scientology

Scientology is a religion.  I have seen ample evidence both from within its organizations and from without them that scientology is workable to the degree one believes in it.  It works when one believes that it will.  It does not work when one does not believe that it will.  It is just like any other religion in that regard.

I have previously discussed the cognitive dissonance set in place by scientology’s insistence upon being considered religion and science at once; a feature that results in scientologists’ apparent inability to differentiate belief from demonstrable certainty.  Beyond that particular feature scientology ought not be that difficult to get over.

I no longer wish to debate with religionists over their firmly held beliefs.  The majority of them find some level of comfort and security in keeping their beliefs undisturbed.  The better part of the rest seem to only get from such discussions some argumentation with which to triumphantly declare, ‘aha, it is a fraud!’;   further motivation for continuing to beset themselves with it.

My heartfelt advice for those who no longer believe in scientology and yet continue to haunt themselves over it, is that you give it a rest.  Give yourself some space to come to grips with the fact of scientology’s religious nature. Once you do that you can fairly easily decide whether you want to continue to believe in it – or obsess with it – or not. Once you do that the rest of the way in or out is fairly simple and requires little to no guidance.

453 responses to “scientology

  1. Great post Marty. Thank you🙂

  2. What do you mean that a religion “works if you believe it will”? Just because you buy into to Roman Catholic Church’s claim that some hocus-pocus can literally turn some bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ doesn’t mean that it actually does happen. Something either “works” or it doesn’t and that fact is independent of what you might personally feel about it. And the only way to properly judge whether something “works” or not is to set up a test or experiment that is designed in such a way as to avoid pitfalls such as confirmation bias and see what the results are and if those results can be replicated.

    • The belief is the increase in ARC which makes what one considers real .

    • What sort of test can show the existence of a finite state of “Clear”? Or BTs?

      There is no scientific research that suggests Scientology does what Hubbard said it would. In other words, there is no evidence that Scientology “works” per its own claims.

      That is not to say there is no therapeutic benefit.

      Whether some or all of that benefit is down to placebo is, of course, open to debate. Past life regression has long been acknowledged for its uses as a therapeutic tool, but psychiatrists are still scratching their heads as to why.

      Visualisation and guided imagery – two valuable tools used in various psych therapies. Scientology was built on them.

      There is no test that shows Buddhism leads to a state of “nirvana” (arguably considered a goal as opposed to an exact result) but there is data on meditation and brain imagery – with growing research into the neurological changes meditation appears to produce, and its short and long-term (positive) effects.

      One could pursue similar avenues with aspects of Scientology. Auditing, even on the upper levels, may produce interesting changes in certain areas of the brain relating to, say, emotion or attention. That one is exorcising oneself of parasitic souls is clearly religious belief, no matter how much one claims to “know”. Scrape all the space-opera guff away and one might finally come to understand the decidely non-religious therapeutic effects taking place.

      • MWESTEN,

        To sort of extend from your question:

        What sort of test can show the existence of a finite state of “Clear”? Or BTs?

        I am reading one of the most mind blowing books (The Revelatorium) I have ever read and just came across this statement:

        Quote:

        Cleared in consciousness does not mean the equivalent of low readings on a galvanometer toy. These only measure the superficial Nplus static flows of your more intense outer emotions (negative energy field/ the veil of darkness of the mind).

        Likewise, mindless meditative silence is not the sign of a cleared consciousness.

        A consciousness (truly) cleared of static (negative energy/ bank) is very dynamic in its expression as there are no inhibitors to the pure Christ energies moving through. Cleared in consciousness means no more static thoughts, no more carnal thoughts, no more malfeasant thoughts towards any living thing, total responsibility to the One Law, and uncompromising love for your Mother and Father.

        It also means full Christ conscious awareness of who you are, what you are, and where you are going. Plus the Will, Desire, and Action to put it into practice in love and service for the greatest good for the greatest number in all thought, word, and deed. If you are cleared in consciousness, you are a true firebrand for Christ as you do not broach lesser condition in others.

        End of quote. (brackets mine)

        – See more at: http://www.revelatorium.com
        /starrgram22.html#sthash.5HbLnfT9.dpuf

        This book is a must read.

        Unless you are interested in cosmology, it does not begin to get interesting until about after ch (stargramm) 10.

        First: Read right hand column on home page on how to read this book.

        Dio

    • Dale, although you did not address this question to me, I would like to add my understanding and perhaps this could shed some light for you.

      You wrote: “What do you mean that a religion “works if you believe it will”?”

      I think a person’s identity and goal is fixed early on for them in life by their own needs to survive. Let’s suppose someone wanted to help you with some listening therapy, like auditing, and you were a guy, and you sat in front of the auditor, and he starts asking you about your issues with pre menstral cramps.

      And you say, well, I just don’t have an issue with pre menstral cramps. And he whips out a correction list on pre menstral cramps.

      Your identity is one of a man and no matter what questions the auditor poses to you, you get nowhere with this therapy.

      Why? Is does not assist you in your identity. And your identity is what you use to “survive”. So, the auditing does not “work” for you. So of course you do not believe in it.

      If you are a man and you have a goal to be a “good upright man” and your parents take you into the Catholic Church early on, chances are as this supports your identity, you will become a “believer”.

      If a person has a goal or identity to “suffer”, no therapy is going to work because it does not support that identity or that goal. This person will not a believer of “self improvement” from any arena.

      If a person has a goal to “explore the super natural”, they may come to find Scientology, astrology, I ching coins, and host of other randomity is very curious to them.

      If a person has a goal to “fight back until the end” they will oppose offers of those who meddle with them.

      People come to “believe in” what falls along their purpose lines goals and identities.

      If a person has a goal to survive with a case and identities do carry case, no amount of auditing reading meditating counseling exercising money love or sex, is going to bring that person away from what think they need to survive.

      If a person has a goal to revolt, and to be a revolutionary, no amount of good parenting is going to bring that child on the same page with his parents and no amount of organized effort in a group is going to bring that person into a comfort zone. It does not support his identity as a revolutionary.

      If a guy has a goal to be a beautiful seductive woman no amount of rugged good looks is going to keep him out of make up and pant hose. Not if somewhere in his past he found he could not survive as a male identity.

      If a person has a goal to get sick and die no amount of drugs is going to keep them alive. There are plenty of people who do not “believe” in doctors.

      People “believe in” what supports their goals and identities. If you are a 6 foot tall male who likes to chase the ladies and play foot ball in the park on week ends and bang back shots of tequila with the guys on Friday nights, there is no way I am going to be able to make you “believe” wearing my stockings is going to make you “feel better” about yourself.

      • To the Oracle – People can “’believe in’ what supports their goals and identities” or for any other kind rationalization they find appealing but when it comes to claims of a more empirical variety the fact remains that just because you want to believe in something doesn’t necessarily make it so and to avoid pitfalls like confirmation bias you have to very careful in the procedures implemented to determine if your confidence is justified.

        • Well I guess you believe in being very careful.

          • A prudent person wouldn’t buy a house or a used car without careful and critical scrutiny. When it comes to claims like those made by LRH and his followers then the adage “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is certainly apt in my view.

            • Is The Oracle supposed to be providing you with some kind of evidence?

              Does The Oracle owe you something?

              Has The Oracle been reckless?

              Is The Oracle a “follower”?

              Is The Oracle imprudent?

              • Is The Oracle supposed to be providing you with some kind of evidence? If and when you might make an empirical claim of some sort, then yes.
                Does The Oracle owe you something? No.
                Has The Oracle been reckless? Dunno. If you have given money to the Church of Scientology then I would say yes.
                Is The Oracle a “follower”? Judging from your first reply I’m presuming you are or were a Scientologist in which case, yes.
                Is The Oracle imprudent? I don’t know what that means.🙂

      • Quite a wise statement in my view.

        I have, up to reading this, had not looked at identities from this angle..

        Thanks for expanding my viewpoints on the consequences of dentities.

        It speaks highly that the best identity one can assume, the one that will lead to recognizing what is beneficial and what is not, to the most “growingness” is assuming the the identity of just being a soul.

        In my view, the moment you identify, you limit your objectivity, your freedom, your power and the qualities that a soul is endowed with.

        Regards,
        Luis

        • Luis””’In my view, the moment you identify, you limit your objectivity, your freedom, your power and the qualities that a soul is endowed with.””
          Yes… long as one say believes I am this or that, with that belief one is captured by that beliefs and that is a valance which causes the separation places that person since now is a person in the MEST.
          Elizabeth

    • Catholics do not believe Holy Communion is literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Consecration of the Eucharist is entirely ceremonial. Sure, you can find, copy and paste me plenty of text that says otherwise. But it is simply not true in practice. If you ask any practicing Catholic, or better yet a Priest, they will not tell you they believe they are actually eating Jesus. That’s ridiculous.

      I know you must be intellectually and morally superior to anyone that’s ever held any faith, but most Christians are not quite as stupid as you believe them to be. And there is plenty of factual Christian and Roman Catholic material that is worthy of your derision, so maybe find some of that instead of just making shit up.

      • TO JJJ: While I’m no expert on Catholic theology, it’s common knowledge what the official line is RE: transubstantiation. I’m hardly “just making shit up” in this regard. Having said that, I have no doubt that many if not most Catholics don’t actually believe the claims made about this.
        As for your assumptions about my character, even if I did actually think I was intellectually and morally superior to anyone that’s ever held any faith and thought most Christians were stupid my actual point remains valid – Just because you want to believe something “works” doesn’t mean it actually does. I will admit to thinking that my critical thinking skills are better working then faith-heads when it comes to certain things.

        • And I will admit that I was wrong to suggest you were “just making shit up.” You were going off genuine doctrine. My point was that most modern Catholics don’t take it all as literally as many would like to think, and you seem to have acknowledged that. I do agree that the rest of your post is valid: simply believing something works does not make it true. And that goes for any faith, religion or cult.

        • As Ted Koppel told Tiny Dave in 1992 (and as George Micheal told the world) it’s about Faith

          • Faith is only needed when one doesn’t have the necessary evidence to justify confidence. Personally, I don’t believe in anything. Occasionally when I have enough knowledge and past experience I can work up a great deal of confidence but that is it. Should I not have sufficient knowledge or past experience I feel it is more prudent to withhold making any conclusions. I should also add that faith can inspire people to do very foolish and horrible things and can be very detrimental to health and security. When you rely on faith you can believe in anything, even if it’s completely baseless. I strongly advise against it.

            • Dale,

              I loved your well articulated, eloquent and succinct post.

              That has been my operating data (my truth) for over 20 yrs.

              You said well.

              Anything less, is a complete lack of intellectual integrity.

              Dio

    • As an cultural cathalic I enjoy the show, the final product not so much.

      If we all followed Jezus we would all be jews by the way,

  3. Thank you, Marty.

    Your comment here gives me the nudge that I needed. Despite the entertainment value generally, I do need to give it a rest.

    It has taken an amazing amount of time to come to that, but after a point it really does become a waste of time and focus. So I’m deleting the feeds to your, Mike’s and Ortega’s sites from my browser and letting go.

    I’ll check in again sometime, but when something really does become irrelevant in one’s life, why stay stuck to it.

    Again, thanks.

  4. Timely advice. Thanks.

  5. Okay. Talking about Scientology again, eh? Like any other post of yours here, in all these years, and I`ve read every single word of it, including the comments, the exact opposite is true: Scientology is NOT something to believe in. It`s something you DO. It works, even if you don`t believe in it. You are the only one which can possibly decide, if it works for you, or not. In some cases Scientology might not work. Possible. So long, leave the Org then, quick. – But believing is not necesserary. I gave some Assists to dying people, Non – Scientologists, and they lived again. I even gave an Assist to my Dog, and he felt great, and the animal is not religious.

    I mentioned it, I`ve read everything on this Blog, and I`m still not convinced. Comparing reality which all the brutal criticism here, I simply don`t see any truth here. Especially the unfair and almost aggressive criticism of COB, resulted in a lot of rubbish: Super Power is here, ready to start! The New Mecca of Scientology is open! GAT II is there! We have a fantastic new E – Meter, no matter how long it was stored in a warehouse! All the Materials, every Building, every Org, are so beautiful designed, and presented, it`s awesome. No wonder it was so difficult to get a Pass from David Miscavige, he expected Perfection and Estetics, and obviously didn´t expected less than that. – There`s no reason to cry because of this!

    That`s no “Micro managment” or chicanery, like I`ve read here, all that whining, that`s simply good managment. COB is a competent, sympathic, cool and great guy, and in 30 Years I never saw someone, which would have be able to lead the Church of Scientology, through difficult times.

    • Robert Almblad

      “Lead the Church through difficult times?” I never heard him say these were difficult times. Just glorious expansion times.

    • Michael Fairman

      Kool-aide runs in your veins, oh unenlightened Snowflake. Stone walls surround your thinking process, and lies have become your existence. Your soul, if you still have one, resides in the innermost circle of Hell – a hell of your own making. So sad, so pathetic and so far gone.

    • Amen, Schneewitzchen

    • Aesthetics, not estetics.

    • David Miscavige is awesome.

      • Karen, this video was enlightening. Where does David Miscavige get these statistics from? Not even the most critical gossip columnist would make claims such as these about the Church of Scientology during real times in history such as ours!🙂 And David Miscavie is not making these claims to be crtical of the Church of Scientology, he is making them to promote the church’s activities? This is point worth noting. And then, when he is all done making these bogus claims, he goes home to Int Base and beats up the staff? Is this man an idiot or just impersonating one? Thanks again Karen.🙂

    • Snowwhite…..””Scientology is NOT something to believe in. It`s something you DO. It works, even if you don`t believe in it.” good for you to understand that and good for me also for believing in the same. I never see scientology as something like religion but yes it has tech when used- applied properly works since results can be seen.
      When I read any post I keep it in mind what I read is that persons reality how they see-understand and interpret what they create and the incoming stuff.
      I also see some posts collect lots of agreements but why these agreements are written that can be a very different story.. ugh….

      • When I read any post I keep it in mind what I read is that persons reality how they see-understand and interpret what they create and the incoming stuff.

        I just wanted to let you know that some people make things up. Their reality, understanding, interpretation and manipulation are hidden behind what they post.

        • George L… Yes. “Has the withhold been missed” ?[ my most favorite question when i am in session] and it has been hehehe. but again that is their reality.. and I really don’t mind.
          . If we could see behind all the post the really thinking-believing now that would be fun to read would be most entertaining.. that social valance that thin veneer do not allows much.
          We got to be nice, we got be polite, we got to go with the flow, we got to agree, we cant be different, they might think bad of me, they might don’t like me, I be out of the group, I might don’t look smart… and few millions of other reasons these people will not show their true beliefs the self.
          of course one must look normal at all times! 🙂

        • George.. I have found out the most harm the most effective overt I have done is when I have lied to my self.. That was the only overt truly caused harm., when I have twisted the reality in order to feel better, when I lied to self I could justify my actions.

        • George PS… are you trained auditor?

      • When I turned my back on the Church of Scientology I could not get it through my head that other people might have gone through WORSE than I did and STILL not gotten the opportunity to tell anyone. (This would be a dream for OSA type people if it persisted). But then I realized, after talking to people that had already left the church and understood what took place with me. A shortage of ARC is what brought that about. I soon learned to listen to EVERYTHING ANYONE that has left the church has to say, including Marty, who was very highly trained and audited from his time in the church. There is something to learn from them and something for them to learn from me. The true gift of understanding. It is not something one learns from being a part of the “church” it is something most people come to understand they wished they had had when they were in the church after they left!🙂 ARC. And if you enhance it with a lot of the correct KRC your situation becomes WIN, WIN, WIN without having to donate $10,000,000.00 to the IAS. What good is that money doing if the same DB’s and criminals still populate the church?🙂

    • Snowwhite – There are little purple stains on your upper lips. Try a little dab of bleach to see if that comes off. We don’t want you to make a fool of yourself.

      • have you faced the mirror lately and seen that flat valance there? do you believe that is real? She don’t have a face nor lips so I cant say that you have a big mouth either! Fun we are having🙂

    • EnthralledObserver

      Then $cientology is a fraudulent ‘business’ that owes billions of dollars in back taxes and refunds for unsatisified customers… hence bankruptcy is imminent. Good management… ? I think NOT.
      See, Snowwhite, you simple cannot have it both ways. To attempt it is criminal… oh… wait… the whole shebang is criminal, from Start (LRonny Hubbard) to Finish (Davey Makemerich).

      • Since you are on observer I take haven’t had much auditing have you? And that explains a lot. If you would have than you would not put everything in the same pot. Few realizations alone changes the viewpoints how one sees the universe. Go down to seven-eleven buy a few pound it is in the ice cream section! I bought mine there!

    • And thank you to our war correspondent.

    • “I even gave an Assist to my Dog, and he felt great.”

      Now I wonder why the guy working at the A.S.P.C.A. who’s job it is euthanize the strays can’t get these results?

    • ” in 30 Years I never saw someone, which would have be able to lead the Church of Scientology, through difficult times.”

      None of us have. Nobody else has been allowed to even try. Those that chipped in and did lead and help were quickly thrown under the bus. And who do you think CREATED the “difficult times?” And made sure people like you believed nobody else could lead but him?

      You clearly have good reasons and goals not to confront sources. This is going to smack right up against your goals to “be combative”. Because you will mock up combat and then charge after the medic in your own camp standing behind you while the enemy shoots you in the back because you are running away from the source.

      Why not get yourself sorted out before charging in to fix every one else?

      You think it the Scientology that healed your animal you can’t even see it was YOU.

      Your code of honor is in the mud if you don’t think you have every capability of leading of the Church through hard times yourself. The Church could hire a competent executive from Los Angeles at a salary a fraction of what it costs to maintain David who could turn that place around in 12 months. And he wouldn’t even need to be a Scientologist. He would just have to want to earn his pay check and set others up for wins.

    • Please thank Snowwhite if his posting made you angry, resentful, produced in you the impulse to insult him, to cause him palin, to shut him up, to wipe him out of existence, to label him with the worst identity you can think of,,,,

      I, not too long ago, saw the immense value of someone labeling me or attackng the viewpoints I hold or the way I acted, of intending to make me feel worthless, flawed or evil..

      It allowed me to discover my resistances to particular inflows, the ridges that get restimulated and keep me trapped and dim me, dim my heart, my kindness, my strength to make happen, my peace of mind.

      One, in my view, can either empower Snowwhite with the power to make one ugly, to poison the soul one is with anti-love, or you can thank him for making you aware of those ridges that you have created that entrap and dim a soul so that you can stop the resistance to flows like his, to viewpoints one is not being willing and able to allow to be, without having to change them or insult them..

      I am pretty certain one is happier if one takes the viewpoint that all anyone or anthing can do to you is help you grow, to make you aware of your own flaws and weaknesses and limiting conditions. I truly feel that empowering critics with the power to change you for the better is a pretty constructive empowerment.

      Snowhite, in my view, is to me, a beautiful soul just being threatened with having to let go of viewpoints that give him a sense of security and, most important, to have, the universe he has cretated in which Scientology is the one and only true path, be invalidated.

      It is like telling a person who is Christian whom his whole life revolved around Jesus and his preaching, that Jesus is the devil. That is QUITE a painful overwhelming experience

      Regards,
      Luis

      • Louis, you wrote…”I, not too long ago, saw the immense value of someone labeling me or attackng the viewpoints I hold or the way I acted, of intending to make me feel worthless, flawed or evil..

        “It allowed me to discover my resistances to particular inflows, the ridges that get restimulated and keep me trapped and dim me, dim my heart, my kindness, my strength to make happen, my peace of mind.

        […]

        “I am pretty certain one is happier if one takes the viewpoint that all anyone or anthing can do to you is help you grow, to make you aware of your own flaws and weaknesses and limiting conditions. I truly feel that empowering critics with the power to change you for the better is a pretty constructive empowerment.”

        Louis, this is an incredibly liberating recognition that you have come into! It is the recognition that instantly transforms the prison into a classroom. I can easily speak to this as I too have come into this recognition and it has changed my ‘worldly’ experience enormously!

        Louis, here’s a gift…

        • Brian The Experimenter

          Beautiful vid Monte

        • Thanks Monte!!

          What an enjoyable experience watching the video!!

          I had to Google for the mantra translation:
          “We meditate on the glory of that Being who has produced this universe; may He enlighten our minds”.

          Meditation was the tool that opened up my self awareness of the “good and bad” contents of my universe.

          Then it evolved into something quite different unique to me but all that it basically is, is allowing my universe to present and to flow without resistance. All the “bad” stuff just starts coming out and dissolving in present time in the order my universe has it in. No digging, no commands, no time travel required.

          I absolutely loved this statement of yours:
          It is the recognition that instantly transforms the prison into a classroom.”
          In one sentence you “obliterated” the need for all of my sentences….🙂

          Lastly, a huge hug to you for having accomplished, what is being to me, one of the best, most life changing viewpoints I have assumed.

          Luis

          I

          • Luis, your huge hug has been received with much joy! Thank you so much!

            The ‘recognition’ that we’re both benefiting so much from Louis is referred to as ‘forgiveness’ in the book A Course in Miracles. Not the kind of forgiveness that overlooks a wrongness and thereby validates that wrongness, but a forgiveness that recognizes the misperception of something unreal being mistakenly perceived as being real. This ‘recognition’ (I believe) brings one to the edge of the mind.

            Louis, thanks for finding the translation to the mantra. I took a look at the description of the video and there was an expanded version.

            Gayatri Mantra words:
            Om bhur bhuvah svaha
            Tat savitur varenyam
            Bhargo devasya dhimahi
            Dhiyo yonah prachodayat

            Translation:

            Praise to the source of all things.
            It is due to you that we attain true happiness on all planes.
            It is due to your transcendent nature that you are being worshipped and adored. Ignite us with your all pervading light.

            I recently watched the Battlestar Galatica series on Netflix and this mantra is incorporated into the opening music of that show. It was in tracking that mantra down that I discovered Deva Premal. In any case, I very much resonate to this mantra and I listen to it at the start of each day. Although, because I enjoy the percussion, I listen to the Battlestar version. Here that version is:

            Cheers ~ Monte

      • Luis,
        What a nice, causative approach!
        Greta

    • Snowflake, where have you been?
      Have you even read the 31 Factors?
      (By the way, by now there must easily be 51 Factors, regarding the destruction of the Tech and the operation of scientology as LRH intended).

    • SadStateofAffairs

      Snowwhite, if you seriously mean what you say here, than although you may have read every word of this blog since day one, you apparently understood almost none of it. Good management? No micromanagement? Competent? Cool? Great guy? Ever worked for Mr. Great Guy directly, spent much time with him? Ever stayed up 48 hours straight under threat of ethics to call Scientologists to get them to pay for donated Basics packages to Libraries that the Libraries then threw out or sold at pennies on the dollar? Ever get slapped by him? Ever have to donate your meager staff pay along with all other Sea Org members to buy him expensive luxury items? Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

  6. I know of some books or self help methods that say, if you really believe in…(whatever) it may or will come true. I do not believe in this, that it works. Scientology would be the same with the difference that you “pray” in the form of auditing processes. I consider myself intelligent. This forbids to “believe” in something, as simply believing in something blindly is generally considered un-intelligent. So, me, considering myself intelligent, has to hide my believes. As any other human being, cause (almost) every human being himself considers to be more intelligent.
    Therefore I cannot communicate with others. Only a view.
    Maybe some are religionists. Blind followers that are not so bright. This is self evident. As we are more aware than those we recognize their “errors” and they do not.

    This now closes the circle. We belief others are… and then we get it. We then have evidence that our believes are factual.

  7. Marty wrote:

    My heartfelt advice for those who no longer believe in scientology and yet continue to haunt themselves over it, is that you give it a rest. Give yourself some space to come to grips with the fact of scientology’s religious nature. Once you do that you can fairly easily decide whether you want to continue to believe in it – or obsess with it – or not. Once you do that the rest of the way in or out is fairly simple and requires little to no guidance.

    From my perspective, there’s a little more to it than that.

    There are so many lies that people were told about Scientology when they were first getting involved – and lies that continued to roll out to all Scientologists from Int Base for decades – and which became the “stable data” on the subject, and there were so many manipulative thought-stopping and mind control techniques which Hubbard intentionally implanted into Scientologists, that once you know about these things, getting only yourself out is just not good enough.

    For me.

    It is not an “obsession” to spend a few minutes or even an hour per day, between client work, to post here and there to introduce new people to links on the internet or to raise questions about LRH “scripture” in order to keep people thinking and questioning their Scientology programming.

    For someone like me who worked in missions and forwarded LRH’s lies which were intended to enslave people and take everything of value from them that they had, I consider it a responsibility. My own responsibility.

    So no need to diseasify or catastrophize the process of exposing LRH and Scientology brainwashing techniques. It’s not an obsession or a disease of any kind. In fact, it can be quite fun and even rewarding.

    Yes. Some people who have been exposed to all the information they need to be exposed to, and who still want to be Scientologists, and who it is clear will not harm anyone using Scientology, deserve a “pass” as a Scientologist.

    But some people, especially those who have just escaped the Church, do not know what they need to know to make informed decisions about their own involvement in Scientology – something they would never get from LRH lectures or writings or from David Miscavige or any other Church member.

    And some people are still dramatizing Scientology to a dangerous degree.

    So it’s not an obsession for everyone. And your description above does not apply to very many people at all who have been doing this for a long time, in my experience.

    So speak for yourself, poopy.

    Alanzo (:>)

    • “And some people are still dramatizing Scientology to a dangerous degree.”

      Thank you Alanzo for your goals to make the world safe and keep it holy for all. I think you have already arrived at being a Saint and have just gone unacknowledged.

    • By the way, Marty always speaks for himself. No need to sew wrong items and wrong indications into the fabric here because of a post that does not support your goals. Not everyone is having an identity crisis or a crisis of faith. You have a crisis of faith because it supports some goal or identity that is important to you. Either your goal to be “holy” or your goal to be “unholy” Not everyone who got involved in Scientology has such goals and could care less whether Hubbard did either.

    • And believe it or not, a lot of people who have explored Scientology never had a goal ” to be a Scientologist”. So they don’t have swing all the way to the left now and wallow in a “To not be a Scientologist”.

      A lot of people didn’t have the goal to “spread Scientology across the planet”. So they are not now swinging all the way left to “make Scientology disappear from the planet”.

      A lot of people didn’t have a goal to make Hubbard a sacred cow. So they don’t have to be concerned now with unmocking him and making him into whatever, the villain or anti Christ.

      A lot of people never became fanatics so they now do not swing all the way left into critics and haters.

      A lot of people did not have a goal to become war correspondents so they are not parked in this war reporting it.

      A lot of people did not have a goal to run with a herd so they do not go hither and thither with the herds running out here in opposite directions.

      Not every one is wobbly bouncing this way and that. Far left and far right.
      So they do not owe you herd allegiance.

      None of these conditions above warrants abuse or a license for you or anyone else to discount them.

    • Alanzo, are you familiar with the Karpman Drama Triangle? If not here’s a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karpman_drama_triangle

      As I read your comment this triangle came to mind. It is an incredibly efficacious tool of the ‘ego mind’ (ego thought system) used to keep its illusory world real and, therefore, enduring. It is a fantastically brilliant distraction! Of course, there are things that one must believe first before the distraction will work e.g., that the concept of victim is real for starters.

      • That is fantastic, Monte!

        I had not seen that. Definitely food for thought!

        Alanzo

      • Thank you for that Monte.
        A very interesting look.

        Eric

      • Great rescue job Monte!

        • Oracle, I’m only trying to help (it’s a codependent thing). 🙂

          • Laughter! I know, you are trying to “help”. It is right out of the Karpman drama triangle!

            The rescuer, who intervenes, seemingly out of a desire to help the situation or the underdog.

            • Coming at you from Chess records!

            • The Cartman Triangle is awesome.

              I can see you and me being 2/3rds of it on a special episode of South Park!

              With love for you, The Oracle.

              Alanzo

              • AAhhh Alanzo, Someone has disarmed The Oracle yet again.

                  • T.0.

                    There are two excellent theories on how to argue with a woman and neither of them work.

                    Re: What Merlin actually meant was that the only way to handle a woman is to keep her pregnant.

                    I read in the paper many yrs ago, that there was a study done on the female mind at Princeton University. They discovered that a woman’s disposition is relative to the quantity and quality of semen in her blood stream. The more and better quality semen in her blood stream, the better and happier the woman is.

                    So based on Princeton research, it has to be deduced that when you see a woman that is not up to par, that means that her semen levels are low or on nil.

                    And if the problem is poor quality semen, then one has to go and check with the woman who bore him.

