Graduation from Scientology

An alternate route to graduation from Scientology:

If you want to know what is wrong with Scientology, read What is Wrong With Scientology? (2012, Amazon Books)

If you want to know how that which is wrong with Scientology came about and why, read Memoirs of  a Scientology Warrior (2013, Amazon Books)

If you want to know the result of the what, how and why, read The Scientology Reformation (2012, Amazon Books)

 

 

115 responses to “Graduation from Scientology

  1. I think false data stripping is an excellent tool in achieving a greater freedom and increasing the abilities of an individual.

    All three of these books were a treasure trove of data.

    After years of denial when recognizing out-points, it’s so refreshing to be able to stand back and truly think for myself. I really appreciate your having written them. We always have several copies in our lending library.

    Thanks Mark
    Les

    • Jean-François Genest

      I totally concur.
      Additionally, someone may get some great realizations by doing this exercise – “ILLEGAL” within the confines of Radical Corporate Scientology however:
      As the subject(s)/topic(s), do False Data Stripping on L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, Sea Organization, Dianetics, Operating Thetan, etc.

  2. Want to know what’s really going on? Do the work, read the books. You’re right, Marty.
    Finished Mitchell’s Tao. Will post a review shortly.
    MarkNR

  3. And if you want to move on up a little higher, I offer you this little bit from a 1958 Lecture:
    “Obsessive help, or obsessive being helped alike arrive in an entrapment. Now the method of trapping somebody is NOT this:
    Get his agreement to be loyal, get his agreement to be part of something, get him to join up one way or the other for the good cause, and then hit him over the head, in some electric machine or something.
    That is not a method of entrapment. It is used, but it is subordinate to this one:
    Help him, help him, help him, help him. Then get him to help and help and help until he totally loses sight of what he is helping and why. And who is helping him, and for what. There is nothing whatever wrong with help, nothing at all wrong with it, until it becomes UNKNOWING.”

    The RCS is beyond help at this point, as they have baked in betrayals guaranteed
    to glue people in. O\W only comes into existence when help FAILS.

    ’nuff said.

    • The RCS fixated on “…get him to help and help and help until…” so only got the equation half right. (When have we ever seen the RCS on a “… help him, help him,…” flow?)

      No, it was easier to just demand help FROM “him” and then use the “subordinate” method of entrapment: “Get his agreement to be loyal, get his agreement to be part of something, get him to join up one way or the other for the good cause, and then hit him over the head, in some electric machine or something.”

  4. Perfect synopsis of the trilogy. I want to thank you, Marty, again for taking the time to write them and make them available to me. These books have greatly helped me get my wits around the subject to which I directed a great deal of my adult life, my time, my energy, my resources, my talents. I’m choosing to use both my participation there as well as my leaving all as part of my moving on and moving up. It has been quite a journey.

  5. Marty, I don’t know you at all (so this is not a paid announcement). However, I want to say that I think you have provided tremendous service and insight to everyone. Your commitment to free speech and open dialogue is something CoS should learn from, since communication really is the universal solvent.

    You have played a major role in my own evolution, transcendence, and healing. Thank you!

    • +1
      I couldn’t have said it better.
      I too , have copies to lend , and although the lending came back to bite me in a big way I have no regrets.
      I read these books as they came out ,fast , as fast as I could , I was so hungry for answers. But the calmess I felt after reading has no substitute.
      I am looking forward to reading them again a bit slower as I think I can get more out of them . And that says a lot as I rarely read a book twice…

  6. http://therevealer.org/archives/18575
    really enjoyed this interview with you.
    there never was a time when i felt i couldn’t talk to you in person.
    but your blog has been a rocky road.

  7. And I’m reminded of this poem from Edwin Markham:

    “He drew a circle that shut me out-
    Heretic , rebel, a thing to flout.
    But love and I had the wit to win:
    We drew a circle and took him In!”

    Applied to DM and CoS, the church is drawing a tightening circle around itself that shuts out (disconnects from and declares) the “heretics, rebels” — and the “bitter defrocked apostates” — a phrase that will forever live in the halls of idiocy. They are only contracting, becoming smaller, as a result.

    I hope that this ongoing church contraction will not lead to the ultimate cult-tragedy of us-vs.-them self-annihilation; therefore, I hope that we all continue to have the love and wit to continue to care deeply and sincerely about those who are in.

    Setting aside from the occasional sociopathic cult ecumenical leader, I do think that people are basically good. Helping those who are in, and helping those recently out, and helping those never-ins to understand better, are all part and parcel of the service that Marty has rendered in his books.

  8. Scientology sans Hubbard persona

  9. Thumbs up, Marty. When I was initially “out” of the Cult, I simply ventured along alone, denying any possibility that there might be others who shared my disillusionment. As far as I knew, it was my flaw to bear as a sole and strange sojourner in a strange land.

    Denial worked for a great many years; however, once I discovered I was not alone in my disagreement and disillusionment with the CoS, it felt as if I had discovered that gravity applied to everyone and everything in the physical univese, not just my fekked-up self.

    Marty, my dear, like a neighborhood Welcome Wagon, your blog and books have helped me discover a world of like-minded souls as well as validate my own understanding as an individual in relation to the rest of the world – e.i., “reality.”

    I thank you most sincerely.

