Scientology: A Monotheistic Religion

Apparently, only one of the four traditional biblical Gospels relates inarguably that Jesus Christ was God temporarily visiting earth.  The book of Luke could and has been interpreted to say that Jesus was an extraordinary man who ascended – or was ascended – from humble beginnings to develop the message that humankind has found so inspiring for 2000 years.  Only the Gospel popularly known as that related by John was definitive about Jesus’ other-worldly provenance.  As noted by religious scholar and bestselling author Elaine Pagels in her book Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas:

“Unlike Luke, who depicts Jesus as a man raised to divine status, John, as does the hymn Paul quotes, pictures him instead as a divine being who descended to earth – temporarily – to take on human form.”

Of course it is understood that all of the Gospels were written up to a century after Jesus strode the earth, all reporting their own interpretations of words Jesus purportedly spoke and deeds he had carried out long before.  In the past one-hundred and twenty years, more significant purported Gospels have been discovered – including those of Thomas and Mary Magdalene.  Those discoveries have added to the rich diversity of opinions, interpretations, and faiths of Christianity.  That includes the idea that Jesus communicated that every human potentially had within themselves the same abilities and divinity as Jesus.

In scientology no such plurality of interpretation is open to the worshipper.   That is because scientology’s messiah made it clear himself on more than one occasion that he did not ascend from humble beginnings, or any earthly beginnings at all, to develop a message with which to lift humanity.  Instead, scientology’s author L. Ron Hubbard explicitly stated that he descended to earth in human form in order to deliver its people from evil. He was so dead serious about being taken literally – and not interpreted – that he instituted penalties for any interpretation of his words whatsoever that were tantamount to permanent spiritual death.  And if that did not shut up the purveyors of interpretations, such heretics were to be mercilessly harassed to the point of personal and familial ruin. He created a corporate structure which directed hundreds of millions of dollars toward etching his words on stainless steel plates, sealing them in titanium capsules and placing them in vaults in deep veins of granite so that those words could never be altered.

One example of those sacred words comes from Ron’s Journal 1968:

“And please for my sake, don’t forget one thing, I am your friend. I am not from this planet. I am trying to do my best to do a job to bring tolerance and humanity to this planet in a very materialistic and often cruel age.”

That was the same year that Hubbard delivered scientology’s most sacred, secret and advanced liturgy – the Class VIII Course. On the course ‘deans of scientology’ were created by learning from Hubbard that humankind could not be brought to ‘respond to reason.’   That is why he commanded the scientology deans that  “You are the people the planet obeys. You are the people who own the planet.”  Whether any dean of scientology – or the group collectively – ever lived up to those dictates, two things remain scripturally clear (and will remain so apparently forever) from Hubbard’s apex year of discovery.  Those are, a) there is only one God in scientology, and b) the adherent will believe it because that God has commanded that it will never be appreciated by appeal to reason.

664 responses to “Scientology: A Monotheistic Religion

  1. Basketballjane

    Most Sceintologists conveniently “forget” the many references that Ron made throughout the years that he was not human at all and that he was trying his best to help mankind to freedom and all that. They just like to repeat over and over how he was just a man and he “discovered” everything there is to know about everything that has ever been or will ever be.
    I remember one of the first times I was recruited for the Sea Org. I was told (this is before the Ron Mags) all about LRH’s adventures. How he sailed the seas to distant lands and met with Magicians in China, and found ancient treasure in the Mediterranean, and was blood brothers with Native Americans. I was fascinated. But my response wasn’t the norm. I told the recruiter that all sounded amazing and I wanted to do the very same thing. I wanted to travel the world and meet people from all cultures and discover the rest of the mysteries of the universe. To which he responded, “You don’t have to do that. That is the best part. Ron did it for you. He wrote it all down. All you have to do is follow the path he discovered.” I was more than super bummed. I even said, “Doesn’t Ron say to find out for yourself? Why can’t I do that?” To say that was a little more than unacceptable would be an understatement. I was brow beaten into submission and into seeing the clear error of my ways. If I could Time Travel I would go right to that 15 year old version of myself and say, “Sister you got it straight. Get the hell out of here and never look back. It will be fine. Your parents will follow you. Your family will ALWAYS love you. These bastards are crazy liars. Don’t spend one single second thinking about this. Ron didn’t know you, he doesn’t know you, YOU know you. Do it. Go explore everything.”

    • hansje brinker

      “Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

    • Basketballjane, that Sea Org recruiter you should spoke to should have been in Scientology at the time. It is kind of hard to do all that Ron says when one is inside a garbage dumpster scrubbing it out with no tooth paste in front of OSA staff!🙂

  2. Way over my pay-grade.

  3. Mark N Roberts

    LRH: ” I am not from this planet.”
    He also made it clear that neither are we.

    • martyrathbun09

      And the policy that no one is permitted to discuss their timetrack outside of session conveniently leaves all discussion about intergalatic origins to God.

      • Interstingly enough to me, is the fact that Freudian Psychoanalysis had the same policy, of discouraging folks in analysis discussing their cases with other analysands. They took it quite a bit further in that they also discouraged analysands from informing themselve about psychoanalytic theory and practices, except to lay on the couch and free associate. Dianetics and Scientology initially appealed to me precisely because LRH promoted the opposite approach – learn the theory and the practice of auditing so you are going into therapy with your eyes open when you co-audit.
        How times have changed!
        Now in the CoS it is a lot like the Psychoanalysis of the old days (mid 20th century), when you paid lots of money for keeping yourself ignorant while being ‘ministered to’ for years by the ‘High Priest’. And it was alot of money, because at 4 days a week over 4 or 5 years, paying top dollar all the way because with very few exceptions only MDs were allowed to train as psychoanalysts back then.
        It was a good racket while it lasted, I guess.

        • That is not an accurate statement about psychoanalysis. Analysts would not suggest or deny that patients discuss their experience. The only thing that would be discussed is the motivation for disclosure/non disclosure. I speak from experience.

          • Well Eileen, I speak from experience also, in southeastern Michigan circa 1967 through 1980. I worked at University psychiatric teaching hospitals back then, which were run by psychoanalysts before the biological psychiatry boys took over. It was definitely true there and then.

            Let’s compare notes. When, where were you? It is one of my hobby-horses, that people often neglect to consider the “time and place” of their experineces, when coming to their conclusions. Obviously I have just done this myself, generalizing from my experience in Ann Arbor Michigan in the 1970s.

            • Biological Psychiatry is alsoo know as Materialistic Psychiatry. Coming from the French and German schools of tought.

              I prefere the Dutch Social Psychiatry model set in motion by the founder of Dutch Psychiatry:

              http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262698909964

              Abstract

              Schroeder van der Kolk is regarded as the founder of Dutch psychiatry and neurology. This paper describes his vitalistic views on the relation between body and soul, as formulated by him in a series of lectures. These lectures were intended to counteract the materialistic tendencies of some of Schroeder van der Kolk’s French and German contemporaries. It is argued that Schroeder van der Kolk can be regarded as the transition in Holland from the “Naturphilosophie” approach to the modern experimental approach in physiology.

              Parts of this paper were presented at the Jean Pierre Marie Flourens (1794–1867) Bicentennial History Conference in Montréal, Canada, June 1, 1994. I am grateful to Harry Whitaker, Lauren Harris, Gerlof Verwey, Caroline Jagella, and Stanley Finger for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. In particular I express my gratitude toward Professor G.W. Bruyn who provided me with excellent suggestions for a better presentation of the material.

              Address for correspondence: Paul Eling, Dept. of Psychology, University of Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail:eling@nici.kun.nl.

      • No one, except for LRH, that is; who never thought twice to divulge his own timetrack in lectures.

    • Exactly. Kinda like some of those Nag Hamadi ‘gospels’ that say we are all “children of god” like Jesus was. The main difference being he knew it, while many of us didn’t.

    • So get the heck of my planet

      Niels, Earth Spirit

  4. My question then becomes, did he believe this all along, did he make this up in the 1960s because he decided this was the best way to “smash his name into history” and establish a long-enduring ‘church’, or did he simply fall off the wagon somewhere along the line? This is a serious question, I am not being facetious. Bent Corydon’s question, messiah or madman? remains unanswered. Perhaps we wil never really know, but I wonder:

    To what extent did LRH consciously model the CoS after past examples of controlling religious cults, such as the ‘mystery cults’ which existed in many parts of the world? These were often “cults of personality” in which the ‘personality’ was considered to be a ‘god’, such as Zeus, Athena, Diana the huntress, etc, in ancient Greece. He certainly seems to have had a pretty good knowledge of history. In trying to account for all the facts, I have lately been favoring the theory that in its broad outlines, it was quite a conscious effort on his part. On the historical side, there are traditions that the entire story of Jesus was staged, with some of the participants on the Disciples’ side playing concscious roles. Judas in particular, along with Jesus himself, playing a conscious role in the outcome of that drama.

    But in the end LRH evidently felt he had in some sense, failed.

    So, what were his self-perceived misestimations of effort? These would have to be in relation to his own personal goals, because certainly he succeeded in many ways, in that Scientology will not soon be forgotten. As some people like to say, the genie is out of the bottle, the toothpaste is out of the tube.

    • I think Hubbard was a combination of:

      1) Belief is reality (he really did believe in his space opera cosmology)

      2) Needle reactions detect truth always. (introverted him into delusional states of being)

      3) Master at manipulation

      4) Master hypnotist

      5) Master propagandist

      7) Unquenchable thirst for power and money (Mayo’s words that Ron told him)

      8) Passion for metaphysics

      9) Persecution complex

      10) A dilletante’s understanding of eastern goals and philosphy

      11) Narcissism

      12) Bad dental hygiene

      He was a mentally unstable genius who used whatever it took to aquire power and money in the name of religion.

      I believe he cared more about offshore accounts than he did about the welfare of his church or it’s people. The RPF illustrated that.

      • Brian,
        “10) A dilletante’s understanding of eastern goals and philosophy”

        This thread was the key that un-mocked the hubris and pride of Hubbard for me personally. When I reached an average level of understanding of eastern religion, I felt an immediate superiority to him. This was carefully traced and found to be actual rather than my own pride. I concluded that Hubbard probably read about four Discourses of the Buddha which I traced to Hubbard’s lectures and writings.
        Hubbard boldly implied that he was the Buddha and that he understood the process of the enlightenment. Hubbard was only superimposing his own ideas from Crowley on a religion he really did not understand. Hubbard felt that the e-meter gave him a real edge on the practice of meditation and even advised against it.
        As I learned more about meditation, I saw that Hubbard was confused about consciousness, perception, and many other mental constructs.
        From that vantage point, it is easy to de-construct Hubbard’s statements about “from another planet.” Since Hubbard was confused about even fundamental concepts of eastern religion, he was even more confused about his own personal identity. Hubbard could not grasp from eastern religion, the idea of “no soul” as compared to a soul. He had a right to his rejection. However, he certainly did not do adequate research.
        In charging his premium prices, he only revealed his own insecurity.

        GMW

        • From Hubbard, Scientology and Buddhism

          “The goal of Buddhism has always been to perceive reality for what it is, and to help transcend all illusions including the illusion of self or individuality. Unfortunately, this was unacceptable to Hubbard, whose effort was to empower his individuality to the utmost. Hubbard made individuality the centerpiece of his philosophy of Scientology. It had a great appeal to those living in the competitive environment of the twentieth century.

          “Hubbard looked upon the Buddhist goal of Nirvana with derision. To him Nirvana was giving up one’s individuality and becoming an ineffectual part of the physical universe. Here are references to Buddhism from Hubbard’s writings followed by my comments…”

          http://vinaire.me/2013/09/24/hubbard-scientology-and-buddhism/

          • vinaire,
            Thanks for the link. Excellent research.
            In the “Road to Truth” taped lecture HUbbard even goes on to say that
            “Buddha enslaved beings”. We received a box full of tapes for free in 2002 and my wife pulled out the first one and we heard that. We were in state of shock for years and dropped all lectures from Hubbard..

            GMW

            • I found the exact quote that you are referring to.