                    So by that empirical logic, women are responsible for all the problems on earth.

                    And it all began with Adam allowing Eve to think and talk him into eating the forbidden fruit.

                    Evidently allowing women to think is a very slippery slope.

                    History has proven that every time.

                    This is reinforced or confirmed by Hubbard’s write up in Science of Survival on the role of women in society.

                    Don’t shoot the messenger or observer of truth.

                    Dio

                    • Why would I shoot the messenger? Women don’t start the wars because they know the children killed could be their own. We are on the create end.

                      No, Merlin did not mention pregnancy. I heard the song and read the book. And Merlin did not write the songs or the book. Not sure how this got hung on Merlin.

                      Hubbard did notice that some women had a role, he himself was a product of that role. But he was not the first to notice. Lafcadio Hearn changed the viewpoint of women in Japan from possessions to religion. “Women are a religion”. He changed a civilization with a word of truth.

                      But for the most part women are not guided by Princeton or writers or Pioneers. We create a path for such business. I would not dedicate much energy or respond to such gossip.

                    • “I believe women should be put on a pedestal, so men can look up their dress”
                      Steve Martin, Saturday Night Live.

                      Mark

                    • Mark,

                      LOL

                      OMG

                      Too funny.

                      Dio

  8. “It is just like any other religion in that regard.”

    I think it is the amount of data.
    In the bible or any other text you can always find something to cite from. Simply ignore that it may say something else on another page. Citation is a way to make yourself right or to reasure yourself … is it low self-confidence? I don’t know. Maybe.

    You can always learn something from any book you like. And there is always something to understand. Even Alice in Wonderland could be considered as a religious technology.

    Nevertheless, let’s take a positive view on aberration: “Moving On Up a Little Higher”.
    And for the ones who don’t want to see it: The world is getting better and better since a few billion years. Every day a little bit.

    Marty, I don’t know if you understand your role. For some you are like a scout. Not a Jesus, but surely someone whose way becomes important for others.

    • Alanzo – I totally agree, personally, I feel responsible to help others when they get out sort everything out. I will stay all the way until the end and it is a done. If you can, keep posting, keep talking, keep reaching out to those in doubt and please keep helping those in who are trapped.

      We are all making a difference! Don’t anyone give up please! Innocent people are harmed and we have to help them – we know too much and can’t pretend we don’t. Crimes are being committed daily by the co$ and Miscavige! Familes shattered….hope we can all stick with this! Thanks to all of you who are relentless to exposing the truth.

      • I find my thinking is similar to that of Alanzo and Idle Morge.

        I think we all process in different ways and at different speeds. Speaking for myself, it has been refreshing, liberating, and empowering to express what is wrong with Scientology — and to do so in a forum that may be of help to others who have been in mental chains of the Church and who still may be in the thrall of that fascist organization.

        What got me interested in Scientology was not a religion. In fact, when religion got pushed into the mission I was at, it was an absolute turn off. What I wanted — and what I was being sold on — was a systematic, somewhat scientific approach to unravel the mysteries of consciousness, existence, and the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth — if that cycle exists.

        That purpose — for me — is far, far, too important to write it off as one religious choice among many. If Scientology cannot get me to that non-religious goal, I fall back to science and sound research.

        What I sometimes have posted, but which may get lost in my ample criticism of Hubbard and organization he left behind, is that I am very certain that I have helped people in auditing and have been helped, and that many of the precepts and practices of Scientology can and should be tested — no matter whether Hubbard invented or borrowed them without acknowledgement. Even if Scientology works because of a sort of faith in its dogma, that still points to a deeper question that can be researched: exactly how does the mind work such that mere belief in a religion can give relief?

        I believe that the world is nearing a major paradigm shift away from the (false) dichotomy of matter-spirit / body-soul / science-spirituality, and so on. Like others (Charles Tart comes to mind) we may be approaching the end of “scientism” (a belief in the material cause of all things) and entering an age of a broader sense of “science” that strives to incorporate and unify our experiences of consciousness and “spirit” with our understanding of the universe as a whole.

        I sincerely thank Marty for his management of this blog and the opportunity to post on it. It has contributed greatly to my own evolution. For me, it is hard though to come to grips with Scientology as a religion, for that is never what it meant for me. Just my view, perhaps, for I am also someone who would probably say that Buddhism is also not really a religion in the sense that I think of religion.

        For me to accept Scientology as a religion would mean I would accept the lies perpetrated to get tax benefits, the fake cross, the creeds and ceremonies made up overnight, and the total misdefining of payment for goods and services into “religious donations.”

        You see, I — probably as much as anyone if not more — wanted Scientology to be _true_ — not to be another religion, of which the Earth has had many thousands. Thanks for listening.

        • Thanks for posting.

        • Right on FOTF2012,
          Pushing the religious aspect by enforcing black garb of the minister with the cross etc. created a ridge and a lie. While I loved helping people as an auditor I never wanted to perform the ministerial duties like baptism,
          marriage etc.
          Greta

  9. Bingo! Best article ever on your blog by far.

  10. Marty,

    1. I disagree with your firsr paragraph, in particular.

    2. If you believe in scientology, it is evident that you flunked scientology too.

    Def: Scientology: knowing how to know.

    I will expand upon that and say, that scientology is the science of knowing how to know the truth of ______________(fill in the blank).

    In other words scientology is the science of knowing how to know the truth of anything you want to know the truth about. And a lot more too.

    Hubbard gave the formula for knowing and understanding.

    Therefore:

    It is an oxymoron that a scientologist has to believe in something, scientology or anything else.

    When you as a scientologist say you believe in scientology, you are in fact saying you do not know what scientology is. But are going along with blind faith.

    A competent or bonafide scientologist should “know”, not “believe”.

    Believing in something does not make it true.

    Definition: 1.Believe: to accept something as true without proof. 2.To raise an assumption to the level of a fact without proof. 3. blind faith.

    All other definitions of the word as given in dictionaries of the word believe are wrong.

    When you say you believe in something, it means you do not know.
    You do not know, the truth or facts of the subject at hand. You do not have certainty.

    When you say you believe in _____________, you are in fact saying that you do not know what you are talking about. You do not know the facts.

    You do not understand the subject. You are making an assumption.

    You are raising an arbitrary, an assumption, a hearsay, an opinion, a fabrication, to the level of a fact without proof. To do so is intellectually dishonest.

    A belief is in fact, a confession of ignorance.

    An intellectually honest person or a person with intellectual integrity, never says anything he cannot prove. A person with intellectual integrity speaks only in facts. A person with intellectual integrity either knows, does not know, or is not sure.

    There is hardly a more misused and misunderstood word in the English language, than believe. It is an intellectual trap. The same could apply to other languages too, but I do not know any other language.

    Def: of know:

    1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
    2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
    3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
    4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
    5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
    verb (used without object), knew, known, know·ing.
    6. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
    7. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.
    noun
    8. the fact or state of knowing; knowledge.
    Idioms
    9. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information.
    10. know the ropes, Informal. to understand or be familiar with the particulars of a subject or business: He knew the ropes better than anyone else in politics.

    There are three states of knowingness:

    1. you know something with certainty.

    2. you do not know

    3. you are not sure.

    Beliefs and opinions fall under two and three.

    3. When you say that scientology is a religion, you give credibility to the cos and their criminal organization.

    Scientology is best or safest called a spiritual philosophy, a new psychology, and spiritual healing methodology.

    It has accomplished what all religions, spiritual teachings, philosophies, psychologies, witchcraft, scorceries, shamanists , excorsists, etc. of the past wanted to accomplish but did not.

    That is the cleansing or healing or freeing of the soul, mind, or spirit. Call it what you wish. And it accomplished more than that too.

    Maybe it is better to say, almost accomplished or conditionally accomplished.

    The problem with scientology is that the reason that a person does not get stable and enduring peak states is, because my hypothesis is because it is due to the missing Jesus factor, bible data, and other missing tech and philosophy.
    It is my hypothesis that in a peak state, the person gets a taste of the kingdom of heaven.

    And Jesus said; No one enters the kingdom of heaven except through me.

    So in scientology when we experience a peak state, we get a sample and are thrown out.

    As is said in the bible, God will spew us out of His mouth if we are luke warm.

    It is my hypothesis is that has to be the next development in the tech.

    Dio

    • “All other definitions of the word as given in dictionaries of the word believe are wrong.”

      It is truly fascinating that you BELIEVE this..! So now we are to pick and choose which definitions we use when word-clearing??
      Let’s go ahead and redefine any words which don’t align with our BELIEFS!
      yep, I said you have beliefs, which, I believe include the belief that scientology is “knowing how to know”. That’s what Hubbard said, therefore we must believe it is true. How do we KNOW it’s true? Because we’ve defined it that way. This is called circular logic. Using scientology to prove scientology…WTF
      OK, just for kicks, I will refer to the know to mystery scale, the top of which is know. So this “know” means without question, with TOTAL certainty. In my experience, there is nothing that a human being can KNOW with total certainty. This is simply “STOP LOOKING” This is also hubris. Go look up Einstein, I think he said that the more he learned, the more he found out that he didn’t know! The only entity that can possibly KNOW with total certainty is GOD! The world is an unpredictable place. The minute I figure I know something, there appears an EXCEPTION, out of nowhere. Using logic, the only statement of certainty that has workability for me is “based on my experience and training, I’m 99.99% sure that ________”. We can work backwards, if you want, ie the bomb blew up therefore we are 100% sure that it would have exploded, but if we go into the future, and construct an identical bomb, we can’t KNOW it will explode, really, until it does. So what is 100% sure? It does not exist, except in retrospect! it means pretty sure, but you MUST be willing to leave the door open for unpredictable circumstances

      • Raylene,

        Your reply to my post is pure convoluted nonsense.

        The voice of ignorance.

        I don’t think you are qualified to comment on anything.

        Some things I know:

        I know what my name is.

        I know that I am a man.

        I know who my parents and family are.

        I know how old I am.

        I know where I live.

        I know where I have been and what I have done.

        I know that I am posting on Marty’s blog.

        I know that 2+2 = 4.

        I know how to drive a car.

        I know how to grow tomatoes.

        I know what a dog looks like.

        I know the difference between a cow and a horse.

        Now I know that you do not know anything.

        Dio

      • Raylene,

        Quote you: It is truly fascinating that you BELIEVE this..! So now we are to pick and choose which definitions we use when word-clearing??
        Let’s go ahead and redefine any words which don’t align with our BELIEFS!

        I have been thinking more about your words: “pick and choose” which definitions we use. etc, ……which don’t align with our beliefs.

        Have you ever heard of”intelligence” and using “intelligence”, reason and logic…. to evaluate and determine the value of a datum?

        Evidently you do not have those faculties.

        Intelligence: 1. a relative ability of a being to evaluate data and arrive at the most superior computation. 2. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

        Reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

        Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

        Dio

    • Dio,

      Weirdly enough, I fully agree with Marty’s first paragraph, in particular.
      If “knowing how to know” means that you are not allowed to know anything about LRH and not question anything, then it is about “belief”.

      Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum. The “dubito” is the precondition, which is doubt. Doubt is the essence of evolution. What is a system that suppresses doubt? A belief system.

      How can someone do the L’s and not get the EP “exterior with full/all perceptions”? This is a very good example of Marty’s first paragraph. You belief in something. The fact is that you did not achieve the EP and nobody ever did. Lying to yourself is the “belief”. Thousands of justifications rather than just looking at the fact that it did not work the way it should have worked according to Hubbard. I am not saying that there is nothing to gain. I am just saying that you do not get the promised EP.

      Some OT VIII even have mushy brains. They cannot remember what they did days ago. But they have an entirely “an open time track”? Come on! Stop lying to yourself.

      Reality is something very personal; if it is true for you then it is true according to your experience (which can be a bit mushy). Hence Marty’s first paragraph.

      Scientology can be an applied philosophy. You just need to keep your feet on the ground. Otherwise it becomes a religion like any other religion. Doubt is dead – no evolution.

    • Dio,
      There are numerous ways of knowing. All are valid, but cannot be handled the same way.
      Ways of knowing include: data-driven knowledge (ex is scientific knowing); knowing through tradition, (the things that are passed through generations and have been helpful); knowing through acquired belief (including religious knowing); knowing through our personal experience; and intuitive knowing.
      No one way of knowing is intrinsically higher than another. Very intelligent people who work scientifically often also have strong belief systems. Belief is a legitimate form of knowing.
      The tricky part is learning to recognize what form of knowing we are using.
      I teach research to health professionals. Getting them to recognize the ways that they know and experience their world is quite a challenge.
      All forms of knowing can be studied, but the methodologies used are very different.

      • Eileen,

        What you wrote is nonsense.

        I would not want you to be my teacher.

        Dio

      • The ways of knowing are how we acquire knowledge about the world around us, and figure out our relationship with it. TOK identifies 8 different ways of knowing, each one involving a different method of gaining knowledge, but just like with the areas of knowledge, they are often intertwined and dependent on each other.

        Emotion

        Emotion is hard to measure and assess, because each of us is affected in a different way by our emotion. One key question we will explore is to what extent it helps or hinders us in building up an objective picture of the world, and its relationship with reason.

        Emotion

        Faith

        Faith is a new TOK way of knowing, and is perhaps the most devisive of all included on the course. Does faith exist? Do you have to choose to have it? Is it inseparabe from religion – or can atheists possess and experience it? How reliable is faith?

        Faith

        Imagination

        Imagination is another new way of knowing for the course. We all possess it to some degree, but to what extent is it necessary to the acquisition of knowledge in science and the arts? Was Einstein right when he said it was more important than knowledge?

        Imagination

        Intuition

        Intuition is the way in which we acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason. Is it a reliable way of learning about the world around us? Is it vital for leading us towards new discoveries in the sciences? What role does it play in ethics?

        Intuition

        Language

        Language is not only a way we understand the world, it is also the way we express ourselves, and allow others to understand us. One of the key questions in language is to what extent is our vision of the world limited by the language that we speak.

        Language

        Memory

        Memory is the last ‘new’ way of knowing. Questions associated with it include whether it really is a way of knowing, or just the accumulation of all the other ways of knowing, and the extent to which we can build up knowledge without it.

        Memory

        Reason

        Reason is traditionally portrayed as the opposite of emotion in terms of the acquisition of knowledge. Key questions therefore include its relationship with emotion, the different forms of reason, and the ‘enemies’ of reason such fallacies.

        Reason

        Sense perception

        Sense perception is probably the most ‘immediate’ way of knowing, and the first that we develop as human beings. The key question to contend with is how reliable our senses are, and to what extent we can rely on them to provide us with ‘true’ knowledge.

        Sense perception

    • Dio…. I have read many posts from you and the above was one of your best TILL THIS POINT……Than the rest is pure undiluted crap… my reality of course! CRAP PART”’The problem with scientology is that the reason that a person does not get stable and enduring peak states is, because my hypothesis is because it is due to the missing Jesus factor, bible data, and other missing tech and philosophy.
      It is my hypothesis that in a peak state, the person gets a taste of the kingdom of heaven.

      And Jesus said; No one enters the kingdom of heaven except through me.

      So in scientology when we experience a peak state, we get a sample and are thrown out.

      As is said in the bible, God will spew us out of His mouth if we are luke warm.

      It is my hypothesis is that has to be the next development in the tech. ”

      Dio””

      PS;;THE TECH IS THERE but needs to be used!

      • Well you should become a Jew if you really want to follow Jesus

        • CD,
          You: Well you should become a Jew if you really want to follow Jesus

          It is evident by your comment, that you are not qualified to comment on the subject as you state.

          People who know anything about Christianity, Jesus and Jews know that Jews do not follow Jesus teachings. Jews rejected Jesus.

          It is not intellectually honest to comment on something you are not qualified to comment on. In other words do not know anything about or more correctly, know the truth about.

          Another way to say it is:

          Never say anything you cannot prove, or back up with impartial facts, or empirical evidence, where applicable.

          Even a fool is considered wise when he keeps his mouth shut.

          Beliefs and opinions are confessions of ignorance and the function of fools, the intellectually challenged, and the like.

          Dio

          • Jesus was a Jew, and he would have liked to have his followers to follow Judeism.

            You seem to be angry at logic

            “Never say anything you cannot prove, or back up with impartial facts, or empirical evidence, where applicable”

        • CD I don’t think that comment was intended for me…

      • Elizabeth,

        Quoting you: Dio…. I have read many posts from you and the above was one of your best TILL THIS POINT……Than the rest is pure undiluted crap… my reality of course!

        1.Point out one post of mine that was not true.

        2. Your problem is that being at around zero on the theta scale. everything I said went about 4 and plus,…. whole tone levels over your head.

        The definition of insanity is: 1. unsound judgement. 2. not being able to discern right from wrong. 3. Seeing wrong where there is right and right where there is wrong.

        Evidently you are not qualified to comment on anything.

        Even when you are right you are right for the wrong reasons.

        Dio

        • What you write is the reflection of your believes and nothing more.. You do not have the abilities to know and understand more than what you know.

        • Dio..”2. not being able to discern right from wrong. 3. Seeing wrong where there is right and right where there is wrong. ” This is a compliment great compliment.. let you figure out why!

        • Dio… if normal-sane is where you at well, thank you but no thank you…I worked hard not to be and not to have the same realities as you have.
          Now to be told by you that I am insane, and on the tone scale at 0 that is the compliment of greatest magnitude knowing that we have nothing in common. thank you for recognition and the acknowledgement.

    • Dio, there are two statements that you made in your post that caught my attention. These are:

      “Believing in something does not make it true.”

      “A belief is in fact, a confession of ignorance.”

      For me, I recognize these two simple statements as being true while the rest of what you had to say was originating from your beliefs. Beliefs are the basis of non-reality. In this video Adyashanti does a pretty good job of explaining this.

      • Monte,

        You have a huge MU. You did not duplicate.

        You saw something that was not there.

        That is a sign of psychosis:

        : a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.

        You (whether advertently or inadvertently ) accused me of the foolish act or function of believing.

        Or made ass-u-mptions.

        If you saw and read correctly you would of understood, that…

        I do not believe in anything. Or believe anything.

        I learned a long time ago, not to do something so foolish.

        A person who “believes”, is either intellectually challenged or intellectually dishonest, or simply very low on the scale of intellectual evolution.

        Please read my post over as many times as necessary to fully duplicate what I meant.

        Dio

        • Dio, you are correct. I did not duplicate you. And even if I were to read your post over and over and over and then read it again…I would still not duplicate what you meant. You see Dio, I do not ‘see’ things for what they really are; as they really are. My perception is distorted. I am always perceiving through an enormity of ‘filters.’ Myriad filters that exist as ideas, conclusions, considerations, evaluations, invalidations, feelings, thoughts, belief systems, labels, grievances, biases, and judgments. In other words, I ‘see’ through the mind and the mind is misperception, misinterpretation, misduplication, misunderstanding. When seeing through the mind one will not ever be able to perceive what is really there or how things really are. To experience true perception, perception that requires absolutely no understanding, one must be out of the mind as well as the body. The body being where the mind sets up shop so to speak.

          In the mind we can each have and experience our own truth. And that Dio, is the basis of chaos. The mind is an entanglement of distorted perceptions and that is the woof and warp of chaos.

          If you want to get out of the chaos BE SILENT. True perception is silence with absolutely no boundaries. A caveat…don’t make silence a goal. The instant you make it a goal you put it into a box; you put it into the mind. and it becomes something distorted.

          Thank you for the enlightening exchange Dio. I am grateful.

          Monte

          • Well done!! on not allowing yourself to be poisoned:

            “That is a sign of psychosis: ”

            Your wise and respectful response says A LOT about you….

            Regards,
            Luis

          • Monte great view point you have written.. very true. by now I have found that telepathic communication is perfect way to communicate, there is no misunderstandings, total instant duplication.

            • Elizabeth, I don’t know much about telepathic communication. Of course, I have had and, occasionally continue to have (probably more than I realize) the experience of telepathic communication but I have never really explored it. I have never examined it to see whether or not telepathic communication transcends the myriad ‘filters’ that obstruct one from being able to truly perceive. And, if it does, what has to occur for that to happen?

              Elizabeth, I am starting to lean heavily toward the notion that, in a world of perception; a world/universe where there is an ‘I’ that is aware of objects existing outside of itself, it is impossible for exact duplication to occur. And it is only in a universe such as this that communication (of any form) is necessary. Communication, it would seem, depends on a belief in separation where there exists individual objects (including people).

              • Monte… you express self so well.. I have difficulties doing the same, writing..
                Your view are on communication same as mine.. In the past [after OT 7] I have found communication a very intriguing subject so I have explored every avenue: reality beliefs on 4 flows and taken earlier similar + whatever needed to be done to open up different levels of understanding what is communication and found different realities how communication has become what is now here on this Planet which everyone rely on uses yet this form of communication cannot be duplicated. It do not work. Here are the layers I have seen, the crude-ast form of communication is:
                1…Written
                2…Spoken-sounds-words
                The above include pictures but those are ignored—people don’t have reality that they ‘’see’’ pictures of the received communication, because the received communication is so stimulating and the ‘’feeling-having them’’ over rides the lighter energy flows: pictures.
                3..Sounds-pictures…. Here pictures were projected and sounds were added that must have happened by accident since it worked and were added to projected pictures in order to call the attention to these newly projected pictures.
                4…Only pictures existed and shared.. questioning did not existed since identities were not established.=valances
                Telepathic communication existing is there, never been erased but not noticed or seldom since awareness is not clear enough — being not keyed out of the use of heavy mass-energy or is keyed into that level of communication and most of all now the reality of communication is centered on word-sounds.. It is heavier more stimulative and that is the in thing to have…. more and more stimulation in order to believe that one is existing.. being here, acknowledged and can be and is cause.
                Best to you. Elizabeth.

    • Dio,
      Well stated! I don’t think that Scientology was originally setup as a religion by LRH. But when you need to create a structure within which Man on this planet can be introduced to it and benefit from it, the closest human endeavor category generalization one finds, is ‘religion’. And I think that’s what Ron then did. He needed a familiar structural system.

      Scientology is a way of life. A workable, practical, doingness.

      Other religions use belief systems. The Christians believe JC died on the cross – despite clear evidence he collected old age pension in Rome until he died at the age of 72. And had passports/travel documents issued in all those intervening years, married again, and had two kids. And these records are in the Vatican and copies in the Univ of Jerusalem. True.

      The management of Scientology’s application via the official Co$ is wholly another matter, and should not be confused with the term scientology. Included here are the PLs, EDs, and a host of HCOBs written at a particular point in time to address an issue at that time. Some should be repealed – no different to laws in some counties in the US South which state that blacks cannot walk on a sidewalk. Repeal them. Clean up the management side, so that they cannot be used out of context.

      A lot needs to be edited and re-written in our new future Church of Scientology’s works. Marty has given great food for thought for example on the Code of a Scientologist, and such like. And in hind sight with what Miscav-baby has done, such re-writes are necessary to prevent similar mis-management to arise.

      • FRIK,

        Thank you for your reply to my post.

        Can you please provide links or what ever clear proof of Jesus’ history as you say.

        I have heard and read a lot of stuff on Jesus, but have never heard what you say, before.

        Dio

    • Dio, you have fallen into the most important trap in scientology. You know that you know; however, you do not know that you believe.

  11. basketballjane

    Marty,

    Brilliant as ever. This post is however going to entice a rabid debate. What has happened to even people like this Snow White character on your blog who is clearly an OSA operative, is that neither side is actually DOING something. It is a lot of empty talk about whatvisbot isn’t true. I say, and have said, you wanna DO Scientology? You like Scientology? Great go do it. Enjoy yourself. But don’t feel the need to be in charge of my life. I am doing Buddhism. I mediate. It helps me. I feel better. I am a nicer person because of it. Is it Vetter than Scientology? To me yes. But who gives a shit about that except me? Nobody should. Do what makes you happy. Allow others to be happy in their life as well.

    • BBJ –

      The unexamined life is not worth living. Not examining the claims that you accepted from LRH as a Scientologist can bog your life down completely.

      Thinking and critically examining the statements and claims and outright lies that Hubbard told Scientologisrs is doing something!

      Raising points and providing new information, like you yourself do so well in your posts, gets people thinking and exposes them to new ideas that can be used to see things in Scientology differently.

      So posting to Marty’s blog and contributing to the discussion is doing something.

      I don’t know how often I have heard the story that a family member got on the Internet and read something that ended up saving their family from being destroyed through disconnection. It happened to my own family, even.

      So don’t put this activity down. Take frequent breaks, or go away forever if that is what you need to do for own own life.

      But people’s lives have been saved from what they read about Scientology by people like you on the Internet.

      Never forget that.

      Alanzo

      • Alazno,
        Hear! Hear!
        It’s not a waste of time to try to help others see the truth of what’s been done to them and sold to them. Helping stay out of scientology or helping them to find their way out and hopefully reconnect with their loved ones it what it’s all about. There’s nothing about this activity that is a waste of time.

      • basketballjane

        Alanzo,
        Yes. Agreed. But at some point that journey comes to an end. There is an end to getting out of Scientology, and that is simply not doing it any more. That means, not doing anything with or about it. Not thinking of it, not wondering about it, not acting out against it, not anything. Just simply moving on and doing something else. At some point that, if you are actually leaving it, should be the goal. Otherwise you haven’t left it at all. Conversely, if you have decided that you are going to continue with Scientology, then you should get off this site and all others and crack a book open and do it. Take LRH’s words and use them in your life. GO audit someone. Because if all you are going to do is be on a blog like this or any other blog, and talk about it and debate it you aren’t doing it

        In my last post I encouraged any new person, coming across these blogs to go back to the beginning. Read all the posts, And dive into the comments if they wish (but as we all well know that can really go off on random tangents) but read it all. Really look it all over and make a decision for themselves.

        But a decision has to be made at some point. To do it, or not to do it, and then that is what you should be doing.
        From reading this blog since its inception till now, what I see is Marty is moving on. (Sorry if I am speaking incorrectly for you now Marty just what I have observed.) His last few posts here have made that clear. This one, I believe, is a closure of the subject of Scientology as a whole. There really isn’t anything else to be said on the matter.

        Mike Rinder’s blog does a marvelous job of showing the day to day decimation and reduction of Scientology, its very own Dwindling Spiral, if you will. And Tony Ortega’s blog gives a look (albeit very one sided at times) at what is happening worldwide and legally with the church. And there is plenty of heated debate about each point on both of those blogs if that is what you wish to keep doing.

        As Yoda so eloquently put it, “Do or do not. There is no try.”

        • singandanceall

          you’ve been in and now out.

          You know the trap.

          Go quietly into the sunset and forget about it. LOL

          Why can’t you do both? Tell of your journey and the trap.

          • basketballjane

            I never said anything about not discussing your journey along the way. That. of course, is part of the process. Sharing and learning from others. But at some point there must be an end to that journey. There must come a point where that road ends and you start out on another road, in another direction and move on. Otherwise you trap yourself in the past. And you can never move forward from yesterday.

            • I partly agree with the moving on, but not totally. What I did and experienced in and with Scientology is a part of my that I have a need to fully integrate into my life.

              Many people over many years left Scientology and just “shut up” about it — out of fear, embarrassment, even shame. Closing the door that way and trying to move on doesn’t work, in my opinion and experience.

              Fully integrating all of oneself and the Scientology experience takes some processing like that on this blog. Then I suppose one can move on without repressing part of one’s experience.

            • Absolutely disagree that it’s part of a, ‘process’ as if there is a beginning, middle and end with leaving it meaning that you don’t even think about it? How odd. Of course I still sometimes think about Scientology. I think about a wide range of things; sometimes I think about my high school friends, sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I think about my family, sometimes I don’t.

              It doesn’t mean that I am trapped in the past by any stretch of the imagination.

              As far as the line of thought that, ‘I gave my dog/non believing neighbour a touch assist and it worked, therefore Scn is a religion’ is a bit of a leap. I don’t know that there is any one size fits all explanation as to why someone would get better if they didn’t believe, but am of the belief that one on one contact in a calm environment can drastically help someone, whether it’s a touch assist, a Catholic confession, prayers etc.

              But personally, I don’t think Scientology gets to being a religion until OT 2/3, and even then, imho, largely it was someone else’s case.

        • Hi basketballjane

          I feel that there is at least a third option. I,personally like to learn from things. It pretty much takes the form of “taking things away with you.”
          For me to have taken part in Scientology and not have anything that I feel is worth incorporating into my data base and my “tools kit” would be an conscionable waste of time. I do not see it as such, because I have found useful tools, ideas, and door opening realizations through my association with the subject. To throw all of that away, simply because it happened during my association with Scientology would be a HUGE step backward for me.