    Nancy

  10. I’m a former org staff member, then an SO member, and I’ve had a fair amount of training in both tech and admin. I found all three books to be highly informative and written in a way that even a non-Scientologist could understand. Not only that but, based on my years of experience in course rooms, I would also say that many long-term Scientologists would learn a lot about not just Scientology as an organization but the basics of the subject itself – probably to their great surprise. To me, Marty’s books are uniquely valuable. Looking forward to the next one.

  11. I also want to share a phrase I found the other day:
    “Too much agreement under duress brings about the vanishment of one’s entire consciousness” – this may very well describe those who, up to now, lack consciousness to see the differences.

    As far as the Books, I have read them all and I can state that they allowed me to understand better the surrounding conditions of what has occurred with the C of S, its members, its staff and its current evolution.

    There is still more each individual can personally change and specially create.

  12. Jean-François Genest

    😀 Exactly ! Θ

  13. After having read “Memoir”s, “Reformation”, and “What is Wrong”; Having owned and gained wins from LRH” “Self Analysis” and ” Handbook for Preclears” re-(self)processing over the past 1.5 yrs. And am now capitalizing on these wins with continued processing from” Budda’s Brain” text exercises. Ya know, guess what!! All of these processes have generated concrete wins by GRADUATING from Scientology!! GO FIGURE!!

  14. I have mentioned elsewhere LRH’s talk to me about pioneers and consolidators. Based on that I am pretty sure that what LRH had in mind toward the end was consolidation of the tech and organization. For this reason I believe it is no accident that DM became COB. He is a typical consolidator, however, the required period of consolidation after LRH’s death has long since passed – probably around the early 1990’s. In any activity, there is a time for consolidation and a time for renewal – pioneering. The time for renewal (a new batch of pioneers) is long overdue. Marty, as I see it, you are a pioneer and the work you are doing shifts the emphasis to renewal. What is fascinating about this cycle of pioneering and consolidation is that when the time for renewal comes around there is no stopping it – trying to is like blowing against a hurricane.

    And may I add; if anyone is interested to know about truths beyond the truths of Scientology check out MASTERING MINDSET.

    http://masteringmindset.blogspot.com/

    Joe van Staden.

    • Joe,
      Thank you for some fascinating data on your website.
      Loved the one about “Life is about creating yourself” rather than trying to FIND yourself.
      Will dig in more…..
      Greta

  15. Thank you for writing your books and maintaining this blog. The books have cleared up history for me, and helped me understand what the lower bridge is even about. The interaction with others on this blog has helped me sort out questions I had in present time and also helped me learn about myself – a lot, in a very short and condensed period. Perfect for my requirements. You have my deepest gratitude, and I will continue to support you as I can.

    You’ve put the fun back into moving up a little higher🙂

  16. Great work Marty! I really appreciate your efforts to encourage all to move on up a little higher.
    Coop

  17. I met Marty Rathbun in Memoirs. His desire to help his brother is the spirit of Marty. He got into Scientology to serve another. But then his spirit of service took on Star Wars proportions.
    As well as informative, though I do belief the story of revealation continues, it is knock out entertaining. Especially for the “still ins and half ins – half outs, quater outs and 3/4 ins and……….. those accustom to the Scio-Lingo

    Marty Rathbun, you one intense mo-fo lol. A servant and a warrior.

    Buy it!

    My Ipad read the kindle version flawlessly

  18. Looking forward to the fourth in the trilogy!

  19. Thank you for all your books. I’ve read and loved all three. And I so do appreciate all your help in encouraging others to evolve and transcend. It really is a good service you’re doing with this blog and books.

  20. Marty, with all due respect, I knew a lot of that without reading those books as the Church of Scientology is much to overt and covert to be believed anyway.🙂 But I sure appreciate it as I am sure others do as well, that you clarified it for others and including me even further with your writings. The only way to ever trust a Church of Scientology is to have the tech you need BEFORE they offer it up for comparison, so that one can actually verify that it is indeed LRH tech that is being given. And even then, I still wouldn’t want it from there, because it is too expensive, the environments of the churches are as hostile as the people and lastly because I WOULD RATHER NOT.🙂 It is best to be independent. After all, what seperates a person with an idea of forming a “Sea Org” that lives up the street or the people in the church’s Sea Org that already believe they are “IT”.🙂

  21. One thing wrong with Scientology is the idea of exterirization. Exteriorization is a mental state. It has nothing to do with something separating from the body. Here are my thoughts on OT I.

    Hubbard says on the original OT 1,

    “It is not the intention of this section to exteriorize anyone but if it happens don’t worry about or fool around with the fact.”

    The OT1 drills have to do with

    (1) Counting bodies
    (2) Noticng the sex (male or female) of those bodies.
    (3) Noticing the size (small or large) of those bodies.
    (4) Noticing the attribute in terms of there being an individual, or a crowd.
    (5) Differentiating oneself from others.
    (6) Noticing the degree to which one can have (tolerate) others around oneself.
    (7) Noticing the body part in others that one doesn’t like having in one’s body.
    (8) Spotting things in others that are not wrong with them.
    (9) Noticing people walking toward you or walking away from you.
    (10) Noticing how people stick to the ground (get the sense of gravity).
    (11) Spotting important things about people (these would be one’s own considerations).
    (12) Noticing places where there are no people.
    (13) Noticing places where there are people.

    Basically, this is LOOKING and recognizing what is there. The principles of KHTK should apply here. OT 1 focuses looking on bodies in different ways so their various attributes may be perceived, and then looking at oneself with respect to those attributes.