              From SHSBC Tape 6211C01 The Road to Truth:

              “Gautama Siddhartha discovered how to exteriorize without discovering the laws governing it or how to let someone else exteriorize at will. How many hundred million people did he condemn to slavery by not walking all the way down that road? Because half-truths have been used and misused ever since. Knowing this, it takes a brave man to go in that direction. He knows that the traps and upsets of existence are composed of half-truths and that all efforts to enlighten can be employed to enslave and entrap, by the fact of two-way flow. Aesop’s Fables originally had no morals. They were just amusing stories.”

              Hubbard is blowing a lot of smoke here.

              • Holy moly schmolly!!!

                • Internet through a wrench in Hubbard’s carefully defined scheme of concealment and no discussions and criticism of Scientology, along with SP declares of those in disagreement with Scientology.

                  This makes “SP” an honorable badge for an awake being.

                  • Vin, you seem to be agreeing with the “holy moly” response to the quote you posted, so it seems you didn’t duplicate that it was altered to the extent that it gave a completely false idea as to what Hubbard was actually saying.

                    • “…seem ro be agreeing?” “… you didn’t duplicate?”

                      Help me please by explaining it.

                    • Okay, for the third time: It was clear from the excerpt taken from the unaltered transcript that LRH merely said that Buddha had not gone all the way down the road to truth and thus had not discovered the reverse flow. And because of that particular missing piece of truth, Buddhism was open to being misused and enslaving people – i.e. THAT was what condemned people to slavery, NOT Buddha and the original Buddhism itself. For fuller details, read the complete quote again.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Now you are adding modifiers to suit your interpretation. Your literalness is painful to behold.

                    • Personally, I think it’s being too literal to not take the full context into account. LRH basically stated that Buddha INADVERTENTLY condemned people to slavery, but that it was others who actually did so. Here are his exact words which include the points I made (in caps):

                      How many hundred million people did he condemn to slavery by not walking all the way down that road? BECAUSE HALF-TRUTHS HAVE BEEN USED AND MISUSED EVER SINCE. THAT’S MERELY BECAUSE HE DIDN’T GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THE ROAD, DON’T YOU SEE? Knowing this, it takes a brave man to go in that direction. He knows that the traps and upsets of existence are composed of half-truths and that ALL EFFORTS TO ENLIGHTEN CAN BE EMPLOYED TO ENSLAVE AND ENTRAP, BY THE FACT OF TWO-WAY FLOW. SOMEBODY COMES ALONG AND WANTS TO SET EVERYBODY FREE AND NATURALLY THE REVERSE FLOW ON IT IS TO TRAP EVERYBODY. ONE HAS TO RECOGNIZE THIS AS AN ACTION.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      You are doing a tremendous disservice to scientology claims for establishing standards of literacy. It says this: “…did he condemn to slavery…”

                    • I did get that, Marty. However, the context makes a big difference in what LRH was trying to impart. I thought his wording was being picked on unfairly. If he had said the same thing but more diplomatically, like “The great Buddha actually found a way to enlightenment, but because he had not gone all the way in his search for truth and discovered a certain vital principle, others were then able to distort his unparalleled path and lead people to slavery” – that would have amounted to the same idea and no one would be getting their feathers ruffled. And I do think my paraphrase was LRH’s intention. Getting the intention is a definite part of literacy and not being literal.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      No, you didn’t get it.

                    • I am not contradicting what you wrote above.

                      My personal opinion is that Hubbard can be qualified the same way that he is qualifying Buddha.

                      Hubbard has been in the habit of counting his chickens way before they hatched. He should have reincarnated by now to look at the results of his handiwork.

                      Maybe he has already reincarnated but too ashamed to announce himself.😛

                    • Vin: “My personal opinion is that Hubbard can be qualified the same way that he is qualifying Buddha.”

                      No argument with that.

                    • Hi marildi,
                      Thanks for the clarification. However, there is no end to this issue at present.
                      Here is what Marty told you now re-inforced by me:

                      “You are doing a tremendous disservice to scientology claims for establishing standards of literacy. It says this: “…did he condemn to” [slavery].

                      I will continue to say that “Hubbard said the Buddha enslaved beings”.
                      Let me explain something to you. I am not offended by the above statement which is my interpretation. However, I am seriously offended by your interpretation of it. I don’t know how to explain this to you, but I will try. In your interpretations of Hubbard, you change just enough to make the statement offensive. I do not want to get into semantics. You should leave what Hubbard said alone, and not try to tell us what he said. You seem to admire him and you seem to come accross as an authority. However, you have no official connection to Scientology and I think they would also disown your interpretation. This is meant to help you because, quite honestly, I think that underneath it all you are making more of Hubbard than his words communicate by themselves. Please be advised that I am not asking you to stop your blog entries or say what is on your mind. You have a right to your interpretation of what Hubbard said. Try communicating with Hubbard in the theta universe and I think he will tell you to let his words speak for themselves. I wish I could, in a few words, grasp the essence of how your interpretations actually alter his technology but I cannot.

                      Kind Regards,
                      GMW

                    • Wonderfully expressed! It is something that I was trying to put my finger on. This is not an invalidation of Marildi, but an invitation to Marildi to look closely at what she is doing.

                      ________________________________

                    • HI George,

                      I’d like to ask you to clarify what seem to be two contradictory statements you made. First you stated the following (which started the whole discussion):

                      “In the ‘Road to Truth’ taped lecture HUbbard even goes on to say that ’Buddha enslaved beings’. We received a box full of tapes for free in 2002 and my wife pulled out the first one and we heard that. We were in state of shock for years and dropped all lectures from Hubbard.”

                      In a later comment, you wrote:
                      “I conclude that Hubbard said basically that ‘Buddha enslaved beings.’ It makes more sense from a balanced point of view and is in no way offensive.”

                      And now again, you write:
                      “I will continue to say that ‘Hubbard said the Buddha enslaved beings’. Let me explain something to you. I am not offended by the above statement which is my interpretation.”

                      In other words, it seems that at first you communicated being greatly offended by Hubbard’s statement, and then twice said you were not offended.

                      MM,
                      M.

                • Correction: “through = threw”

              • Sounds like LRH was in a pissy whiny mood that day!
                He may have been blowing smoke, but that is just an opinion. How many people has Buddhism actually “freed” over the past 2,600 years? Is there any proof that it has freed even one? Buddhism is a very deep, technical subject, and for that reason, I don’t believe it will ever be understood by very many. LIke Scientology, and possibly any philosophical study or practice, “many are called, few are chosen.”

                LRH also publicly game a lot of credit to Buddha and Buddhism, as when he said it was theonly major religion that was not disseminated by force and civilized more of the world than any other. I think he said something like 1/3 of the known world, at the time. He must have been in a much better mood that day!

                • Hubbard was simply using the popularity of Buddhism to promote Scientology.

                  My purpose now is to develop a scientific theory based on Buddha’s ideas. This purpose is, of course, inspired by Hubbard’s failed attempt. Here is the beginning.

                  Self-Learning

                  ________________________________

                  • There are plenty of similarities between Buddhism and Scientology, as there are between any systems for developing or increasing consciousness. After all they are all referrinbg to the same elephant. LRH didn’t really refer to Buddhism all that much, although he did so opportunistically at times.

                    • Hubbard started with the postulate of “individuality”, whereas, Buddha started with the postulate of “nirvana”. For Buddha, individuality came later.

                      This makes all the difference between Buddhism and Scientology, which is massive. Hubbard never aimed for “nirvana”.

                    • There is just no end to your “creativity”, is there?
                      Buddha did not start with “nirvana”. That is where he arrived at, not where he started from. He started from a search for truth.

                    • What goes up must come down.🙂

                      ________________________________

              • Vinaire, according to a couple of different transcripts that I checked, your quote leaves out two important sentences (and the wording otherwise was also somewhat different, oddly). The two missing sentences make it clear that LRH was saying the only mistake Buddha made was not to have walked all the way down the road to truth, because if he had done so he would have recognized the existence of the reverse flow. In other words, what Buddha discovered was in effect a half-truth, and for that reason Buddhism was left open to misuse and the condemning of many people to slavery.

                Here’s the part you quoted together with the missing sentences in all caps:

                “Gautama Siddhartha discovered how to exteriorize without discovering the laws governing it or how to let someone else exteriorize at will. How many hundred million people did he condemn to slavery by not walking all the way down that road? Because half-truths have been used and misused ever since. THAT’S MERELY BECAUSE HE DIDN’T GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THE ROAD, DON’T YOU SEE? Knowing this, it takes a brave man to go in that direction. He knows that the traps and upsets of existence are composed of half-truths and that all efforts to enlighten can be employed to enslave and entrap, by the fact of two-way flow. SOMEBODY COMES ALONG AND WANTS TO SET EVERYBODY FREE AND NATURALLY THE REVERSE FLOW ON IT IS TO TRAP EVERYBODY. ONE HAS TO RECOGNIZE THIS AS AN ACTION… Aesop’s Fables originally had no morals. They were just amusing stories.”

                • Do you want to thank David Miscavige for the alterations? Or, do you have somebody else in mind?

                  Do you have digital transcripts of all SHSBC Tapes of before 1980? If so, I’ll appreciate if you could somehow send them to me.🙂

                  • Tell you what, Vinnie. I’ll give you that data if you would deign to acknowledge that LRH never said “Buddha enslaved beings.”🙂

                    It was clear from the excerpt taken from the correct transcript that LRH only said that Buddha had not gone down the whole road to truth and thus had not discovered the reverse flow. And because of that particular missing piece of truth, Buddhism was vulnerable to being misused and enslaving people – i.e. THAT was what condemned people to slavery – not original Buddhism.

                    As for who to thank for the alterations, I wouldn’t know. Where did you get that excerpt you quoted?

                    You can get the original BC transcripts (and other original transcripts, books, volumes and other writings.) at this site: http://www.stss.nl/ They have “the original unaltered religious texts and works of Scientology” (quoting from the site).

                    The other transcript for “The Road to Truth” that I checked out was a “matrix files” download. That one was apparently published at a later point but I don’t know when. It has different (much better) paragraphing, although the text is exactly the same. Just google (with the quotes) the following: “The Road to Truth” matrix files.” When you click on the link that shows up, it will automatically download. The matrix files are good to have because the editing is much better, but I always compare the text to the originals.

                    • Correction: for the matrix files transcript of “The Road to Truth,” I put in one too many quote marks. I meant to say you should google the following, with the quotes:

                      “The Road to Truth” matrix files

                    • Thanks Marildi. That is a great resource.

                      To make you happy, I shall point out that I never used the words “Buddha enslaved beings.” I simply quoted the actual text as best as I could.🙂

                    • Fair enough.

                      And you’re welcome.

                    • marildi,
                      “It was clear from the excerpt taken from the correct transcript that LRH only said that Buddha had not gone down the whole road to truth and thus had not discovered the reverse flow. And because of that particular missing piece of truth, Buddhism was vulnerable to being misused and enslaving people – i.e. THAT was what condemned people to slavery – not original Buddhism.”

                      This is very offensive to me as a Buddhist. You know that first LRH implied he was the Buddha and then he makes a false statement.
                      The false statement is that he implies that he never walked the road to truth! You are missing so much information that it would be almost impossible to write it all down for you. First of the all, Buddha was only one of a series through the eons. Hubbard is again putting his foot deep, deep into his mouth because there were Buddha’s before Gotama. Second, Hubbard has no conception of what it takes to be a Buddha in terms of the qualities that must be developed. Third, the average person on the street would laugh at Hubbard for being so bold as to criticize the Buddha. Fourth, the Buddha speaks of a type of “reverse flow” in the Discourses which Hubbard probably never read. ( As an aside, Hubbard confused Ananda – Buddha’s personal attendant – as his dialogue partner! )
                      In Buddhism, the end game of Nirvana is more important. Hubbard thought the thetan was the key. In Buddhism, it is mind and Hubbard never got that point. Fifth, Hubbard never accepted Nirvana so why does he even mention the Buddha? The answer is that he wants to USE the Buddha for his own ends. Sixth, there is no way that a Theravadin would accept that Buddha taught a “half truth”. The other half of what Hubbard thinks is the truth has its roots in Lucifer or in the Buddhist Mara which means “death”.
                      Seventh, Buddha said quite plainly at least 200 hundred times that he only “taught the end of suffering ( Dukkha)”. Hubbard missed the point. If Buddha said he only taught the end of suffering, how could Hubbard accuse him of a half-truth? Eighth, Hubbard does not explain the interaction of the eight-fold path. He does not mention that English translations of Pali are next to useless. Hubbard knew no Pali; he read it in English with a high school diploma. He got it wrong. Ninth, almost all serious scholars agree that the enlightenment was a psychological experience. None that I know of would even agree with Hubbard on the exteriorization part. Hubbard also implied that he was the future Buddha or Matreya. What does Hubbard want? He wants to be Lucifer, Buddha and every key figure in the universe at the same time? Tenth, if I can get this to you I will feel happy with it all. To be a Buddha requires a lot of virtue.
                      Did Hubbard have any at all? To be a Buddha he would need to be steeped in virtue. Lucifer does not cut it. This is not Hollywood.