          I am not a Scientollogist I once considered myself such, but from that “beingness” I have definitely moved on. It was an assumed beingness in the first place, which has now been shed. But I will use ANY data, as I choose, whatever source I got, or get it from. I may, as I see fit, also credit L.Ron Hubbard with things that he has said. It would be ridiculous to me to completely eliminate all data, references, ideas and such from my experience, simply because they may be associated with Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard.

          I am no longer interested in totally immersing myself in any doctrine or religion or philosophy. I now approach them more as a person visiting a market…I will take away what I find interesting or useful, and leave the rest.

          I am not afraid of looking into Ron’s beliefs and technologies, any more that I am in looking into any others. But I do not exclude Scientology as a potential source of some concepts that may be of some value to me. I consider that that would be just as “narrow minded” as refusing to consider, or re-consider ANY viewpoint.

          How could I possibly, realistically, judge whether there is anything of value in any viewpoint unless I am willing to LOOK.

          I am pretty sure that you got my point some time back…
          so I will move on…

          Eric

  12. Interestingly enough just yesterday I was thinking on the lines of ‘to let it go’.

    And, per this: “Can you remain unmoving till the right action arises all by itself?” Thus, I will give myself some space.

    Thank you Marty.

  13. Hello! In recent months you have posted lots of references from various books here. My understanding of this has been that you have been reading a lot and very much enjoying loosening up your thought processes from the seeming narrow confines of the Church of Scientology’s religious dogma so as to have more appreciation for living. Let me know (please) if I have got that right!

    I have not read any of these things that you have mentioned other than the Tao and Siddhartha. And I don’t think that I have read any of the latter since leaving the Church. Both of these are invaluable books. I like the excerpts you have given from these other books, though. I just haven’t yet felt moved to get these others and read them. Perhaps one day.

    I just want to give you my own “tool” that I am using to help me through life and help me with any “bad vibes” I occasionally have played with on the subject of the Church of and the Tech of Scientology and also regarding LRH.

    What’s been most helpful to me has been along the lines of the gratitude posting that you made some months ago.

    I’ll admit to sometimes posting something negative about the Church, here or on Tony’s or on Mike’s blog. I have done some of that. But, that sort of posting is not so much “who I am” in regards to Scientology. From my point of view in regards to all of this, I believe that I have an appreciative attitude, more than anything else. It’s my belief that having a centered, appreciative attitude is what brings about a life that feels worth living.

    So, that’s been my “work” since leaving the Church. I am not YET at 100% success rate in “being” this way, but it is my desire to be, usually, appreciative of things in life and not aware, much, of anything to oppose or be against.

    I listened to a suggestion from a teacher some years ago. The suggestion was to find things that are easy to love, and occupy some good amount of time in the experiencing of them, and then, when one is “blissed out” in the consideration of such things, to look for things to love about me, and then from that level of bliss, look for things to love in the people who I am having (or have had) difficult times with.

    In regards to Scientology, I did this in this way: I got a nice notebook and a nice pen, so that writing would be easy. I took the first few pages of the notebook and wrote down a list of at least ten things that were EASY for me to love. I then went to the next page and wrote a list of 10 things that were easy for me to feel a feeling of appreciation towards. I then went to the next page and wrote another list of at least 10 things that I liked about myself.

    Then I asked myself, “Who in the SO did I really like?” So there was a lot of people that I then wrote down lots of nice things about, in just the same fashion as I mentioned here. A nice “natural” high here!

    At this point, I had myself in a very nice, centered state of mind. While in this state, I then asked myself, “With whom have I had difficulty?” and would get the name of some Sea Org exec. I would then write that person’s name down and then write a list of at least 10 things that I could consider were positive, or beautiful, or loveable about that person; even if that person rarely gave evidence of that aspect; even if I could perceive only a glimmer or suspicion that it was there at all!

    I then did the same thing with another and another and another SO member. Probably 20 – 30 “difficult” people in that list.

    I experienced with this some of the phenomena that Ron mentions in auditing. One was that “the mind” seemed to offer these “despicable” people up at the right gradient. With my “difficult” people in writing their positive aspects, I did not choose the most ornery to begin with. I just started with the “lesser-ornery”! And then the more and more ornery! I think that if I had chosen the MOST “mean” people at the beginning, I might not have thought of one positive aspect at all!

    But, when you “sneak up” on such people in your mind in this way, you can find these things! And, it’s good for a person to find such things. At least, in my experience.

    I remember thinking as I was doing it, that it was a little like the opposite of an O/W write up. I wasn’t writing up what was wrong, I was writing up what was right. It was like a whole day spent, not writing up Knowledge Reports about lousy situations, but Commendation Chits about big and little rightnesses. It was like doing a data series analysis with the idea that the major departure from any ideal scene is the belief that there IS a major departure from the ideal scene. In bettering any situation, the only things or entities that are going to cooperate with are the things and entities you regard with appreciation. When there is an antagonistic regard for another or thing, there is zero cooperation. I now think that, in any situation where there might be perceived one thing right and ninety-nine things wrong, it would be better to emphasize and validate and play with that one right thing than it would be to give any attention at all to any of those wrongnesses.

    In the day that I spent doing that, there was in my experience some crying, some laughing, some pounding my fists on the table, and some thrills of goosebumps across my body. I realized that I had been being bullied about more my thoughts about these people than I had been by the people themselves.

    I have done this little notebook exercise hundreds of times before and since that day. I’ve found it to be a very effective tool in my toolbox. I am imagining that some of the value in the books that you have been advising us to read might be giving similar advice!

    At any rate, I want to thank you for your writing and for your inquisitive nature and for the forum for Scientologists to come and talk and exchange ideas. It has always been a pleasure to read and talk here.

    • Wonderful and delicious (like a good apple pie). Thanks

    • Dan: Buddhists call this process “The Four Immeasurables” — the wish for all sentient beings know happiness, be free from suffering, to never be separated from the great happiness devoid of suffering and to dwell in equanimity” — then breaking this down the wish goes from all the people you love, then the ones you feel neutral to (like a salesclerk) and then enemies – from little enemies to BIG enemies …

      I think you are a buddhist in disguise … (j/k)

      • Ah ha! That would explain by growing (yet still beautiful) Buddha belly that I have been growing!

        • Keep in mind Dan that it is only the “laughing Buddha” that has a big belly — other Buddhas (like the medicine buddha who is blue or the various depictions of Shakyamini Buddha he is in great shape — his hands are placed in various poses representing various things.

          I suspect you are a indeed a very funny guy — looking at the humor of life!!

    • sorry Caps but need to get this through

      IT WAS NOT SCIENTOLOGY THAT MADE THEM LIKEABLE

      “Then I asked myself, “Who in the SO did I really like?” So there was a lot of people that I then wrote down lots of nice things about, in just the same fashion as I mentioned here. A nice “natural” high here! “

      • How “likeable” they are is more dependent upon my decisions about what to like than it is the person or anything that may have influenced them to be “likeable”. I am confident in my own mind that Scientology processes have helped me change myself into a person who can like more things and more people, all more intensely and sincerely.

      • CD
        Nothing wrong with CAPS🙂
        There is a great HCOB July 22, 1963 YOU CAN BE RIGHT, that could have been used and unfortunately got used way too little while in the Co$. It is a great alternative to the O/W system. I used it recently on someone who had incorrectly gotten way up the bridge without actually making it (one of those writing success stories just to please but were non-existent in that person’s universe). It cracked the case and the person started to have REAL wins.
        Greta

  14. . . . I have previously discussed the cognitive dissonance set in place by scientology’s insistence upon being considered religion and science at once; a feature that results in scientologists’ apparent inability to differentiate belief from demonstrable certainty. Beyond that particular feature scientology ought not be that difficult to get over . . .

    There are many other features which make Scientology very difficult to get over. The Disconnection blackmail racket is one feature which quickly comes to mind. Understanding the difference between “belief” and “demonstrable certainty” doesn’t soothe any residual ache for those who’s loved ones cannot. For many, getting over Scientology is not a solipsistic exercise.

    Also, if Scientology is a religion, then the Mafia is an Italian-American social club.

  15. “…scientology is workable to the degree one believes in it. It works when one believes that it will. It does not work when one does not believe that it will.”

    That’s a true statement, as far as it goes. However, it has also been proven that even the physical universe “works” only to the degree that one believes in it. That has been shown with hypnotism where, for example, people suddenly do not see things that are “there” or see things that are “not there.” Thus, even the physical universe (and science) “works” to the degree that one believes in it. And we are conditioned from birth to do so.

    The obvious omitted datum in the illogic of the “ONLY belief” viewpoint is that belief systems vary quite a bit with respect to what degree of “belief” is necessary for them to work – and with regard to how well they work. As an illustration (which I’ve posted anecdotes about in the past), I saw for myself years ago that my children and their friends – who didn’t even know what they were supposed to believe would happen – all got the expected result, and that it has lasted for years. This happens commonly with “coffee shop auditing.” And even with uneducated pcs who get auditing but don’t have any idea of what they are supposed to believe will happen, and it happens anyway. Furthermore, I don’t know of any other religion or belief system that is as efficacious when applied correctly.

    • Marildi wrote:

      Furthermore, I don’t know of any other religion or belief system that is as efficacious when applied correctly.

      Ahhhh. Yes. “when applied correctly”.

      Let’s say you have two auditing sessions, each with the same exact mistakes, and the same correct applications.

      In one auditing session, the pc had a big win and VVGIs. The next day, still blown out, he came back into the org and bought his whole Bridge and then, when he had completed all of it, joined the Sea Org.

      In the other session, the pc had VBIs and went home, quit Scientology, and asked for his money back and then got on “Nightline” to talk about what a fraud it was.

      Same exact sessions.

      In the first example, was Scientology correctly applied, even though mistakes were made by the auditor?

      In the second one, were the mistakes the cause of the outcome?

      So why is “when correctly applied” so all-important to the results of Scientology?

      Alanzo

      • Perhaps the process used was the correct one for the first pc, but was not the correct one for the 2nd pc? The C/S matters too, right? If the C/S is inappropriate the auditor and pc may get a bad result. Surely with your vast experience of Scientology you already know that, right?

        • Valkov wrote:

          Perhaps the process used was the correct one for the first pc, but was not the correct one for the 2nd pc? The C/S matters too, right?

          Very good, Valkov. That is a possibility.

          But what about other possibilities outside of Hubbard’s “when correctly applied” box?

          Can you think outside your Hubbard-dictated box of beliefs and come up with other possible explanations for the scenario described?

          Maybe Scientology “works” on some people and not on others? This explanation was not allowed by Hubbard inside his box.

          Maybe the problem that the first pc wanted handled was addressed in the session and the problem the 2nd pc wanted addressed by the session was not? Why should every unique individual’s “case” run exactly as Hubbard dictated? Just so every paying pc would fit onto his Conveyor Belt to Total Freedom?

          Can you think of other possible causes which Hubbard did not allow to be thought of inside his Box to Total Freedom?

          Alanzo

          • Alanzo,
            I haven’t worked through all of the comments to the very end and this
            may be a bit late to throw in anyway.
            You brought up an interesting discussion with the session (containing errors) that brought 2 completely different results in the 2 pcs.
            As a C/S I could tell you LOTS of reasons why the 2nd pc did so poorly
            but helas!, all of these reasons lay WITHIN LRH’s training system and I cannot, for the life of me, come up with a or several reason why a pc would do poorly that lays OUTSIDE of the Hubbard system as you call it.

            I am thus throwing the glove back to you to bring up some reasons outside of the Scientology (belief) system that you seem to assume or believe do exist. Please name one or several.
            I am looking forward to your response.
            Greta

            • All right, Greta.

              You wrote:

              As a C/S I could tell you LOTS of reasons why the 2nd pc did so poorly
              but helas!, all of these reasons lay WITHIN LRH’s training system and I cannot, for the life of me, come up with a or several reason why a pc would do poorly that lays OUTSIDE of the Hubbard system as you call it.

              I am thus throwing the glove back to you to bring up some reasons outside of the Scientology (belief) system that you seem to assume or believe do exist. Please name one or several.
              I am looking forward to your response.

              Very nice post.

              Thank you.

              The first question I would need to ask you is WHY, as a professional auditor and C/S whose job it is to deeply enter the minds of people and to provide therapy to them in this way, WHY would you not know the reasons for a poor performing of auditing outside of Hubbard’s training system?

              If you are truly a professional, you should know a LOT of techniques for similar types of therapy outside of Scientology. But that’s the problem with Scientology training, isn’t it?

              Scientology training forbids any study of, or even credence to, any other form of therapy. Even some therapies that have been being applied successfully for centuries.

              Scientologists who have been trained in Hubbard’s system don’t know anything about those similar techniques outside of Scientology.

              That’s a problem for a true professional, don’t you think?.

              For instance, it has been said that Scientology auditing is a highly developed form of hypnotherapy.

              That’s right.

              Hypnotherapy.

              How much do you know about the techniques in hypnotherapy that are applied OUTSIDE Hubbard’s training system?

              Have you ever read any other author besides L Ron Hubbard on hypnotherapy? Have you ever spoken to a hypnotherapist and traded notes? Do you know the similarities and differences of Scn auditing and hypnotherapy?

              Let me know the extent of your knowledge of hypnotherapy, and the sources you have personally studied, and I will give you a wealth of explanations from outside of Scientology for why the session went wrong.

              Looking forward to your response.

              Alanzo

              PS Do remember where Dianetics came from, won’t you?

              • Alanzo,

                You have received a LOT of responses to what you posted.
                I will briefly touch upon your questions and then ask my question AGAIN.

                1) Yes as a trained auditor and C/S I do know a lot of reasons why the 2nd pc in your example came out of session with BIs,left, etc.
                2) I don’t know of a single reference where it would say that you can’t look at other forms of therapies while training. It’s kind of silly to be on a Scientology course if you want to study something else. You may be confusing this with the fact that pcs who DO other therapies while getting auditing usually don’t do well and they may not do well in auditing due to other earlier practices. See HCOB ‘Resistive Cases, Former Therapy’.
                If you have been on staff or in the SO and you think there is a lot of time
                to study ‘other therapies’, think again.
                You are correct insofar as good communication and HONEST confession
                have been workable technologies for centuries. Both have been greatly refined by LRH and I am really NOT talking about the BS that is currently being done with sec checking and other technical alterations.
                3) You say “Scientologists who have been trained in Hubbard’s system don’t know anything about those similar techniques outside of Scientology”.
                Oh yeah? Alanzo, that’s a total generality. What do you know about my time track? I have looked into and done other practices before I got into
                Scientology. I have also done a full psychoanalysis = what a bunch of crap! I have also looked at a few since being out. So let’s put this point away as irrelevant.
                4) Is this a problem for a true professional? Hell no!
                5) re Hypnotherapy – I pass, no interest in the first place.

                So now let me ask you again: Tell me some reasons from OUTSIDE
                THE HUBBARD OR SCIENTOLOGY SYSTEM that would cause that 2nd pc to go BI’s at end of session, blow, go on Nightlife etc.
                If you don’t know please just say so. You won’t be beheaded!:)
                Greta

                • Greta,
                  RE: other practices:

                  You are basically correct, a person on the bridge will not do well by dabbling in other practices, while on the bridge.

                  The necessity to study of other practices comes after completing the bridge or leaving scn, if one wants to continue with the idea, and become a professional in hisa own right and own field. Like Hubbard did for him self in the field of solving the problems of the mind and spirit and life in general.

                  The idea of studying other practices is stated in Hubbard’s article: How to Study a science, in Scn, a New slant on life.

                  This is where Hubbard says that if you just are able parrot him, you are slightly aberrated.

                  The formula for understanding is to study all other subjects of comparable magnitude in the known universe. Evaluate them, test them, use them and get to know them, and then when you are completed in studying all other subjects of comparable magnitude in the known universe, then build your own bridge. Subjects of comparable magnitude are all subjects that help man become more able. To help man to solve the problems of life. Etc. In conjunction with using heuristic methods a person can build a better bridge.

                  This is what Hubbard did. If you read the intro to 8-0-0-8. you will see to whom Hubbard gives credit to as sources of his research.

                  Note: as far as I can determine, there are more than one version of How to study a science, in existance.

                  EX of studying all subjects of comparable magnitude:

                  Subject: cars:

                  If you are in need of a car, and are prudent and discerning, and want to know what kind of car is best for you to buy and how to get the best deal for your money, you do research on all cars on the market that suit your needs. You read consumer reports. Then you talk to mechanics. Then you test drive all the ones you are interested in. By this time, you will become an expert on cars within your area of interest or needs.

                  Dio

                  • Dio,
                    Thanks for the refs.
                    Life is kind of short. Having many other interests I research those rather than trying to reinvent the wheel regarding other therapies.
                    Despite all of the lies, LRH he has built a workable system.
                    I work with what works when properly applied and that is good enough for
                    me and the people I work with.
                    Greta

                    • Greta,

                      1. A competent student always strives to stand on the shoulders of his/her teachers and see farther, strives to be a professional and independent thinker in their own right. To think outside the box, too.

                      If some humans did not do that, we would still be living in caves.

                      Re: hypnotism and dianetics.

                      Technically and ideally and rightlfully speaking, hypnotism puts stuff into the mind, (especially below the level of the analyzer).

                      Dianetics pulls stuff (data) out of the mind, that was put in the mind, via a means that enters below the level of awareness of the analyzer, or against the permission of the analyzer, or via overwhelm. Dianetics pulls data out of the mind that was put in the mind via hypnosis or hypnosis like means.

                      Rightfully or technically speaking, dianetics is the opposite of hypnosis.

                      The trouble with a modality like dianetics is that it can be abused and misused by the unscruplous.

                      Hubbard said that hypnosis is very damaging to the mind and I fully agree.

                      Dio

                • Greta wrote:

                  I don’t know of a single reference where it would say that you can’t look at other forms of therapies while training. It’s kind of silly to be on a Scientology course if you want to study something else.

                  Your first sentence shows the problem with Scientology training. The idea that a student of the mind and mental therapy would need a “reference” forbidding or not forbidding him from study outside the teacher’s work is a characteristic of cult indoctrination, not true training in a professional sense.

                  Your second sentence shows the disinterest and disdain that your teacher created in you for disciplines that would widen your understanding of the true context of Dianetics and Scientology and reveal things to you from those other subjects that he did not want revealed.

                  You’ve been an “in-ethics” good little girl, and never thought the thoughts LRH told you not to think.

                  That was a mistake.

                  You say “Scientologists who have been trained in Hubbard’s system don’t know anything about those similar techniques outside of Scientology”.

                  Oh yeah? Alanzo, that’s a total generality. What do you know about my time track? I have looked into and done other practices before I got into Scientology. I have also done a full psychoanalysis = what a bunch of crap! I have also looked at a few since being out. So let’s put this point away as irrelevant.”

                  Not a bit irrelevant, because you asked for reasons outside of Hubbard’s ideas for why the session went wrong. And I said that the only cause for you not knowing these outside reasons yourself is because you know very little about mental therapies outside of Dn and Scn. Then I asked you what you knew.

                  And I was right.

                  Sure, it’s a generality. But it was an accurate one in your specific case because I know how you have been trained. The group of trained scientology auditors have all been trained in the same way, so you can make statements about that group that pertain to the majority quite validly.

                  “re Hypnotherapy – I pass, no interest in the first place.”

                  And this is the hilarious part. The disinterest that LRH intentionally built into his students keeps them from knowing where they fit on Planet Earth. And so therefore, lacking context for their own subject, they lack their own judgment, and look to Hubbard for all their answers.

                  Dianetics was NOT a “bolt from the blue” as Hubbard told you.

                  Logic 8 says that you must compare data of comparable magnitude in order to understand them. The one field of mental therapy most comparable to Scientology auditing is hypnotherapy. And yet you have “no interest.” in it.

                  Greta – you have to wake up. You have no business delving deeply into the minds of others knowing only Hubbard’s techniques. Your ignorance of your own subject of hypnotherapy is a danger to others.

                  Because you have no license to perform therapy, you should stop right now and learn what you need to learn to get one. If you consider yourself a true professional, and you wish to work with the minds and lives of others, this is the only ethical thing for you to do.

                  Alanzo

                  • Alanzo,
                    Thank you. You have still not answered the simple question I asked you.
                    We’ll just leave it at that. I will do what I see works and you can jump through all the hoops you want to.
                    Greta

                    • As a Scientology auditor, you practice a highly developed form of hypnotherapy, Greta.

                      By studying hypnotherapy outside of anything Hubbard wrote about it, you will learn a great deal about Scientology and why that particular session went wrong.

                      And why many others do too, in real life.

                      Alanzo

                    • Greta –

                      Let me get you started in your study of hypnotherapy, the subject in which you are an unlicensed practitioner.

                      This is a Stanford scientific study to test the hypnotic susceptibility scale. In studying this, you will be exposed to many ideas regarding hypnosis, trance states, how they are induced, etc.

                      Compare and contrast.

                      Find similarities, differences, and identities to dianetics and scientology auditing techniques.

                      http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~kihlstrm/PDFfiles/Hypnotizability/SHSSC%20Script.pdf

                      It should be fascinating to you as a practitioner. That you have *no interest* is an outpoint of magnitude, I have to say.

                      It would be a like a physician having *no interest* in medicine.

                      Alanzo

                    • Greta, I should have know that no intervening was necessary. Your auditor training is so evident – and a lot of experience as well. It shows in so many ways in your many posts.

                      In the last post you hit the nail on the head as regards your reply of “jump through all the hoops you want to.” That was spot on. And you were smart enough not to take the bait and even get into it – which would have entailed quite a few things, from my perspective at least.

                      Just wanted to commend you!🙂

                  • Alanzo, you seem to be getting desperate and are now lashing out by attempting to push buttons and use illogic – and anything else you can think of in order to introvert and confuse.

                    Well, here are some “reasons outside of Hubbard’s ideas” for why a session might go wrong – or why exchanges with on blogs can go wrong. One datum in the video is that we each have some degree of “psychic vampire” in us. And if a poster starts to have too much of it, the exchange isn’t productive. “Hubbard” didn’t teach me that. I simply observed it.

                  • Al, you do realize that your rather lengthy post is a long non-answer to Greta’s comment, and is completely lacking in any of the specifics she asked you for? You simply trot out, as usual, your evaluations of LRH and Scientology, without a single address to the evidence you looked at in arriving at those conclusions. Total fail!

                    • 3 words, Val my pal:

                      Hypnosis Susceptibility Scale. This is data from outside Hubbard’s system that explains the failure of the session.

                      Scientology is a highly developed form of hypnotherapy, and there is a plentitude of knowledge in hypnotherapy (hypnotherapy outside of Scientology hypnotherapy) for why the session might have gone wrong.

                      But the kind of disconnect which occurred with Greta often occurs with Scientologists because they can not think outside Hubbard’s tightly controlled box.

                      It’s amazing how consistent it is.

                      Don’t you think?

                      Alanzo

                    • Al, most of your posts give the impression that you have a “hidden data line” containing mysteries you never deign to share the details of with readers.
                      Example: “Scientology is a highly developed form of hypnotherapy, and there is a plentitude of knowledge in hypnotherapy (hypnotherapy outside of Scientology hypnotherapy) for why the session might have gone wrong.”

                      So, show us you are not just blowing smoke. 1. Give us 2 examples of ‘why the session might have gone wrong’, and then, 2. Show us how these 2 example reasons are not covered by LRH in his training of auditor/CSes.

                      In other words, put up or shut up, yes?

                    • Again, Val. For a guy as steeped in psychiatry as you have been most of your life, your Scientology religious beliefs render you still unable think with the information I have already presented you.

                      As I’ve shown you, one reason that the session might have gone wrong is because the pc was not susceptible to hypnotic induction, as presented in the Stanford Hypnosis Susceptibility Scale.

                      If you think about the huge numbers of people who get one or two auditing sessions and never return, you can’t blame ALL those sessions on Scientology “not correctly applied”. (Or maybe you can if that’s your religious belief as a Scientologist).

                      There must be other factors at work.

                      Such as the above.

                      Also, another reason the session might have gone wrong is that the person was not gullible enough. Now don’t get me wrong, gullibility isn’t exactly what you think it is in this context. It is actually a vital factor in hypnotherapy, as described at this website on Hypnotherapy.

                      http://www.hypnotherapy-guide.com/guide/what-is-hypnotherapy/

                      These are two factors which hypnotherapists are fully aware of, but which Hubbard never taught his followers, so they only see “when correctly applied” while they look at huge numbers of people walk in and straight out of their orgs, never to return.

                      Not knowing because their teacher was too busy hiding things from them, Scientologists blame themselves, as he taught them to do.

                      It’s a bad show, Valkov.

                      But these are two well established reasons for the session going wrong from outside of Hubbard’s system.

                      If a Scientologist was smart, they would apply logic 8 to these things, and the subject of hypnotherapy as a whole, and learn something about Scientology.

                      Alanzo

                    • Well you’re apparently half-way there Al. You have given 2 examples of reasons for the lack of success in an auditing session, couched in the language of hypnosis.

                      Now you need to somehow demonstrate that LRH did not already include those 2 reasons in his training materials, which is your claim to Greta.

                      Personally, I don’t think you can do it because you don’t have that knowledge. I think you are just blowing smoke as usual, making things up as you go along. I think you have not studied the SCing materials and have no clue about how to detect and troubleshoot failed or unsatisfactory sessions.

                    • You don’t have to believe me, Valkov.

                      Ask a Class 8 CS if Hubbard taught auditors about a pc’s susceptibility to hypnosis or gullibility as defined in hypnotherapy as a possible problem to troubleshoot a session.

                      You’ll find that they weren’t.

                      And the reason they weren’t is because Hubbard lied to Scientologists about the nature of auditing and the nature of hypnosis.

                      For you not to know this shows that it is actually you who do not know what auditors were taught in Scientology, not me.

                      Alanzo

                    • Alanzo.. sorry to but in… do I understand right if one is asked a question that person goes into hypnotic state? Please explain. thank you! E.

                    • No, Elizabeth.

                      A very good understanding of what is required to produce a hypnotic state in a person is contained in the definition of IN SESSION by L Ron Hubbard, and the standard use of the TRs by an auditor closely following the rules of Model Session.

                      That is the best description of how to produce a hypnotic state in a person that I have ever seen anywhere. I have never come across a hypnotist as technically adept as L Ron Hubbard – especially in teaching others how to do it while hiding from them what they are actually doing.

                      It’s one of the reasons that Scientology is failing today. David Miscavige believes Hubbard’s deceptions about hypnosis and hypnotic states, and keeps “fixing” the tech in ways that break up the hypnotic states in PCs. “3 swing f/ns”, robotic TRs from GAT 1, all these “improvements” by DM we all per Hubbard’s written tech and words, but without the understanding of hypnosis that Hubbard had, and without the understanding that lay underneath Hubbard’s tech.

                      Hubbard told Sarge that he had failed.

                      But he never told Miscavige that the purpose of TRs was to produce a hypnotic state in pcs and to keep them there throughout the session. And keep them there hopefully long enough to make it to the registrar after a “big win”.

                      I invite you to do your own study of hypnosis and hypnotherapy outside of what Hubbard said about these. You will learn a LOT about Dianetics and Scientology auditing by doing that.

                      Alanzo

                    • Alanso I have… There is a Doctor in Seattle she has a busy practise, fully booked and she is my very good friend… We have compared auditing to her method and the two has nothing in common.. no one goes under any kind of spell, that she said bit ”look into my eyes” or swinging some object is for the movies.. We had much fun when she has given a demonstration how the whole session works. That demo session nothing to do with auditing. Thank you for your answer..

                    • Cripes Al, LRH talked about hypnosis and the effects of ‘suggestibility’ and ‘hypnotic level’ of the pc in many of his lectures! It’s one of the reasons for running Objectives in preference to running ‘subjective processes’ on many preclears. I guess ‘ignorance really is bliss’, as it allows you to post whatever you like in support of your position, no matter how lacking in truth!

                    • Valkov –

                      Hubbard also said that auditing and the state of “in session” was the opposite of a hypnotic state, where hypnosis was making you more “unconscious”, auditing was “waking you up”.

                      In truth, and Hubbard knew this truth, they were both the same states.

                      He was lying to auditors about the fact that Objective processes, as well as subjective processes, both put the pc into hypnotic states where they were highly suggestible.

                      Like the worst, most unethical hypnotists – whose licenses to practice hypnotherapy would be pulled today – Hubbard hid the fact that he was hypnotizing people with Dianetics and Scientology auditing, and implanting suggestions into them in order to soften them up so he could take everything of value from them that they had, and then get them to work for him for the rest of their lives for free..

