to grasp at first. I read it and read it again. Like tumblers on a lock, once it clicked in and I “got” the flow of it (because it is so polar opposite Scientology) I recognized it to be the approach to life I wanted to practice, rather than a set of datums to live by.

    I have read it countless times since, and again recently while traveling. Each time I find more substance in it. I have found so much solace, truth, humility and tools for living in that simple little book.

    It has changed how I view myself, others, and how the universe works. It has given me empathy, love for other beings, and helped me find a place from which to embrace life where things flow. It is very powerful.

  21. Jean-François Genest

    Thank you for the wisdom in this post, and for the book recommendation.
    http://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/detail.jsp?Entt=RDM492235&R=492235

  22. Roger From Switzerrland Thought

    What is true today may not be true tomorrow as new discoveries are made ! Lrh sold and marketed his answers as the ultimate trues with 100 % certaintiy.
    here a definition from wikipedia about certainty:
    Certainty is perfect knowledge that has total security from error, or the mental state of being without doubt.

    Objectively defined, certainty is total continuity and validity of all foundational inquiry, to the highest degree of precision. Something is certain only if no skepticism can occur. Philosophy (at least historical Cartesian philosophy) seeks this state.
    It is widely held that certainty about the real world is a failed historical enterprise (that is, beyond deductive truths, tautology, etc.).[1] This is in large part due to the power of David Hume’s problem of induction. Physicist Carlo Rovelli adds that certainty, in real life, is useless or often damaging (the idea is that “total security from error” is impossible in practice, and a complete “lack of doubt” is undesirable).”

    More I move up a little higher more I find out that I don’t know, more freer I feel !

    A stable datum I made some time ago is ” That people with 100% certainty about a subject mostly can’t learn new things and are lying to themselves and others !”

    The person that knows doesn’t talk about it ,but uses his knowledge without bragging about it and leads by example.

    A sign of intelligence is the ability to discern what one doesn’t know and so develops curiosity to learn new things.

    Lrh meant that any stable datum is better than none and so he went on and gave his sheeples “stable data about evrything” and created “homo novis”, a being that has total certainty in life and is succesful, has no doubts about what he is doing and doesn’t have to reflect as he is a stable datum for himself and others !

    I’ve lost all stable data I just swallowed in Scientology and I’m totally confused about life, but daily I discover new things, new friends, new thoughts, new Ideas, new possibilites I would never have discovered as a “homo novis” as being blinded by my certainty !

    So the question is:
    Is 100% certainty leading to blindness ?
    Is knowing the exact definition of all words, understanding them 100% with total certainty a real guarantee of appropriate doingness ?
    Perhaps for a craftsman this would work well or a technician to produce definite products.
    But what’s about life itself or sciences, or philosophy, politics ?

    • martyrathbun09

      The Cartesian view installed by Scientology does create a glass ceiling to development in my view.

      • Roger from Switzerland Thought

        Yes and you’re and we are breaking this glas ceiling. What will we discover ?
        It starts to become very exciting !

    • Roger even Hubbard acknowledges only ONE certainty in life. And it seems you have regained that, Other certainty I myself acknowledge is that things always change. Change is a certainty. Other thing sometimes people learn but their personality stays the same. Miscaviges personality is a very stable Datum.

      “There is only one security, and when you’ve lost that security, you’ve lost everything you’ve got. And that is the security of confidence in yourself; to be, to create, to make any position you want to make for yourself. And when you lose that confidence, you’ve lost the only security you can have. … Self-confidence is self-determinism. One’s belief in one’s ability to determine his own course. As long as one has that, he’s got the universe in his pocket. And when he hasn’t got that, not all the pearls in China nor all the grain and corn in Iowa can give him security, because that’s the only security there is.”

      L. Ron Hubbard

      • Roger from Switzerland Thought

        Cat you’re totally right !
        To have not knowing and confusion as a stable datum instead of a false or any stable datum, helps much more and is more honest to one self !

        • Change is very Yin Jang by the way but another stable Datum regarding honesty could be this. And this is all old Hubbard stuff by the way.

          “and is more honest to one self !”

          “Freedom is for honest people. No man who is not himself honest can be free – he is his own trap.”

          L. Ron Hubbard quote

          • Roger From Switzerland Thought

            tku🙂

            • I am not a Scientologist but I believe hubbard deserves his spot in history, he hindered himself but hey how do you compete with J Edgar hoover who held his position for more than 40 years in the FBI

              • John Edgar Hoover (January 1, 1895 – May 2, 1972) was the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States. Appointed director of the Bureau of Investigation—predecessor to the FBI—in 1924, he was instrumental in founding the FBI in 1935, where he remained director until his death in 1972 at age 77.