                      “And because of that particular missing piece of truth, Buddhism was vulnerable to being misused and enslaving people – i.e. THAT was what condemned people to slavery – not original Buddhism.”

                      I do not agree with the above statement. Hubbard has taken Buddhism completely out of context. He is looking at it from a Western viewpoint.
                      There is no way that a missing piece of truth can enslave people.
                      Hubbard is being far, far too critical. He is using words that only we as Buddhists can use as tests for mindfulness, compassion and wisdom.
                      I will chant for Hubbard. He will need it. His personal attacks on the Buddha are not good for his Kamma or Karma. May he be in peace.

                      Kind regards,
                      George M. White

                    • Hi George,

                      Sorry, no offense intended. But actually, I wasn’t saying anything about the merits or demerits of either Buddhism or Scientology, nor comparing LRH and Buddha – and wasn’t even saying whether or not LRH was CORRECT in his statement about Buddha condemning people, even inadvertently, to slavery. I was only pointing out that in that quote from “The Road to Truth” tape, he was basically saying that Buddhism was open to being misused by those who would enslave.

                      In other words, what I got from the tape was that because Buddhism IS a true path to freedom, it could be used to enslave by those so inclined – i.e. “the reverse flow” could be put into action. And btw, LRH said the same thing about Scientology! He pointed out more than once the potential use of it as Black Dianetics or Black Scientology if the possibility of the reverse flow isn’t understood.

                      Whether LRH was right or wrong in what his statement, he was essentially saying that Buddha had walked down the road to truth but not all the way, because otherwise, he would have found and then taught the principle of reverse flow.

                      I just feel that to make the bald statement that LRH said “Buddha enslaved beings” without including the context is misleading since it can easily be construed to mean that Buddhism itself enslaves, and to my understanding that was not what was meant.

                      In any case, I appreciated your post and all the data you provided.

                      MM,
                      M

                    • I simply don’t understand Marildi’s logic. It is weird.

                      ________________________________

                    • GMW: “Did Hubbard have any at all? To be a Buddha he would need to be steeped in virtue. Lucifer does not cut it. This is not Hollywood.”

                      :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D 

                      Wow George, I am impressed. I am going to sit at your feet to learn about Buddhism. 

                      Hubbard had no knowledge of Buddhism. He seems to have known just enough to fool scientologists.

                      ________________________________

                    • I am always fair. At least, I try to be.🙂

                    • George wrote to Marildi:

                      “Seventh, Buddha said quite plainly at least 200 hundred times that he only taught the end of suffering ( Dukkha).

                      Thank you very very much for taking the time to write this post to Marildi, George, and for that statement of yours which should be put in clay by anyone who looks at Buddhism via Scientology.

                      In my present understanding of Buddhism, I believe what you wrote above is the Buddhist “Q”, to put it into a Scientology reference, It is very clear that Hubbard never understood any of this by the statements he made to Scientologists about Buddha and Buddhism.

                      The rest of your points are very very important, and they thoroughly decimate any teaching that Hubbard gave scientologists about Buddhism.

                      But Scientologists, lacking any real study of Buddhism, have a very hard time grasping just how far off Hubbard was about Buddhism. They view Buddhism through Hubbard’s teachings and just get it wrong every time.

                      You have made many very valuable contributions to helping to understand L Ron Hubbard, Scientology and Buddhism.

                      Thanks again for taking the time and effort write this out.

                      Your whole post should be copied and pasted every where on the Internet that a Scientologist writes about Buddhism from Hubbard’s viewpoint.

                      Alanzo

                    • Yes, George is a breath of fresh air.🙂🙂🙂

                      ________________________________

            • George, Buddha understood exteriorization better than Hubbard ever did. Hubbard simply interiorized people into their self. Please see,

              http://vinaire.me/2014/05/30/being-self-centric-scientology/

              .

              • Vin, I feel you are misrepresenting Buddhist thought and beliefs. Here is another quote from an interview with the Dalai Lama:

                “We Buddhists believe in the existence of a self that moves from life to life and from an ordinary state to a goal of Buddhahood.
                This self, therefore, is retained. Even a Buddha keeps his self. Buddha Shakyamuni had his own individual identity. This self exists – without beginning, without end.
                We believe that the individual identity – even that of a Buddha – is retained.
                This belief is contrry to the Hindu tradition, which postulates Brahman, the universal soul, that unites during moksha, or liberation, with the individual soul, and through which the individual soul loses its identity.”

                Vinnie, I think you are still ‘attached’ to your Hindu roots with their bias against “self-centrism”…… 🙂

                • Valkov, Sorry! Dalai Lama is not Buddha.   Please quote Buddha and not Dalai Lama. Thanks.

                  ________________________________

                  • I was wondering when you’d attack from that angle. I’m glad you did! 🙂
                    Because:
                    You are likewise not Buddha. It is not really possible to quote Buddha, because he did not allow what he said to be written down. Most Buddhist scriptures were written MUCH later by others, after Buddha passed on. Most Buddhist scriptures were in fact composed by others, including the Diamond Sutra.
                    So please quote some Buddha for me, too. Follow your own advice. Remove Walpola Rahula from your site. He is not Buddha either, you shouldn’t be quoting him…… 🙂

                    • Valkov, do you understand what the following saying means?

                      “If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!”

                      If not, please see,

                      Kumare – An Enlightening Experiment

                      Buddha never claimed to know as Hubbard did. Buddha taught mindfulness so one could think for oneself. I am simply following that tradition of mindfulness and hope that you would follow it too.

                      You are a good man!

                    • Valkov,
                      You are correct in that the Discourses were written many hundreds of years after the passing of the Buddha. In fact, Karl Jaspers in his famous book doubts that the total truth will ever be known.
                      All I can tell you is that millions of people have followed the Theravada tradition. The proof of the validity of the Dicourses is in the results of the practical application. I have read almost the entire teaching of the Buddha. In my opinion, it would have been impossible to screw it up. It is in the end so simple. We have a tradition in Theravada which includes many saints who have in modern times achieved the highest goal. You never hear about it because they do not announce it. It is against policy.
                      In reality, IMHO, Buddhism is not a religion. It is a practical psychology.
                      Please be advised that in Theravada we do not accept the Diamond Sutta.
                      Also, there are many, many flavours of Buddhism. I like the Theravada flavour and stick to or grasp to it.
                      Another point: the Buddha claimed that his teaching would only last 500 years. So it would have evaporated before Christ. Personally, I believe that it did evaporate. What is left is what a few monks wrote down. However, you might look at it as a path to purification which is what stayed in the Theravada tradition. We actually have a lot of fun; we know what you say about us. We do believe that the core of the Buddha’s teaching lives on. We live it.

                      Kind Regards,
                      George M. White

                • Valkov,
                  Please be advised that Theravada Buddhists do not follow the Dalai Lama.
                  Kind Regards,
                  George M. White

              • vinaire, Wow. I can’t find an open thread.

                “George, Buddha understood exteriorization better than Hubbard ever did. Hubbard simply interiorized people into their self.”

                This is true and I have spent a lot of time researching this. Mindfulness is, in my opinion, not really exteriorization in the sense that Hubbard meant it. Hubbard was talking about a spiritual self, a thetan, going exterior to the body. This is why he makes the mistake of implying that Buddha did not see all of the truth. You are correct. Buddha saw more truth than Hubbard could ever expect to see because the Buddha looked at it from the perspective of “no self”. IMHO, Hubbard needed a quick grab on the subject of Buddhism and just simply interpreted it to suit his laws of theta and the spirit. No Buddhist in their right mind would follow Hubbard. I have discussed this with Theravada Buddhist monks. It is very clear that the Buddha NEVER said that there was anything like a thetan. Hubbard got these thetan ideas from Crowley.
                I read some discussion of the “reverse flow” by Marildi but I cannot get into that thread. Therefore, I will say my own opinion here. The “reverse flow” discussion is missing the point. In Buddhist terms, reality is impermanent and in a state of constant flux. (Please be advised that I do not follow the Tibetan style of Buddhism. You will find a different interpretation.)
                I have exteriorized in Scientology with full perceptions and I can tell you that it is totally unlike mindfulness. Exteriorization implies an “interval. This is difficult to translate, but it really means that you are not looking for an immortal spirit. Mindfulness is really a framework or a base from which to activate right effort and right concentration. Hubbard was a “linear animal”. This means that he was looking at flows and reverse flows. This is a very difficult road to follow. He calls it “The Road to Truth”. Hubbard missed, in my opinion, the old Heraclitus idea. You are in a stream and it is flowing. You need to go upstream. Hubbard tries to direct the stream with his powerful thetan. Going “upstream” in Buddhism is difficult. It is not a “reverse flow”. It is in reality, the creation of a new reality which Hubbard totally missed.
                Kind Regards,
                GMW

                • I need to clarify this:
                  “Exteriorization implies an “interval. This is difficult to translate, but it really means that you are not looking for an immortal spirit.”

                  Buddha was directly asked by the monk Sati whether there was “an interval” at death where “self” continues. The Buddha said directly that he never taught that idea. Theravada and Tibetan and Mahayana differ in this regard. Tibetan have a between lives area which is not considered valid by Theravada. In exteriorization you would, in Theravada terms, be looking for a spirit that does not exist. In mindfulness in Theravada the spirit is not considered part of the process. So you are not looking for an immortal spirit. The Buddha was silent on the issue of the spirit as he considered it pointless to talk about it. Hubbard spoke millions of words about the spirit in theory. Buddha said do not talk about the spirit. Buddha said once you find the roots of craving and blow away your defilements, you will see the truth and you thus have no need for the idea of the spirit.
                  Kind Regards,
                  GMW

                  • Yes. The Tibetan word “bardo” means “interval”. They mean it also as windows of opportunity to ge free. It is not just at death, but these can occur in the course of living. These are intervals or, usually, brief periods of transition one can seize and take advantage of to achieve some kind of change or realization. Death is one of these.
                    Buddha did not speak of many things, for good reason. He focused on what was right for his time, place, and culture, and tried to stick to the most universal truths. He wasn’t one for a lot of intellectual jibber-jabber. I consider it a fact that every culture and it’s population of the time needs to be approached in a way that communicates to it specifically. A message needs to be tailored to its particular market. I think Buddha was very aware of this, and thus his iconoclastic approach in trying to penetrate the entrenched fixed ideas of the Hindu culture of his time.

                  • George, let me make a few comments on INTERIRIZATION first.

                    (1) Hubbard says, ” interiorization means going into it too fixedly, and becoming part of it too fixedly. It doesn’t mean just going into your head. (SH Spec 84, 6612C13)”. Thus, according to this definition, one can be interiorized into the body, but one can also be interiorized into the self. Here self means “whatever one thinks one is.”

                    (3) To me Hubbard’s THETA-MEST theory and the concept of STATIC and THETAN speak of a self-centric viewpoint. This, to me, leads to an interiorization into self.

                    (4) Buddha’s Nirvana, essentially, is a release from fixation on self. At least that is how I understand it. Buddha achieved nirvana at the age of 35. He then lived up to the age of 80. During this period after nirvana, Buddha did have a body and a self, but he was simply not fixated on any of it.

                    (5) Mindfulness, to me, is the practice of looking without fixations. This automatically makes one aware of fixations that one was not aware of before. As a person gives up his fixations one by one, he moves toward nirvana, and finally achieves nirvana.