                      And he certainly never told auditors or C/Ses that one of the reasons a session might go wrong is that the pc might not be susceptible to hypnosis. And again, if you can not believe me, then ask a Class 8 C/S. Plain Ole Thetan, is one of those, I believe. David St Lawrence may not be a Class 8, but he is certainly highly trained and very experienced. Ask Marty.

                      Ask them if Hubbard ever said that one of the reasons a session might go wrong was because the pc might not be susceptible to hypnosis.

                      Really, Val. If you believe that Hubbard taught auditors and CSes that a session might not go well because the pc might not be susceptible to hypnosis, then this shows how little you know about the teachings of Dianetics and Scientology.

                      Many, actually the overwhelming majority of Scientologists, make their way out of Hubbard’s lies, wake up, and see them for what they are. But you, Valkov, remain completely stuck in them, even re-defining the word “lie”, just as Hubbard taught you, so as to never see what Hubbard was doing to you.

                      But again. You are useful. So keep up your nasty retorts. Try everything you got. You will help me show conclusively that Scientology is not the subject Hubbard sold you.

                      You will never see it, of course.

                      But everyone else will.

                      Alanzo

                    • More confabulation from Al. LRH most certainly did NOT say “Hubbard also said that auditing and the state of “in session” was the opposite of a hypnotic state, where hypnosis was making you more “unconscious”, auditing was “waking you up”. That is not at all what LRH said about hypnosis vs. auditing. And most specifically he never said “…the state of “in session” was the opposite of a hypnotic state,…”

                      This is pure confabulation on your part Al. I suggest you re-read DMSMH.

                    • Just a quick google Search returns me this quote from Dianetics 55:

                      “Many people believe that Opening Procedure . . . induces hypnosis. This is because in running it hypnosis runs off: the preclear while the hypnotism is running off, may feel quite hypnotized. It is the exact opposite of hypnotism. Hypnotism is an effort to persuade the individual to do nothing, to sit still, and to fully accept the inflow.”

                      emphasis mine

                      And this from Science of Survival:

                      [Hypnotism] “reduces self-determinism by interposing the commands of another below the analytical level of an individual’s mind … It is the sort of control mechanism in which an authoritarian individual, cult, or ideology delight. People who indulge in hypnotism may, only very occasionally, be interested in experimentation upon the human mind … Genuine experimental hypnotism, strictly in the laboratory and never in the parlor, and done wholly in the knowledge that one is reducing the efficiency of the human being on whom one is experimenting and may do him permanent damage, and the use of hypnotism by a surgeon … should end the extension of hypnotism into the society. Submission to being hypnotized is analagous to being raped, with the exception that the individual can, generally, recover from being raped. To any clear-thinking human who believes in the value of people as human beings, there is something gruesomely obscene about hypnotism. The interjection of unseen controls below the level of consciousness cannot benefit but can only pervert the mind … The individual who would permit himself to be hypnotized is, frankly, a fool”

                      emphasis mine

                      Anybody who has been trained as an auditor at any level in Scientology, knows this teaching by Hubbard. And I just gave you two quotes, directly from Hubbard, supporting what I have been saying.

                      If you want to continue this, supply quotes of your own from Hubbard, and let’s see you support your claim that Hubbard did not teach Scientologists these things.

                      Otherwise, please. Don’t bother.

                      Alanzo

                    • Al, how dense do you think people are? Just before your bolded line, LRH clearly states this: “Many people believe that Opening Procedure . . . induces hypnosis. This is because in running it hypnosis runs off: the preclear while the hypnotism is running off, may feel quite hypnotized.”

                      Clearly and unequivocably, the only time Opening Procedure is a “hypnotic process” is when it is not run to EP! Even an uneducated, untrained dummy like me can read well enough to see that. And that is true of any auditing process. It is hypnotic when it it is not run to EP, or possibly when it is “overrun”.

                      Yet somehow you try to twist it around to mean the opposite?

                      Case closed!

                    • I love you E… I truly do!. you are one grand spirit! 🙂

                    • Al, I’ll give it only one more try, then I will get on with my life. I think that to say LRH said ….”that auditing and the state of “in session” was the opposite of a hypnotic state, where hypnosis was making you more “unconscious”, auditing was “waking you up”.” is a false interpretation of what he consistently taught. He said that when ‘in session’, the auditor needed to be aware that some pcs could slip into hypnotic trance states, and th eauditor needed to beware of this because at this point the pc was not aware enough to be ‘in session’, and was very suggestible and therefore the auditor needed to take care NOT to inadvertently install any positive suggestions. Precisely because the purpose of auditing was to ‘wak a person up’, NOT to put him further to ‘sleep’.

                      I think it is pointless for us to discuss this anymore because we are coming from diametrically opposed sides to such an extent that you feel I am making nasty posts in response to yours, bit fail to see that the statements you post about me could easily be interpreted as ‘nasty’. You continue to hold me up as an extreme example of a deluded, brainwashed, hypnotized, “Scientologist” who has been duped by a “Hubbard” who also exists only in your mind, a mental confabulation of your own. Apparently you think that repeating these things about me will somehow have an effect on me which appears to you will be a ‘good’ effect in some way. This I can only see as delusion on your part, nothing ‘nasty’ about that statement. It seems to me to be fact, that you are deluded in some major way. You habitually quote LRH and cherry pick sections to highlight, but grossly misinterpret what he wrote even so. It’s really not worth my time to post back to you. Go your way in peace.

                      As far as the “awake” or “asleep” issue goes, I became interested in Scientology precisely because it addressed these issues, which I was interested in long before I came across Scientology. These are ancient issues going back from modernity, through Buddhism and into Vedic times.

                      There have been many teachings in the East for ages, that were based on the idea that “Man is asleep”, and that the goal of “work on oneself” is to become more awake. The reason people are to varying degrees ‘suggestible’ is they are already ‘asleep’, already ‘hypnotized’. The basic purpose of the various techniques and technologies of the Vedics, the Buddhists, the Sufis, even many Christian teachings is to “run out” this hypnotism in order to become more “awake”. Buddha discovered one path to this goal – that is why the very word “buddha” means “an awakened one”.

                      You need to meditate on topics such as – What did he awaken from? How was he asleep to begin with? In what sense is humanity asleep? Topics like that. Bluntly speaking, in my opinion, you are not ready to awaken. You ought to pursue the principles of Right Living and principally, you need to curtail your tendency to pretended knowledge and expertise which you in fact do not possess, because you are misleading people by publishing your opinions and confabulations as ‘fact’. This is not creating good karma for you. It is purely and simply pandering to your egoism.

                      Of course Western psychology in general have no clue about ‘awake’ or ‘asleep’ in this sense. Trailblazers like Ken Wilbur and some others have been looking and integrating these views into their work, but it is not yet all that common. It all falls under studies of “Consciousness”.

                      Well, Good Luck, I really have better things to do than pick apart the obvious fallacies and fallacious premises in your posts line-by-line, which is easily done but time consuming. Many of your posts, like the ones you made to Greta, begin with the false premise that you are ‘expert’ or trained in things you are not actually trained in or expert in, yet you present yourself as such. I can tell you, this is NOT Right Speech and is not good karma for you. Be aware, if you can.

                    • Val, I think it’s great that you took so much time and effort to try and sort some things out for Alanzo. It really amazes me how well you can field the flow of inaccuracies and complexities and deconstruct it against your broad background of study. There’s got to be some crashing MU or some other held-down 7 with our friend Al. He’s basically a very likable guy…and I suppose he’s even basically good.😉

                    • Hypnotherapy sessions ALSO end with the feeling that the incident has been “fully run out”, VGIs, laughter, streaming tears of ecstatic joy, etc. And hynotherapists also make sure they get to that point before ending the session.

                      You know that, right?

                      So, we still need to see some quotes from Ron here, Val.

                      Or for you to bring in a Class 8 CS such as plain ole thetan or someone other highly trained auditor or CS that you would believe to give the reference that Ron taught something other than auditing is the opposite of hypnosis, and that auditing wakes you up where hypnosis makes you more unconscious.

                      You can understand why, right?

                      Failing those two presentations of evidence to support your point, I am just accepting your more reasonable interpretations for what you think L Ron Hubbard was doing when he put people into hypnotic states and told them he wasn’t.

                      You do understand how serious that is, and that a hypnotherapist today – if they did that – would lose their license to practice hypnotherapy, right?

                      So you understand why, if you are ever going to put this to rest, you will need to show the reference from Ron which demonstrates that he that he taught what you say he did to Scientologists.

                      Because I did show the references from Ron which show that he taught what I said he taught. And I could show many many more.

                      Yet you have shown nothing but your own interpretations, without even mentioning any reference from Ron at all.

                      So I got to give you an “F” on this one, Valkov.

                      Sorry.

                      Alanzo

                    • I don’t need to post any more quotes, the quotes you have posted have already refuted your idea instead of supporting it. As in the example I posted in relation to your first ‘bolded’ quote: “Many people believe that Opening Procedure . . . induces hypnosis. This is because in running it hypnosis runs off: the preclear while the hypnotism is running off, may feel quite hypnotized.”

                      You bolded the very next sentence, which, in context, does not support your ‘thesis’. Why didn’t you bold the above quotes, which clearly make the distinction between auditing and hypnosis?

                      If some or even many hypnotherapists today end sessions with the client experiencing “vgis” there are a couple of possibilities: 1. hypnotherapy has become more like auditing, and 2. the “vgis” are commanded by the hypnotherapist in the first place. And that in fact is something hypnotherapists have always done – end sessions with patter like “When I count to 5 you will wake up feeling happy and fine and alert…..” etc. It should be obvious to anyone with any knowledge of auditing theory, how this differs from the vgis at the end of a decent auditing session! It is the opposite direction of flow. The good auditor is withdrawing communications from the pc, the poor auditor or the hypnotherapist is making the pc an effect, continuously inflowing comm into the pc thus enforcing passivity on the pc’s part, instead of putting the pc at cause. The difference between being placed at cause and being placed at effect ought to be obvious, even to you.

                    • Absolutely amazing.

                    • What’s amazing Al? That you assert LRH did not teach of the relationship between auditing and hypnotism, then post quotes of LRH to refute yourself?

                      I think it’s hilariously amazing! I would not want to be you, however. 🙂

                    • Valkov –

                      So now my claim is that LRH did not teach the relationship between auditing and hypnosis?

                      Not quite, Val. That was never my claim. Although it’s a really good try on your part to make it seem like it was.

                      This is why spending too much time discussing things with you in any kind of an in-depth way is a waste of time: You can’t stay on the subject.

                      I’ve seen it over and over with you. If the subject is about L Ron Hubbard and what he taught Scientologists, you are not able to duplicate the point, and to stay on it.

                      Your pattern is to end up changing the point to something that was never said, or start in with your nasty ad hom distractions. Or both, if you can swing it.

                      The one thing you can not do, though, is discuss L Ron Hubbard and his teachings. That seems to drive you insane.

                      But it’s very entertaining. And I can use you to get my point across and to deliver links for people to follow up on their own.

                      L Ron Hubbard taught Scientologists that auditing was the opposite of hypnosis, and that Scn auditing “woke you up”, while hypnosis made you more unconscious.

                      Not one Scientology practitioner has arrived here to dispute this statement, and you have been unable to provide even one quote by L Ron Hubbard to dispute it.

                      So we’re done here, Val.

                      My purpose has been achieved, and you have been a helpful servant to me once again.

                      Alanzo

                    • Al, another “I know you are but what am I?” type exchange of posts between us is supposedly concluded. According to you. But from past experience I know that’s bullshit, because you have never been able to leave it alone for any length of time. You are the true Scientologist here. I was never one, no matter how hard you try to turn it around to my being such. That’s another good example of a false premise, one you know is a lie, but you keep repeating it for several years now. You try a line like we are somehow alike, “corn fed Scientologists”! That really is “corn”, allright. Totally “faux ARC” ploy from you, for the audience you imagine are applauding you.

                      Or another good one – whining about how LRH Invented new words or redefined words. language evolves constantly. There are Commissions that rule on changes and additions to a given language, yearly. New words are admitted into the lexicon, new definitions are added, sometimes old definitions are dropped or moved down to “archaic”. What kind of a dunderhead would whine and complain about this? It is how languages change and evolve – by the creativity of the people using the language in real life.

                      If you stuck to telling what you know about Scientology because you actually experienced it, you could be an effective critic. People have been telling you that for several years – Geir, Chris, me, etc. But your intellectual pretensions and thirst for having your ego stroked overcomes you every time, and you remain a pretender to some imaginary intellectual throne.

                    • Here is Al, dwelling and hammering on my supposed ‘disabilities’ as usual. And proud of it to boot! NIce negative postulates you have for me, Al. And you brag about it as though it is a good thing you’re doing, using me to make your IMPORTANT points to your fancied greater audience, by lying about me. Done like a true Scientologist Al. I do imagine that’s where you learned such tactics. Reading your posts, I’m glad I stayed from the organizations and simply continued to study it on my own directly from LRH books and lectures. Because you sound like a poster child for “verbal data” I imagine you picked up during your involvement with them.

                    • 🙂 I am delighted that you are squashing the bedbug!

                    • Hey Al, thanks for postulating that I will ‘never see it’, will ‘never wake up’, will ‘remain stuck in LRH’s supposed ‘lies’ etc etc. I think this most clearly reveals where you are actually coming from and what you are attempting to do. You want agreement so badly you are willing to go to any lengths to beat me down to where I say “Gee Al, you are right! I am a stupid dupe.” Unfortunately, I am not that suggestible! 🙂

                      I think it’s pathetic that the worse epithet you can direct at me is that you think I am a “Scientologist”! After all, “Everyone knows” that is the lowest of the low, in your world in which the elite are the “Critics”. 🙂

                    • Gullibility
                      Gullibility is a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action. It is closely related to credulity, which is the tendency to believe unlikely propositions that are unsupported by evidence.

                    • Hello Alonzo, haven’t written to you in awhile.
                      Good to see that you are passionately working to protect and defend persons from harm or further harm. I am with you on that.

                      That auditing, in general, amounts to and falls under the subject of hypnotism does not meet with my observations. That it can and has been used to harmful ends is obvious. A system that digs deeper into the mind/soul will of course be a magnet for those with less than benevolent intentions, whether conscious or not. I have had a couple of auditors which would do whatever they could to get a smile and an F/N. I have been in session and anxious to get that F/N even if I had to imagine some cognition.

                      This was a minority of auditors and a minority of instances for myself. There are countless procedures with the intent and result of preventing hypnotic or imagined results. But it still happens some times.

                      Stating as a ‘Matter of Fact’, over and over again that auditing is, overall, a hypnotic therapy amounts to hypnotism by repetition as described in the link you provided. When I was 12, my idea of auditing was that I would be ‘fixed’ by the auditor. This amounted to hoping to be hypnotized in order to un-hypnotize me from my past. By 14, I had outgrown this idea and have not had a problem since.

                      Many auditing processes in Dia./Scn. ‘lead’ one to a particular destination of the auditor’s, C/S’s, developer’s choosing, and that is of course a danger with any mental/spiritual therapy. That is due to the fact that there are common phenomenon, common aberrations amongst most individuals. This should and is usually done with the purpose and result of putting the individual in greater and greater control and responsibility over himself. This is the result MOST of the time. We can do better.

                      Thanks to people like yourself and many in the independent field, and other honest persons, there is a great potential for structured spiritual therapies to improve.

                      Thank you for your work.
                      Mark

                    • Wow.

                      Knock me over with a feather! Not used to this kind of civil discourse! Thanks, MarkNR!

                      So if I understand you correctly, you do not think that the pc being “interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor”, created with good auditor TRs and following Model Session, produces a hypnotic state.

                      Am I right?

                      What if hypnotic states turned out not to be the self-determinism-destroying states that LRH taught?

                      What if it was the hypnotic state which was the sole therapeutic agent that makes auditing work, where one does not go unconscious at all, but becomes hyper-conscious of one thing – the answer to the auditing question?

                      Have you studied hypnosis and hypnotic states from Sources other than L Ron Hubbard?

                      Here’s a really good description of a hypnotic state from an article in Scientific American which appeared in 2001. Please read it and tell me how it is different from the state of a pc “IN SESSION”.

                      https://listserv.kent.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A3=ind0106B&L=ADDICT-L&E=quoted-printable&P=172084&B=————–21428367151EF4F921A7C679&T=text%2Fhtml;%20charset=iso-8859-1;%20name=“0701nash.html”&N=0701nash.html&XSS=3

                      (I hope that link works)

                      Alanzo

                    • Hi there Alonzo.
                      What a day. 3 big trees, 100 limbs, 4 tarped roofs, and 1 Dia. assist. Fortunately the temps. were in the 70s. Last time it was in the upper 90s. Tomorrow I go refrigerator/freezer hopping. I take a generator from house to house and run peoples freezer so that they don’t lose all their food. With long cords I can do two houses at once. Power should be pretty much restored in a couple of days. Life in the south.

                      Thanks for the acknowledgement. Since I’ve lost my ability to be angry, disagreeing with someone and then quarreling about it or insulting the other individual seems non sequitur. Since I saw my connection with others and with Theta, everyone has some brilliance within them. Sort of like the old saying that “The older I get, the smarter my parents become”. Well, the more I realize about life, the better the people around me become. Go figure.

                      I have been reading little bits about hypnotism for a long time. I read over the links you provided and clicked on a few other things. It appears to me that the researchers are quite good at observing phenomenon with admittedly little understanding of the actual underlying principles. The brain mapping observations give no indication of whether the person is affecting his body or the body is affecting the person. Both processes seem to me to be occurring.

                      As for auditing to be similar or even identical to hyp., I just don’t see it. Now, an individual who is put in the condition of trust and concentration would certainly be susceptible to suggestion and coerced agreement. But the difference is in the intent and the details. As said before, a knife can cut a throat or relieve the pressure of an infection. That being said, the system of running a process until you get VGIs and an F/N and cog. or basic confusion can lead one to make them up, feel happy about it and then write a success story which is then fully believed by the PC. My first few sessions, I was anxious to finish each process as quickly as possible and was searching for anything to say that would satisfy the auditor. Things have changed.

                      Your diligence and insight could be valuable in developing techniques to eliminate this problem with most cases. The 2 times I got on stage with a group and a hypnotist, I got tapped out early on, along with a couple of others. But it was fun to watch from the audience.
                      Mark

                    • MarkNR: “…the system of running a process until you get VGIs and an F/N and cog or basic confusion can lead one to make them up, feel happy about it and then write a success story which is then fully believed by the PC. My first few sessions, I was anxious to finish each process as quickly as possible and was searching for anything to say that would satisfy the auditor. Things have changed. Your diligence and insight could be valuable in developing techniques to eliminate this problem with most cases.”

                      Mark, I don’t know how much auditor training you’ve had, and I’m not all that highly trained myself, but from what I know there already are techniques to handle such a problem, provided the auditor’s TR’s and metering skills are adequate. As an example, the auditor should be able to tell the difference between a true F/N and an ARC break needle, which can occur when the pc is not in comm.

                      ARC BREAK NEEDLE, 1 . a “floating needle” occurring above 3.0 or below 2.0 on a calibrated Mark V E-meter with the pc on two cans. An ARC break needle can occur between 2.0 and 3.0 where bad indicators are apparent. (HCOB 21 Oct 68) 2 . An F/N with bad indicators is an ARC break needle. These include propitiation…

                      And if the auditor misses the ARC break needle, sooner or later something will come up that requires a D of P interview using 2-way comm, or maybe a correction list which has relevant items on it that would read, etc.

                    • Did you notice Al, that the 2 links you posted about hypnosis, contradict each other as to the nature of hypnosis? One talks about “gullibility” as the major factor, while the research study report says “gullibility” is definitely not a factor in hypnotizability?

                      https://listserv.kent.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A3=ind0106B&L=ADDICT-L&E=quoted-printable&P=172084&B=————–21428367151EF4F921A7C679&T=text%2Fhtml;%20charset=iso-8859-1;%20name=“0701nash.html”&N=0701nash.html&XSS=3

                      versus:

                      http://www.hypnotherapy-guide.com/guide/what-is-hypnotherapy/

                    • Al, here’s an article in which you might be interested.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation
                      It suggests a lot of relevant areas to explore, in the fields of mind, memory, and our perceptions and comprehensions of reality.

                    • MarkNR wrote:

                      As for auditing to be similar or even identical to hyp., I just don’t see it. Now, an individual who is put in the condition of trust and concentration would certainly be susceptible to suggestion and coerced agreement. But the difference is in the intent and the details. As said before, a knife can cut a throat or relieve the pressure of an infection.

                      Well Mark, please just remember that the possibility that auditing and hypnosis are similar, and even might be identical has been raised to you.

                      And please realize that I am not the only one to have said something like this. In fact, many many people over the years who come from outside of Dn and Scientology with knowledge of hypnosis, when they examine Scientology auditing, pretty much all say the same thing – auditing is made up of techniques to induce a hypnotic state in the pc. So is the practice of TRs. And many other techniques in Scientology.

                      So,

                      Just remember that this has been said to you.

                      Thanks for your civility, and thanks for staying on the subject.

                      Alanzo

                  • I might add that any discipline you study at, say, a University – for example Psychiatry – you are kept to the straight and narrow of studying the accepted doctrines and procedures (“standard tech”) and discouraged from looking at anything else except “on your own time”, which as a medical student you do not actually have. A medical Intern’s schedule is similar to that of a Sea Org’s members…..

                    For example, if you became interested in Transactional Analysis, you would have to study it separately after you completed your Medical Psychiatric schooling, unless it was actually a part of your medical school curriculum.

                    I’m not particularly attacking you, Al, I sometimes just like to attack ignorance wherever I come across it.

                    • Val: “I’m not particularly attacking you, Al, I sometimes just like to attack ignorance wherever I come across it.”

                      Yes, that’s it in a nutshell.

                      “Because life is understanding it attempts to understand. When it faces the incomprehensible it feels balked and baffled.” (Dn 55)

                    • It is amazing that you are comparing the study of psychiatry in a university to studying auditing by L Ron Hubbard in an org.

                      Can you see the problem with this comparison?

                      1. the authors of the textbooks in a university are all NOT L Ron Hubbard. They are many and varied, from many different backgrounds and philosophies.

                      2. The teachers running the curricula in a university are not all scientologists. In fact it would be very rare if any were scientologists. We could say that none of them are. They are of many and varied backgrounds and none of them follow anything like KSW for their subjects.

                      In fact the idea that one of the authors would write something like KSW would immediately disqualify him as someone to study.

                      3. The university is an accredited organization, meaning that its curricula must uphold standards of certification in order to produced licensed practitioners. The State licensing boards are a separate body which must uphold standards of safety in the society.

                      Scientology auditor training has no meaning or responsibility to the society with regard to licensing practitioners.

                      All practitioners of auditing study only one man – L Ron Hubbard. There is no debate or challenge of any of the ideas that the practitioners study.

                      Sometimes, Valkov, I just bang my head at the unreal comparisons that must be swirling around in your head in order for you to write them here – and you never seem to notice or be embarrassed at all.

                      Just amazing.

                      Alanzo

                    • As usual Al, you are either ignoring the meaning of my post because it doesn’t agree or support your position, or you really didn’t get it The issue is that Psychiatry in any given program is taught in a very standardized way with boundaries within which the students are expected to stay. Since I worked in a psychiatric teaching hospital and had opportunities to talk with psychiatric residents, I know there is some truth to what I posted about this.

                      The differences are the differences, the similarities are the similarities. Why do you take these things so personally?

                    • Al sez: “All practitioners of auditing study only one man – L Ron Hubbard.” Well this just isn’t a true statement.

                      All practitioners do not study the man, they study how to audit. And my impression from ESMB and many other sites and postings is that LRH claimed to be the ‘source’ of many things he was not necessarily the source of, that much of the auditing tech was developed by others and that the HCOBs were often compiled by others, with his knowledge and approval. Is it too fine a point for you, taht student auditors are not studying ‘the man’ but a set of techniques?

                      This is just one example of the way you confabulate about the realities of Scientology and LRH. You apparently make stuff up on the spot when you want to rebut a post or poster, without any regard for the truth. You apparently say whatever you think at the time will ‘work’ to discount or rebut the poster.

                    • Marildi quote Ron again:

                      “Because life is understanding it attempts to understand. When it faces the incomprehensible it feels balked and baffled.” (Dn 55)

                      What I write is certainly not incomprehensible.

                      It is sacrilegious to you. It is too far outside your Scientology box. Your ability to comprehend is being limited by the beliefs that you accepted as your own from L Ron Hubbard.

                      Applying the Supervisor’s Code, I will repeat that last line:

                      Your ability to comprehend is being limited by the beliefs that you accepted as your own from L Ron Hubbard.

                      Alanzo

                    • Well Al, I guess we’ve come full circle to where we were 2-3 years ago on Geir’s blog – with me believing either that you are 1. Completely brainwashed on the subject, or, 2. You are consciously fabricating your generalized negative position on scientology, or, 3. You are confabulating your supposed knowledge and ‘expertise’ of auditing and CSing. Because I personally do not believe you have much if any at all, training as a CS.

                    • Valkov wrote:

                      Since I worked in a psychiatric teaching hospital and had opportunities to talk with psychiatric residents, I know there is some truth to what I posted about this.

                      I’m extremely curious about this, Val, and always have been:

                      In what capacity did you work in a psychiatric teaching hospital?

                      Was this before, during, or after the brief time you spent training and auditing at your local Scientology organization?

                      Alanzo

                    • I started out as a nurse’s aide(psychiatric aide) in late 1966 and eventually became the supervisor who interviewed, hired and trained “PCWs” (Psychiatric Care Workers) on my unit.

                      There was no “org” in my town and my contact with local scientologists began when I called a phone number in a copy of Creation of human Ability I found in a local bookstore, which turned out to be Ruth Minshull’s number. She referred me to a Field Auditor in the Southfield area. This was Bob Musack, a newly minted Class VIII, from whom I received a Life Repair and did the Comm Course.

                      Later I did more TRs and got my Objectives done in Ann Arbor by an HQS course student at a Mission started by another of Ruth and Bob’s associates. That Mission holder was later ‘massacred’ by the S.O. and the Mission was ‘upgraded’ to a Class IV org, although it really didn’t qualify, I now believe. By then I believe delivery was stalling and the IAS had come along in 1984, and Scientology was already headed downhill. It had taken on a different flavor, so I never got any more involved, but continued to study on my own.

                      I had quit working at the hospital in early 1980, when the focus was shifted from a psychoanalytic approach, to ‘biopsychiatry’, which basically means tinkering with medications.

                    • Loved Ruth Minshull’s books. Tragedy what was done to her and her’s.
                      Mark

                    • Thank you very much for that.

                      I met Bob Muzack through my auditor at the time, George Seidler, another Class 8. I also got a rockingly personal Life Repair that involved a lot of higher level techniques such as prep checking and all kinds of things. George and Bob had been friends in the early 50’s working with Ron, and had a falling out of some kind.

                      So, you are another corn-fed Scientologist, just like me.

                      Imagine that.

                      Alanzo

                    • It’s nigh impossible for me to imagine that I am like you. I was born in the Far East, in what is now part of China. We rarely ate corn.

                    • Wow, Valkov.

                      The Far East.

                      It sounds so exotic.

                      I’m impressed.

                      Alanzo

                    • Wow Al, “cornfed scientologist” – sounds so “down-home”, like “mom and apple pie”. Jingoism much?

                    • Plus, I was never a “scientologist” in the sense you were a Scientologist.

                    • Obviously not.

                      I was just a low-level Scientologist compared to the kind of Scientologist you are.

                      You’ve made it clear to me that the reason I am who I am today is because I never truly understood what L Ron Hubbard was actually teaching people with Scientology. Surely not as well as you.

                      It’s probably too late for me. I’ve lost my chance to understand Scientology correctly.

                      But you go on.

                      Alanzo

      • Al, see Potpie’s post below, which is in answer to your questions .

        But to start with, your post commits the logical fallacy called Begging the Question:

        “Begging the question means ‘assuming the conclusion (of an argument)’, a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.”

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

        • Creating scenarios and posing questions to spark original thought and debate is not Begging the Question.

          There are many different causes for the results of any session on any unique individual on any given day which Hubbard did not allow you to consider inside the tightly controlled thought-box of Scientology.

          I know that you are capable of thinking of causes for things outside Hubbard’s thought-box of Scientology.

          I am absolutely certain of it.