    I think that this drill would make a person look at oneself more objectively, and may free up some fixed considerations about oneself.

    Nothing more mysterious need to be read into the OT 1 Level.

    .

    So why would Hubbard say,

    “It is not the intention of this section to exteriorize anyone but if it happens don’t worry about or fool around with the fact.”

    There is considerable mystery and expectations built around the word EXTERIORIZATION in Scientology. It would have been better not to bring it up if it was not part of OT 1. But, I suppose, it was intended by Hubbard to present these OT Levels as something mysterious. Are they really mysterious?

    First of all, is there anything mysterious about exteriorization? The Tech Dictionary of Scientology says,

    EXTERIOR: the fellow would just move out, away from the body and be aware of himself as independent of a body but still able to control and handle the body.

    Now, what is this thing that would just move out, away from the body? Well, it’s the being. But what is a being? According to the Tech Dictionary, it is a viewpoint. But is there somebody assuming this viewpoint? Yes, it is the THETAN. So, what is a thetan?

    The Tech Dictionary defines THETAN in several different ways. It starts out by defining it as an abstract concept used for “source of life and life itself.” Then it defines it as “awareness of awareness unit,” “the individual who lives in the body,” “something assuming a location by consideration,” etc.

    It is obvious that the being or thetan is not something material that moves out of the body. So, exteriorization must be the freeing of some consideration attached or fixed with respect to the body.

    But Hubbard is not sure about it.

    Any mystery attached to “exteriorization” would come from not understanding the above. And any misunderstanding of “exteriorization” can inadvertently create complications with a person trying to interpret his or her experiences on OT 1.

    Hubbard says on OT 1,

    “A great many phenomena (strange things) can happen while doing these drills if they are done honestly.”

    This definitely injects expectations in the process, thus coloring and corrupting one’s “ability to look.” It moves one away from the position of pure looking.

    I would say that a person’s experience on OT Levels will be messed up to the degree these levels are made mysterious.

    .

    Hubbard did his best to make these OT levels mysterious, probably for the purpose of attracting people. But this very action corrupted the ability to look on these levels.

    I doubt if Hubbard understood Buddha’s concept of mindfulness, which helps one penetrate mysteries through pure looking.

    “Observe things as they are, not just as they seem to be.”

    Here are the core aspects of mindfulness:
    http://vinaire.me/2013/09/05/the-12-aspects-of-mindfulness-revised/
    .

    • I disagree Vinaire. Consciousness separating from a body is what is happening.

      Moving from my kitchen to my living room is not in my mind. If I sat on my kitchen stool and imagined being in my living room, that is imagination. That is in my mind. The soul is separable from the body. Near death experiences are not neuron synapse farts.

      The denial of the existence if self is a trick of the intellect using consciousness to conclude that there is no consciousness.

      • What is consciousness?

        Life is not a static as assumed in Scientology Axiom #1. Life is basically undetermined.

        .

        KHTK Axiom #1: Neither the state of rest, nor the state of motion can be determined to exist in an absolute sense.

        DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

        1. The theory of relativity states that from all uniformly moving frames of references, the laws of physics appear to be the same.

        2. With nothing to compare to, one cannot tell if the frame of reference is at rest or if it is moving at the speed of light. There is no awareness of uniform motion.

        3. When there is something to compare to, there is awareness of uniform motion. Still there is no way to tell which object is at rest and which object is moving.

        4. There is neither absolute static, nor absolute kinetic. The awareness of static and kinetic exists in a relative sense only.

        5. What remains in the absence of relativity cannot be determined.

        http://vinaire.me/2013/10/04/khtk-axiom-1-the-absolute/

        .

        • Consciousness can only be known by ceasing the incessant risings of thought. Consciousness can be known. It takes practice and a lifetime of devotion to the subject to finally be directly perceived.

          Exteriorization is only mysterious if it hasn’t happened to you.

          Relativity is still the field of the mind.

          There is a “who” that is experiencing all of this. An experiencer, a subject that isn’t the object. The perceiver, not the perceived.

          But if you are a materialist and give credibility to only that which can be perceived by the senses and intellect then words are diffucult to use in this great timeless argument.

          Consciousness is,

          Again, why even seek enlightenment if there is no one there to achieve it?

          It is very subtle and we need the right tool to know.

          There is oil in an olive and milk in a cow. But just looking at a cow will not produce milk. You may even say, if you are unfamiliar with cows, how can you say a cow is a glass of milk?

          You have to milk the cow, a definite process, to see and drink the milk.

          With the Spirit we have to follow certain double blinded proceedures that have been recommended by those who know.

          And in practicing these proceedures, we end up knowing, not believing: knowing.

          • (1) Thought is part of consciousness. One cannot be conscious without there being something to be conscious of.
            (2) There is nothing mysterious about exteriorization. It is freedom from fixed ideas.
            (3) There was no “who” in the beginning. That question came later.

            The basic questions are: “Where?”, “When?”, Who?” or “What?”
            Neither such questions, nor their answers are there in the beginning.
            There is only manifestation and awareness of that manifestation.
            In case of absolute beginning, there is no “prior.”
            In the “after,” there are these questions, and speculations for answers.
            The questions manifest, and the speculations manifest
            There is awareness of these further manifestations.
            This awareness then generates more questions and speculations.
            Such speculations then going forward, as well as going backwards
            Hide the unknowable.

            http://vinaire.me/2011/04/08/the-creation-hymn-of-rig-veda/
            .