                    To me this is the simple Buddha technique. It leads to exteriorization from any fixation. This is what I have tried to explain on my blog. How does this compare to your understanding of Theravada Buddhism?

                    .

                    ________________________________

                    • I would qualify your #5 thus: To ask people to look without fixation is too steep a gradient. In the beginning of mindfullness practice one can only look and discover one’s fixations, one at a time. Continued looking could eventually release one from a fixation. It can happen quickly or slowly. Don’t forhet you ahve done a lot of TRs and had auditing so you are likely ahead of many people who might be just starting out, and you need to give them something they can do and will be encouraged by. I doubt many people can just plunge in and start looking without running into some fixations. It’s like you have said, the mind has to unstack itself layer by layer, and that is fixations coming off.
                      Best wishes, Vallkov

                      By the way, here is Amazon’s Conze page:
                      http://www.amazon.com/Edward-Conze/e/B001HCZMNA

                    • Valkov, you are right. It is a steep gradient. That is why we have to come up with mindfulness exercises that take one up on the gradient.

                      I am working on it.

                    • vinaire,
                      In theory you are correct. However, the practical application, in my opinion, creates difficulties. Even the Budddha said that his teaching would be grasped by only a few “with no dust in their eyes.” My wife and I spent over ten years working with public who wandered into our Vihara in Tampa. I was sort of a middle person between the monks and anyone who was interested in Buddhism. After ten years, we only could reach only one in one-hundred. It was not because of our theory. We had that down cold. We traced the problem to two factors:
                      1. Modern culture and technology creates a strong illusion. Even if a person is having problems, there are hundreds of ways to adventure. It is very easy for people to seek help. Those without problems are far too happy because electronics such as TV divert their attention.
                      2. The concept of “no self” is very subtle and difficult to feel, comprehend or practice. I gave many lectures to hundreds of adult and early 20’s college students. They loved our talks. The teacher would say “Wow, you got them motivated. Most wrote about Buddhism and the papers were great!” However, we never got one college student to return for advanced theory.

                      As far as the data about interiorization and exteriorization is concerned, it has been my special topic of research in the last few weeks. If you read past data on this blog, you can see the issue. OT-TR zero is confused with meditation. The benefits of OT-TR zero are real and students cling to it.
                      Mindfullness, on the other hand, techically requires “right view” to be in place.
                      Without “right view” there is no traction. “Right view” implies actual “stream entry”. The path factors are out of balance to the average public person.
                      Hubbard invented his “out/int” in a very much more simplified fashion. You just imagine that your attention is immortal and that it moves. That it is subjective is not important. Yes, Hubbard actually does interiorize beings into self but it is quite easy given the roots of lust. Framed out mindfullness based on body, feelings, mental constructs, and objects is more difficult and thus not practiced as much. In addition, you can get sensuality blasted on electronics constantly hitting a person. Then you get lack of attention and it all breaks down. The Hubbard way creates a being and keeps one into “bhava kamma” which is enjoyed in our society of plenty.

                      Kind Regards,
                      GMW

                  • GMW: “Exteriorization implies an “interval. This is difficult to translate, but it really means that you are not looking for an immortal spirit.”   I see exteriorization as “freedom from fixation.”   Here I give credit to Hubbard for this insight. But I doubt if Hubbard had this insight himself, because he didn’t pursue it all the way.

                    ________________________________

                  • GMW: ”Buddha was directly asked by the monk Sati whether there was “an interval” at death where “self” continues. The Buddha said directly that he never taught that idea.”   I can see why Buddha remained silent. My reasoning is as follows:   (1) At death both self and body disintegrate.   (2) We can understand the disintegration of body as becoming “dust”.   (3) To me disintegration of self means that the overall awareness of self is no longer there.   (4) It is like an overall computer program breaking down into sub-routines, sub-sub-routines, etc.   (5) When there is no fixation on self, and in nirvana, the self simply evaporates after death.   (6) No computer program, or its residues as sub-routines and sub-sub-routines, survives. So they do not carry over to the next body.   (7) Buddha probably couldn’t find words to explain this. There were no computers in his time.   So, George, how does this explanation compare to Theravada Buddhism?  .

                    ________________________________

                    • My understanding of this is that there are, or can be, many ‘bodies’ (‘kaya’), from gross to subtle, and they do not all disintegrate at death, by which I think you mean death of the gross physical body.

                      This is not necessarily to say these more subtle bodies are ‘immortal’, no one is arguing that. However some may be substantially more long-lasting than the gross physical body or some aspects of the ‘self’ or ‘personality’.

                      See Scientology 8-80 for ideas in this direction. Buddhism also has mention of the many different types of ‘beings’ that exist or have existed in various ‘realms’ or perhaps ‘universes’. Some are much long-lived than others. There are scales of existences, from gross to subtle. And yes they are all ‘material’ in some sense.

                    • That is correct.

                      >

                    • vinaire,
                      Your interpretation aligns with Theravada. There is one additional step which involves re-birth. The self does “evaporate” at death, but we need to account for the next life. This happens with a special type of “rel-linking kamma”. This specialized Kamma contains a package of good and bad deeds in a balance. The computer anaolgy is correct as I spent over 20 years as a computer programmer. I consider Buddha to be the first computer programmer. At any rate, this Kamma is like salt in a glass of water. The more salt, the more you taste it. The more water, the better.
                      This re-linking is a highly specialized area which has also been covered in higher teachings. Some of these are disputed as to authenticity so I won’t cover them here.
                      GMW

                  • GMW: ”Tibetan have a between lives area which is not considered valid by Theravada.”

                    My reasoning is as follows:

                    (1) At death both self and body disintegrate.

                    (2) The body may ultimately disintegrate into molecules and atoms.

                    (3) The self may ultimately disintegrate into electromagnetic patterns in space.

                    (4) These atoms, molecules and electromagnetic patterns come together to make a new body and a new self.

                    (5) A new body and self are very basic as patterns. They then grow by absorbing both material and patterns from its environment. But the basic pattern always remains there.

                    (6) There is a between-lives area in terms of atoms, molecules and basic electromagnetic patterns. But there are no “souls” that compare to the living “selves”.

                    (7) The self also disintegrates after death and does not survive as soul. There is no immortal self or soul.

                    So, George, how does this explanation compare to Theravada Buddhism?

                    • vinaire,
                      ” (6) There is a between-lives area in terms of atoms, molecules and basic electromagnetic patterns. But there are no “souls” that compare to the living “selves”.”

                      In Theravada we have spirit realms of impermanent gods, ghosts, and other very, very strange beings. This is sort of a “waiting area” which cannot be considered “between lives”. Some of this is also disputed, but Buddha talked about a few specific cases. These spirits are blended from various proportions of matter and “mind”. You basically get immaterial spirits with a primitive consciousness. In Theravada, most of these spirits are at a serious disadvantage without a full human mind.
                      These “beings” can actually change realms. Remember the fairy tale of the princess and the frog who turns into the prince? That is ancient Buddhism at work. There are “selves” in the spirit realm but they are impermanent. A Buddha can communicate with a few of these higher beings.
                      The average person is too low on the scale.
                      The concept of “no soul” in Theravada must be seen in its negative form as really a “working construct”. That is to say, it is not something to discuss in theory. It is, no soul, a practical method which is a “characteristic” of existence.

                      GMW

                  • GMW: ” In exteriorization you would, in Theravada terms, be looking for a spirit that does not exist. In mindfulness in Theravada the spirit is not considered part of the process. So you are not looking for an immortal spirit.”

                    That is correct.

                    In exteriorization there is simply an absence of fixation. It has nothing to with immortality of spirit.
                    .

                    • To me, this is not an inaccurate statement. I don’t understand how the two ideas came to be so A=Aed in your thinking. I would say you are correct. ‘Exteriorization’ does not necessarily have anything to do with ‘immortality of the spirit”.

                      I had no clue you were considering them as related. Is this one of the items we have been arguing about? I have never considered them as synonymous or intertwined. THey are two distinct and separate issues and need to be discussed separately.

                    • I am being asked by Marildi and Brian about “who” is exteriorizing.

                      That is a fixation on an immortal spirit.

                  • GMW: ”The Buddha was silent on the issue of the spirit as he considered it pointless to talk about it. Hubbard spoke millions of words about the spirit in theory. Buddha said do not talk about the spirit. Buddha said once you find the roots of craving and blow away your defilements, you will see the truth and you thus have no need for the idea of the spirit.”

                    I can see why. the model created with form and essence explains it very well. When form is gone, the essence is gone too.

                    There is no “absolute spirit” that remains.

                    http://vinaire.me/2014/02/23/self-learning/

                    .

                  • “The Buddha said directly that he never taught that idea.” I like this. Buddha meant what he said. He did not say, “there is no interval”. He did not say “there is interval”. He said “I do not teach that”, or “I never teach that idea”. Why? Because Buddha taught only release from suffering. The existence of intervals, the existence of “spirit”, the immortality or lack of immortality, all were irrelevant to what he was teaching. They were all things ‘not needed to be known’ in order to obtain the results, the benefits, of his teaching. These other issues are just distractions I find it amazing how often I find LRH echoing similar sentiments, to Gotama Buddha’s.

                    Thanks for posting that!

                    • Hi Valkov,
                      I think Buddha’s silence on so many issues is one of the reasons the message survived for 2,600 years. Buddha also talked about the “Middle Way” and this has survived the centuries as well.

                      GMW

                • Yes, mindfullness and exteriorization are two different animals. Although I think it is quite possible that practicing mindfullness, at some point one might experience an exteriorization, from the body or from some aspect or part of the mind.

                  Mindfullness is an exercise or practice, apparently very similar to Gurdjieff/Ouspensky’s exercise of “self-remembering”, which I believe traces back to Buddhist sources. Also their general pitch, that focuses on man’s lack of permanent and continuous ego, will, and consciousness, seems very Buddhist derived.

                  There’s a lot more to say about the concept of ‘exteriorization’, but LRH did seem to focus on what seems to me to be a specialized aspect – that of position and relationship to the body. I can’t deny that ‘attachment’ to a body is a major factor in man’s psychology, then and now.

                  • I don’t think that Hubbard had the right definition of exteriorization. His defintion was extremely narrow and self-centric.

                    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310633

                    • I may be agreeable to stating that LRH did focus on a thetan’s relationship with, and interiorization into, a body, but that is a very specialized case of the word. In fact Buddha emphasized it just as much, because what else does “escaping the cycle of birth and death” that beings were compulsively engaged upon even in his time deal with except ‘attachment’ (interiorization) into a body, or association with a body?

                      From lectures and writings, it is clear to me that the general concept of “exteriorization” has to do with a being’s compulsive attachment to any kind of physical or mental mass or construct. This does not contradict your notion of ‘self’ as being a possible point of attachment/interiorization. My point is that this is how LRH viewed it; the focus on the body or ‘self’ as a possible ‘problem’ is not different than Buddha’s.

                      Earlier I posted the example of a chess game, and how one can interiorize or exteriorize around different viewpoints, as one player or the other, or as one viewing the game objectively, or in an interested way if one is betting on the outcome of the game. I believe it is from Fundamentals of Thought.

                      It is an excellent example of interiorization/exteriorization and how it relates to the scale of other, self, and pan-determinism.

                      The fact is, in order to transcend, one must first be able to be, however briefly, that which one wishes to transcend. There is no sneaking around it!🙂

                    • I like the first definition of INTERIORIZATION in the Tech Dictioary. I see exteriorization as opposite of that.

                      To me that is more meaningful.

                • For anyone interested, there is a pretty good overview of the world of Buddhism here, with a lot of follow-up links. This discusses the differences between the older and newer ‘scriptures’ of Buddhism. All pretty much agree on which ones are the basic scriptures. But even those were not written down until 300-400 years after Buddha passed. Eventually Buddhism developed many branches and schools – in scientology terms, there was divergence, splintering, and squirreling. Most of these are under the umbrella of “mahayana buddhism”, but they are pretty diverse. Tibet alone has 4 major schools. The main difference between the central Mahayana teachings and the Theravadan, that I am aware of, is in Mahayana there is a greater focus on the 3rd and 4th dynamics, in the concept of Bodhisattva service, while the among the Theravadans the focus is on individual salvation. Perhaps George can correct me if I’m wrong.