          Alanzo

          • And I’m absolutely certain that you can grasp what Begging the Question means, if you really put your mind to it.🙂

            Basically, Al, you wanted to prove that a certain situation could occur – and to do so you mocked up that exact situation! That’s called “assuming the conclusion” – or, Begging the Question.😛

            • But I also accepted Valkov’s and Potpie’s scenarios as possible causes, in addition to possible causes not allowed by Hubbard.

              See?

              We all were allowed to present our possible causes for the scenario, and discuss their causation.

              This isn’t an essay where only the author’s text is considered, and only his conclusions are presented to be accepted.

              This is a message board, and the question was posed to generate all viewpoints, not just mine.

              Therefore this was not an example of the logical fallacy of “Begging the Question”. It was an attempt to get a discussion started by all participants who cared to participate.

              Alanzo

              • Al, in the previous comment, you wrote: “Hubbard did not allow you to consider inside the tightly controlled thought-box of Scientology. I know that you are capable of thinking of causes for things outside Hubbard’s thought-box of Scientology. I am absolutely certain of it.”

                And I was returning the condescending flow, hoping you would get it.

                See? (another Alanzo-ism😛 )

                • Any communication from you, Marildi, is always welcome to me.

                  I have to say though, you do a very bad Alanzo.

                  Alanzo

                  • I know. But it’s hard to be that irrational.🙂

                    I still say you should stick with the humor and the charm (occasional😛 ). Those are your long suits.😉

                    • Marildi’s act: “Alanzo is irrational.”

                      Her bit: Pick a logical fallacy and try to make it fit something Alanzo wrote, whether it applies or not.

                      Then, keep repeating, “Alanzo is irrational.”

                      Come on, Marildi. You are more entertaining than that. Why don’t you work up an act with substance, like why Scientology auditors are not licensed, while other hypnotherapists are?

                      From a public safety perspective, why should Scientology auditors keep doing things like the Introspection Rundown and “Baby Watches” on Scientologists who have psychotic breaks and killing people like Lisa McPherson and Kyle Brennan with absolutely no public responsibility to anyone?

                      Make the case for continued unlicensed Scientology here.

                      Now that’s an act that would bring in the crowds.

                      Alanzo

          • Al: There are many different causes for the results of any session on any unique individual on any given day which Hubbard did not allow you to consider inside the tightly controlled thought-box of Scientology.”

            OK hotshot, name ONE.

    • + 1 right you are sister!

    • marildi, doesn’t the concept of something being applied correctly depend on the belief that something can be applied incorrectly? And doesn’t the concept that something can be applied incorrectly depend on the belief that something can be applied correctly? If there was no belief in something being correct or incorrect how do you think that would impact one’s experience?🙂

  16. To all the people who are Making Marty wrong for this article:
    YOUR path is YOURS….Scientology is just another story like any religion.
    Its ones path or it’s not….There are million and millions of people on this planet who are doing great without believing this Scientology story, but if it works for you and it makes your life better then by all means that is what you should be doing, but for me and my entire family….We are much happier, much more compassionate to one another and most of all and the # 1 things is: WE ARE INCLUSIVE WITH OUR FELLOW HUMANS BEINGS NO MATTER WHAT RELIGION THEY CHOOSE.🙂

  17. I am not Buddhist, nor do I consider myself as a “true scientologist” anymore, but I certainly agree with the “Upaya” principle. Here is an english definition I found on Internet :
    “Upaya – Skillful Means
    The Sanskrit word ‘upaya’ is usually translated as ‘skillful means’, ‘expedient means’, or ‘skillful methods’, and is a central concept in Mahayana Buddhism, which includes both Zen and Tibetan traditions. Upaya refers to practices, rituals, teachings, and even teaching methods that are considered a means to an end – a means to enlightenment – for a particular student or group of students. They are considered provisional or expedient truths rather than ultimate truth itself, on the pathway to enlightenment.

    The Lotus Sutra, often considered the defining text of Mahayana Buddhism, discusses upaya in great detail, including the well-known ‘white lie’ story by the Buddha. In this story, the Buddha tells of a rich man with a large house and many young sons. A fire starts in the house, and the man is desperate to get all of his sons and staff out of the house as quickly as possible without causing a chaotic panic. He tells each son that their favorite toy is just outside and they need to rush to get it. All exit safely.
    The Buddha’s teaching in this story is that the father telling his sons there are toys outside in this case is upaya, or skillful means, and actually a form of compassion, because it saves the children from suffering and even death. So too, a teacher’s methods, and the practices or rituals employed by certain traditions, even if unorthodox, may be skillful means if they are effective in leading someone from delusion towards enlightenment, and therefore rooted in compassion. The value of a teaching or practice is seen in its effectiveness, and is contextual, rather than being viewed in universal terms.”

    I certainly agree with this, and with the Heidegger’s principle : “Sehen niet denken” (“Looking is better than thinking”, as LRH said it too)

    Make up your own mind.

    • Li Po, thank you for posting that fantastic quote! It expresses so well the value and validity of Scientology. The last couple sentences (re-quoted below) regarding “practices and rituals” describes why Scientology, even if considered a religion and “even if unorthodox” AS a religion, when done with skill is “effective in leading someone from delusion towards enlightenment” – in other words, as LRH put it, it’s workable. Unfortunately, many people can’t see the forest for the trees.

      “So too, a teacher’s methods, and the practices or rituals employed by certain traditions, even if unorthodox, may be skillful means if they are effective in leading someone from delusion towards enlightenment, and therefore rooted in compassion. The value of a teaching or practice is seen in its effectiveness, and is contextual, rather than being viewed in universal terms.”

  18. To some degree it is an admixture of workability and faith. You can completely believe Yoga postures don’t work. You can go into a yoga posture class with complete doubt. The doubting will hamper the results because of a constant doubting mind.

    But at some point the body will feel good and the mind will then say,”this works on practical laws being demonstrated. I feel good.”

    There are some aspects of Scientology that fall into that catagory.

    (ha ha, I don’t believe I am on the Scientology side Marty. It was just a few short months ago that things were quite different here on this blog)

    For me, when I asses my coming back to this feeding trough time and again, the word fun is the main motive.

    Some things are faith based in Scientology and some are not. That is my take.

    But I do understand where you are coming from. Everyone’s evolution out of self limitations will always have a different color to it.

    Rejecting Scientology as just a belief is a layer coming off for sure.

    • I’m impressed, Brian.🙂

      • Brian The Experimenter

        Thank you Mirildi. But why are you impressed?

        • “I don’t believe I am on the Scientology side Marty. It was just a few short months ago that things were quite different here on this blog”

          I’d say that’s a relatively big transformation – and you were willing to say it. I give you credit.😉

          • Brian The Experimenter

            No transformation here Mirildi. If you go back to the begining of my blogging here you’d see that I am for benevolent use of Scientology.

            Nothing has been transformed except maybe your perception🙂

            It’s all good.

            • “(ha ha, I don’t believe I am on the Scientology side Marty. It was just a few short months ago that things were quite different here on this blog)”

              Then what did you mean by the second sentence?

              • Brian The Experimenter

                Well actually it was a few years ago, before you came on Marty’s site. I would be being all “Brian” and judging Ron and Marty would be arguing on the side of Scientology.

                Here we are 2 years later and I’m on the side of seeing Scientology as a mixture of workability and faith and Marty seeing it as all faith.

                Life is grand. It’s all so rich. Such a play and stage we actors be!

                But thank you non the less Mirildi for your kind recognition of my faux transformation. Actually, I guess we are all constantly transforming. So I’ll take it anyway😉

                Have a happy day

                • Well, your words were “just a few short months ago…” not 2 years ago.

                  Anyway, I was giving you credit for your open integrity. But since you’re now calling it a “faux transformation…” I guess you may have misspoken. In any case, you have a happy day too.

                • Brian…”Life is grand. It’s all so rich. Such a play and stage we actors be!”

                  When I read your statement Brian I was reminded of the following quote that I just recently came across on a youtube video (I’m not familiar with Shri Atmananda). Not so long ago, though, I would have rejected the notion this quote puts forth. Now, however, speaking of transformation…I embrace it.

                  “Man is both the spectator and the actor in the drama of life. The spectator is real but the actor is unreal.” ~ Shri Atmananda

                  • Brian The Experimenter

                    Ah yes indeed. The actor is the only true reality. The roles we play are fleeting, entertaining and full of fun and drama.

                    Immortal gypsies we actors be!!! Never touched by change, yet ever conscious of it. The fulcrum, the balance point: the soul, full of joy!

  19. I’ve been using the workable parts of scientology for 46 years so far. I continue to use those parts because they provide results that I’m happy with. The parts that don’t work I dropped a long time ago. So am I a believer? Yes, but that’s only because of what I observed and experienced first hand.

    • 🙂 good for you. I have done the same… discarded what I did not found useful and kept the rest, what is a point keeping something which we view as useless burden, why one should carry such?

  20. This way the pros can keep their pro- and the antis their anti-, and not be objectively right nor wrong, and not shove it down anybody’s throat. It reminds me of that “What is true, is what is true for you.”

    • and never compromise your own reality… so true!

      • Yes. And if we allow others to do the same, we’re going to lose so many games –war games in specific. I don’t mean to not communicate so as to allow another have a reality. But in war you simply disrespect the others view, and try to impose your own over his.

        I’d like my old Churchie friends to know a few things. But I wouldn’t force them to. On the contrary, enforced disconnection is an imposed view. It has nothing to do with respecting the Churchie’s viewpoint. It’s an effort to limit their viewpoint to what the group says. Disconnection in general is a right, alright. And I use it when I see fit. I only talk to whom I want to, when I want to. I don’t like it if I am forced to communicate either.

        • Sp… if we allow others their own reality that would bring PEACE TO EARTH and the restimulation would die down and sooner or later locks alarm guns, would not be needed. But that will never happen on this Planet..

          • Yes it would be cool.

            Some extra thoughts: I think if we live our lives well (you can rephrase ‘well’ as ‘self determined’ or whatever else you consider to be ‘well’) the planet will follow. I think that’s how it goes, and not the other way around. If you yourself are OK, the planet can’t reach you in a bad way. You allow to be reached the way you determine to be reached. To fix the planet so that we will be OK, seems reversed to me, and I don’t think it will work out. It’s blame.

            • Sp… you are right.. and no one can FIX this planet. the fixing starts with self… that goes for those who wanted to ”clear the planet” no one can do that till look after self first.. handle their own universe on every level than only after that one can work on the universe it self.

  21. Gerhard Waterkamp

    There is no reason to obsess about Scientology, from one side or another. I would also consider it to be a religion and a believe system, not one I think to be very beneficial or valuable, but a believe system nevertheless.

    On the other hand there are a few aspects that IMO require some guidance. The current culture and education system in the western hemisphere does usually provide very little education in Philosophy. No matter if high school or grad school there is little place for studying or understanding the history of Philosophy and its different lines of thinking. So people in our society are usually pretty undereducated in this regards (myself included) when they come in contact with Scientology. That is one aspect what makes it so easy for Scientology to wow people in this culture and consume them into their believe system.

    When liberating oneself from this system, I found guidance is helpful. Guidance, that one is responsible for one’s own education. In this regards the literature list you provided and the discussion about different aspects of philosophy were extremely valuable for me and still are as I work through that list and my own education.

    I think I also understand, at one point what had to be said has been said and there is no point in continuous repetition in circles. I can only start to imagine how tired you must be of this. I really appreciate everything you have done and what you went through and can see your viewpoint. I am grateful you are still working on your books and look forward to them.

    A third aspect is to curb the interference of the Cult with people’s lives. Enforced Disconnection and their other domestic terror operations executed in the intent to keep power and influence over people are still a problem and a collapse of the evil empire could help a number of people to breathe more freely. So I think it is worth some effort to give DM a helping hand in his activities to drive the COS into the collapse earlier than later.

    As to the future of Scientology, I recently heard the story of a former Class V auditor, who got an inheritance enabling her to go to med school and now works as a successful Psychiatrists specializing in therapy for trauma patients and is often using principles and techniques from her Class V education successfully to help those patients.

    • Brian The Experimenter

      Wow Gerhard! That is so cool, your friend being so trained as to truly help people with many modalities of approaches to the patient.

      I aways say, ” the vaildity of a process is determined by the quality of outcome.”

      Quality also has Pan Determination as its operating basis: win win

      “Only way” mentalities always condemn. To justify superiority.

      But it is really a bad view of self. An ignorance of self that fuels arrogance. Really it is fear based.

      Underneath all the muck, we are truly good.

      Actually…… Underneath all the muck, we are devine.

  22. Alonzo…in your comment in reference to Mirildi’s final sentence in her
    comment you proposed a couple of questions to the results of your auditing
    session scenarios.
    In the first example, was Scientology correctly applied, even though mistakes were made by the auditor?
    Yes because the auditor understood what he/she were doing and corrected the mistakes.
    In the second one, were the mistakes the cause of the outcome?
    Yes because the auditor did not understand what he/she were doing
    and did not correct the mistakes.
    Any auditor with their grain of salt would never let a pc leave session
    with BI’s let alone VBI’s.
    Correctly applied is all-important to the results of an auditing session
    whether you like it or not.

    • Yes, Potpie –

      The causes you cite are certainly possible. Can you think of other causes which would explain the all-too common phenomena described?

      I think that if you step back and look at it, if only the causes that Hubbard allowed you to think of were the only causes possible, then Scientology would not be in the shape it is in today.

      There MUST be something else going on with the delivery of Dianetics and Scientology than only the things Hubbard allowed to be thought of, or else Scientology would not be the failure that it is today.

      If Hubbard allowed Scientologists to address ALL possible causes – including updating and changing the tech itself – Scientology would probably be much more workable today. But he set that up as the Cardinal Sin for any Scientologist, and just look at the results of that after 64 years of application.

      Alanzo

      • Alanzo,
        In the example where the pc “had VBIs and went home, quit Scientology, and asked for his money back and then got on “Nightline” to talk about what a fraud it was” it is a simple fact that the auditor forced the pc to do something they didn’t want to do.
        How much out of the box thinking does it take to see this and not force him?
        Get his data and end session….pretty simple. Heck he might not want to go
        to Nightline if an auditor who knew what they were doing used a bit of common sense and saw what was in front of them.
        Are there pc’s that Scientology doesn’t work on? Of course there are. How should they be handled? With ARC and understanding. Was this always done in Scientology? Hell no. If there is one large outpoint I would assign to Hubbard, it would be that he didn’t insist everyone become an auditor before they ever started a post. I mean an auditor that knows the ARC triangle and understands the tech.
        I’m sorry but I cannot really debate with you from your point of view.
        If you feel there should have been changes in the tech and the way it was
        delivered then please tell me what changes you would make. Tell me how
        an auditor should think out of the box. Tell me what you as an auditor in your examples would have done. And please don’t answer my questions by posing questions. Tell me how you would have updated and changed the tech to make Scientology more workable today and not a failure.

        • Hi Potpie –

          You wrote:

          Are there pc’s that Scientology doesn’t work on? Of course there are. How should they be handled? With ARC and understanding. Was this always done in Scientology? Hell no. If there is one large outpoint I would assign to Hubbard, it would be that he didn’t insist everyone become an auditor before they ever started a post. I mean an auditor that knows the ARC triangle and understands the tech.

          Hubbard created Qual for that, and study tech, Word Clearing Tech, and False Data Stripping, and the Primary Rundown, and Method 1 Word Clearing and Key To Life and and and…

          And you STILL say the problem with Scientology is that Scientologists don’t know the ARC Triangle, and don’t understand the tech?

          Then you are saying that none of those pieces of tech that Hubbard created to get people to understand the tech work at all. And if they can’t use that tech to understand the ARC triangle from reading DMSMH and Fundamentals of Thought, and if they have to become auditors in order to understand it, then that tech does not work at all and should be scrapped.

          You’ve given the proof that it does not work, and so unworkable tech should be scrapped.

          Am I right, or not?

          And here are the changes I would make:

          1. Because people are unique individuals, there should be no “Bridge to Total Freedom”. The idea that every case is built the same, with only the parts that Hubbard identified, proves that by putting them on a Henry Ford Conveyor Belt to Total Freedom is there only to make money and for no other reason. Scientologists from the 50’s recognized this when Hubbard introduced the Bridge in the early 60’s and left in droves.

          The Bridge should be scrapped and auditors and others should be free to use whatever auditing processes they want for each unique individual in front of them.

          2. The era of policy he began with “We will not speculate here on how I rose above the bank” should be completely wiped out, as that was the era of top down authoritarian rule where Ron was not able to be questioned or criticized, and no Scientologist was ever again allowed to think. And that was 1965.

          Scientology should be completely democratic, as its ideals from the 50’s said it was, and its books completely open to the public.

          3. The work Hubbard did in the 1970’s was mostly crazy. OEF/FEBC, Org Officer/Product Officer system, The Introspective Rundown – these all should be scrapped.

          Policy is what you believe will work best in your own area, and no Scientologist has any right to tell another Scientologist what is “standard” for their own lives and their own areas.

          The idea of “standard tech ethics and admin” where Scientologists lord over each other chasing angels on the heads of pins must be scrapped.

          4. Then, delete every one of his lies, from “I tried to occupy the same space as some shrapnel” in the 1950 tape “The Story of Dianetics and Scientology” all the way through to anything other than what he admitted to Sarge in the mid 80’s where he told him that he had failed.

          5. Delete the Sea Org and all hidden data lines.

          6. Give everyone their money back, since it was sold on false pretences (fraud) and let them decide whether to keep it or re-donate it to a new entity of some kind that is open, transparent and that tells the truth.

          A complete do-over is needed.

          Alanzo

          • Potpie –

            A note:

            When I wrote: You’ve given the proof that it does not work, and so unworkable tech should be scrapped. I should have also said that this study tech and Qual tech and word clearing tech has some workability. The real problem is that you, and almost all Scientologists, have a blind spot for Ron as the source of abuse in Scientology. And you have been taught never to criticize or even question L Ron Hubbard.

            In addition to teaching Scientologists the ARC Triangle LRH ALSO taught them to give people “too gruesomes” and to get mad in order to have ethics presence and that there were such things as “SPs” who were behind every “downstat”.

            This is the source of the angry failure of Scientology – Ron writings themselves.

            Ron himself killed Scientology by making it an angry, authoritarian Sea Org-based, contradictory mess. And if you are going to save it, you are going to have to confront LRH as Source, and wherever you see out-ARC Scientologists, you will find the reference by Ron that is teaching them to be out-ARC. And all you have to do is delete those contradictory teachings by Ron, and then get them to re-study the ARC Triangle.

            Scientologists earnestly follow the work of L Ron Hubbard to the very best of their ability and understanding. Therefore, where they are failing, they are usually applying unworkable technology from L Ron Hubbard.

            Alanzo

            • Alanzo,
              Thank you for your replys and answers.
              It appears you were more oriented with
              policy than tech. I would guess you never
              really audited anyone. I happen to not agree
              that the tech cannot be properly applied.
              I did indeed audit the person in front of me.
              Quite frankly that is nothing more than common
              sense. When talking to someone and they bring up
              apples do you then start talking about nuts or do you
              carry on a conversation about apples?
              In essence, auditing is nothing more than a regular
              ole conversation….if you know what your doing.
              The fact that people had wins and their lives were
              improved, does not appear to mean that much to
              you in your obsessive need to totally destroy LRH
              and all he did. Your evaluative comments that I am
              blind and have been “taught” to not question LRH is
              really to me only your point of view. In spite of your
              attempts to label me a mind numb robot, I know that is
              not the case. Surely you will grant me or another Scientologist
              enough to choose how we feel aside from your opinions.
              All Scientologist are failing, and are applying unworkable
              tech? Another comment I consider to be your opinion only
              unless of course you have license to speak for all Scientologist.
              Whether you like it or not (and it appears you don’t) there are people
              who have achieved wins in auditing that have helped them in their
              life and livingness. Why don’t you lighten up a bit and let them have
              their wins?
              By the way I asked what you would have done as an auditor in the two
              examples you proposed…..you didn’t answer that one.
              You wanna know more about me? Read another comment I made below.

              • PotPie –

                This is an amazingly over-emotional response for someone who prides himself, as you do, on handling people with high ARC.

                You are assuming things in my answers to you that are not there.

                If you re-read my posts in a new unit of time, I think you will find that I answered you in good faith and as honestly as I could from my own viewpoint.

                Aren’t you trained to handle that kind of communication?

                Your training says that I’m a real, live “2.5%er” and I want to destroy Scientology because it helps people, and that just drives me into a MAD HOWLING YESTERDAY which renders me totally insane and being attacked, and that I’m taking the actions in present time in response to what happened to me then..

                But if you just calm down and dump that part of Hubbard’s training, and reread exactly what I wrote to you, and try to apply the comm formula and get your TRs in, you will find that I do not want to destroy Scientology and that I answered you earnestly.

                Please try again. And this time with high ARC.

                Let’s see Scientology work to improve ARC between people right here on Marty’s blog.

                Alanzo

                • Alonzo,

                  Your ability to think, reason and comm has climbed up the tone scale considerably in the last year.

                  I am proud of you.

                  Dio

                  • Well thank you, Dio.

                    I’ve been under much less attack, but I have also made much progress in my own religious path of Buddhism, which has helped me to remind me that we all suffer – just like I do.

                    Alanzo

                • Alanzo,
                  I’m not surprised by your response….in fact I expected it.
                  If you feel I’m over emotional with out TR’s and out comm
                  cycle that is fine by me. You have yet to tell me what you would
                  have done as an auditor in the two auditing session examples you
                  posed. I’m thinking you probably won’t so that is the last time I will
                  ask. You are right, my TR3 is out.
                  I know you will be happy and point out all of my terrible out points
                  as an auditor and inability to confront your point of view, but at this
                  point I’m bowing out of our conversation.
                  Hopefully, secretly in the back of your mind you will now feel right
                  because you took down a mean ole auditor who doesn’t know how to
                  use the tech when talking to you. This surely will confirm how utterly wrong Hubbard was.

                  • Well Potpie –

                    It’s another countless example after 14 years on the internet of presenting scientologists who have been highly trained in Scientology with data that falls outside of their ideology, and seeing them run away from a comm cycle that they can not handle.

                    It is one more piece of evidence that LRH’s ideology can not create beings who are more able to handle life on planet earth..

                    It’s not your fault. The ideology that you bet your life on let you down, once again.

                    Alanzo

                  • I don’t mean to “take down an auditor”, though, Potpie.

                    I just believe that the unexamined life is not worth living, as Socrates taught.

                    I have observed that the certainty that LRH’s Scientology instills in Scientologists prevents the examination of a life worth living.

                    So I attack the false certainty that Scientology instills, and test it to see if it is solid in the real world.

                    Why shouldn’t I?

                    Is that really a suppressive act?

                    Why should it be?

                    Sometimes I find, for some people, Scientology is a stable ideology that helps them to confront life and other people.

                    But a Scientologist has to keep his TRs in, and he has to duplicate and understand the information he receives, in order for Scientology to work in the long haul.

                    To Duplicate and Understand Your Life

                    This is the basic message that Socrates & Plato taught their students.

                    But with all the contradictory things that Hubbard put into Scientology, is it any wonder that so many Scientologists can not duplicate and understand me?

                    There are some Scientologists who can.

                    But far too few for a technology that was supposed to make the able more able.

                    Alanzo

                    • Alanzo,
                      This is the second time you have made reference
                      to me thinking you are SP. I have never said that
                      and quite frankly never thought that.
                      The way I think of you is that you certainly can
                      talk the talk when it comes to Scientology but
                      I don’t think you have ever really audited
                      another person in a session with a meter etc. I don’t
                      think you have any idea what that is like. Why do I think that?
                      You propose two auditing session examples calling them the same
                      exact sessions. Yet how can they be exactly the same if one was fn
                      at exams and the other isn’t? I have on several occasions asked you to
                      break down each session, tell what you did as an auditor and what happened. Why would you handle mistakes in the successful session and not the failed one?
                      What did you do as an auditor in those sessions? This is a conversation two
                      experienced auditors might have. Or in the case of the failed session it is a
                      conversation an auditor would have with a cramming officer. What would a C/S do in the failed session? Bring the pc in for a metered interview. What would be the first question asked in this interview?……What did the auditor do?
                      So I’m asking, what did you do in the failed session? Why didn’t you correct your mistakes? Did the pc have an fn gis at start of session in the failed session? If not did you fly the ruds? Did they fly? If not did you do an L1C? What did you do…why did you take the pc to the examiner with BI’s in the second session? Why would any auditor do that?

                    • Potpie –

                      When you said to me:

                      The fact that people had wins and their lives were improved, does not appear to mean that much to you in your obsessive need to totally destroy LRH and all he did.

                      I interpreted that you meant by that what Hubbard said that meant, which was that Scientology helps people and some people are driven crazy by anything that helps people, etc etc etc blah blah blah = you are a Supressive Person.

                      Been told that, literally hundreds of times by Scientologists. I can smell it from a mile away.

                      If you didn’t mean that, but instead meant only what you wrote, then again, you mis-duplicated and misunderstood my answers to you. From this, I observed that, with all your training in Scientology as an auditor, you could not handle my communication.

                      And so that’s why I wrote that to you.

                      My point for the auditing scenario was that, as you know, all auditors make mistakes in sessions, from small to large. And very often the pc never notices these. Sometimes auditors can make huge mistakes in sessions and the pc comes out of session raving about how it was the best auditing session he ever had in his life.

                      As an auditor, you have experienced this, right?

                      It’s actually pretty common. So common that BC L Ron Hubbard defined auditing as “that which you can get away with”.

                      And yet Marildi and so many other present day Scientologists are still stuck in the “angels dancing on the head of a pin” aspect of “standard tech” and the later pronouncements from LRH that “Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied.”

                      So which is it?

                      Is it BC LRon’s pronouncement that auditing is what you can get away with, or later L Ron’s pronouncement that Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied?

                      You can apply a 100% correct Scientology session and the pc still explodes and goes on Nightline.

                      So I’ll answer the question: Scientology sometimes works on some people and sometimes does not work on others. It sometimes works on one person at one time and does not work on that same person at another time.

                      This is the truth about Scientology that is right in front of everyone’s eyes, and has been the whole time.

                      There is no Scientology that works 100% of the time when correctly applied. Hubbard used that on you to keep you running around in a little squirrel cage, chasing an absolute.

                      How do you trap a thetan? You put him in a round universe and tell him there’s an absolute in the corner.

                      This is what LRH did to Scientologists.

                      And it is time it stopped.

                      Now. Can you read, duplicate, and understand my communication to you?

                      Give me an acknowledgment that tells me that you have.

                      Alanzo

          • Hello my friend!

            Excellent summary of changes to be made! I think that I might add a set of additional materials in philosophy, logic, and the key materials of the past that Scientology was lifted from so that the works and original lines of reasoning are not obscured.

            As an example, see paragraph three on this dissertation:
            http://www.mind-development.eu/jung.html

            • Maria!

              What a find!!

              And I see exactly what you are saying. Go back to the roots of Scientology, like with the teachings of Jung here WITH HIS EMETER, and see how Ron took what Jung did in a very different direction. Then restore the knowledge of those original purposes to the Scientologist.

              This is probably the best way to answer the question, “Which of Ron’s works should be changed, and how should they be changed?”

              This is a great application of Logic 8 to Scientology itself. And it is this kind of comparing and contrasting which gives a Scientologist context where Hubbard tried to take it away by hiding where he got his ideas from.

              Alanzo

  23. Robert Almblad

    Scientology for me is a lot of wonderful technology and lot of wonderful people too. But, mixed up in that universe of technology and people is some black, backwards technology used to harm others and some blinding technology used to create ignorance among it’s members. In the end this mixture has created a 3rd dynamic Co$ that by it’s very nature is just plain contrary to the goals of spiritual freedom and awareness. This religion has run its course through birth, growth, decay and death.

    Could it have been different? I don’t think so. It was not a failure from lacking of trying. God knows we all tried like hell. Years of toil and amassing $ billions in the bank. All to what end?

    3rd dynamically I think the Church will continue its death march to the graveyard of obscurity with no way to turn back because there is an immense and unmovable KSW tombstone blocking any possible resurrection or turnaround. Even 100 years from now when Mr Midget is not even a memory, KSW will ensure the tomb is tightly sealed.

    Will the technology of Scientology auditing continue? I think it will. I think it does. But, I cannot predict in what form it will evolve.

  24. The Bible says “seek and you shall find” then conveniently doesn’t tell you WHAT you’ll find. If you look for engrams, you’ll find them. Doesn’t mean that they were there or that they exist, but you went seeking so you found. Because it was found it must be true. This is the essence of belief. “It’s true” becomes the mantra and nothing can change your mind on that because any and all inspection is considered not true in that area. So we have people being led by the nose in one direction unable to see the rust underneath the paint, and other people led by the nose unable to see the paint over the rust. A person who simply knows sees the paint and the rust and neither surrends nor defends either….