        • Vinaire: Most people don’t really get that about relative motion. Any object that is not being accelerated by an outside force is at rest in it’s own space and time. The idea that, as you accelerate, you are causing time to speed up for the rest of the universe is just as valid as others saying that time is slowing down for just you.
          That a being is not a thing and that the only mass it has is what it decides to tote around is accurate. My take on it is that beings are not exactly within the universe but the universe is within theta and an individual is one viewpoint of theta.

          • Is that right? How familiar are you with the Theory of Relativity?

            .

            • The math of how much time and mass appear to change and under what circumstances can get a bit tedious, but the principals are pretty straightforward. Gravity throws you a few curves (LOL) but it makes sense when you realize that gravity is kinetic. Mass collects or absorbs space and space is expanding to balance things out, for the most part.
              Accelerate to about the speed of light and go 10 light years and it will take YOU about 10 years. Double your speed and it will take about 5 years. The fact that others on each end see 10 years pass is their damn problem. Double your speed again and it will take about 2 1/2 yrs. Others still see ten yrs pass. It’s all according to your viewpoint. In navigation, you would have to figure out how much your destination would move as you traveled. Just crunch the numbers, no problem. This was all worked out from experience making previous universes and it works out pretty well. Having one stable point that was not moving (an imaginary center of the universe) was unworkable and would just screw things up for everyone who wasn’t aligned with it.
              Early on, a few would just get together and make their own rules of ‘how things worked’. Much later in larger more centralized universes, a few would set all the rules and everyone else would go along, present universe included.”We worked it all out and it’s perfect, so if you want to join you have to play along.” Not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you know exactly how and why it came about. Forget that and your stuck. A few individuals specialized in helping you forget.

              All rules are invented and are subject to change if you just understand their origin. But it’s kinda fun trying to figure out all the rules and the postulates underlying them.
              Mark.

        • A “Life Static”, any true Static is undetermined, so what’s the difference? To me it seems you are just paraphrasing LRH.

        • Minds are powerful things but YOU are more powerful.
          You are not your thoughts. Listen to the Silence and you will see higher conscience.

      • Brian: Very correct on exteriorization. And it doesn’t stop at ‘remote viewing’ although that is the most common idea of exterior. After my first few experiences of ‘seeing’ without my eyes, I expanded my idea of exterior. Several times while doing TR0, I would hear something in the building and ‘know’ what it was. I would later go to the place that I knew where, and verify what I had heard and it would be exactly what I knew, having never seen it before. I could sometimes, when I was “in the groove” expand my viewpoint and fill the room or building. My former wife, while working as a cashier, many times just ‘knew’ what was in a customers purse. What pocket the money or checkbook was in, what their kids look like from their pictures etc.etc. Several people have proved to me that they could look outside, and I’ve read about hundreds of others, which matched my own experience.
        To say that this is some kind of field reflection from some ability of the brain or elec-mag. fields is just a bunch of bulls##t. When someone tries to flat out discount it in others, they are simply acting in a suppressive manner. “I’m not able, so you are certainly not”. I have experienced other abilities and recalled many more. They are worth working for.
        Mark

        • Any consciousness is part of the phenomenon. There is no consciousness separate from the phenomenon looking at it.

          That is simply an apparency.

          .

          • Who knows this to be true, this statement you have made? Who is making this assertion? Are you simply a chaotic interaction of brain impulses?

            There is Vinaire, asserting there is no Vinaire!

            If you were to practice asking yourself this one question everyday for a few months. 15 min to 1/2 hr. everyday “who am I” it would lead to very interesting things.

            Who is thinking? Who is it that thinks I am a man or women? Who is feeling a head ache? Who is it that thinks it’s a husband or a wife?

            Who is it that is asking these questions?

            We can’t drink milk if we don’t milk the cow. We cannot perceive that which seems invisible if we don’t do certain things.

            The intellect is impotent to register consciousness because the intellect is composed of data aquired by the 5 senses and extrapolations thereby.

            There was a fish claiming there is no water. It’s ubiquitousness obviscates it’s obviousness.

            The only way to proove these verities is through experimentation. If we only stay in the intellectual region of our experience: books learning, theories, conjectures, belief only in material perceptions, then this argument is only a fun theorectical banter between minds.

            Go beyond the mind with it’s limited certainties based on the 5 senses.

            But to prove these things, one must have a passion for the subject. And it is only that passion that fuels enough energy to motivate such a herculean task “know ThySelf and the truth will set you free”.

            Set WHO free? YOU

            • Whatever you see here is part of the phenomenon.

              .

                • And that includes you, my friend.🙂

                  .

                  • My only response was, to keep it simple, to your assertion of no self no soul. And that life is undetermined.

                    I disagree with both of these. And have given my thoughts. I don’t have anymore worthwhile thoughts to convey.

                    Timeless argument though!

                    I am more interested in getting rid of bulky noisy theories and thoughts these days and defaulting to that which brings happiness.

                    My theorizing days of truth are over. It must be experiential or I want nothing to do with it.

                    Namaste Vinaire

                    • I never said there is no self or no soul. There is self or soul but it is impermanent. It comes from seeing things as they are (mindfulness).

                      .