                  • val,
                    “The main difference between the central Mahayana teachings and the Theravadan, that I am aware of, is in Mahayana there is a greater focus on the 3rd and 4th dynamics, in the concept of Bodhisattva service, while the among the Theravadans the focus is on individual salvation. Perhaps George can correct me if I’m wrong.”

                    This is a fair statement while making comparisons.
                    Buddha was criticized for not looking at the third and fourth dynamics even during his lifetime. In actual fact, about 25,000 people were killed in an attack on his hometown. Buddha was silent when he heard the news. Buddha responded to his critics by saying that each individual needed to dig deep into his or her mind. In the end, the one-by-one works best. Remember Buddhist time in long, long, and longer. There have been attempts in the Theravada school over the centuries to remedy this. They center on the application of the principles of greed, hatred, and delusion into a sort of “3rd and 4th dynamic mind”. Scholars follow a few threads scattered in some of the Discourses. In addition, Buddhist cosmology is extensive but some of the Suttas are of doubtful origin so it is not worth it to quote them. At any rate, we get a picture of a very compassionate Buddha in regard to families, nations, and mankind. I don’t think the Buddha would be in the Tea Party today.
                    The major split into Mahayana from Theravada centered on the idea of how to be a Buddha. In the Theravada school, it is not necessary to be a Buddha to be a saint. The major disciples of the Buddha had psychic powers to varying degrees based on their past Karma or Kamma. None had all of the powers of the Buddha which were quite extensive. The devas or spirit gods pose an even greater challenge. In Mahayana there are powerful gods which are not even considered in Theravada. In Theravada these spirits are impermanent and even quite foolish.
                    There is a lot of disagreement about Buddhism. On the other hand, I have been honored by a few people in giving me recently Yoga instructions and Yoga philosophy. It is actually closer to Theravada than Mahayana. I really enjoyed it and wish to thank them.
                    Mahayana Buddhists like to call Theravada “the smaller vessel”. This is actually accepted by us because it implies focus. It would not be accurate to say that Theravadins focus on “personal salvation” because there is no self to save. I had an extensive conversation with a Tibetan monk on this subject. Tibetans are a unique blend of Buddhism.
                    I am perfectly happy with Hubbard’s statement when I interpret it as “Buddha enslaved beings”. This is actually quite accurate. I do object to the wording which says “Hubbard saw a half-truth.” The key is in the Buddhist notion of beings. Hubbard had this permanent idea while we do not. It is a mistake to get into the idea of half-truth. It leads nowhere and it is not in any way scientific. I conclude that Hubbard said basically that “Buddha enslaved beings.” It makes more sense from a balanced point of view and is in no way offensive. It is what I get out of what he said from my viewpoint.
                    Kind Regards,
                    George M. White

                    • Thank you Mr. White! I appreciate your taking the time to reply. I am aware of the extensive mythologies and symbologies that have accrued to Mahayana Buddhism, it is much like the external rituals developed in the Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches, as a means of impressing the teachings on the masses of people, without necessarily addressing their rational understanding. I think there may be valid ‘technical’ reasons for the ‘building out’ of the external forms of a religion to include these kind of things; any population is very diverse in their levels of being and understanding. Some receive best on level of symbols, some on a more intellectual, or more emotional level.
                      I have been a Buddhist in the past; I do not consider myself a Theravadan nor a Tibetan. I consider myself a ‘concordance builder’ or concordance finder. This is because I have come to feel that external teachings are all “approximations” (thanks Vinnie) of the truth. They point towards the basic truth of life, but are not literally that truth, in the sense that “the map is not the territory. I think Buddha was wise to realize if one says too much, some will fall into error as a result. Happens all too easily! You know this. That’s why I particularly appreciate that you talk with us at all.
                      All the talk about ‘scriptures is in the end just talk. One must ‘walk the walk’ to give it meaning, whether one does ‘self-remembering’, TR0, mindfulness, or even chanting or yoga.
                      I do not understand Scientology in entirely the same way that Vinnie does, or perhaps that you do, but that is because it really is because, as Dalai Lama says, we “retain our individuality” as we move on up. I see no conflict between what he believes and what you believe, what Vin believes or what I believe. We see truth through the filters of our own individualities, use different words at times, and get confused at times about different things. What is important is what we perceive directly, not what we say about it.

                      It is like the words from the Tao Te King – the dharma that can be spoken is not the true dharma. (It is an approximation. Some approximations are perhaps a little better than others, different approximations are better understood by different people and by different types of people.)

                      Personally, I interpret LRH’s criticism of Buddha as being no more than what you said came his way in his own lifetime. Like a later missionary whining and complaining about the previous one not quite finishing the job! I can only imagine how LRH feels now. Evidently he himself felt he had failed, towards the end of his life. Perhaps now the next one will complain about the job LRH did! 🙂 As you said, “the long long view”.

                      Well I didn’t mean to give a Sermon from the Mount! Sometimes the words just keep rolling. Thanks again for the detailed response!
                      Peace! Elliott Snow, posting as Valkov. (This was the name I was born to.)

                    • GMW: ”Buddha was criticized for not looking at the third and fourth dynamics even during his lifetime. In actual fact, about 25,000 people were killed in an attack on his hometown. Buddha was silent when he heard the news. Buddha responded to his critics by saying that each individual needed to dig deep into his or her mind.”

                      My conclusion is that Buddhism is the psychology of getting unfixated. If people are unfixated on the first dynamic then unfixation on the rest of the dynamics would follow automatically.

                      Unfixation on first dynamic makes the person become reality-centric. He is more in tune with the reality. He is more compassionate. He is more likely to come up with optimum solutions when he is not fixated on self and no longer thinking in terms of the survival of self. That is the key.

                      Hubbard talks about optimizing one’s actions by taking all eight dynamics into consideration. But this is not possible as long as one is looking through the filter of self.

                      .

                    • Sure, sure. One must transcend the self, these days everybody knows that…. 🙂

                    • GMW: ”In addition, Buddhist cosmology is extensive but some of the Suttas are of doubtful origin so it is not worth it to quote them.”

                      This has been the problem with all scriptures – the determination of whether they are genuine or not. But even when the scriptures are proved to be genuine, the problem of interpretation arises. The followers try to get into the mind of their founder. But this is impossible.

                      There is a Buddhist saying, “If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!” This saying is very germane to the present discussion. One cannot discover the truth by depending on the thinking of the founder.

                      The truth is discovered by giving up all fixation on self, including fixation on the self of the founder.

                      So what is the criterion of realizing the truth?

                      Truth lies in the consistency and coherency of all reality.

                      And this is the dimension that Subject Clearing takes one in.

                      http://vinaire.me/2014/05/01/subject-clearing/

                      .

                    • Here is an intelligent article on “killing the Buddha”:
                      http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2903Itemid=247

                      Here is my proposed Axiom #1: Giving up fixations is irrelevant.

                    • GMW: ”The major split into Mahayana from Theravada centered on the idea of how to be a Buddha. In the Theravada school, it is not necessary to be a Buddha to be a saint. The major disciples of the Buddha had psychic powers to varying degrees based on their past Karma or Kamma. None had all of the powers of the Buddha which were quite extensive. The devas or spirit gods pose an even greater challenge. In Mahayana there are powerful gods which are not even considered in Theravada. In Theravada these spirits are impermanent and even quite foolish.”

                      To focus on the powers, psychic or otherwise, is foolish. It only adds to the fixation on self. I do not think that Buddha ever bragged about his powers. Those fixations on personal powers of Buddha are the aberrations of the followers.

                      Reality is what it is. Fixation on any part of reality is just as aberrative as fixation on self. All filters that distort the perception of reality are made up of fixations.

                      Buddhism is the psychology of getting unfixated.

                      .

                    • GMW: ”I am perfectly happy with Hubbard’s statement when I interpret it as “Buddha enslaved beings”. This is actually quite accurate. I do object to the wording which says “Hubbard saw a half-truth.” The key is in the Buddhist notion of beings.”

                      For me, it is not a matter of being happy or unhappy. I am basically concerned with consistency and coherency. Buddha, as a self, doesn’t matter. Buddha, as a self, needs to be killed. It is knowledge, which Buddha imparted, which matters. And even in that knowledge, it is consistency and coherency that matters.

                      Hubbard was self-centric. He was critical of Buddha in order to boost up his own self. Just on this ground Hubbard was foolish. He never studied in detail the knowledge contained in Buddhism. His ignorance of Buddhism is pretty obvious.

                      In the end, it is the result that matters. Hubbard counted his chickens before they were hatched. Now Hubbard’s chickens are hatching, and the scene is not very pretty.

                      .

                    • I think you re too fixated on selves – Buddha’s self, Hubbard’s self, those two for starters.

                      It is possible Hubbard did not study Buddhism in depth. After all, that apparently takes most people more than one lifetime. LRH didn’t have the time to do that. But you know who studies Buddhism? Those who do not study reality and truth directly. Buddhism is a via. Scientology is also a via.
                      LRH studied reality directly, Buddha also studied reality directly. Each then spoke of what he saw, in his own words. Obnosis is another word for mindfulness.
                      Sir, put down your laptop and step away slowly. Step away from your laptop. Go out and look.

                    • For some reason, Valkov, you and Marildi sound very much alike at times. There is something very interesting here that I have yet to put my finger on. There is some not-isness going on here. 

                      ________________________________

                    • “There is some not-isness going on here.”

                      Maybe on your part?

                    • Refusal to discuss. Attack! Classic violation of Discussion Policy.

                    • Mark N Roberts

                      George wrote.
                      “I don’t think the Buddha would be in the Tea Party today.”

                      This says far more about you than you realize.
                      Mark

                  • I do not think that agreement equates to truth. There are so many interpretations of Buddhism floating around that one wonders what true Buddhism is.

                    It is time for Subject Clearing and not for merely reading more interpretations and choosing those with which one can agree.🙂

                    http://vinaire.me/2014/05/01/subject-clearing/
                    .

                    • NO. You are misunderstanding me. Is it willful? The basic Canons, the Pali Cannons for example, are the same for all Buddhists. There is no picking and choosing in that way. The Buddhist scriptures are a lot like the Christian Bible, accumulated over time. The basic documents are the same throughout. There rest of the Christian New Testament are commentaries by people who came later. So it is with Buddhism. Theravadists study the basic scriptures, and place no credence in the later ‘scriptures’ that Mahayanists consider just as important. It is kinda like the ‘apocrypha’ of the Christians, christian documents, but not “straight from the horse’s mouth.” Though in truth, all the Buddhist scriptures were written down long after the Buddha passed, not in his lifetime. That is actually one reason I continue to listen to LRH lectures – I think we have a unique opportunity to hear a founder of such a teaching in the original language, not relying on the accuracy of the memories of others, and on translations from other languages which are no longer spoken. And already it is being alter-ised, by the very ‘church’ that is supposed to be the guardians, as well as by those who cherry-pick to please their own egos.

                      AS marildi pointed out, the lectures George received were apparently seriously altered. Not that I’m saying George would agree with what LRH said there, even in the original, unaltered words. He might not. But that’s not the issue.

                    • No problem Vinnie, if you want to know what ‘true Buddhism’ is, just ask me! 🙂

                    • I shall certainly do that. And then I shal subject clear what you tell me.🙂

                    • Good grief! My post is not about the relative truth of agreements, but that Buddhists all use the same basic scriptures, whatever their particular sect.

                    • Vin, for a good grounding in Buddhism, try Edward Conze. His books are still available through Amazon and maybe some as free PDFs online. He set the standard for translation of Buddhist texts into English. He had a talent for languages and reputedly had learned 14(!) languages by the time he was 24 years old, including Sanskrit. He did translate the Diamond Sutra, too.

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

                    • Valkov, I am using Subject Clearing to understand the various concepts of Buddhism. If I have a question I shall ask you or George.🙂

                      ________________________________

              • vinaire,
                Thanks for the kind words. I must claify that I do not consider myself a teacher. I like to discuss Buddhism because my wife and I have invested a lot of time in study.
                The Buddha talked about people who learn the teaching and then sort of wrap it into their ego. This is what I try to avoid. I am passing through that stage at present.