    • “seek and you shall find”

      At least you will be active

      • In the ‘ego’ thought system the mantra is…”seek and never find” Another version…”there’s always MORE to be had” or “the next one will be ‘The One’. Of course, these can be easily integrated into “Causes” to fight for, things to fix, things to save, and so on. In any case, whatever the version, however it’s used, it’s a clever and effective way the ego thought system has to preserve itself i.e., always keep the object sought after in the future and just out of reach. NOTHING ever lasts in the ego thought system. EVERYTHING comes and goes.

  25. Grasshopper (Mark P)

    Scientology as a whole is too broad a subject to make that statement. For example, missed withhold phenomena is demontrably true and repeatable whether the person knows Scientology or not. Also, the use of Completed Staff Work would come under your definition of Scn even though the US army used it prior to Ron. It “works” regardless of belief. And I don’t care who you are, if you study or read anything and have misunderstood words, or dive in too deep, or fail to put it in context of the “real world” (ie mass), you will not understand the subject.
    So parts of Scientology work regardless of belief or lack of it. There are other examples of things that “work.”
    To me it’s worth the finding, just as it is worth finding the “workable” in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the “Sciences.”

    Mark

    • Mark, you write…”parts of Scientology work regardless of belief or lack of it.” This is a statement of belief. And it is sitting on top of many other beliefs such as the belief in subjects and objects, the belief that things will work or won’t work; the belief that there are parts; the belief that there is such a thing as lack; the belief that there is something to be studied; the belief that things need to be fixed or can’t be fixed; the belief that things are right or wrong, good or bad; the belief that there was a before and an after and on and on and on it the list goes. Life, if it even exists at all, is completely meaningless until we attach our beliefs to it. Our so called life experiences are but the reflection of our beliefs.

      Before a person experienced Scn they had the belief that something like Scn was possible. And before that there was a belief that there was such a thing as a person.

      Postulates are choices that extend from belief systems.

      • Grasshopper (Mark P)

        I believe 2+2 = 4. I could be wrong.

        • Mark….

          How about this… just for fun.

          2(horses)+2(wide open spaces)=4 (ummm…. Help me out here!🙂 )

          But, of course, you can also, just as easily, be right!

          Eric

          • Well, I would say that 2 horses and 2 wide open spaces make 1 nice ride! Add a yellow ribbon or a couple of six-shooters, and you have a John Wayne movie.😉

            • Mark

              Ya… perhaps you were right all along…

              2 horses + 2 wide open spaces = things that come in handy if you want to go 4 a horse ride with a friend.

              Eric

      • Monte, I gotta disagree with parts of what you wrote. First, postulates are not necessarily choices as if there were any pre-existing options to choose from. A postulate is the result of an act – an act of postulation. I see all acts, at bottom, of being ‘unmotivated acts’.

        I think ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ are somewhat different, one from another. ‘Belief’ comes about once one has lost his faith that he knows and postulates. Belief can come about only after one ‘Not-knows’. Belief is a supposition about things he no longer perceives directly. There is a kind of gradient scale involved here, that perhaps you actually incorporate already in your thinking?

        • Hey Valkov, thanks much for taking this up. As I was ending off my reply to Mark, right at the end, this thought rose up about postulates being choices that extend from belief systems and into the comment box it went. I recall wondering to myself if that were actually the case or not and planned to come back and explore the notion. However, that plan must have got pushed to the side because, until you brought it up, I had ceased thinking about it.

          So Valkov, you say that a postulate is the ‘result’ of an act – an act of postulation and that you see all acts, at bottom of being ‘unmotivated acts’. Ummm…I don’t know what this means exactly. Could be the word ‘act.’ Would you mind elaborating on this? I would appreciate it.

          Speaking of choices…here’s a short clip from Rupert Spira where he talks about what a choice is. His perspective was one that I had never heard or considered before. But, it does make sense to me.

          As for belief and faith…I too view them as being different. And I agree that belief can only come after one ‘Not Knows’ as well as belief being a supposition about things the person no longer sees directly. Or, as I would phrase it, no longer perceives truly but constantly misperceives.

          FYI: Here’s a Q&A regarding belief and faith as it relates to the teachings in the book, A Course in Miracles:

          Q #414: Please comment on the similarities and differences in the terms “belief” and “faith” as used in A Course in Miracles.

          A: Simply put, what you put your faith in you then believe. Faith thus precedes belief. We never lack faith, for we always place our faith in either of two teachers: the ego or Jesus; and then we will believe what that teacher says. [from the ACIM text] – “It is impossible that the Son of God lack faith, but he can choose where he would have it be. Faithlessness is not a lack of faith, but faith in nothing. Faith given to illusions does not lack power, for by it does the Son of God believe that he is powerless. Thus is he faithless to himself, but strong in faith in his illusions about himself. For faith, perception and belief you made, as means for losing certainty and finding sin. This mad direction was your choice, and by your faith in what you chose, you made what you desired”

          Source: http://www.facimoutreach.org./

          • Valkov, I found the video clip, The Brain Knows Before You Do, that Rupert and the other man are referring to. Here it is:

            • Thanks Monte, videos. I interpret these events differently. If any ‘choice’ is made, I believe it is made at a deeper level, passed through the brain, and eventually recognized (re-cognized) by “you”. In this case, th eword “you” represents the superficial construct, the “ego” that believes it is interfacing with the world and making choices. So the 6 seconds are actually a comm lag. I think the researcher’s interpretation is a pretty good illustration of hte “inverted view” LRH mentions, in which mechanics seem to take precedence over considerations. In humanity at large, the “considering” takes place at such a deep level that it seems to be an “It’ that decides and acts, not oneself. For reference, check out Georg Groddeck and his “Book of the IT”. I find the book itself tedious and boring for the most part, but th ecentrlide totlally appeals to me, and even dovetails with Buddhist and Vedic perceptions of life – that when one thinks one is choosing and acting, one is really fooling oneself, that actually, IT is acting through one….

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

              • Really garbled phrase should read – “but the central idea totally appeals to me, …….”

              • Re: Video: Brain knows before you do.

                I saw this video somewhere before.

                It is a good one.
                And thanks for posting it and bringing it back to memory.

                This brings to mind the “thought adjusters” in Urantia:

                http://www.urantia.org/topical-studies/thought-adjusters

                It also brings to mind what is taught in the fundamentals of law:

                That the truth is not grounded in the written laws of man, they are grounded in the precepts of conscience of honest men.

                Also, in some spiritual circles, people talk about that “still small voice inside of you” or “inner voice”.

                I have to think that this is all referring to the same thing, the same source.

                Everyone is or potentially endowed with this faculty or source.
                But it gets aberrated and blocked by us and others, as summed up by the four flows of dianetics.

                And it is likely was is recovered by auditing and what is experienced in “peak states”.

                The following concepts also refer to the same point, faculty, factor, what ever you want to call it.

                Def: Common sense: (Source Jurisdictionary)

                The presence of mind and general caution that the law imputes to all persons. That is sense that every one should have.

                Everyone owes a duty to common sense. 

                The breech of this duty may give rise to cause of action.  (End of Jurisdictionary definition of common sense.)

                People who do not have common sense can also be considered irresponsible and mentally incompetent and can be institutionalized to protect public safety.

                Def: Common sense

                Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as, “sound and prudent judgement based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”[1] Thus, “common sense” (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have.

                The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as, “the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way”.[2]
                Wikipedia: Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by (“common to”) nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.

                A high degree of common sense, like probity and integrity was especially common in early Canada and America.

                Like wise as to common sense, there is the universal maxim that all law is based on. This maxim sets the basis, the standard and dividing line between right and wrong:

                Do unto unto others as you would have them do unto you.

                And it’s counterpart:

                Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.

                This maxim is similar in principle as duty of care and common sense.

                It also consists of a sense of right and wrong.

                Common sense is similar to or kin to scruples.

                It is part of the tacit or implicit social contract.

                Everyone has a duty to live by this maxim.

                The breach of this maxim can also give rise to cause for legal action

                Scru·ples
                n.
                1. An uneasy feeling arising from conscience or principle that tends to hinder action.

                Un·scru·pu·lous

                Devoid of scruples; oblivious to or contemptuous of what is right or honourable.

                1.
                Def. unconscientiousness – the quality of being willing to ignore the dictates of conscience
                conscience – conformity to one’s own sense of right conduct; “a person of unflagging conscience”
                conscientiousness – the quality of being in accord with the dictates of conscience

                2.
                unconscientiousness – the trait of not being painstaking or careful
                carelessness, sloppiness – the quality of not being careful or taking pains
                painstakingness, conscientiousness – the trait of being painstaking and careful

    • “I don’t care who you are, if you study or read anything and have misunderstood words, or dive in too deep, or fail to put it in context of the “real world” (ie mass), you will not understand the subject.”

      First of all, you are absolutely correct about misunderstanding words. If one is studying a subject and they don’t understand many of the words, then of course they will not have a great understanding of the subject. But this has always been true, even before written language existed. Ron didn’t discover this, he simply packaged common knowledge in his own way: a person doesn’t come across a word they don’t understand, nope, they “have a misunderstood.” You know what people outside of Ron’s bubble do when they don’t understand a word? They look it up in a dictionary and continue reading. I’m not even kidding, man. And people did this well before Ron was born, too. But he managed to package it as “word clearing M/U’s”, because in that phrasing it kinda sorta sounds like something more than just an everyday, global occurrence. It sounds like a special piece of tech.

      And yes, if you dive too deep too fast you may become overwhelmed and quit. Again, this is not an LRH discovery. Failing to understand a subject because you did not put it in the context of the ‘real world’, which somehow means ‘mass’ to you… You have some word clearing to do on that. I don’t even know where to begin with that statement.

      “missed withhold phenomena is demontrably true and repeatable whether the person knows Scientology or not.”

      How is this phenomena demonstrated? By documenting how the e-meter registers when one is asked about withholds? Say you were holding the cans and I thought up some random question that is goofy, embarrassing and completely untrue, would your reaction read on the meter? Would it read differently than it reads on a withhold? How do e-meters even work, can you explain?

      • Grasshopper (Mark P)

        Not everyone looks up words. I had a high school English teacher tell us to figure out words we didn’t know using context. But, sure, Ron consolidated some info. It is Scientology, though, and it is workable. It does not depend on belief.

        Re missed w/h phenomena, this has nothing to do with a meter. Rather it is how someone reacts to someone almost finding out something. “Does he know? Or not?” Etc. you’ll need to look it up.

        • EnthralledObserver

          “Not everyone looks up words. I had a high school English teacher tell us to figure out words we didn’t know using context.”

          Yes, everyone looks up words… that technique your high school teacher taught you was a strategy to use alongside using your dictionary, not to replace it completely. Both are useful, efficient and effective techniques. Every primary school I know of teaches kids to use dictionaries.
          $cientology is not LRon’s re-packaged directions in life (some good advice, some bad) – $cientology is the bizarre rituals LRon wrote himself (answering bizzare auditing questions holding tin cans) and sold by telling lies about the research he did to develop that writing – research that does not exist. That’s $cientology… not the common sense/knowledge that the rest of us operate on. Stop trying to credit the man with stuff he didn’t do or create himself.

          • I went to school in suburban New Jersey, a class IV (largest) school in the state, with an excellent reputation and all that. The rest of the story is: when I asked the teacher “why don’t we just look the word up?” he looked at me as if I was crazy. There was NOT a dictionary in the classroom – or any classroom. I was never instructed in any of the top-flight schools I went to to EVER look up a word in any dictionary. Ever. Oh, except in one case, which was to look up how to spell a word. Not know the meaning of it, just spell it.

            The only dictionaries that existed in this particular school was in the “LRC” (the “Learning Resource Center”, or what non-education-establishment people call a “Library”).

            Cal Tech and other schools do not teach using gradients. Rather, they use a “fire hose” approach and just hammer data and information at students, thinking that some will stick. There is grading on “The Curve” in which people are not measured against a real standard, but against each other. The ones that were able to absorb a bit more of the fire hose are given A’s and the poor bastards who drowned are failed. This is the norm. Do you know what the norm passing percentage is for a Scientology course? 100%. People should learn something and be able to demonstrate what they know, and learn it 100%, not be shoved data using Lavage.

            Don’t tell me how wonderful “education” is and how the educational establishment uses these techniques Ron “stole” and expect me to take it seriously.

            As far as what Scientology is, you are saying that it is only the auditing techniques, correct? It is not, then, the Sea Org, forced abortion, the “Hole”, “Fair Game”, the RPF, crush regging, or the IAS. Well, at least we agree on one thing.

            • EnthralledObserver

              That’s right.. the Hole, forced abortion. Fair Game etc etc are all criminal deeds that already have a name… i.e fraud, false imprisonment, blackmail, criminal manipulation, etc – they don’t need another term. Hubbard and Makemerich use them, but neither invented them, so they aren’t “$cientology”. My example was just that, an example, $cientology is the stuff Hubbard invented, all of which don’t work, and most of which do harm to people… because he just ‘made them up’ – or if I’m being generous, made them up using his knowledge of hypnotism to a desired effect – with no research and with no concern for the consequences on the individuals using these techniques.
              I don’t know how old you are, but dictionaries are widespread in Education now, my 5 year old had to own her own junior version for school, and all my kids up to 16 now all required a more advanced copy (of their own) at certain stages of their schooling and were taught how to use them, for spelling and definitions, and also the older kids required their own thesaurus too, and were taught how to use it. They are constantly encouraged to use them, and were/are taught they can access a free online version should they need it. Not only does the school teach them, but I teach them this… as do all the other parents I know – some, of course, better than others and to varying degrees of success, but everyone is an individual, so I expect this result.
              My point – maybe there were deficiencies in Education (perhaps with certain teachers, or as a whole) in the past, and of course there are improvements that can still be made, but LRon Hubbard and his ‘work’ has no place and no influence on the progression of Education – we’re working it out nicely, and will continue to much better without that man’s idiocy infecting it. The dictionary, and its purpose/use, was not an LRonny invention… if you didn’t notice that as a child or during your lifelong education, I’m sorry and feel bad that you missed out, but these are the facts nonetheless.

        • Grasshopper, you are correct in that ‘not everyone looks up words’. Whether s/he does depends where/when and how s/he was educated. In my town, Ann Arbor Michigan, in the 1980s some of the public schools agreed to implement a ‘progressive’ educational technique, dreamed up in some prestigious “School of Education” at some University somewhere. In a nutshell, the kids were not encouraged to learn how words were spelled. They were told to write by spelling each word the way it sounded to them, instead of being taught to spell words in the traditionally agreed-upon way.

          The result was that potentially, each child could spell the same word in a way different from how the other children spelled it. The immediate results were the children could not read “standard” written materials – books, newspapers, signs, etc. because standard spellings were not taught. Others couyld usually understand or figy=ure out what these kids were writing, but thy were unable to read each other’s writings very well, because each child had his/her own idiosyncratic spelling system.

          Of course their standardized test scores in reading comprehension went way down.

          These kinds of ‘educational experiments’ were in fact done in many school systems around the country for many years. Schools were incentivized into doing them by offers of government funding.

          Note that a person who does not know ‘standard spelling’ would be hampered in trying to use a dictionary, or completely unable to use one!

          In these classrooms, dictionary use was not encouraged, if it was permitted at all.

          You will find much of this kind of idiosyncratic spelling when you read rap lyrics. A ‘whore’ is a ‘ho’, etc. Originally, they were taught to spell ‘phonetically’, the way the words were actually spoken. This was taken up as a point of pride, as differentiating themselves and their culture and speech from those of “the Man” – the straight white ‘ruling class’.

          To me it is a perfect illustration of the “Tower of Babel” story from Genesis.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

          EO and her children may be lucky in that in their local area, the schools did not try out any of these pernicious educational experiments, much less permanently implement them, but they certainly have been done in many American school systems, and the use of dictionaries was not always encouraged. I would go so far as to say such use was often actually suppressed. It is well known that many colleges and universities have had to implement remedial reading programs for incoming freshmen who ‘graduated’ from their high schools without good literacy skills.

          • Valkov where I went to school in hungary. no one had to spell the words We have writen the way it sounded and we still seldom made mistakes and till now the same system is still used. there are over 40 letter . Hogy vagy kedves baratom, remelem jol wagy. It jo ido van most sutott ki a nap.

          • Grasshopper and Valkov, I really can’t believe that the 2 of you are arguing that Ron’s pushing the use of a dictionary is all that special. That’s laugh out loud funny.

            • Whatever. I stand by my post. I didn’t say it was “special” anyway. I know for a fact some people do not look up words in dictionaries, and I know for a fact that for some years in Ann Arbor MIchigan there was an experimental program implemented in some public elementary schools in which th ekids were taught to not use dictionaries, but to derive the meaning from ‘context’. Sounds like voodoo edication to me. In any case, the kids reading comprehension scores went down as a result.

              I would have to re-read the posts in question, but this sounds like you are arguing with a straw man. I don’t recall either of us exclaiming about how “special” Hubbard’s promotion of the use of dictionaries was.

              I was struck by how “unspecial” the lack of dictionary use in a public school was. That’s the context I recall.

  26. Dear Marty,
    Very interesting post! I am sure you’ll get a lot of TA Action on this one.
    To those that have read the post and seemed most plainly to have a beef with the “belief” paragraph, please listen to these words — read them very carefully.
    Believing does not exclude a certain amount of logic and proof of workability. Belief is not the same as faith, where you are asked to believe with no such proof. To believe is to conceive the idea that something may be true because you, yourself, decided that it conforms to what you think may be right or true. Belief is subjective.
    Therefore, one can believe scientology works and then it works for one. If one did not believe so then maybe some results could be achieved but that person would not see them as such.
    The fact that LRH has developed dianetics and scientology on axioms does not automatically make it a science. It is a scientific approach to philosophy, yes, and it produces certain tangible results when applied exactly, of course, but in the end it only works because LRH said so and people agreed with him. Only when they agreed that it could work, then it worked for them. Isn’t that just plain and simple to see?
    Realize, people, that we live in a dense hologram created by each and every spiritual being living in it. This entire physical universe, with its physical laws and forces, functions because we believe it does.
    Now as far as “letting go”, I believe Marty has been trying to have some of us do this for some time now. It seems difficult for some people to understand this concept. Letting go for me means allowing oneself the beingness, doingness and havingness that one can learn more from this world than what scientology may or may not teach. It means to steer one’s viewpoint form one direction only and to span a whole spectrum of knowledge. It means that instead of holding tenaciously on one firm system of beliefs, one releases the iron grip and ventures in others, to try and find if there is more to learn about life, the physical universe and the reasons why we exist, and so forth. To quote a TV series: “The truth is out there.”
    Scientology is a key. Some may think it is a workable one or not. That’s totally fine, actually. However, If it is not working for you, stop trying to use it or trying to attack it. It is a key, for Chrissake! How much energy must one invest on a bloody key? You know, other bodies of knowledge also contain keys to understanding the basics of life and the universe.
    Marty, in much nicer words, is telling you this — in my opinion. I am willing to be wrong but I might be also quite right.
    I am not making anyone wrong for speaking their mind, of course. Still, please, follow his advice — it’s a pretty good one, huh?
    I know I may sound, to some, like I’m preaching to the choir; yet, there are a number of commentators here that are not getting the point, it seems.
    Oh, and I am sorry if I’m coming across as arrogant or pretentious — it’s that time of the month and I am in the claws of boy PMS.

    • Flavp, I like what you had to say about letting go. Here’s a short video clip called The Dao of Letting Go (or not trying) that you might enjoy.

  27. When I was going to scientology events in Dublin years ago I noticed it was at the IAS fundraising events that beliefs were heavily pushed on people attending those events, one of the beliefs that was hammered in at those fundraising events is that earth is a prison therefore you should donate all the money you have to the IAS .
    If people believe earth is a prison well then it is for them, if they do not believe in that then earth is not a prison for them .
    Scientology is pushing beliefs that limit ones spiritual freedom, and that is evil IMO .

    • If a person has spent his whole life inside a house and you tell him there can be more than that house, it isn’t bad. What is bad is when you tell him so, and send him down the cellar and call it ‘out of the house’ or something. You get my point. The IAS and some religious leaders and some psychoscientists didn’t get people’s agreement because all that they said was BS.

      • No matter the discoveries I’ve made or I can make about SCN, some stuff is just too ‘mine’ to discard. I don’t mean ‘mine’ in the sense of agreeing too much. Many of the ideas I found in SCN I had prior to SCN but not really in my logical thinking. It’s as if I had invalidated them before in a way or another. That ‘prison planet’ I don’t perceive it like it was talked about in IAS events, and I don’t see any reason to fight nor struggle about it. But I have been seeing earth as a sort of brutal, uncivilized place by various means in various places. And I know it could be much better. What I have seen to be considered ‘normal’ broadly, is not normal for me. But as I also see my share of responsibility over my life, I have less of a planet to blame. That’s a work in progress.

        • “That ‘prison planet’ I don’t perceive it like it was talked about in IAS events, and I don’t see any reason to fight nor struggle about it”
          The reason the IAS (Implanter Association of Scientologists) want scientologists’ to resist being stuck on the ‘prison planet’ is because resistance is what sticks thetans’ to traps . .

          • Lovely, yes –counter creation and ‘we need to do something about it’. Ohh a PTP exists for as long as you think you ‘need to do something about it’😛

            • ‘Ohh a PTP exists for as long as you think you ‘need to do something about it’
              Thanks for that , I have gotten cognitions from reading that about what the IAS implanters have been up to .
              I felt like I was being implanted at those IAS meetings in dublin years ago and my intuition was correct .

              • That’s true for me too ealadha. And you were not suuposed to leave the room until ‘the target is met’ either (you could, but would be made wrong/guilty for it). And oh you were not supposed to not manage to make it there either, anyway, lol. But I didn’t feel like that just in IAS events. The place ‘smelled’ weird. It felt like intense suppression disguised as “we’re feeling wonderful, are powerful” and stuff. There can be ‘positive’ implants too. So, u Irish? They’re the friendliest, less judgemental tourists I’ve met😉

        • But if you don’t believe, The Marcabs will win, we need loyal officers

          • Is that out of the SO? Have you been there?

            • I was never in (in this lifetime;))

              It is from the lectures, from the first Leaks of Anonymous in 2008 but reüpped 3 years ago:

              For Starters The best Sci Fi Hubbard ever tought up:

              • OMG you’re not expecting me to listen to a 30′ lecture now. Anyway, I think I have read a excerpt off that one. Can you sum up your point for me?😛

                  • Adam & Eve are far more convincing. If not that, then it’s perfectly logical to assume that out of black space molecules came to existence, and thus the universe with it’s -illions of planets in which we are alone, cause we’re special (and if we say otherwise we’re mad.).

                    The Xenu story btw is no significance to me. When I said I have zero knowledge, I meant personal knowledge. I have read about it, but I don’t count it as knowledge. The ‘That’s what Scientologists believe’ was BS, as not many had the $ to make it to OT 3 where I was. The only thing that was accomplished by ‘exposing’ that story was to give an excuse for Scientologists to be pressed harder so as not to watch tv nor surf the web freely. Now it’s dangerous. They may fall onto confidential materials etc. I wouldn’t be surprised if those materials got ‘lost’ on purpose.

                  • It’d be cool if more tapes were being known publicly so that people can read what it’s all about. I have seen some quoting from the PDC (as the PDC is among the craziest SCN around). But people seem to be more interested in the confidential stuff, just because it’s confidential. You hide something and it immediately gains value😛 I’m telling you, Incidents like that with Xenu are usual in SCN –there are just so many. But incidents are light cola compared to other SCN stuff. There are some stuff not even Scientologists can believe.

                    • Here you go

                      http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/

                      And here you go again:

                      LURK MOAR

                    • To a degree, analogous to the secrets of Scientology, and the secrets of any non mainstream thing.

                    • + by the way, I’m an ex. Not ex Churchie, Scientologist. I quit the Church in 2002 and SCN altogether in 2008-9. But to make somebody ashamed of what he thinks based on lies is not nice. A reason why I stayed in that Church for 3-4 years, was that I saw indeed what the outsiders talked about didn’t reflect in what I was seeing inside that Church. The things wrong with that Church are rarely known by non Scientologists. Your not wanting new people to join the Church is a rather good cause. But talking about Scientology like it was Cthulhu’s secret cult is untrue. Fun to make fun of a man you deem evil, but keep in mind that the man hasn’t been around for around 35 years.

                    • I an an Ex Anon. And a cultural catholic

                    • I’m currently a Spyrosist, but I might join some honest group, not based on authority, that matches my ideas. For the moment, I just have friends, and hopefully not enemies, although I taunt some people some times. If that church keeps that ‘what is true is what is true for you’ and ‘give and receive communication only when you yourself desire it’ and the rest, instead of ‘believe is an SP because we say so’. I will leave them be, and even defend their right to think what they think and do what they do. Instead, they coaxed somebody I knew to quit talking to me because I was bad, and she bought it. So I played the way they had taught me –I fair-gamed them. And ever since I’ve been engaged in discussions –most of them interesting. I don’t really care to ‘expose’ them anymore, I just think there’s some good and some bad in SCN as a generality, and I share experiences and learn. Nice to meet you😛

                    • Nice to meet you too😉

          • Ah sorry, I didn’t remember what I had written to which you replied. Now I got it.

            I think religion and spirituality are filled with supernatural, metaphysical, crazy stuff. It’s their nature. ‘Spirit’ is crazy stuff as it is not observed in the physical universe, as it doesn’t have physical form. And so is God and other stuff. I think ‘aliens’ are a bit too ridiculed. I don’t see why religious stuff are considered more ‘normal’ than Scientology’s alien stuff. I didn’t like how it was mocked in south park, although I like south park. The only difference between Scientology’s aliens and other religion’s gods and God and life after death is that Scientology doesn’t have as many members, which means less agreement within the earth’s population about that stuff.

            For me, many kinds of supernatural stuff are true. I cannot take a stance about the whole ‘prison planet’ scenario, as I don’t have sufficient knowledge. My knowledge about past lives is very uncertain. But I consider it most probable –including in between lives are etc. I have 0 knowledge about those ancient incidents, like the one in south park.

            What I know due to my own perception and even it’s observable impact on the physical universe, is that thought can have an impact the physical world. That is not a belief for me. Also I can perceive and communicate without physical means, that is not a belief either. Although it’s not necessary, I have confirmed much of that that stuff I mentioned scientifically too. Meaning, I have checked whether or not something happened, in the physical world, many times. But really it’s not necessary for me anymore, since the body has it’s own perceptions and there can be more perceptions than that, and they’re not less valid if they’re not body perceptions. I think for that reason, science cannot move further away from body perceptions, as it tends to want to prove things objectively, and most people only perceive through the body, which makes the ‘objectively’ almost impossible for any body-less experiences. If some Zeus or something was perceivable through people’s eyes, he could be scientifically examined too, but he isn’t. Maybe -just maybe- in older times some of what we call now ‘supernatural’ was more observable to people by the body’s perceptions too.

            • I do not believe earth is a prison , but I do think the IAS and Co$ is trying to turn earth into a prison .

            • http://loyalofficers.org/

              THE SEA ORG & THE FUTURE

              I, LRH, Commodore, am hereby assuming the rank of ADMIRAL.

              The rank of COMMODORE IS RETIRED FROM ACTIVE SERVICE in the Sea Organization at this time. As we move on up the track the Commodore rank will be reinstated as will be needed.

              A new rank of LOYAL OFFICER is created directly above the rank of Captain

              Pat Broeker is hereby promoted to the first LOYAL OFFICER rank.

              Annie Broeker is hereby promoted as the second LOYAL OFFICER.

              There are several Sea Org Officers they will want to promote.

              The SEA ORGANIZATION will always be the Sea Organization, no matter that we may leave the surface of this planet when we’re finished and operate on others (hopefully not too many devoid of seas – joke) and no matter what we will operate, in general, throughout of universe – solid, liquid, gaseous, and yes, – there are other states of matter, which are ours for the taking because nobody else seems to know about them.

              I’ll be scouting the way and doing the first port survey mission. I expect your continuing backup. You’ve got a little under a billion left on your current hitch, and it is hoped you will sign up again – veterans are valuable!

              So, there it is. You know what to do. You know how to do it. Hold the form of the S.O.! You’ve got the watch!!

              I will be in comm.

              We will meet again later.