    • Why? Because when I did my first course, my very first course, at a Church of Scientology, I went exterior on the course for the first time ever in forever. I had heard other people in the church talking about exteriorizing, but I had no actual MASS on the subject, until it happened and then I understood. The problem is that if I had sat down in the course room again day after day and try to “program myself” somehow to go exterior again before beginning my studies, then I probably would have made myself crazy. So, that is why, LRH said “It is not the intention of this section to exteriorize anyone but if it happens don’t worry about or fool around with the fact.”, don’t you think?🙂 A person that goes exterior that knows nothing of THETA, MEST could pretty much theoretically make themselves crazy trying to “remember how they did it”. So, if you are exterior, enjoy it, after all it is a pretty natural thing for some people!🙂

    • It is believed by many that a spirit, thetan or whatever does have a small amount of mass associated with it. Possibly this basic “nothingness”, likes to carry some things around with it wherever it “goes”. Yes yes we all know it doesn’t really “go” anywhere, as it has no location in time and space, but it considers it does and that’s the reality.

      There’s no point to beating this horse you’ve been beating for several years now, obsessing about “what exactly does this word mean?” If you don’t know by now, you never will!

      And if you sometimes have trouble understanding what the heck LRH is tallking about, welcome to the club. Especially if you are trying to use a compiled work like the Tech Dictionary, which is compiled of definitions from lectures and writings spanning many years of his thought, which changed and evolved over all that time as he looked at things from various viewpoints. Without the context in which he used any particular defintion, they are not that useful, and as you point out, they vary and can be circular. Linguists and educators have studied how people learn the meanings of words, and have found that the learning of word meanings is almost entirely contextual.

      See my recent posts on Geir’s blog about the “Tower of Babel” principle. If you can’t clarify the meaning of a word for yourself, how in the world do you expect to communicate with others?

      That said, you do make some good points. But about exteriorization, I have had the experience more than once, of going straight up out the top of the body’s head and staying above “my” head for several hours. And this was pre any scientology, for me.

    • Vinaire: After reading your ‘post on exterior’ a couple of times I’m getting the idea of where you’re coming from. It has everything to do with the relationship of Oneness to Individuality. One’s location is a consideration and has become where you are directing your attention. But a consideration, forgotten and long since used and solidly agreed is not easily reversed or released. Reading a few paragraphs about the unreality of self or the oneness of all doesn’t produce ability. Examining the moments YOU decided things and why, DOES. Working on ones ability to change one’s mind in present time assists in one’s ability to do the former.

      There is a sea of complexities surrounding these principals that must be worked through before the simplicities can truly be realized. If you cannot fully and easily confront the complexities the beauty of simplicity will remain just beyond your reach. The Tao and other writings can assist in releasing yourself from some of the complexities and put one in the right direction, but are temporary and have limited benefits. Dealing with effort counter effort is a common theme in eastern wisdom and is extremely valuable. One absolute necessity to attaining a higher or more desirable state is the ability to produce effort. Counter effort must be mastered.

      There are many faces and sides to understanding. All are necessary.

      By the way, one of the primary purposes of orig. OT-1 was to prevent a recent Clear from stepping off a curb and breaking his leg. Get you in present time without your whole bank machine telling you how to walk, drive etc.etc.Not the only purpose, but one of them.
      Mark

      • “By the way, one of the primary purposes of orig. OT-1 was to prevent a recent Clear from stepping off a curb and breaking his leg.”

        To me that is an outpoint. Shouldn’t the Clear be aware enough?
        .

        • Vinaire: “Keep your feet on the ground and reach for the stars”. Sometimes one can forget about his feet for a moment.

          • That kind of thinking goes against mindfulness. I don’t think in those terms.

            I think that the next stage is to explore the interface between physics and metaphysics, and to establish consistency between these two major areas of knowledge.

            .

            • Vinaire: I’m a bit of a pragmatic. It may go against some nebulous idea, but it happens. And the fix prevents most of it. Example. I got a new car and it felt great, but I still have to pay attention to my fingers when I cut boards on the table saw.
              I don’t have any trouble reconciling physics and spirituality. At their highest point, they converge.

              • I am afraid I do not see any pragmatism in that explanation of yours about OT 1. I simply see a justification.

                All that is demanded on OT levels can be accomplished much easily and much faster with trained application of mindfulness.

                .

                • OK, I’l bite. Does mindfullness work for everyone or anyone to achieve the same results as ,say, OTI or OTII? How long does it take, on the average? What are the EPs of doing mindfullness? Are they reached in steps or stages? Are there any prerequisites for doing mindfullness successfully?

                  How do you know it works like that?

                  • I don’t understand what you are trying to prove. Nothing can be proven through arguments. It is a matter of looking at the results.

                    .

                    .

                    • I’m not trying to prove anything. It is exactly the results of “mindfullness” I am asking about. You make a lot of claims for “mindfullness”, just as some people make a lot of claims for Scientology processing. What are these claims based on?
                      Are they proveable or quantifiable or verifiable in any way, and have they been?

                    • Vinaire: You have posted before where you can learn the principals of “Mindfullness”. Could you repeat that. I’d appreciate it.
                      Thanks…..Mark.

                • Vinaire: Thanks, I see your point. I was trying to get across the point that some things are very simple. PART of the objective of OT TR-0 is to teach someone to sit in a chair. Just sit. “But, but. what should I……….” “No no no, just sit.”
                  Mark

    • Vinaire,
      As a Solo C/S I am kinda saddened to see that a threshold has been broken down recently, that it is now ok to POST OT data on this blog for whatever reason.
      Let’s look at this: Those that have done the level mostly will remember it and don’t need to be told the exact commands. They have their own memories on what they experienced on it.
      Those visiting this blog that are not up to this level might have a variety of reactions to it.
      The point is THE MIND WORKS ON GRADIENTS, same as most of us on this blog had/have realizations that DOES get them to ‘move on up a little higher. In auditing, the pc simply has to take his next step from where he is at. There is no way around ‘walking the walk’. It is useless to hand out or read data ABOVE his level as he is not there yet to do it. It usually just adds complications like now needing an auditor or a higher case level.