                GMW

                • George,
                  To me, the teacher is within each person. Buddha’s teacher was within him. Your teacher is within you. My teacher is within me.

                  The teacher is the application of mindfulness.

                  I look at you as an excellent person to compare notes with.🙂

                  Vinaire

            • The Overt doth speak loudly…That is exactly what he tried to do to everyone who ever walked in to a “church”

              • Good perceptive catch Summerwind.

                • What was? That LRH tried to enslave everyone?

                  • No it was that he committed an overt. That was how I understood Summerwind’s comment. I am not of the opinion that LRH never committed an overt of any kind. Given the ethical dilemmas he was faced with, I think more than once he may have decided that it was likely to be for the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics that he commit this act or that act.
                    Ethical dilemmas are real, they can and do really occur, putting a person between a rock and a hard place. One of the classics is the medical dilemma of a woman having a difficult birth, but the doctors can save only the mother or the child, not both. Subjectively there will be a perceived overt in the outcome, of letting one of them die. Creating a heavy-handed church may be perceived as entailing the (justified)suffering of some people in the future, because of a possible greater good. I don’t think LRH was exempt from this “karma”. I don’t think he himself felt he was exempt. I think that might have something to do with why he let himself die the way he did, and spoke of having ‘failed’. I think LRH suffered a lot.

                    • Okay, got it. Summerwind was replying to George’s comment that LRH said “Buddha enslaved beings,” and Summerwind’s reply was, “That is exactly what he [LRH] tried to do.to who ever walked into a ‘church.'” I didn’t think you would agree with that – and I see that you don’t.

                      In fact, what you wrote was one of the most compassionate posts about LRH I’ve read. And I concur – with that and with the other topics you’ve commented on in this thread. Some are pretty funny, too! Glad you are here, Val.🙂

                    • Actually, besides being compassionate about LRH, what you wrote was insightful as well. Not too many people have taken such a broad-minded point of view.

          • Mark N Roberts

            Vin.
            From 8-8008
            ““One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals.”

            My viewpoint. As I have explained before. Individuals are distinctly individual units, separate and self determined. You are you and no one else.

            Individuals are one imagined and pretended viewpoint of life, Theta, Cosmic Consciousness, etc. Separation of individuals are invented and practiced barriers put up by life, seeking randomity.

            Individuals are both, completely and fully. To deny either one is an error which has already been exposed in Scn. and some parts of eastern philosophies. The effects of following either, alone is well documented.

            In my paper “Control” I made one statement: “A lower form of affinity was established.” Such occurs when one considers that all individuals are completely separate. One becomes aware of only his own consciousness, cannot detect or conceive of consciousness in others. With no ‘connection’ with others, self becomes the only thing that is really real. Others become lower forms of life. That others can really be harmed becomes unreal. They are just MEST to him.

            With complete and total ‘Oneness’ comes an unreality of self. A type of happy apathy can ensue. (I said ‘CAN’, not will or does.) An individual can sink into an attitude of ‘I’m just a pawn in the big game of life’. My opinions, desires, goals are not really real. Or worse, everyone’s bank, case, track etc, is my bank, we are all really just one. I am MEST. Overwhelm, cave in.

            It is not 50/50. It is 100/100. This is a concept that must eventually ‘click’ for an individual.
            My observation.
            Mark

        • I have gone through the same process as you have here, George, and concluded just as you have.

          And I would like to show that, for the record, this is a completely unpaid endorsement of GMW’s views here, as he has expressed them on Marty’s blog.

          Alanzo

        • Very thoughtful George. I always enjoy your take.

        • Wow, George,
          Thank you for your answer to Marilidi.

    • Allow me to answer.. Madman…

  5. Great to see that you read that book, Marty.

    It answered so many questions for me about the frame of mind I was in when I was choosing a spiritual path for myself in the early 1980’s. Christianity made no sense to me at all, and I did not believe that putting faith in priests and minsters and the Bible was ever going to get me anywhere, let alone be my “salvation”.

    I love how she compares the text of John to Mathew, Mark, and Luke, and shows the radical departure that text is from the rest. And then she shows WHY John was entered into the canon, and clears up so many more questions I’ve always had.

    That book clarified so much, and it explained why Christianity made no sense to me. Because, as it has been presented, and without knowing its true history, Christianity does not make any sense!

    Hey – here’s a great companion movie to go with that book starring my movie girlfriend Rachel Wiesz. It shows the Greeks, the Romans, the Christians and the Jews, all mixing it up in Alexandria around the time period of that book’s history.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_15

    Alanzo

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for the recommendation. I’m still in progress on it.

      • Also there is a documentary feature film I scored called Jesus in India. Dr. Pagels was one of the stellar individuals that was interviewed regarding Jesus and his alledged journey to India in the missing years.

        For those who are not aware; all four gospels give an account of Jesus from birth up until he was 12. Then nothing, nada, zip for 18 years when he arrives on the scene with John the Baptist at age 30.

        All four gospels the same. Think about that. The majority of his life missing. I believe Constantine and the Nicean council destroyed the evidence that Jesus travelled to India along the Silk Road.

        There is strong evidence he traveled to India. But they crushed the evidence because it did not fit the narrative of him as an “only way” and allowed Rome to crush any dissent against Constantine and the power of the church.

        Jesus in India by Paul David’s, the one distributed by Universal.

        Jesus was a yogi.

        • Brian,

          The other way to look at the gospels is that the stories were allegoric, not historical. Story telling was the favored medium for teaching spirituality, not only for the Gnostics but for all of the main religions and mystery cults in the Greco-Roman world.

          It is been reported that there were well over sixty gospel known by name.

          One clue when you look at the gospels, is that they read like theatre scripts, they are put together in a play format moving from scene to scene, leaving gaps in between. So there is no real chronological continuity to the main character and accompanying actors.

          That is also true for the mysteries of all the religions at the time. All of the cults were in fierce competition for attention and their pageants were the second favorite public entertainment after the Roman Circus.

          The public enactment of the mysteries of every religion was very much part of Roman life, knowledge of which the Christians went to great lengths to conceal, as they were bent in proving how totally hedonistic and materialistic the romans were.

          Also the Council on Nicaea was a congregation of every religion and cult of the empire, not only of Christian sects, as you could barely recognize Christianity at that time, as the Gnostics sects for the most part did not believe in an historical Jesus. That also was cleverly spun by the Christians to present the idea that the romans were falling head over heels for their cult.

          Scientologists will do better at researching the collapse of the Greco-Roman civilization, brought about by the Christian religious psychotics, circa 300-600 A.D. than trying to run “basic- basic” with the OT III incident. Which by all accounts proved useless in preventing Scientologists being entrapped by Hubbard and his cult.

          D.M. Murdock, aka Acharya S. has amassed a wealth of information on this and has devoted her life to deconstructing Christianity as well as other monotheistic cults.

          http://truthbeknown.com/

        • Let me ad to this, that there are scholarly folk who believe the New Testament was intentionally written to tie into the Old Testament as its “fullfilment”. This was done by making sure the story of Jesus in the 4 Gospels ‘dovetailed’ with prophecies made in the Old Testament, ‘proving’ him to be the prophesied ‘messiah’, Savior. AS Vinnie might say, the story was constructed to be ‘consistent’ with the Old Testament prophecies. It was edited to remove ‘inconsistecies’. I’m not enough of a Biblical scholar to say, but I have read such theories.` Tome the interesting point is that religious organizations can be consciously constructed with a view to fulfilling certain functions; unfortunately often this seems to be for political purposes of controlling populations, rather than for enlightening them and truly making their lives better.

          • Valkov,

            Thanks. Yes, my understanding is that the name Jesus is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew Joshua:

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/joshua?s=t

            The religious/political cabal misappropriated the Talmud, to provide an historical background for their New Testament godman.
            Joshua was the mythical hero that had delivered the wandering Jews to the Promised Land, when Moses failed. His return was prophesized in the Old Testament and so Jesus was made to fulfill that “historical” role.

            Anyway, I don’t want to derail this blog with the historicity of the gospels. My point is that people need to understand mythical constructs and realize that they have often been used to enslave.

            Which I think was the point that you made:

            “To me the interesting point is that religious organizations can be consciously constructed with a view to fulfilling certain functions; unfortunately often this seems to be for political purposes of controlling populations, rather than for enlightening them and truly making their lives better.”

            • Yes, that was my point. I do think LRH started out trying to control people for what he saw as good ends, not simply for the sake of enslaving them for his own enrichment, although he wanted that too. That’s what I meant by his trying to “kill about 4 birds with one stone”. I do think he created a product(auditing tech) to exchange which he hoped and believed would benefit the greatest number of people who used it; he then set about trying to establish a lasting network of organizations to sell and deliver this tech. I don’t believe the ‘official’ CoS does sell or deliver this tech much at all now.
              I do believe LRH felt he and his family deserved something for the time and effort invested, and I can’t say I feel he was wrong in this.

    • Hey thanks Al, I wasn’t aware of that movie. Hopefully I can stream it through Netflix!

    • Here is the movie AGORA

      .

    • Thanks Alanzo, I’ll check the movie.

  6. knatherthomas

    It seems to me that scientology whether viewed as a science, religion or scam is fully its own thing. The use of Christian religious terms (scripture, liturgy) thrusts scientology into a religious comfort zone where it does not belong. LRH’s mandate early on was to be subversive within society because it was essentially rotten to the core and a new “society” needed to be brought forth via planetary clearing. Over time this has appealed to various rebels or as LRH liked to call us, oddballs. We looked to the tech to eradicate the reactive mind, first in ourselves and then in the world at large. The war against the reactive mind has since morphed into a war against all people and things other than “official” scientology. It is a pathetic affair for those who want to keep playing “I know something you don’t know.”

    • martyrathbun09

      I disagree about that comfort zone. I believe the truth of its monotheistic religious nature is something that it takes great pains – and millions in propaganda – to disown. They wear that glove only to court, but in the marketplace of ideas they eschew it like the plague.

      • Axiom #1 is the “Unmoved Mover” of Aristotle and “Uncaused Cause” of St Thomas Aquinas. It is the God of Christianity and the enticing “God individuality” of Scientology that one can attain through OT Levels.

        • Sorry Vin, no matter how I turn this around and around, I can’t see it that way. The very defintion contradicts what you are saying:

          Axiom #1. LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.
          “DEFINITION: A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no
          location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.”

          You seem to be personalizing something that has no personality, that is defined in terms of what it is NOT, and what it does not have. It is exterior to everything we can know and perceive.

          “Soil has the ability to absorb water”. That seems like a pretty impersonal, objective statement to me. I’m posting it bcause I think one of the problematic words might be “ability”, which is leading some to personalize “Static” in ways unintended by LRH. Static is better described as “neither personal nor impersonal”, or “both personal and impersonal”. The mainpoint is, it is not basically in the universe, although the universe may be in it. This actually accords with Hindu cosmology, excpt hat happened there is, the fundamental abstract concept of “Brahma” got reified. NOw it seems to be happening with the concept of Static, which is pointed to largely by saying what, where, who and how it is NOT.

          • From, http://vinaire.me/2012/10/25/scientology-axiom-1/

            However, Axiom #1 uses the article “a” before Static. It further assigns the abilities “to postulate and to perceive” to Life Static. In THE PHOENIX LECTURES, Hubbard states:

            “This is a peculiar and particular static, having these properties…”

            When describing THETA-MEST THEORY in SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008, Hubbard states:

            “In Scientology, the static is represented by the mathematical symbol theta; the kinetic is called MEST. Theta can be the property or beingness of any individual and is, for our purposes, considered to be individualistic for each individual.”

            The Life Static expresses itself through individuality…”
            ..

            • So the word “a” is used? How is this relevant to your thesis? Here is what “a” means:

              a
              ā,ə/Submit
              determiner
              1.
              used when referring to someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation.
              “a man came out of the room”
              “a hundred”
              one single; any.
              “I simply haven’t a thing to wear”
              used when mentioning the name of someone not known to the speaker.
              “a Mr. Smith telephoned”
              someone like (the name specified).
              “you’re no better than a Hitler”
              2.
              used to indicate membership of a class of people or things.