              L.RON HUBBARD
              ADMIRAL

              • I see….well I don’t believe any of that. I know I’ll get pounded for it -even quietly- but I think it’s probably not by LRH either. Looks like BS to show that DM had the blessings of LRH to me.

              • There certainly is a lot of confusion around this. It was issued and passed around and then Miscavige ordered all copies destroyed as forgeries , is what I heard. I actually never saw it and I was not on staff when it was issued. The public were soothed by this and loved this Loyal Officer thing. Some got very disgruntled when is was stomped out and I heard a lot of natter about it. When I was on staff I was asked about this many times by people. I had no idea. Does anyone know the story behind this?

              • What . It would take more than a billion years to clear the universe …….
                Well I am getting old and I just do not have time for all that .

                • Actually this planet should be clear. It were billions of alïens or Thetans Xenu boxed up and we are with 7 billion

                  So all the Body Thetans should have their own body by now.

                  LOGIC

                  • I thought it was hundreds of billions plus prisoners are being dumped here all the time from present galactic wars .
                    I think just blow up this planet and the whole solar system , then they could all escape .

                    • Ai.. I think I need to do OT 3…again

                      I seem to have a MU on the numbers

                      Thank you for correcting me.

                    • I have not done OT 3 but I remember reading on the internet it was I think 200 billion from 75 planets .

                    • ‘prisoners are being dumped here all the time from present galactic wars’
                      The above from my post, I was reading about that on a forum on the internet last year , someone claiming to be LRH was posting on an internet forum last year , I think they were banned from the forum.
                      I think it was probably him .

                    • Thank you ealadha, I did not do OT3 actually. I just have to listen to the Sci Fi part again.

                      I was jesting.

                      Haven’t come around that yet.

                      I do actually detect some reason and method up to 1965

    • If one believes they are not free then they are not free but only because they believe they are not free .

  28. I think it’s true that any Being is capable of mocking up things that are true to him. I see people that believe and appear to have certainty that Jesus is their savior and they will go to Heaven. I see people that “see” angels and talk to them. I see people that meditate and “see” that they get better from it.
    I don’t argue with people over what they feel is good for themselves. If it gets them through the night, more power to them as long as they aren’t hurting others.
    Personally, I think there are a lot of religious scams out there. Some people seem to love them and I guess that is their right too.
    I enjoy helping some that are able to view things, to possibly prevent them from being hurt later in life by wasting their life and finances on a pipe (almost typed “pope”, lol) dream.

  29. By the way Marty I am still enjoying this idea of “constructs”. I really feel that people like to find some construct that answers all of life for themselves. It becomes the “stable datum” for them. There really does seem to be some “truth” to this idea of constructs and a persons “need” for them.

    Thinking outside of constructs may be a construct of it’s own, but I am enjoying trying. I started to meditate recently. I don’t see any Guru, I just do it on my own. I don’t pay anyone for an explanation. I have the feeling that we can tap into out own spirituality and can come up with answers or calm our selves down if we need that. I have been enjoying it.

    • Tony, you write…” I don’t see any Guru, I just do it on my own. I don’t pay anyone for an explanation. I have the feeling that we can tap into out own spirituality and can come up with answers or calm our selves down if we need that. I have been enjoying it.”

      That is so cool! I am doing the same and I find it incredibly liberating!

      Right from the get-go we are taught that we don’t know, that we need to learn and where we are sent to learn is always somewhere outside of our self; a book, a school, a teacher; a church and so on. Our thoughts are always directed toward some object (construct) ‘out there’ and away from self. Haha..but ‘self’ too is a construct. It is the ne plus ultra construct! Hahaha…..

      We always have the option to ‘tap into our own spirituality and come up with answers or calm our selves down if we need that.’ And yes, it can be most enjoyable and liberating to do so!

      • Remarkable viewpoint, or getting to a 1st dynamic equals 0 viewpoint or lack of viewpoint, and who is seeing this viewpoint at that moment of self disapearing; makes me think of the dynamics, and being one dynamic.

        Too bad Hubbard didn’t go there in his discussions more deeply.

        I’d be interested in anyone linking to sites that dissect Hubbard’s dynamics in relation to this man’s discussion of no self.

        Great video thanks.

        My darker thoughts on this man’s talk though are that all those things out in the MEST universe like tea cups, oranges, walls, tables, these non conscious things in the MEST universe are thus totally enlightened? They are in existence and happily just being there, no consciousness of themselves as selves, like what are the dynamic activities for a table!

        Oh this gets into thinking of what are the dynamics, the 8 dynamics, of every one of our dynamics.

        Condition by dynamics, run on a table, from a table’s viewpoint!

        • Chuck, ‘the dynamics’ is a belief system and, for me, it has been and continues to be a useful system.

          I suspect that in a universe of perception that has been made by beliefs and where there is an infinity of levels and no such thing as smallest or largest (it’s all fractal)…every particle, regardless of its seeming size or composition, has its 8 dynamics.

          Condition by dynamics, run on an electron, from the electron’s viewpoint!🙂

          Perhaps the concept of dynamics, as LRH talked about them, are actually a symbol for what amounts to being the summation of all beliefs. No Self, then, would be the transcending of all beliefs; transcending the 8 dynamics.

          • Yep!

            This kind of statement you make here, is what I wished more of people in Scientology, but Hubbard sort of laid down the limits of what he considered allowable to be discussed before the discussions turned out to be “other intentioned” and thus out-ethics.

            Scientology’s idea totalitarianism goes back to what LRH considered “the path” through all the other paths, but in fact, really, there are just thousands of points Hubbard went his way, and I found trainees I supervised almost constantly daily, telling me as their course sup, they would tell me ideas like what you just said, and what I said above, and because of the way Hubbard packaged up what he considered vital to success spiritually, a lot of what Hubbard missed was made taboo to spend much time looking at.

            On the theme of this blog, to “move up a little higher”, to me it is inevitable that people (turned at some point in their lives into Scientologists who then stay in official Scientology or leave and become splinter Scientologists or quit altogether) will keep moving, and where they move to, is up for discussion and just as vital and important, as human beings will do, despite rules not to go looking elsewhere for ideas and wisdom.

            The discussion is freer once out of official Scientology, that’s for sure.

            • Chuck, you wrote…”On the theme of this blog, to “move up a little higher”, to me it is inevitable that people (turned at some point in their lives into Scientologists who then stay in official Scientology or leave and become splinter Scientologists or quit altogether) will keep moving, and where they move to, is up for discussion and just as vital and important, as human beings will do, despite rules not to go looking elsewhere for ideas and wisdom”

              ‘…and where they move to, is up for discussion and just as vital and important…’ Ain’t that the truth!!

  30. Thanks Marty sharing your point again. It is beautiful ! I understand what you are saying. It is very nice to hear someone talking the same language.
    I have also some work regarding this subject. Looking forward to see next article of you …

  31. Serenety.

  32. The faint sound you hear is justice and truth being thrown under the bus.
    I feel sad for you.

  33. I wasn’t going to comment on this post, but after seeing some of the responses, I am moved to do so. First, I’ll just say thanks for this. I think I understand your meaning in using the label “religion”, and you make an apt point. Arguing with religionists, or anti-religionists for that matter, is a fruitless endeavor. Especially when they insist that they have left behind belief, and now instead possess Knowledge — fact-based and unassailable — and thus there is no need for self-scrutiny, or basic humility concerning the mind. Belief is always a part of our perception and thinking, as human beings. An inescapable part, IMO. The important thing is to be conscious of that, and in charge of what we believe, how it informs our behavior, and at what cost to us and the world around us.

    Marty, I like these short, thoughtful posts. But I am sometimes surprised by the enormous and strong response to what seem to me to be very brief and spacious reflections. I am reminded of the myth of Eris and the Golden Apple — where one vague, evocative word, “Kallisti”, was enough to incite war. It has been my experience in teaching and counseling groups and individuals that the less you say, the more people fill in the blanks and then proceed to wage battle over what they have inferred. It is a great teaching technique, but it is not necessarily gentle or easy. It’s always interesting, to see what my own mind does when I am in such situations, where I am really wrestling with myself and I don’t quite realize it.

    Please keep it up, the whole thing is very productive and revealing.

  34. Thank you Marty. Yes, I agree on give it a rest.
    Religion and things spiritual are a personal matter. I don’t believe I have ever been in a disagreement with anyone about it knowing we each have our own reality. It’s always nice when you find one similar to yours however as it validates what you already know.
    You said “….is workable to the degree one believes in it. It works when one believes that it will.”
    Yes, of course that is true. It is truly amazing the power of an individual to make up their mind and ‘go for it’. We do that believing in ourselves and even if we end up in the wrong situation because of it – so what! We don’t then stop believing in ourselves. I realized the other day that if I chose to be a doctor even at 61 – I could do it. It is simply a matter of believe.
    I do like the ‘Contact Assist’. I truly believe in it. But would it work if I did not believe in it? Probably not because if I did not believe in it, I would not be doing it correctly.

  35. It’s just what’s happening! I am coming around to believing it is that simple. Yes, I really am. Too cryptic? Well, give this Tony Parsons video a look/see and see if your interpretation might change a bit.

    • That was a fun video. It is happening. This is happening.

    • Monte… look out when Dio is doing his evaluation invalidation it is more like pulverizing hehehe.. I think it is fun to watch somebody who was recently let out of the ……

    • Monte, Tony Parsons seems like a very spiritual man, but what he has to say doesn’t align with my direct “sense of existence.” I read an article that Pip posted the link for not long ago, which matched what I have personally observed. Here’s an excerpt:

      “…when we use introspection to search for the origin of our subjectivity, we find that the search for `I’ leaves the customary aspects of personhood behind and takes us closer and closer to awareness, per se. If this process of introspective observation is carried to its conclusion, even the background sense of core subjective self disappears into awareness. Thus, if we proceed phenomenologically, we find that the `I’ is identical to awareness: `I’ = awareness.

      “Awareness is something apart from, and different from, all that of which we are aware: thoughts, emotions, images, sensations, desires and memory. Awareness is the ground in which the mind’s contents manifest themselves; they appear in it and disappear once again.

      “I use the word `awareness’ to mean this ground of all experience. Any attempt to describe it ends in a description of what we are aware of. On this basis some argue that awareness per se doesn’t exist. But careful introspection reveals that the objects of awareness — sensations, thoughts, memories, images and emotions — are constantly changing and superseding each other. In contrast, awareness continues independent of any specific mental contents.”

      Here’s the link to the article. I hope you have a chance to read it and tell me what you think. http://www.imprint.co.uk/online/Deikman.html

      • marildi, thanks so much for directing me to that article. I both enjoyed it and found it useful.

        If I were to say something to the effect that my spiritual seeking has finally brought me (construct of self), which is the compilation of sensations, thoughts, memories, images and emotions, to the edge of the mind where I’m teetering ever so precariously between ‘I’ (Awareness; Emptiness; Silence) and objects…that statement might seem accurate but Awareness informs me that it’s not. There never was any seeking. Seeking belongs to the self construct. Yet, I continue to attempt to describe to my ‘self’ and what appears to be other ‘selves’ that which cannot be described.

        From what you excerpted from the article: “Any attempt to describe it ends in a description of what we are aware of.” Haha…exactly!

        When I listen to Tony Parsons, Rupert Spira, Adyashanti, Lisa Cairns, Catherine Noyce, Halina Pytlasinska, Richard Sylvester and many others on youtube or when I read A Course in Miracles and now, thanks to Pip and yourself, that reading list also includes Arthur J. Deikman – all, in their own way and using their own terms, attempting to describe the ‘I’ that is complete Awareness…well, what can I say…it’s a very interesting ‘place’ to be and I find it most productive to just allow myself to resonate to whatever I resonate to but keep the ‘self’s’ need to analyze and evaluate disabled.

        marildi, here’s an excerpt from Deikman’s article that caught my attention and brought on a big grin.

        “But when they say, `. . . we just simply could discern there no self, no “I” ‘, to what does `we’ refer? Who is looking? Who is discerning? Is it not the `I’ of the authors? A classic story adapted from the Vedantic tradition is relevant here:

        A group of travellers forded a river. Afterwards, to make sure everyone had crossed safely, the leader counted the group but omitted himself from the count. Each member did the same and they arrived at the conclusion that one of them was missing. The group then spent many unhappy hours searching the river until, finally, a passerby suggested that each person count their own self, as well. The travellers were overjoyed to find that no one was missing and all proceeded on their way.

        Like the travellers, Western psychology often neglects to notice the one that counts. Until it does, its progress will be delayed.”

        I looked on youtube to see if Deikman had any videos on there and he does. I’ve started listening to his 3 part series titled Cults & Spiritual Groups and I’m finding what he has to say to be of interest. Here’s part one: Much Love marildi ~ Monte

  36. EnthralledObserver

    As a never-in this debate is hilarious!
    Even the practitioners of $cientology can’t even decide ‘what’ it is. And to be frank the only reason it matters is a frantic and desperate effort to legitimize it.
    But, to who? Yourself? Other practitioners? Wogs and their law/societal systems in order for $cientology to live on and prosper?
    That’s right… $cientology needs to be seen as legitimate because its goals and survival have been so tightly woven with money since its very inception. Dianetics… a book written and published with the intent to make Hubbard MONEY! Hello!
    CO$ take the religious route to legitimize their ‘business’, because it’s the most lucrative, but in doing so the subject is muddled and confused because they have to tell so many lies. Indies are torn between a ‘philosophy’, ‘religion’ and ‘action’ depending on how they use it and whether they make money from it, and this too confuses everyone.
    And, ironically, the very fact that there has to even be a debate like this, with so many varying opinions and conclusions, pretty much obliterates the very legitimacy you are all so desperately trying to gain for $cientology.

    Continue…

    • Thank you Enthralled. I felt completely duped by the lies that Hubbard started telling and Miscavige continued.
      Scientology, to me, is not a religion. There is no God (except Hubbard) and the actual services do more harm from what I observed then good.
      I did not see people have lasting gains – but they were silenced and the tech is used to keep everyone silenced. No entheta – natter=overts, no case on post, take it up in auditing, no case gain = SP.

      I am being totally honest and forthright – I saw no one with lasting case gain and I think many of Hubbard’s processes are parlor tricks from his covertly hidden Aleistar Crowley days.

      It should be taken out of the religious arena and put into the proper one – big business selling hopes and dreams but does not deliver and never has!

      • ” I saw no one with lasting case gain and I think many of Hubbard’s processes are parlor tricks from his covertly hidden Aleistar Crowley days.
        I guess you have met every person who have had auditing… You have interviewed every one of these persons on the Planet… My my you have been a very busy person.!

      • The problem is not everybody saw/presented Hubbard as God, nor made from/gave money to SCN, nor considered ‘positivity’ (no expressing disagreements and forced positiveness) to be ‘theta’ (that last one, very few). But nevertheless, it seems the whole group, as a generality is being pounded so that no more people will experience it’s potential dark side. And for this reason I have long quit arguing against claims about SCN, and I wont start writing about how some other religions have been making monies, not delivering anything good, or maybe delivering some good and more bad. Anyway, in those religions there have been honestly good people who have made more good than harm and don’t deserve to get pounded.

    • People argue about all sorts of things. Christians argue over what is Christianity, Muslims argue over what is Islam, scientists argue over what is science.

      I guess Christianity, Islam, and science are illegitimate as well, then, by this reasoning.

    • Well EO, it is also hilarious then, that even practitioners of Chri$tianity can’t even agree what it is, as witnessed by the thousands of different denominations, sects, cults, etc etc exist, all calling themselves “Christian”.

      Sorry, I couldn’t resist! 🙂 I apologize, because you often do make some good posts and I don’t want to discourage you from posting. But this one…..🙂

      Diversity is the stuff of life, don’t you think?

  37. I will never see Scientology, or it’s baby steps Dianeitics as a religion. I will always see it as the ultimate Sci- fi horror experience. For those of you who want to believe Scientology dogma, go for it. I won’t be the one taking you to chemo, ( BIG PHARMA)or changing your adult diapers when you have a stroke or watching you die a good ten years before your time. You have no idea what this “religion” can and will take from you. Good luck with that.

    Another thing, I grew up thinking LRH was a doctor. No surprise there the $hit said he was. He lied a lot, like all the time, like when ever his lips were moving. Look it up. Facts are to be found. David Miscavige took over a well thought out con, and you believers that continue to support his crimes… DM could have told you the truth, and maybe reworked this crap into something good but look around and see the disconnection, the people thrown out , hunted down, killed. I did think the cullt would be exposed when Lisa McPherson died. I know now it will only end when the ones that keep the “faith” stop feeding Scientology… then it will die. It boggles the mind.

    • yours is definitely boggled🙂

      • Elizabeth, I hope you have someone in your life that loves you as much as I love my mother. You get sick and think Scientology will support you? Think again.🙂

        • S.J scientology its tech its use have given me the grand opportunity to support self in the style I am used to. Given me everything I need and want!. My dear Sarah { love the sound of your name!] I am on old lady in the body 74. I am also a great solo auditor who has spent her earthly life of 41 years solo auditing the self the group the human society and the spiritual universe’s occupants. Which are the Free Spirits who do not occupies the body. Go look at my blog… By the way I do not think that is human occupation I ”KNOW” Best to you! Elizabeth

  38. Hey Marty, this is great, Im actually happy for you. Im a believer but I do think that if you no longer want anything to do with Scientology, then just walk away, dont berate us or invalldate us or try to convert us and let us believers get on with our thing. We have ended up at 2 different places and we should respect each others choices.
    Its obvious you have been heading to this point for a while and your advice is very sound to those who don;t believe anymore but who cant stop obsessing over Scientology. Let it go!
    The only thing I would ask is for the whistle blowers to please keep us accurately informed as to the abuse and misuse of the 3 techs, in the hope that somewhere down the path we can create a functioning Church that can work in with societies mores and work with that society.

  39. Scientology, The REAL ONE, always works when correctly applied!!!! I have seen it for over 25000 hours.

  40. I propose a religion that encompasses all mankind:

  41. OK Marty. I’m cool with that.
    I’ll only add that I believe that ultimately everything is as we believe.

  42. Marty, you use the term “come to grips” about scientology’s religious nature, as if in accepting it, you can then either accept or reject it. That may help some who are ready to do so. Some may be able to just walk away, but the evidence of decades of folks who hand around these boards and forums shows its not so simple. What you have provided in your blog is the road away from the thought control that the “religion” imposed on its members. I think the “coming to terms” that is most important is realizing that any good or promise that one found in scientology is also available outside it. That scientology is not the “only way. I think the review of ones involvement is more of a process.The point your making in this post may spur some to cut the cord, but it will only work if they have also deprogrammed themselves already. As for calling scientology a religion, I can as it helps a person spot themselves as a spirit and go on a journey to seek their own source. Re-Ligare, to bind back, as the definition of the word religion indicates. So by definition, I am OK with it. But the organization gives the word “religion” a bad name.

  43. The 1940 Hubbard short story, “One Was Stubborn” has a cast of characters including an evil cult leader.

    The followers learn to as-is the world, and the main character finds himself ultimate in a position of almost God, being able to create reality in front of himself mentally.

    This must read Hubbard 1940 short story to me shows the crossover point of LRH the prolific mediocre pulp fiction writer, to LRH founder of Scientology “religion” when in the early 1980s in one of LRH’s final broad briefing issues, LRH ED 339R Int, LRH waxes to staff about bringing the whole universe back to “native state.”

    On the religion issue, my reading of all that Hubbard wrote, my alpha for him is “One Was Stubborn”, and omega is LRH ED 339R Int on “native state”, and for those two writings, picking those out, give the widest look at what I thought he thought he was doing here!

    And now he’s supposeldy off doing the OT running program around a star.

    And his “legacy of tech” is being continued, Shelly Miscavige is even seeing to that, I think she and David Miscavige think that LRH’s CST wishes were that important.

    I think Scientology for more academic reasons that have been gone over here, will qualify as a religion.

    The core spiritual therapy part of Scientology and exorcism parts make it similar to religions.

    The obnoxious irreligious administrative and other general policy of Scientology make it irreligious, it’s too much corporate business-like, etc, etc, modern marketing, corporate shell game finance system, etc.

    But the auditing is past life exploration, the OT 3-7 is exorcism, and enough long range Hubbard goals about Native State, or power on the 8th dynamic type of stuff, and even if one admits in full Hubbard’s sci fi pulp past, “One Was Stubborn” pretty simply lays out what a Native State population would be arriving at spiritually.

    • Chuck,
      Thanks. I’ll check it out.
      LRH ED 339R, and other writings where he presents the goal of “Bringing the whole universe to native state”, is a significant part of his THOUGHT CONFUSION, in order to later lay in his actual THOUGHT IMPLANT.
      I’ll write what I think about it later.

      • If by “implants” you mean science fiction space opera implants that Xenu gave everyone during the 4th Dynamic Engram, or if you mean the “Have You Lived Before This Life” book never proven electronic implants of other never proven space civilization electronic implanters, that’s easy to talk about.

        Or if you mean the common derogatory meaning implant, like a PDH implant or low level indoctrination implant of captive audiences of certain cult like groups, I suspect you mean this meaning of implant.

        I don’t think the low level but completely effective method of implanting that makes cult members out of people is served as an argument by using derogatory language.

        I remember Joseph Heller’s book “Catch 22” which through humor showed the ridiculousness of the rules. I think the same would help show the ridiculousness of some of Scientology’s dogmatic Catch 22 like rules.

        • Don’t forget the Darwinian Theory Implant.

          That is were Scientists come from

          Acording to L Ron Hubbard

          Hubbard was a doctor in psychology you know, he said so himself….for as long as it suited.

        • Chuck,

          I mean Hubbard’s own definition of an implant. Tech Dic. #3:

          “An unwilling and unknowing receipt of a thought. An intentional installation of fixed ideas, contra survival to the Thetan.”

    • Chuck is this squirrled ?

      “One Was Stubborn” by L. Ron Hubbard. Performed live at the Alex Theater Glendale, CA September 4, 2010.

      Performed by R.F. Daley, John Mariano and Noelle North. Directed by R.F. Daley.

  44. One must be truthful an honest in his approach,
    a constant independent inquiry,
    not blindly following a certain blue print laid down by others.

    Bruce Lee

  45. Saw the Scn article on History Channel 2, Book of Secrets. I found it a bit superficial and simplistic. Each aspect of Scn that it addressed was given the most cursory attention.

    That being said, its purpose was to point out some severe problems with the church, and in that, I believe it did a better job than other programs I have seen. It made the meter and auditing appear as a near total control mechanism. The fact that it is sometimes used for that purpose can make it difficult to argue with any credibility that it more often, when used honestly, increases self determinism. Go figure.

    The Sea Org, on the other hand, was displayed as a highly regimented, authoritarian, do as you’re told organization which crushes individuality and affinity. This I have observed to be generally correct.

    The money train mentality of the upper Orgs was, unfortunately fairly accurate. I have not seen this to a great extent in the lower Orgs. Different Orgs are different, I have only been to a few. I was not C/Sed for a great deal of repairs or FPRD/Sec Checks. Some have. Perhaps I slid by, being known to be a fairly poor guy. I bought the academy’s and moved right through. I needed to learn to audit for my own selfish purposes and then moved on.

    All in all, not a completely bad show, just too short to be in depth. Marty was very professional and accurate, given the time allowed.

    MARTY.
    It was obvious that any hatred or ‘entheta’ that you MAY have had in the past is largely resolved and you are now working with worthwhile ‘high toned’ purposes. You have my admiration.
    Mark

  46. Part of my joy in this blog is that it is transcending from a discussion of the rights wrongs of the Church of Scientology, the rights and wrongs of Scientology itself, and the rights and wrongs of L. Ron Hubbard, and moved on to a discussion of ideas and paths and tools for advancing spiritually.

    My enjoyment comes from the open discussion and the expanding of that discussion to include a broader and broader range of subjects, both spiritual and physical.

    I consider that it is very valuable that other blogs exist to provide information to those still struggling with their lack of true data and confusions regarding Scientology. Blogs like Mike Rinder’s blog and The Bunker with Tony Ortega, and other discussion forums that cover other gradients and subjects regarding the philosophy, technologies, and policies of Scientology.

    For me personally, I have found or fashioned many useful tools from my association with Scientology. It is of little importance whether or not they are “Scientology” tools. What is valuable about them is that they are MY tools.

    I find myself at this point in my spiritual and personal development because of ALL of my experiences in the past, “good” and “bad.” (Scientology included obviously).

    From time to time I have been known to blurt out things like….

    “All is LIFE to Buddha”

    Or

    “All is LIFE to Theta”

    Experiences are all simply experiences.
    Experience them, use them in future evaluations, to the degree that they are valid data in the given situation, and then move on.

    It would seem to me that for “life” to simply “be alive” is not that much higher than for the physical universe to simply “be the physical universe.”

    “Experience” seems to be the “goal of life” at some level.

    Revel in it!

    Eric

    • Eric, in your first four paragraphs I see my own thoughts reflected.

      Marty’s blog is indeed a reflection of its moniker, Moving on Up a Little Higher. Integration, evolution and transcendence…I have that experience here.

      Speaking of experience…Eric, based upon what you had to say regarding experience, you might find what Rupert Spira has to say in this video of some use.

  47. Michael Leonard Tilse

    Hi Marty,

    I respect you and the journey you have undertaken with regard to scientology. I know how difficult it can be.

    I have to respectfully disagree with you about the religious nature of scientology. Simply using ‘belief’ as a litmus test does not give me useful insight. I believed that “Heck Harper” was a real cowboy when I was little. He wasn’t. He just played one on childrens shows.

    There are lots of things we believe in without verification: The honesty of politicians, the inherent value of a dollar, the blindness and impartiality of the justice system. The relief I subjectively feel when I face a hard truth is a belief. There may be no basis for that relief than I believe it. While I might feel spiritual aspects from beauty and kindness, that does not make them a religion, even for me.

    I feel to evaluate scientology with regard to religion, we have to evaluate the intent of the creator of scientology. If you read “Bare-faced Messiah” by Russell Miller he documents many times over many years to various people leading up to dianetics various versions of the statement: “Writing for a penny a word is stupid. If you want to make a million dollars, start a religion.”

    That is pretty clear. Also hubbard’s letter to Helen O’Brien where he asks her about using the “religion angle.”

    So I do not think hubbard intended to be spiritual or religious, he just intended to use that “angle” to make money and “Smash my name into history.”

    I know people ascribe spirituality to scientology. Many feel that their auditing was a spiritual experience. In the past I had thought so too.

    Perhaps all religions start as a con game, someone trying to present themselves as someone wise and spiritual and holy because that creates a ready pool who present themselves to be taken advantage of.

    Over the years as others take over a thriving practice left by the original founder, the real exploits and truths and intentions recede into the mists of history and a religion becomes whatever it’s leaders say it is and what the mislead believers believe. They assert “This is a religion!” and lo, it becomes so.

    hubbard managed to compress a centuries long process for most scams that turn into a recognized religion into only a few short years. And almost succeeded in concealing his lies and fabrications.

    But, thanks to Gerry Armstrong who was driven by his faith in hubbard, ironically, we have many documents that show that hubbard was a lier, a conman a thief and many other discreditable adjectives.

    We know that hubbard was insincere in making scientology into a “religion.” We have the testimony. We have even the personal experience, as I did in 1975 and 76 at SFO Fdn where “everybody knew” that the religious angle was just for legal protection. Nod nod, wink wink.

    So much as it might seem appropriate to call scientology a religion, due to some of the beliefs of it’s followers, I think we have to deny it because we know the truth. We have to deny it’s legal protections so it can be made to at least attempt to make people whole by refunding monies and paying damages.

    I applaud your progress.

    Michael

    • Thank you for pointing out the fraudulent nature of Scientology Inc.’s religion angle.

      As long as the umbrella of religious cloaking remains, Scientology Inc. will continue to abuse good people.

      The Brennan video on Scientology Inc.’s Religious Cloaking is highly recommended.

  48. No matter how much people (whatever their names, ranks or ideologies are) want you to listen to them, still there is one motto in Scientology and that’s: Look, don’t listen. Now Lookingness is… hmmm… that’s somewhere on a Chart of Hubbard’s but I don’t remember where exactly. Oh God, there is forgetingness, too… I guess.

    Anyway, the one good thing I remember is Look, Don’t Listen. And that’s straight from the horse’s mouth.

    • Brian The Experimenter

      My take Theo is that looking and listening are the same power filtered through different nervous system wire bundles: eyes and ears

      • lis·ten (lĭs′ən)
        intr.v. lis·tened, lis·ten·ing, lis·tens
        1. To make an effort to hear something: listen to the radio; listening for the bell.
        2. To pay attention; heed: “She encouraged me to listen carefully to what country people called mother wit” (Maya Angelou).