      The effectiveness of the process lies in DOING IT, not in reading about it and when doing it, DOING IT at the RIGHT place of the Bridge
      Similarly in training, one would not put a GREEN (new) student on the Class VIII course!
      Reminds me of the kids in the car when traveling “are we there yet?” NOPE!

      I feel most grateful to Marty for many realizations off this blog for the last 3 years. As far as OT data goes I respectfully request that such postings be screened out or be asked to reformulate, omitting such specifics.
      Greta

      • Oops! Typo alert 3rd para, last line should be ‘needing an auditor of a higher case level’
        Greta

      • Greta, I am sorry if it offends your sensibilities, but there is nothing in OT 1 that can be considered out-gradient. It is purposely made mysterious for marketing purposes. This is a very elementary process from the viewpoint of Buddhism.

        Auditing works to the degree mindfulness is used knowingly or unknowingly (as in Scientology). The 12 aspects of mindfulness are as follows.

        1. Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
        2. Observe things as they really are, not as they seem to be.
        3. If something is missing do not imagine something else in its place.
        4. If something does not make sense then do not explain it away.
        5. Use physical senses as well as mental sense to observe.
        6. Let the mind un-stack itself.
        7. Experience fully what is there.
        8. Do not suppress anything.
        9. Associate data freely.
        10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
        11. Contemplate thoughtfully.
        12. Let it all be effortless.

        You will find that whenever a pc has a fantastic win in auditing, most of these points happen to be IN.

        OT 1 is a simply process of observing what is out there. And just by observing at this level one can free onself with some of the fixed ideas about oneself, and that is why, all of a sudden, one feels that one does not have to be fixated on the body. What one experiences as “exteriorization” is simply a freedom from fixation on the body. All this time the preclear has been fixated on the body and did not know it. When that fixation goes away he feels fantastic. But this is a natural condition. There is no mystery to it. It is a phenomenon of freed up attention and NOT of something separating from the body.

        I am not denying the experience of exteriorization. I am simply explaining it differently because it has been known in the East (in Hinduism and Buddhism) since ancient times. There is nothing new about this phenomenon historically.

        By the way I am a Hindu with Buddhist training, and with close familiarity with Scientology.

        .

        • Vinaire,
          I really do get where you stand. You made it very clear and that is fine.
          I do not know how far you got in Scientology.
          I understand it looks just like another type of Objective process.
          It isn’t MY sensibility that is in question here.
          Read my post again and see why it is a losing road to post OT
          data here.
          Greta

  22. Diamond Sutra, Chapter 3.

    “All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated.”

    “Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple.”

    .

    Chapter 3 comments on liberation from the cycle of birth and death. It states that such liberation itself is an illusion as long as it is being aspired for and contemplated through a self.

    .

    Wow! That is the ultimate denunciation of individualism by Buddha.

    • I don’t see how this is a “denunciation” of anything. And your use of “individualism” in this context does not make sense to me:
      in·di·vid·u·al·ism
      noun
      1.
      the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant
      2.
      a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.

      The point is, if EVERYTHING is an illusion, it is pointless to speak of any one particular thing being an illusion. It becomes a matter of “picking your poison” – which “illusion” do you prefer? If all of existence is an illusion, then it becomes a matter of which illusions do you like? Which illusions do you dislike? Which illusions would you like to have in your life? Which illusions would you prefer never to experience?

      If it is all illusion, then it is all equally real (or unreal), and perhaps the freedom you can attain is to be able to choose your illusions more effectively. 🙂

  23. I apologize for spamming your blog Marty, But I feel that these three posts sort of go together. Buddha didn’t recognize any everlasting spirit.

    “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha

    I have written the three posts above after reading what Lawrence Wright wrote about your first experience in Scientology in GOING CLEAR. It was my first experience too.

    .

    • It is my opinion that people misinterpret nirvana to mean extinguishing of self. Why attain happiness in nirvana if there is no one there to achieve it.

      As I understand Buddha he is meaning that individualized consciousness is not the absolute consciousness. In the absolute there is no separation no individual I to see apart from.

      When the individual ego self melts into its Uncreated Absolute Self, that is full liberation.

      Other wise we have the same situation happening here. Buddha is special and every other wise man, sage, saint etc that claims the soul exists is wrong and Buddha found a special truth where he is the only one to find this.

      This can lead to a form of nihilism in my view. Why seek happiness if there is no experiencer? Why even try?

      And as Ramana Maharshi would ask, “who is claiming there is no self?”

      Find the who, there will always be one: an experiencer

      • I am trying to put the understanding from Buddha in modern scientific language:

        KHTK Axiom #2: Awareness arises with relative motion, and disappears when there is no relative motion.

        1. Awareness among objects comes from relative motion among them.

        2. The objects in motion are not just something physical like a chair, Mozart’s music, or sensation. They can also be complex abstractions like thought, emotion, or impulse.

        3. The self-awareness of an object must consist of an internal system of motion.

        4. There is no isolated “point of awareness” observing and/or creating motion from a distance.

        http://vinaire.me/2013/10/04/khtk-axiom-2-awareness/

        .