              • ‘a’ is an indefinite article. It makes Static ‘something’.

                • You literally think because the nature of the language classifies existnc as objects and actions,(nouns and verbs), that what is refered to literally becomes a “noun” in real life? ‘Neti, neti’ is saying that there is ‘something’ that is neither a verb nor a noun….. Static is neither a verb nor a noun….. ‘Theta’ is fundamentally neither a verb nor a noun. Perhaps an analogy might be ‘light’, which according to some physicists is both a wave and a particle, or neither a wave nor a particle…..

                  • “Neti, neti” to me means the following.

                    Anything that one can be aware of cannot be absolute.

                    You are making ‘Static’ an absolute by claiming that everything that exists comes from the Static.

                    • This is a completely arbitrary ‘axiom’ you have posted in bold, there. So, what kind of universe can you, will you, build on that basis?

      • knatherthomas

        Are we actually in disagreement? My contention is that scientology is not a bona fide religion. It is not monotheistic in a traditional sense. Although in fact it is monotheistic in that it’s from a single source. That source being LRH. Scientology is supposed to be based wholly on the writings and lectures of LRH, but with all the never ending editing that’s been going on since the 80s who what LRH actually said is being hidden or altered. The Phoenix lectures are a good example. The cassette version has lectures covering how to run Op Pro by Dup in great detail. These lectures are conspicuously missing from the current CD set.

        To me using phrases that legitimize scientology as a religion is erroneous. The CofS calls LRH’s works “scripture.” It isn’t scripture, it’s policy, technical bulletins, directives, advices, etc.. Calling it scripture gives the CofS their religious comfort zone which allows them to cloak themselves in the First Amendment. What a bunch of hooey!

        • What you are seeing is the “Council of Nicaea” for Scientology preparing the future scriptures.  

          ________________________________

        • martyrathbun09

          I think you are talking about an organization. My post addresses a belief system. Whether the latter is ‘legitimate’ or not is not a permissible inquiry under the First Amendment. The only inquiry that is permissible in such a legal analysis is, ‘do they sincerely believe it?’ If people have led you to believe scientology will ever not be cloaked by the First Amendment, you have been misled. Those who take such absolutist, uncompromising positions are a distraction at best in real life struggles involving the rights of those abused by scientology organizations. Scientology organizations want desperately to keep the fact that it does devolve into a faith, belief, mythology system the higher one goes out of the public’s awareness. To put it there front and center, ask you daughter (who is more qualified than either of us to opine on this question) how scientology will fare in the marketplace of ideas in the Age of Information.

          • Hubbard’s self-deification or defecation notwithstanding, I respectfully disagree with what is otherwise a brilliant post.

            A cannibal may sincerely hold the view that he is conquering the spirit of his enemy by digesting him. Doesn’t make cannibalism a religion.

            As an individual, I am not required to consider Scientology a religion, even as I recognize that this camel’s foul snout has indeed gotten itself wedged under the tent of the First Amendment.

            A freely functioning marketplace of ideas would render First Amendment protections moot, yet Scientology’s dishonest and predatory behavior inhibit such Constitutional epiphanies.

            That it is withering on the vine before our eyes, albeit slowly, gives this Chaplain a small measure of comfort.

            Canada, France, Israel, Germany and other liberal democracies are correct in NOT viewing Scientology as a religion, and I choose to embrace their company.

  7. To Hubbard, his self was the absolute to be held above everything.

    The Axiom #1 is the testament for it.

    .

  8. Marty, it certainly is turning out that way. Ron the Father, Miscavige the Son, and the IAS the holy Ghost. Too bad. Scientology lower levels could be a useful tool in psychotherapy. What a shit storm its turned into mostly because of pride and greed.

  9. Interesting, the first thought while reading this was: arrogant. You have to degrade the ‘being helped one” (don’t respond to reason) to portray an image of someone that comes to ‘save’ you. This assumes you already decided the recipients were in bad shape (evaluation-invalidation-nullification) and they needed rescue. But not once he did ask what the other person consider he wanted to improve, change, modify or whatever.

    Add the enforcement of his words having to be followed exactly or else and you have a totally controlled group under the guise of ‘helping you’.

    One things is an honest ‘wish you well’ to another person, another is ‘you are doing bad, I am your God, you obey or go to hell if don’t’.

  10. Wow, Marty!

    I think Hubbard managed to get away with two sleight of hand tricks that turned Scientology into the perfect mouse trap.

    One was the great lengths to which he went to disguise and smoke screen the fact that he was creating a totally monotheistic, mythological based, full-fledged religious cult.

    Second, by cleverly positioning himself as the only one capable of omniscience and of relaying observations of mind and reality, thus Hubbard denied transcendence to everyone else and placed all of us into a state of dependency.

    With those two strokes Hubbard managed to accomplish what the Christian fanatics once did by denying the multiplicity of the gospels and obliterating the possibility for universal gnosis.

    High fives to the awakened ones!

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks. But, I think I will make a fairly credible showing in my next book that he – like all of us – evolved, or devolved, into this dichotomous state of affairs.

      • I’m looking forward to it Marty.
        I personally lean toward the “devolved”, as it seems to me that he got to the point of Enlightment, and then walked away from it. It truly breaks my heart.

      • Cool comment.

      • Marty wrote:

        “I think I will make a fairly credible showing in my next book that he – like all of us – evolved, or devolved, into this dichotomous state of affairs.

        This is an interesting idea, Marty.

        I have come to think that two central factors in LRH’s devolvement are the phenomena of transference and countertransference, which were a huge part of the discussion within freudian psychotherapy but which Hubbard completely ignored in developing Dianetics.

        I believe that, as cult members, we transferred our feelings of reverence and guru-esteem to Hubbard. And Hubbard, receiving these gushing feelings from Scientologists for so many years, grew himself into the cult leader who could do no wrong.

        As he created the cult, the cult created him, too.

        It could be the way every cult leader is absolutely corrupted – through their own followers transference of absolute power to him.

        Hubbard was lying to Scientologists from the beginning. But from those I knew and worked with who knew him, he was not considering himself as the only one capable of “rising above the bank” until much later on.

        Here’s an extremely provocative and infuriating (for me) documentary about a person who sets himself up as a cult leader with the idea that he would teach his “followers” that they were being silly, and what he learned about himself when he realized that he didn’t want it to stop.

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1865425/?ref_=nv_sr_1

        Alanzo

        • martyrathbun09

          Good points.

        • I don’t know if Hubbard was lying from the very beginning. I think he stumbled upon a very hot button, which proved to popular with the masses. Recognizing this, he went for it and attempted to capitalize on it. But, true to form, he embellished the hell out of it, then spent the rest of his life scrambling to stay one step ahead of the game.
          Establishing himself and the one and only true Source gave him control over his minions, and provided a way to quietly dispose of the heretics. If you can’t win the game in the real world, just create a bubble, make yourself king and define all the rules.
          I also think the escalation of embellishment and promises (e.g. Clear, Theta Clear, Cleared Theta Clear, etc), fuelled the organizational goals originally starting with making a person happy to saving the whole freaking universe. I mean, where do you go from there? No where.
          The game has run its course and cannot survive in the Information Age. All they can do is maintain the bubble and churn.

        • I am half-way through watching the movie “Kumare” here.

          http://ffilms.org/kumare-2011/

          Even though Vikram is faking a wise guru and being upfront about it, he is providing an environment that people believe to be safe, and in which they feel encouraged to go beyond the beliefs surrounding them and to look for themselves.

          I think that “look for oneself” is the key experience that Scientology provides too in the beginning. This experience is very exhilerating for someone who has been cowed down by beliefs surrounding him.

          Because of such experience one starts to trust the entity, such as, the guru, or Scientology, which made it possible for him to look.

          To then manipulate that trust is another story, which is truly the dark side.

        • I just finished watching the movie KUMARE. It is so impressive that I decided to write a blog post about it.

          http://vinaire.me/2014/07/24/kumare-an-enlightening-experiment/
          .

  11. It is frightening to imagine Scientologist in the role that Christians play in the movie Agora.

    It seems to be the same script. Scientology “theology” should rule.

  12. How Davus as a newly converted Christian struggles with the message of mercy of Christianity on one hand and the destruction of pagan Gods in the library on the other. His conditioning as a christian takes over and he fanatically participates in the destruction of pagan knowledge in the library.

    It is same script that Scientology seems to be built up on..

  13. “I am trying to do my best to do a job to bring tolerance and humanity to this planet in a very materialistic and often cruel age.”

    Yet his cruelty and materialism resulted in the removal of tolerance and humanity from his followers.

    Something he must have known but did nothing to reverse.

  14. Paul Burkhart

    It seems to me that the writing of KSW in 1965 was a turning point. Before KSW there was more of an attitude of spiritual exploration and after KSW the there was only strict Scientology and squirreling.

  15. Tom Gallagher

    “Scientology…is not a religion.”
    – L. Ron Hubbard, CREATION OF HUMAN ABILITY, 1954, p. 251

    All I can say is that Ron’s legacy is fraught with contradictions and confusions that result from a now documented megalomania. Megalomania and a Messiah Complex are akin:

    From Wikipedia:

    “A messiah complex (also known as the Christ complex or savior complex) is a state of mind in which an individual holds a belief that they are, or are destined to become, a savior. The term “messiah complex” is not addressed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), but symptoms of the disorder closely resemble those found in individuals suffering from grandiose delusions (GD) or delusions of grandeur. This form of delusional belief is most often reported in patients suffering from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Little is known about the disorder, but it is believed that as many as 10% of the population may hold similar beliefs in one form or another, though not significant enough to warrant a diagnosis. [1] Examples include Jim Jones, David Koresh and Inri Cristo.[2]”

    Sure seems to harken to the Founder with those who have eyes to see and ears to hear…………….

    • This is one possible reply to my question about how much of what LRH did was by conscious design, knowingly. I tend to see him as acting pretty knowingly, consciously trying to create certain effects, and produce certain results. I don’t think we can answer what really impelled him to set the goals for himself, that he did set. I do think we can judge to some extent, how much of what he set out to achieve he failed at, and how much he succeeded at accomplishing.

      I sum it up as, in a few decades he evidently codified “the tech” and managed in just two decades to create and establish a worldwide network of ‘churches’ that were supposed to be, and initially were in practice, delivery centers for this ‘tech’.

      It appears to me it went askew because he was trying to kill about four different birds with one stone, if I may squirrel that old saying.

      I think as for any entrepreneur, the elephant he birthed eventually got too big for one man to manage. That would seem to be inevitable down the line for any enterprise.

      • “…how much of what LRH did was by conscious design, knowingly.”

        Val, I think that’s a good question. In this Study Tape lecture way back in 1962, LRH seems to have stated the rationale behind a viewpoint that time was of the essence (emphasis in caps is mine):

        “Very few of you ever give a long look to Scientology, you leave that up to me to a marked degree. Well, thank you; but when I look in the crystal ball and look up the line a century I can see a number of pictures presenting themselves, a number of aspects of what might come of all this. And don’t think you can fire a shot of this volume and magnitude in a planet of this type without creating an effect. It might be a slow effect, just to the degree, you see, that it is practical. ITS SPEED ACTUALLY IS DETERMINED NOT BY THE INERTIA OF THE MASSES BUT BY THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT YOU’RE DOING. And you can’t let go of something like this in a society or a world of this type or size without having repercussions that don’t just go up a century. They’ll be still racketing up the line until this planet is a billiard ball.

        “Now, it might become a billiard ball sooner than you think. But not all of you will forget Scientology even if you go to another planet. So you see we’ve never fired this shot silently or without effect, you see?

        “I’m not degrading what you, yourself, as one person can do. But IF YOU’RE GOING TO DO THE JOB FULLY AND WHOLLY OR DO THE JOB EFFECTIVELY, THEN THE JOB WILL BE DONE RATHER SWIFTLY; AND IN DOING THE JOB RELATIVELY FAST YOU SAVE MANY OF THE CATACLYSMIC ASPECTS OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THE ENTRANCE UPON THIS SCENE OF SCIENTOLOGY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE MORE RAPIDLY YOU DO IT THE BETTER THE JOB IS DONE. IT’S JUST LIKE AUDITING A PC.