        I always said that wordclearing is most important and it is one of the reasons we are encountering so many problems in Scientology.

        Dear Brian, If you take definition number 1, yes you are right. But in this case what is meant is Don’t pay attention, just look for yourself.

    • I remember it was “look, don’t think” or “don’t think, look”, I have not come across “look, don’t listen” in scientology .

      • LOOK DON’T LISTEN is actually the name of a Scientology policy (HCO PL 16 March 1972 Issue I), which is part of the Establishment Officer series. The job of the Establishment Officer (“Esto”) is to establish the organization. He or she makes sure an organization and its staff have everything needed to produce products – training, supplies, a desk, a working phone, etc. – and that those products get produced.

        Anyway, here’s some of what Hubbard has to say in LOOK DON’T LISTEN:

        “An Establishment Officer who stands around or sits around just talking to people or seniors [people of higher rank] is dev-t [developed traffic, a waste of time and resources].

        “If these people knew what was wrong the stats would be in Power. So if they aren’t, why gab?

        “A GOOD ESTO LOOKS…. THE SCENE IS RIGHT BEFORE ONE’S EYES. [Statistic] graphs are rising or they are level or falling… Products are appearing or they are not… None of these things are verbal.

        “You start listening and you get PR [Public Relations], problems, distractions, 3rd partying, etc., etc. An Esto gets into a cycle of: Outpoint [problem], handle, outpoint, handle, outpoint, handle. He hasn’t looked and he hasn’t found a why. So the scene will get worse.

        “You can’t know what’s happening in a kitchen by talking to a cook. Because he’s not cooking just then. You can’t know how good the food is without tasting it.

        “To adjust a scene you have to LOOK AT IT.” — LRH

  49. Believing you are becoming OT doesn’t make you OT, it makes you delusional.

  50. “Never say anything you cannot prove, or back up with impartial facts, or empirical evidence, where applicable”

    -DIO

    Someone should go tell L Ron Hubbard on Target Two.

  51. Well Marty, I like this post and I think perhaps i can see some of the reasons you felt you had to make it, but it is kinda depressing that it needs to be made at all. Too many people are way too interiorized into the English language as they know it; truly, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

    I am reminded of completing my PTS/CS-1 at Flag with a pretty good Flag auditor whose native language was not English. We both won in that I cleared the HCOB for myself, and for him too, as he definitely had an MU on one of the words and I helped him out with it. 🙂 His TRs were actually quite good. 🙂

    Right now I am still working out what the first paragraph of your post means to me, and pondering why you had to write it at all. The critical word is, of course, “religion”. I wonder, “what the hell does it mean to these Westerners??” (Especially when posed as one side of a dichotomous pair of words).

    I was born in the Far East exposed simultaneously to Eastern and Western languages and cultures. The above mentioned dichotomy of ‘religion vs. ‘science’ (or ‘technology’) is entirely artificial and arbitrary.

    Most English dictionaries include from 3 to 6 definitions of ‘religion’. The basic meaning when one looks at the definitions and the derivations is something along the lines of “the belief in or consideration of what are considered to be the basic monitoring considerations of existence”. These are of course limiting and guiding factors, this that must be or ought to be observed because otherwise one is somehow violating some basic rules of living. They are control factors. They may be portrayed as ‘the truths of life’, but obviously they are not the ‘ultimate’ or ‘basic’ truths. Thus any particular established ‘religion’ is a two-edged sword. It by its nature can and probably must contain both truth and lies.

    The other critical word is ‘believe’, ‘belief’. To make an already long story short, this to me dovetails with concepts like ‘certainty’ and ones ability to make ‘postulates’ that work. Ones ‘faith in oneself.’ Like that old saw from sales and multilevel marketing leaders. “If you believe you can, or believe you can’t, either way, you’re right”.

    LRH put a lot of this stuff in his own words and I give him credit for that. It’s really all any ‘guru’, teacher, transmitter of ‘knowledge’, rishi, etc ever did, putting the everlovin’ everlivin’ ‘wine’ in new bottles. But its your own ‘postulate’ that makes things ‘work’, or not. No matter how ‘closely taped’ the route is, it does not ‘apply’ itself. Only your own ‘skillful means’ makes it work. That’s why some people consider not only Scientology, but Living itself as religious activities.

    • Valkov wrote:

      The basic meaning when one looks at the definitions and the derivations is something along the lines of “the belief in or consideration of what are considered to be the basic monitoring considerations of existence”. These are of course limiting and guiding factors, this that must be or ought to be observed because otherwise one is somehow violating some basic rules of living. They are control factors. They may be portrayed as ‘the truths of life’, but obviously they are not the ‘ultimate’ or ‘basic’ truths. Thus any particular established ‘religion’ is a two-edged sword. It by its nature can and probably must contain both truth and lies.

      Well.

      This explains everything.

      I believe that when a person approaches a religion, that he should be earnestly supplied the truth by that religion, as that religion earnestly believes.

      But I believe if that religion actively and intentionally lies to him, then it is not religion at all, but an attempt to exploit that person’s good will, and a fraud.

      That you believe that a religion must contain lies says everything to me.

      I finally get it now, V.

      Thanks.

      Alanzo

  52. Marty, I think I misunderstood what you were saying. I believe you would never put your child, Mosey, or yourself in harms way. William is so beautiful by the way.

  53. I believe that scientology is most definitely a religion as it matches with what I believe religion to be. I believe religion is a construct of the mind that poses as spirituality in the form of salvation or as a way to enlightenment. However, it does not ‘save’ anything nor does it deliver enlightenment. Instead, it delivers and endless supply of mental projections that appear as a hierarchical progression of obstacles and freedoms yet never really takes a person anywhere because it never really goes anywhere. It just continues to circulate around and around within the construct. Religion is an Unreality. Religion is never satiated. It always wants more thus, it requires a sales pitch. Unreality requires a sales pitch as it is continually looking for something more; something to perpetuate its facade of being what it is not. Reality does not need a sales pitch to endure. Reality needs nothing. Reality is Eternal and it is Everything. It is completely aware of itself as itself.

  54. I believe Scientology works. Especially the lower grade chart actions.
    Life Repair, Grades and NED are very workable as they handle a persons
    life and livingness so that they can lead a more happy and satisfying life.
    I have seen this happen many times as an auditor. Pc’s do just the above actions and leave happy as a pig in mud, some not coming back. The problem from my point of view are untrained staff then badgering and making these happy people not happy for the sake of getting them back in on course and more auditing. They are happy and doing well in life….why treat a winning PC
    in such a way? Well that gets into areas I was not as concerned with as I
    should have been. I can say long before Hubbard came along in all walks of life and religious believes, when people were forced to do something they didn’t want to do, they pushed back……in Scientology terms when forced to do something one doesn’t want to do it creates an ARCX. Not only does it create
    out ruds, it causes them to become disinterested.
    So Hubbard comes along and tells auditiors not to force a pc. Seems like common sense to me. Then untrained staff come along and start trying to
    force a winning pc to do this or that….they do have their stats and something
    stupid like forcing a winning pc to do more when they don’t want to, really means nothing to them. One cause of an ARC broken field.
    When I listened to LRH tapes on course, there were many things he said that
    I thought were stupid and self gratifying. I just didn’t pay attention to them.
    He was a very funny guy at times (to me) which made me laugh. But in between all that I was always listening for data on how to audit.
    Was I ever concerned if Scientology was a religion or science? Really no….in fact it was much easier for me to tell the difference between a dog and a cat than if I was doing a religion or science. All I did wanted to do was audit.
    I’m an electrician by trade. I like the mechanics of things. Working on large construction projects was fun….running conduit, wiring panels and machines
    was fun. The mechanics of auditing was also fun for me. The added enjoyment was a happy winning pc…..conduit never really said anything to me.
    An example of belief for me? As an apprentice the journeymen always told me not to cut two wires at the same time…..I thought okay but wouldn’t that make things go faster?….one day I cut two wires…boom…melted pliers….from that point on I believed. The first ARCX I flew in my first session as an auditor produced an fn with VGIS. I did it as instructed. From that point on
    I believed.
    Do the lower grade chart on people….let them then go off and win. At that point let them decide what spiritual direction to take.
    My old dog was very sad when his friend died. So much so we had to get another one for him to be happy. As a puppy, this new dog would get herself
    in trouble with the old guy and he would have to growl and sometimes nip her. Yes one time he drew blood and she sounded like the wrath of God came down on her. She never did what she did to piss him off again. Over time left alone they worked it out and became very close buddies.
    Let’s give winning pc’s some space to enjoy their wins and decide their own spiritual future.

    • Thank you for this, Potpie.

      I just wonder if you also explained away the bad results from the tech that Hubbard built into Scientology, like “He’s too low-toned to duplicate the process” or “he’s PTS to his mother” or “He has overts that he has not disclosed”.

      These were all ways that Hubbard made people look away from the bad results of the tech, and justified their continued allegiance to him.

      It’s a kind of installed service fac that he created to explain the failures of the tech, and which also made you right for continuing to follow it.

      Have you ever seen anything built in from Hubbard like that in your experience with Scientology?

      Alanzo

      • Also, Potpie –

        You are not looking at what Hubbard ALSO told the Scientologists who handled your pcs outside of session. When they forced and cajoled your pcs for money, which made then blow, they were applying L Ron Hubbard policy 100% standardly.

        And it did not work.

        Stop ser facing on your fellow Scientologists.

        Confront the policies that LRH told them to follow.

        Spot the Source in Scientology: L Ron Hubbard.

        Alanzo

        • Wow Alanzo….you are now coming after me on what
          I consider to be a quite innocent post talking about my
          belief. I’m beginning to think you are an Allman Brother
          and I’m Tied To The Whipping Post. Just kidding, you can
          come at me with guns a blaring anytime you like. And of course
          you understand it is a two way flow….right?
          First of all it has been my understanding that auditing was ment
          to raise one’s tone level. Why then can’t one duplicate at some level
          while being audited? Is auditing only for high toned people who can
          duplicate? I don’t think so.
          I assume you are saying someone who is PTS fails in auditing or can’t
          receive auditing because of PTS? A PC can indeed receive processing when
          there is a PTS situation. It is called the PTS RD. I have done many and they work quite well. In fact the L&N’s on that RD produce the most beautiful FN’s I have ever seen.
          Please Alanzo, there is not one person walking this planet that doesn’t have an overt or two they have not disclosed, including me and you. That is not
          a valid reason to use when a pc is not progressing and winning in auditing. Surely it is something that can be picked up along the way but nothing that will bring a case to a screeching halt. I have not seen any tech failures that couldn’t be fixed.
          I’m not looking at what Hubbard said? Or could it be I’m not looking at what you are saying? Either way not all people who studied LRH’s admin tech are mind numb robots who can’t differentiate. They are many thousands
          of people not in or ever involved in Scientology that can see situations and
          differentiate. Some of them did end up in Scientology and looked at the admin tech for what it was and then made their own decisions with their ability to differentiate. What I was saying above was that most people on staff are not trained and some cannot handle the person in front of them.
          Once again I’m not an admin guy and if I did the OEC/FEBC I’m quite sure there is a large portion of it I would not agree with.
          I am Ser Fac ing my fellow Scientologists? It appears you like to use that term. I can’t tell if it is out of misunderstanding or to make it appear I have outpoints. I don’t need you to figure out if I have outpoints or what they are, I can do that quite well myself. Besides just using the term Ser Fac doesn’t really mean much.
          There is a ton of data on Service Facsimiles/Computations on tapes and in HCOB’s. Just to say someone is Ser Facing is pretty superficial. When one says or does something that appears they are making another wrong, that means they have this great big terrible thing called a Service Facsimile?
          Once again I harken back to my auditor experience. You wanna know about
          what a Service Facsimile/Computation is and how insidious they can be? Audit someone on Grade 4. You will find that just saying something that makes another wrong does not even scratch the surface of a true Service Facsimile riddled with computations.
          Spot the source in Scientology? Is that a repetitive process or an L&N?
          Either way it didn’t read.

  55. I just discovered the source of my most fundamental ARC-X with Scientology. The insight came from Confucius. I’ve quoted the relevant passage below.

    Scientology is a duplicitous organization. It’s emphasis on the correct use of words is a smokescreen, as it intentionally misdefines and misuses words and symbols for its own protection and gain and the control of others:
    ** Church (generally a Christian term with the misuse reinforced with a cross-like symbol)
    ** Donation — a wholly made up new meaning
    ** Freedom — not achievable in a Fascist organization that controls all parts of the members’ lives
    ** Religion — some elements of a religion, sure, but fabricated on short notice when the need for protection from government and taxes arose (most religions are based on some sort of divine revelation); so it can be a religion in present time, but its motives for becoming a religion in the first place raise serious questions
    ** Clear — it is not the state that Hubbard first claimed
    ** OT — it is not the state that Hubbard first claimed
    (And so on.)

    Here is what Confucius said. Hubbard and Scientology should have listened. Scientology would be in good — or at least far better — shape had it listened to the wisdom of others like Confucius.

    From Wikipedia: “Confucius (6th century BCE) famously emphasized the moral commitment implicit in a name, (zhengming) stating that the moral collapse of the pre-Qin was a result of the failure to rectify behaviour to meet the moral commitment inherent in names: “Good government consists in the ruler being a ruler, the minister being a minister, the father being a father, and the son being a son… If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.” (Analects 12.11,13.3).”

    I’m going to repeat that last line for emphasis: “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.”

    Scientology cannot be a road to truth when it so knowingly distorts the truth of things.

    • PS That really is my fundamental ARC-X. F/N and VGIs.

    • FOFT2012 wrote:

      Scientology cannot be a road to truth when it so knowingly distorts the truth of things.

      Spot on. This is a fundamental problem with Scientology.

      Alanzo

      • RE:
        Scientology cannot be a road to truth when it so knowingly distorts the truth of things.
        Spot on. This is a fundamental problem with Scientology.
        Alanzo,

        When all those who were arguing that Scntlgy was a religion…….

        that idea got jammed in my head and did not ring true the least bit, with me.

        I did not know how to put in to words what I was thinking and feeling.

        But FOFT did it quite well.

        Scntlgy cannot be a religion (a bonafide religion) because it is so heavily laced with or and has an undercurrent of total fraud and deceit.

        To take the unwary and the feeble minded to the cleaners and have them sign a billion yr contract.

        Unbeknownst to the feeble minded, the carrot on a stick is even fixed to the sucker’s own back on a billion yr journey.

        Very few actually realize that.

        Dio

    • I’m going to repeat that last line for emphasis: “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.”

      No wonder we can keep attacking foreign countries that do not speak our language.

  56. …. Marty has left the building.

    But what a great show it was.

  57. I want to say that I still think L ron Hubbard had an original Idea with Auditing and processes as advancement on Freud and others.

  58. Cat Daddy,

    Thanks. “One Was Stubborn” definitely sounds like Hubbard. He used the religious angle as its worst.

    Because Scientology is a 20th century creation, Hubbard took the ancient knowledge of the Vedas, the Tao and the top views of Buddhism (The Static and its projections); gave it a new quasi-scientific nomenclature and pretensions, and corrupted those top views into his version of reality for his power grab.

    By the way, Aleister Crowley, Hubbard’s mentor, had actually study Eastern philosophy in India and had already syncretized that knowledge into his Thelema. But he later disavowed Buddhism’s wisdom in favor of his obsessive spiritualism; read Hubbard’s obsessive OT causation.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism_(beliefs)

    Scientology is a religion, because it is based implicitly, by coercion and by trickery, in its followers having faith in Hubbard, his methodology and worst of all his ultimate version of reality.

    Scientology as finally packaged and mandated to be practiced by Hubbard is a REVERSAL and it is in CONFLICT with his findings of the 1950s and earlier 1960s of what Fundamental Reality ACTUALLY is.

    Hubbard corrupted the top views he originally had arrived at, in the Axioms, Factors, PDC, Phoenix Lectures and ACCs, in favor of his cosmology, where all roads go through the Host of Xenu.

    Where we are all to be saved by his Omniscience, and where we are all obliged to follow Hubbard’s roadmap as the ONLY true path to salvation, and to the explicit exclusion of all ancient wisdom and all other interpretations of reality.

    It is a religion alright. And whether it works or not is subjective and personal, and it is up to each person affected, to make up their mind about it, WITHOUT the covert or overt mind control of its followers.

    • All sides suprise me wiyh their effor and time spent to offer concise summaries of information.

      And don’t forget “The empress” his guardian angel

      Thank you

  59. Well, as “religions” go, Scientology may not be quite as bad as some:

  60. Voltaire: “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.”
    There’s ambiguity in several key words in Marty’s post that I think it would be of benefit to more exactly define these terms:

    Scientology – what shall we consider “Scientology” as it is being talked about here? Would it be EVERYTHING that Ron Hubbard ever wrote about the subject, including all the things that he admittedly took from previous philosophers, writers and the various people he acknowledges in, as I recall, one of the opening pages of Science of Survival, or should we regard Scientology as those things that are uniquely L. Ron Hubbard views? (There are some who argue that Ron brought very little that was unique to the subject.) As an example, should ALL of Ron’s administrative writings, even those clearly out of alignment with his early, more “theta” writings on administration, still be considered Scientology? (There’s some rather abusive practices condoned in Scientology admin, particularly since 1965. Much of Ron’s later administrative writings seem to condone an “emergency drive” sort of management that is disparaged in earlier writings, such as the “Essay on Management” from ca. 1951, wherein a very friendly, even inspired management is postulated. Are BOTH of these management styles to be considered “Scientology”?)

    Religion – “Scientology is a religion.” There’s been plenty of talk saying that this is so solely because Ron declared it so and got sufficient agreement from others (including, with Marty’s help, the IRS) that it was so. Imagine for a moment that some of us or all of us “redefine” Scientology in our own minds and consider it to be only a body of information, some of which seems to have more workability than others; some of which seems helpful, some of which seems destructive. If it were suggested (as Ron originally proposed) that it not be regarded from neither a skeptical nor adulating viewpoint, but rather from, as much as is possible, an objective and analytical point of view, would what works of it still only work due to the user’s belief in it?

    I know that it is the intent of various current independent field counselors to sift the wheat from the chaff of Scientology and offer only that to their preclears. This is Scientology without the added evaluation from Ron or others about what they should see on their time tracks, etc. When this “works” is it working only due to the participants believing it should?

    (Speaking of this last, you state, “It works when one believes that it will.” Without further clarification on this, it’s for me, pretty much of a “yeah, so what???” statement. I think there’s many many things that are working that are working because we believe that it will. From the rather ordinary advices of Dear Abby and Dr. Phil all the way to the more sublime philosophies of people you quote from here, they’re all going to be enhanced in their workability by some sort of idea or assumption or belief that they might work out if attempted with some sincerity. I think “belief” might have a rather wide range, from a light-hearted assumption that “That just might work!” to blind dedicated devotion to an idea despite contrary evidences, such as the creationists’ beliefs. What level of belief do you feel is a requirement in having “Scientology work” on behalf of the user, Marty? )

    There’s all sorts of weird twists and turns in many of the various ideas about what “religion” is. I have never been more than a very casual lay student of religion, but I think that it’s true that none of the considered leaders of the various world religions ever thought they were starting a religion. (I could very easily have this wrong. Now that I think of it, from the little awareness I have of the subject, it seems now that both Jesus and Mohammed intended a “spreading of the word” that would require membership and adherence to some sort of doctrination.

    There are some who consider that they are Taoist and that Taoism is a religion. For those who consider that Taoism, when they are reflecting or meditating on these writings and they feel that it “works” for them, is it only their belief that it’s working making it work? Buddhism is generally regarded as a religion. Is it only benefiting Buddhists in that it is a religion and that it is being “believed”? I doubt if either Laozi or Guatama Siddhartha wanted a religion, but adherents gave them that anyway! So, when it works, is it working only due to belief that it will? If so, how much “belief” is required? The zealous devotion of a Tibetan monk, or the occasional chanter of nichiren shoshu?

    • Hello Dan.
      You said you were only a casual lay student of religion. I rarely disagree boldly with those who post on this site, but it appears that you have an in depth knowledge of religion and a variety of subjects.
      Dan;
      “I know that it is the intent of various current independent field counselors to sift the wheat from the chaff of Scientology and offer only that to their preclears.”
      Mark;
      It seems here that you have discovered me. I have written multiple times that I believe nothing. That I evaluate every piece of data for it’s workability, and then each paragraph as a whole and then the entire piece as a whole. I do have opinions based on my current knowledge which are subject to change as new data is acquired. Makes sense to me.

      I seem to have my own definition of religion which resonates most with me. The study and the working with spiritual matters. There are of course additional meanings that others use and think with. When I communicate with people on this, or any other subject, I duplicate what their meanings are and communicate with understanding. Works a lot better than imposing and enforcing my definitions on them. Makes for smooth conversations.

      This I consider an important point in human interaction. Even when others try to impose their meanings on me, I just understand what they are communicating and continue. I may disagree with what they are communicating, but I disagree accurately in a manner they will accurately duplicate. Life is good.

      I thank you for your sensible insights and I look forward to your future communications.
      Mark

    • Dan, my take on ‘religion’ is that whatever one adopts as his style of living, whether Buddhist, Christian, humanistic, agnostic, atheist, scientific, technological or whatever, one ought to do so ‘religiously’ for as long as it works for him and he sees eye-to-eye with it, and no longer.
      Or something.
      Me, I’m pretty religiously dilettante-ish 🙂

  61. “Scientology…is not a religion.”
    – L. Ron Hubbard, CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, 1954, p. 251

    Depending on your viewpoint one is left with dichotomies, contradictions, outright lies, hyperboles and/or exaggerations regards the subject.

    LRH didn’t leave us a “bridge to total freedom”.

    He left a conundrum. My current conclusion it that Scientology is restimulative of something earlier.

    By the way, where’s Tug One?

    • Isn’t that a hoot, Scientology is to every other person that what he or she want’s it to be, It has enough contradictions in it to serve everybodies follies:

      “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”

      – Bertrand Russell

    • Tom,

      Re: “Scientology…is not a religion.”
      – L. Ron Hubbard, CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, 1954, p. 251

      Etc.

      Perfect shot. Bulls eye.

      Thank you for posting that.

      You are so right, on every point.

      Hubbard left a conundrum of a bridge with a lot of missing planks and a lot of very rotten planks.

      You made the trump point on topic of this blog.

      I haven’t met anyone who knows everything there is to know about scn and Hubbard.

      Everyone I have is like one of the three blind men describing an elephant.

      One holding ther tail, says an elephant looks like a rope.

      One holding the leg, says it looks like a tree.

      One holding the trunk, says it looks like a hose.

      No more discussion necessary if scn is a religion or not.

      The best reason is the one out of the horse’s mouth.

      Dio

      • Sure, sure. As usual, the omitted factor is ‘time’. Someone quotes the LRH from the early 1950s as though it is the final word. But is it really? What was LRH referring to, in, say, 1951 or 1954, when he used the word ‘scientology’? The ‘church’ and the Sea Org did not yet exist. What was LRH referring to, when he said “Scientology” in 1968 or 1980? What is each individual poster here referring to, what mental construct does s/he reference in that individual’s mind, when s/he utters that word?

        The Tower of Babel principle is hard at work here. Everyone who feels s/he is on the same page with all the other posters here, please raise your hands.

    • Tom,
      Can you please post the page number of that quote for the 2007 edition?
      Thanks.
      Greta

  62. If Scientology is a religion than Fraternities and Sororities are as well.

  63. Through this blog there has what I have perceived has been a “moth to the flame reaction” to Scientology religion. Some seem to come back to bash some as I feel missed or am missing something. I agree and have given it a rest. I also restarted my studies into the other philosophies that waff like clouds in this universe. My point yes I have one; know thyself, be here and know you hold the reins in the physical opera until you drop and do whatever you do. Thanks Marty,With real love and understanding Bill Dupree

  64. Hubbard claimed first that Scientology was a psychotherapy, then that it was an applied religious philosophy, then that it was really a magic system without the hocus pocus, then he finally settled that it was a religion in the traditional sense, because he had isolated the human spirit and had developed methods for its emancipation. Most importantly, he claimed at all times that Dianetics & Scientology were a SCIENCE.

    Hubbard maintained throughout his life that Scientology was all those things, and ultimately too big to be encompassed or defined by any humanoid frame of reference.

    Hubbard used the religious angle as a scam, not only to avoid being sued for practicing medicine without a license, but for inurement and tax avoidance. Organizationally Scientology was set up by Hubbard on a business model, for profit, NOT as a charitable organization.

    Hubbard also added, every trick from the old religionist’s playbook on how to trap and control people. Hubbard did it in novel and highly specious fashion, cleverly disguised his entrapment behind a smoke screen of “security”, secrecy and by “The Mystery” of his spiritual salvation scheme.

    So understandable Scientology is highly restimulative, because it includes every possible trick to wrestle people’s autonomy away from them and to artfully place it into Hubbard’s hands and his Cult.

    Scientology is a mass of confusion and a disgrace because Hubbard made it so.

  65. A mistake I have made with SCN is to consider that it can be rightly or wrongly considered or applied. I admit I have been quite service-facy with that, and have put blame on others.

    The thing is I can now see good in things I couldn’t before –like Christianity. Or I can also blame again, it’s up to me.

    There is the idea that if you grasp the words, you have understood the concepts as they were meant to be relayed by the author. Even if that is absolutely true (I think it isn’t, as words don’t equal concepts adequately), still when you receive a concept you can combine it with other concepts you have and make your own conclusions. SCN as everything else is pretty much depended on individual viewpoint and each persons logical thinking which also varies from person to person. I know -empirically- I haven’t had the same ideas about SCN that many others have had

    I can see how for a person SCN can be a brainwashing thingy or a liberating thingy or who knows what else. I think that SCN ‘standardness’ is very very relative. You can get ‘Stardard Tech’ from the viewpoint of each individual, differently. And for that reason it’s hard for all of all to reach some standard agreement about what it’s all about.

    I am no SCN guru and so I cannot point out how it should all be considered and used. I tried to kick out some thoughts and practices I deemed destructive, not so much so that people wont think it’s bad and bash it, but for the practitioners to not do something destructive to themselves like I did in the past or observed others doing.

    • *Through discussion about SCN I have seen -for example- that many love TRs. Oh even if they don’t like anything else, they love TRs. And I’m like ‘You fool! You wanna turn into a wall or something?’😛 I really wouldn’t like to sit once more and do TRs. I’ve done it for so long. I’ve said how they’ve helped me with communication and some other things, but they also backfired at me. One could say ‘Oh you didn’t do it right and this and that’ but I believe the reason was that we (me and sup and twins) trying to reach some objectively good point. The task was not always to help myself from my perspective, but to achieve some goal posed by an exterior source. Nevertheless, I cannot deny what people say for themselves –that they won this and that. It’s true for them, so it’s true for them. Similarly, if one achieves inner peace by assuming the lotus stance and doing nothing, I cannot deny that it is what it is for him. After all, helping oneself is about helping oneself, not being right according to others.

      I for myself think the techniques were not as important as most of us thought they were. They were ways, alright. They were valid to the degree we made them valid, and visa versa. And one can achieve inner peace -or anything else- by creating it for himself directly or through vias –techniques or whatever. He can achieve it by listening to death metal music, too. No, I’m not joking with that. Some go mad with metal music, but I can feel nice and calm with it. No, I don’t think it’s entheta. To run out a past postulate so as not to have it working now…OK that can be done. Actually, I do it too some times, although I no longer audit. But who puts that past postulate (past=no longer present) in the present? You are capable of creating a present through a past -through something which no longer exists- but you cannot create a present through present postulation? Techniques can be workable, I don’t say otherwise. But they’re not absolute and they’re not objective. That’s what I think. And so I too cannot claim I say any objective truth nor reality, and you can think otherwise. It’s ok.

  66. A Scientologist friend of mine. ..who I used to practice vipassana meditation with…when I asked him about various religious activities, methods & styles gave me the advice of “do what works”….

  67. People who believe in Scientology would have high ARC for it , its an increase in ARC that causes gains , if someone does not believe in it they will have low ARC for it and not get any gains from it .
    In auditing the amount of ARC would increase when the PC considers that the process has worked , thus they get gains from it .
    Scientology can also work in the opposite way , an example is when Scientoloigsts are told that when they die they are fucked, if they believe this then when they die their ARC goes down and they are fucked , but only because they believed what they have been indoctinated with in the Co$ and consequently when they die their ARC goes down .

    • The Co$ controls its members by getting them to believe that the consequences if they step out of line is hell and damnation for them for the rest of eternity .

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