  23. Brian Thomas Lambert

    Total certainty can be the ego collecting relative knowledge, in the mind, to use to be superior over others.

    In that regard total certainy is arrogance.

    It is my opinion that arrogance is really insecurity, an over compensation for a feeing a being inadequate. Otherwise why the need to be so “knowing”.

    I have found men to have this problem more than women generally.

    Men seem to really identify with being a knower who can solve problems and hate being perceived as a ‘not knower’ which the ego interprets as being stupid.

    If you want to totally upset a ‘totally cetain knower’ tell them they ‘don’t know’. They will interpret it as being called stupid.

    Being married and loving my wife helped me to over come this in myself. So I am coming from an experience. I had this arrogance and worked to comprehend it’s nature. Underneath the whole ‘I know thing’ was an insecurity of not knowing,

    ‘Total knowers’ see humility as weekness.

    Humility is the one virtue that could have saved Scientology/Ron from ruin.

    But when you are at war, humility is not such a safe virtue.

    Taking over planets with black ops and a para military an is quite the opposite of humility: dominating other peoples knowing

    • Roger from Switzerland Thought

      Brian I’m with you !
      One of my daughter reproaches me that she always thought that I was a “total knower” and she believed as a kid that I knew everything , until she found out I’m an arrogant OT !
      Still doing amends on her !
      But I’m on my way !🙂

      • Children often think parents know everything up to a certain age, It is perfectly natural and then they hit puberty.

      • Brian Thomas Lambert

        Hey Roger, you must be a great dad!

        For me, the overcoming of arrogant knowing is one of the hardest and most valuable of spiritual practices. Actually it is one of the most important and liberating practices period, on any level.

        It is super potent because it deconstructs false senses of ourselves, smoke screens and personal identities we have aquired and used as a buffer against a crazy world.

        The negative ego is a hard nut to crack but leads to such a liberation from ignorance. Thank God I’m not perfect anymore! And my friends and family agree lol🙂

        We are all a little crazy when it boils down to it! But hey, if we weren’t we wouldn’t be on this school for crazies called earth!

        Some protest learning the lessons and cause trouble thinking they are above the laws of life itself. But then again, that also is a lesson not learned yet. Been there, done that. No more spit balls at the teacher. I am a good boy now………….. generally speaking……….. there is still a bad boy in me……….. but he knows for certain now where real happiness is. I sometimes break the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. I would never put happiness in jeapardy again. Life is too magnificent! And am grateful for so much and so many people!

  24. This sums up my good friend Marty Rathbun

  25. Marty – woohooo take a weekend off! The waves are nearly mowing me over. I will take the keel for a few days.
    Fun days. I truly don’t think this universe will ever be the same. I do believe I found the week point. The sheep need another good wake-up.
    Scientologists can not ignore statistics.
    I will work on getting them on Steve’s site. I will print the graphs and paper LA Complex! Oh ya AOLAs #OTs made 200 a week in ’89.
    How many a week in 2013?
    Auditors made? I forget the numbers in 1989 but it was many.
    2013?
    Cece

    • This sounds TOO much, what RE YOU ON ?

    • yIBBERISH i CALL YOU OUT !!!

    • Sorry Cece I was drunk

      • Cat, My daughter spent last weekend in LA. She lives in TX. Why? I don’t have data from her. Her sister tells me her SO dad paid for the trip. Why? I can only assume she is mid a doubt formula. Sad she will not get stats from the church. She will likely be shown Marty, Mike’s, Karen’s Black PR Church sites. She will likely be shown a summary of my overts as pulled from my PC and Ethics files.
        All I know for sure is we spoke a few weeks ago and she was 8months PG and tired but loved me. I have not heard from her since.
        Well what is a mom to do?
        I’m gathering up stats from various places for her. The Idleorgs.com etc.
        It’s not completely tearing me apart. I’m just pissed.
        Thanks for your attention🙂
        Cece

  26. Meanwhile thank you so much for helping me find my foundation and continue my goals in life.
    Your books will all be best sellers!
    Cece

  27. Command, or ask? I think the latter lets things come, has less (no?) resistance.
    What underlies these two opposites? Cooperation?

  28. I believe this is the most Important lecture of Hubbard and the total explanation why Hubbard did what he did.

    Hubbard does an unexpected lecture on hypnosis in 1954.

  29. “Some folks…” Those two little words and all they imply pretty much, I think, captures the core story line that is ever connecting past, present and future relationships and events (perceptions) in this seemingly physical universe.

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