      • Hi Brian. you said;
        “When the individual ego self melts into its Uncreated Absolute Self, that is full liberation.” Did you mean that as a question? Is that your belief? I don’t think “melt” is how I would describe it, I think Connect with through becoming aware of , is the final step. I may have misunderstood your position.

        • My understanding of Nirvana is as follows:

          Buddha is said to have attained nirvana in his thirties. He then lived actively to a grand age of 80, a rarity for his time.

          Does nirvana mean withdrawing from living or from the world? Buddha’s life demonstrates just the opposite.

          In my opinion, nirvana is attaining the NULL VIEWPOINT. There is no fixed beingness engaged in viewing.

          The null viewpoint is not based on any consideration. It is not assuming anything. It is not withdrawing or resisting. It is just mindfulness.

          Nirvana is a state in which one is looking at the Universe of Consideration without the filter of fixed beingness or consideration of any sort.

          In Nirvana one is not looking through the filter of beingness or consideration. A filter has permananence or solidity. But in nirvana, beingness and considerations are continually being created and dissolved.

          In nirvana, one is very much alive; and one is participating to the fullest in this universe .

          .

          • Yes I agree, and there is a Self there experiencing this state.

            You say “in nirvana one is looking”…….. yes, indeed someone is looking.

            Nirvana means to blow out, extinguish the false self that identifies with externalities as self. It does not mean there is no self. It means the false self identified with bodies, roles etc is unreal and has no real existence save an imaginary one.

            The word nirvana defines the state in the negative.

            Satchitananda is another word that describes the state but it defines it in the positive. It represents the qualities attained from extinguishing (nirvana) maya or delusive selves.

            Sat means- ever new existence, Chit means- ever new awareness of that existence, and ananda means- that experience is filled with bliss always.

            And it is immortal as it is not subject to decomposition as all compound things are, says the Buddha. It is beginningless….. endless and ever conscious of ItSelf.

          • Ok, now I’m seeing you.

        • Connection implies separation. Ramakrishna used to say (paraphrased) “if you take a salt statue of a man into the ocean, it will dissolve and become the ocean.”

          But the essential elements of the ocean were already in the salt statue. The statue started to survive “as the Eighth Dynamic’ in a sense.

          But my experience is like a melting. The mind starts to dissolve, form starts to get thin.

          And then we are conscious of quality: love, joy and wisdom etc.

          Our own true nature.

          • The point that Sri Ramakrishna Paramhamsa was making was this:

            It is impossible to know the absolute. It is like a you wanting to determine the depth of the salty ocean, while you are made of salt yourself. Before you can reach the bottom of the ocean you are no longer there to assess that depth because you have become part of that ocean itself.

            The above is a wonderful imagery that describes the difficulty of knowing the absolute..

            .

            • It is impossible to know the Absolute when one fantasizes being separate. I we try to comprehend with intellect: the reflection of Maya.

              God can be known. Otherwise why called Patanjalis Sutras “How to Know God”. Commentary by one of Ramakrishna’s direct chelas.

              But I think you know all that. HaHa

              It is possible that we completely agree with each other on more than we know.

              Namaste Valkov

          • It painfully simple Vinaire.

            • Crashing Upwards

              Section 28 in Percivals “Thinking and Destiny”. pages 404-421, takes Pantajali’s system and fills in some possibly missing pieces which seem to explain the conscious selfs connection with and reunion with the absolute. Nice glossary of Hindu terms there as well. For those here who are into the eastern way of self-liberation, it may be of interest. Its way over my head. There is a free pdf version of the book online for anyone interested.

    • SPAM? This is considered SPAM?🙂 Don’t invalidate yourself!🙂 SPAM is an e-mail in box full of legitimate Viagra discount offers! That is SPAM!🙂 Yours, is just pure nonsense!🙂 I am just kidding. But is isn’t SPAM!🙂 People like me READ IT for some reason or another!🙂

    • I think the key is when he says there “is no SUBSTANCE that is eternal and imperishable etc”. Which is true if “LIfe is basically a Static”. A Static has no substance.

      • Scientifically, there is no absolute static as I indicated above.

        .

        • LRH lectured about this at some length. You are just paraphrasing him. “Science” is precisely the study and measurement of the physical universe, or just plain universe, to you. Nothing else exists, according to you, right? If it does, you classify it as “unknowable”.

          At the same time, you quote Buddha as implying nothing actually exists, it is all illusion. Therefore science is the study and measurement of illusions, right? Using illusory instruments and illusory perceptive organs.

          • I don’t think I am saying anything original. Nor did LRH!

            This is ancient knowledge.

            .

            • Hi Vinnie, it seems you are not quite the Vinnie I recall from a year or 2 ago. You have made progress. It’s a pleasure reading your posts here.

              • Valkov, I am so happy to know that you do not consider me to be a ‘dog pc’.🙂

                Kidding aside, I have been greatly helped by mindfulness exercises of Buddha. Nobody can analyze the case for a pc. Case supervision is full of pitfalls. That is why KHTK exercises do not require any case supervision. In a way, they are an extension of TR 0.

                .

            • Vin, I see the difference not in the basic Knowledge, which is old, although LRH did boil it down to its essentials pretty well and put it out in English.
              But the main difference I see is his assembling a lot of practical techniques and publishing them all in one place under the brand of “Scientology”, after winnowing them down to those that were generally workable.

              My general frame of reference is something like Ken Wilbur’s “spectrum of consciousness”. Western psychology deals with some things Eastern psycholopgy doesn’t deal with, and vice versa. I think
              LRH kind tried to integrate the full scale of activities that can help solve a person’s problems when used appropriately.

              In a nutshell Western psychology deals with issues of Individual psychology, the Eastern schools deal with “Transpersonal psychology”. If the individual issues are not deal with, th eresult can be that you end up with a “neurotic OT”. The “neurotic” elements of a person’s individual psyche need to be dealt with.

              • Valkov, In my opinion Hubbard did accomplish a lot, and I am thankful that I came across Dianetics in 1969 and benefited from it. My spiritual path got quite a boost from Hubbard’s work as it did from the works of Vivekananda before that.

                But it is incorrect to think that Scientology has all the answers. Scientology did expand the boundary of contemplation. It basically gave birth to ‘guided contemplation’. A person left to contemplate by oneself, as on TR0, may get bogged in the generality of it all. Each process provides a direction in which to contemplate. However, E-meter makes the whole regimen quite complex.

                In my experience the efficiency of Scientology can be boosted greatly with mindfulness replacing the e-meter. For example, one may go through the whole battery of Grade 0 processes quite effieciently again and again with mindfulness, all by oneself, as I have suggested at the link below. This is not squirreling as a closed-minded Scientologist would think. This is an advancement.

                http://vinaire.me/2013/04/06/running-scientology-grade-0-with-mindfulness-part-1/

                The method of processes, which guides contemplation, is the primary contribution of Hubbard from a scientific perspective. But now that idea has exhausted itself. A new direction is needed. That new direction, in my opinion is seeking consistency between physics and metaphysics. There are a lot of discoveries waiting in that area. I started on that path with KHTK Axiom 1 on my blog.

                .

  24. Here’s a song that came to mind while I’m on this mental and physical ‘vacation’.

    Keep up the good work, Marty. You too Mosey.

    May the good winds be at your backs……..

    • Tom, does David Miscavige remind you of Frank Sinatra in any way?🙂 Do you think that DM wouldn’t want to stand up in front of a crowd at an annual IAS event and sing like the famous 40’s & 50’s crooner Frank Sinatra?🙂 He probably does. And Tom Cruise maybe tells DM that he even looks like Frankie!🙂 So DM technically mya believe that he is in fact Frankie, in his reactive mind….or something?🙂 But in any event, I think that DM is tyring to aspire to be the next Frank Sinatra. He won’t however pull it off I think!🙂

      • Lawrence,

        I love this song.

        I’m on vacation.

        This has nothing to do with the sawed-off, mini-dicked, loco, sociopath to whom you have referred my comment.

        I just like the song. I hope I didn’t interpret your comment incorrectly.

        • It was just a joke Tom.🙂 if DM was so proud of himself at an IAS event that he sang “When Smoke Gets In Your Eyes” or “Spaghetti My Dear?” in Italian. (like Frank Sinatra used to do, and make all the girls in the audience scream and faint!🙂 It was just a joke.🙂

  25. Marty,

    do you mean “Graduation from Scientology” as

    somebody who has done the entire bridge

    or do you mean somebody anywhere on this bridge?

    I have not read your books.

  26. I’ve read all three of them. Loved them all.

  27. I’ve read your books Marty and will read any others you care to write.

    Now, the next step would be how to graduate reading blogs every day!

  28. Marty ,hope now you are there….the place where I wanted you to be few years ago….
    and I hope ,in another few months ,you will be where you should be…
    and then ,I hope you write a book….
    wish your family and you all the best.
    big hello from LRHs Bulgravia…

  29. I can heartily recommend all 3 of Marty’s books and also look for ward to his next one. They are fresh and unpretentious looks ar scientology past, present, and future, with a lot of personal witnessing of events from his involvement at the upper levels of management.

    Well worth reading all of them!

  30. To MarkNR:

    You asked about the principles of mindfulness. They are part of KHTK (Knowing How to Know). The writings on KHTK derive their understanding from Vivekananda, Buddha, Psychoanalysis, Scientology, Idenics and Nuclear Engineering. The latest writings on KHTK are available at the following link. These writings continue to be updated. The data you requested is available in the essay ‘The 12 Aspects of Mindfulness’ available among KHTK writings.

    http://vinaire.me/khtk-mindfulness/

    .

  31. In my opinion the future of research lies in the direction of discovering those areas that provide consistency between physics and metaphysics.

    .

  32. Here is a collection of KHTK axioms that are currently being researched and compiled. You are welcome to weigh in.

    http://vinaire.me/current-discussions/

    .

  33. I am very interested by these books, but I have a personal policy of not sending my credit card number over the Internet.

    Is there a way to buy from Amazon without using a credit card ?

    Or maybe I can just order the books in a classical bookstore.

  34. Valkov said:

    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/graduation-from-scientology/#comment-281428

    “I’m not trying to prove anything. It is exactly the results of “mindfullness” I am asking about. You make a lot of claims for “mindfullness”, just as some people make a lot of claims for Scientology processing. What are these claims based on?

    “Are they proveable or quantifiable or verifiable in any way, and have they been?”

    Valkov, in answer to your question, I can only point out to Buddhists and Buddhist countries. You also said that I have improved since last year or two. I credit that to mindfulness.

    Now I shall let you derive your own conclusions.

    .

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