        “You see in one PC the world at large, you see? He is the microcosm and the world is the macrocosm; and you see that what is happening to a PC – you know that if you audit him slowly and poorly he makes thuhh, and he goes duhhh, and he gets a little bit better and in about two or three days he says, ”Well, maybe I’ll make it. Maybe I’ll bla-bla-blah …” and all of a sudden he doesn’t feel so well, and so on; he didn’t get much of a result and he slows down and goes into third gear, and he puts it all on the back burner, and so forth. Well, those fits and starts would be the fits and starts of the track of the civilization in which we live if we did not approach this problem effectively and do it with fair effectiveness.

        “And part of that effectiveness is make enough auditors…’

        (from “Training: Duplication,” 24 Jan ’62)

        • Thanks mar. Didn’t he define “power” as “speed of particle flow” or something like that?

          • Oh, that’s right. The tape excerpt elaborates on the “fits and starts” aspect, but the general principle about power would seem to be the simplicity. Maybe that was “the method to his madness.”

  16. Tom Gallagher

    Examples include Jim Jones, David Koresh and Inri Cristo.

    I think we can also add COB since he’s only following ‘policy’.

  17. Great post, Marty, sorry if this reply seems a bit non-sequitur but I didn’t have time to more than skim the other comments.

    In reference to the Elaine Pagels’ take on scripture, she has good points but is not really a university-level scholar, more of a popularizer. A lot of her points are a bit over-simplified. For the really down dirty on it I always go to Bart Ehrman, especially his college text called “The New Testament”. I found a copy at the CC berthing under the bed when I was still in the SO, read it and went on to study quite a few of his other books and other authors. While it is true that there were many flavors of Christianity in the early days, and it is hard to discern which one, if any, really reflects the true teachings of Jesus, you can fall back on the principle of love as the real take-away and you won’t go far wrong. 1 Cor 13, which seemingly really was written by Paul, at least very likely a contemporary of Jesus. “For now we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away…So now faith, hope and love abide, these three, but the greatest of these is love.” The Greek word agape used here is more like loving-kindness or brotherly love, sometimes translated as “charity”. When someone asks you to hate in Jesus’ name, you know he doesn’t know Jesus.

    As far as Scientology being monotheistic, well only if Ron thought he was God. The whole idea of the Big Three monotheistic religions is that we are less than God, created and sub-creators, not Creators. This was one of the hardest things to “get” when I first got out and started going to Christian church – They do expect miracles and “OT Phenomena” but not and never by their own power. Always by the grace of God. You don’t pray to yourself. Somewhere Ron says he does not subscribe to the idea of a Big Thetan, in another place he says it is an overt to tell someone what to think about the 8th dynamic. And he also said you could be a good Scientologist and a good Christian at the same time. I think he was talking out of the wrong side of his mouth and that what he really believed was the OTO idea that he could become godlike on his own. We know he was a liar. He also believed the father of lies when he said (Gen 3:5) “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. He wanted to be like God and ended up worse off than when he started.

    Christianity prides itself on being based on historical facts and evidence, but when you really look hard reliable facts are strangely elusive. Scientology pretends to be based on science but turns out to be pseudo-science at best. I think, like Paul, that we are looking as though through a glass, darkly. (In Paul’s day clear flat perfect glass like we have today, or a perfect mirror, was unknown). The whole story has not yet unfolded. No guru or cult leader or reverend scholar has all the answers. That doesn’t mean we stop looking and it doesn’t mean there is no truth anywhere.

    I keep stepping in all this horse-shit, it’s everywhere, there must be a pony in there somewhere!

    • Bruce Ploetz wrote:

      “No guru or cult leader or reverend scholar has all the answers. That doesn’t mean we stop looking and it doesn’t mean there is no truth anywhere.”

      Now THAT is a quotable quote.

      Alanzo

    • Very informative post, Bruce. You are correct on pointing out the meaning of Greek “agape.” It was translated well enough into English originally, but the meaning of the English word shifted. Originally, “charity” meant something along the lines of what this etymology indicates: “late Old English (in the sense ‘Christian love of one’s fellows’): from Old French charite, from Latin caritas, from carus ‘dear.’”

      For me, Scientology could be claimed to be a monotheism in the sense that “the Static” could be considered one thing/no thing/all things/etc. But when I was in I never thought of Hubbard as a god. Hubbard did put it out there in some ways that he might be the return of Buddha (Hymn of Asia, for example), but Buddha did not claim to be a god but rather a teacher who had found the “way out” — very much as Hubbard claimed.

      It was quite clear that Scientology’s acceptance of other religions was a sham. First, to be in, you must eschew “other practices.” Second, Hubbard demonizes Christ,

      In a way Scientology is similar to Hinduism, with its realms of deities which could be considered types of “Operating Thetans.” Or to Mormonism, with its belief that we can all become gods and go after death to another planet which we then populate with our spiritual wives, since those post-death gods could be argued to be a sort of “Operating Thetan.”

      • FOTF, Hinduism has been black balled by Christian missionaries as polytheistic. Hinduism is not polytheistic.

        Please see

        http://vinaire.me/2014/06/19/theism-atheism-and-non-theism/

        • It is interesting that Christian missionaries saw Hinduism as polytheistic, given that (a) most Christians believe in a three-fold god / trinity — something the Muslims find abhorrent and not all early Christians agreed with and (b) at least in Catholicism there are many saints and of course Mary, all of whom may be prayed to and asked favors of — if the patron saint of say “travel/journeys” keeps you safe, that would seem to me to be functionally equivalent to saying saints and Mary have OT powers. The counterargument would be that patron saints only intercede for us to God. However, having the ear of God and being able to get God to decide something would itself be a pretty darn high ability.

          Re Hinduism, what I am thinking of is devas, who could be conceived as OTs in that they have supernatural powers.

          In reading over your post (thanks for the link to your site) I found myself thinking that Scientology could be thought of as a three-flavored dish: non-theistic (the 8th dynamic is not a god but a static — one OT III once conjectured that “god” is everything that is, and everything that isn’t, including the fact that that definition is not true) with whiff of monotheism (Hubbard as big-being-source) and a layer of polytheism (people can become OTs and do godlike things with MEST, thought, and life).

  18. I am now convinced that literal practice of Scienology, KSW and worship of Ron’s writings are the death of reason.
    Below is a post I put on Milestone 2 that got me banned from that site. This ban was actually after I voiced support of them for their practice of Scientology.
    I truly wanted answers to these questions because who knows, I may have sent people there for basic auditing as I have done in in LA to Trey Lots.
    I wanted to know how safe it was there.

    Here is the post that branded me as a hater:

    “Here’s a question that could really have never occured in the Orgs:
    1) how will Milestone 2 treat people who are mixing practices, altering practices? In the church Ron had a definite plan to crush these.
    Being that you promise standard LRH, he sought to crush, by any means, those who did not tow supporting the “Central Organization.”
    2) Will Milestone 2, the presumed new Central Org, seek to undermine, destroy or slander those who disagree with the Central Org?
    These are reasonable questions when history implies a host of divisive possibilities.
    The new Central Org may not create a GO or OSA, but how will Milestone 2 avoid the strong habit of harming, in some way, those who strongly dissent.
    The disdain by Ron for those who alter his church’s practices is ubiquitous throughout his writings, not just in Fair Gaming.
    How will you assure the public that you are different from the attack machine LRH instigated?
    The concern is certainly warranted if going by the letter of the law is followed.
    The word “squirels” and the implication of naming people with this title of disdain I’m sure does not rest well with many.
    Will your organization be different than the one Ron created? If not, could you truly say it is 100% standard?
    How will you stamp out “incorrect technology?”
    Will KRs go to a Central Committee?
    How will you demand blows against the enemy? And who is the enemy? Enemies exist in church writings: standardly.
    These are questions asked reasonably, with no other motive than engagement for interests sake. And I am sure other’s are asking the same questions.
    Reply

    Brian says:
    July 13, 2014 at 12:46 am
    And to boil it down to essentials:
    Will Milestone 2 refute any of Ron’s 3rd dynamic attack policy?
    If so, which policies?
    If not, why?”
    Reply

    These questions I just asked were benign. Some on post even thought them reasonable.
    Only faith, total belief and faith could be threatened by such questions. Only the death of reason could consider these questions bad or evil and have me banned with the standard tech of “dead agenting” that Lana touted as my fate.

    Milestone 2 is a potentially dangerous group. That is because they view these questions as not valid. That means they still have in their hearts and practice the view that it is valid to harm people in the name of the “only way.”

    Please pass this info along. It may help others.

    • Also , there was a nasty response from Jim to this post of mine. It was long and accusing. Accusing with Scientology attack jargon. Lana took it down from the site and left a simple “high toned” response from Jim, making Jim seem reasonable.

      The post is Campaign for Ethical Auditing.

      Milestone 2 has the will and “tech” to become another church of Scientology. Don’t be fooled by their rhetoric of love and wanting to help. If you do not tow the line, you can be sentenced to Scientology’s divisive branding of being bad, entheta, Ron hater etc.

      Marty’s communication of reason being banned from the church is evidenced by those who want “standard tech”

      Marty and Mike have treated my posts with respect. Even when they were edgy. Milestone 2 is carrying onbthe legacy of Ron’s policy of relegating dissent and reasonable questions to that of “enemy.”

      True disciples of Hubbard.

      • Do you ever wonder why people that float through the Church come out and spin into ATTACK HARM SUPPRESS mode? There are forums out here dedicated to HARM ATTACK SUPPRESS others. ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK SUPPRESS SUPPRESS!

        When you opened the ethics book and you were doing conditions, weren’t you asked to decide if someone or something should be HARMED ATTACKED or SUPPRESSED?

        These purposes get mocked within that “Church”. These are PURPOSES you are required to mock up.

        Once you mock them up as part of your character, it doesn’t matter if you are in the Church, or on the net, or in the grocery store, you will dramatize these purposes. Overtly and covertly.

        If you find you are socked into an impossible to HARM ATTACK or SUPPRESS someone else, and you can’t SHUT IT OFF, you have to go back to the time you mocked this purpose up. What Identity did you have? Does that purpose fit into the Ind entity you have now? Then WHY are you still dramatizing it?

        Maybe you didn’t mock it up in the Church, maybe it just got restimulated there.

        But I have noticed that a LOT of the people falling out of the CofS and busting loose on the streets are still keyed into these purposes and dramatizing them.

        It is kind of sick that you do purpose clearing on the L’s, and then get sent to the MAA to mock them up again.

        That is SICK. O.K.? It is sick that people fall out of the Church totally restimulated into HARM ATTACK SUPPRESS purpose modes that they can not turn off.

        It is easy to fix yourself about this. Do you want an identity that has as it’s purpose HARM ATTACK and / or SUPPRESS?

        Because I do not feel it part of my identity to HARM ATTACK and SUPPRESS these 16 people Internet Group or their Identities.

        And I did not feeling like making it part of my Indentity to have HARM ATTACK and SUPPRESS purposes when I was in the Church.

        You are expected to mock up these purposes to qualify as a Scientologist.

        If you are not a Scientologist, what are you that is in HARM ATTACK and SUPPRESS mode? And if you are in HARM ATTACK and SUPPRESS mode, why are you opposing a group that is born of the same purposes?

        What is the capability of this 16 member to suppress you? Ban you? O.K. you got suppressed. Now you want them suppressed. You are both on the same agenda.

      • Come to think of it Brian, you said you were an MAA in the Sea Org right?

        How many people did you sit down in front of you and ask to mock up a person to HARM ATTACK and SUPPRESS someone else?

        • I was a nice MAA. I actually made friends with my minions. For some reason I was allowed to be human while in charge.
          Isn’t it scarry and odd to think that my experience is completly foreign to the norm?

          • Brian, I just posted the following on Milestone Two blog. Let’s see what happens.
            https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310760

            • Valkov, I took a look at their blog and their posts. Attack attack attack is what I read. I see the purpose of the group is to harm attack suppresss and threaten others. Won’t bother to copy and paste it here to make the illustrations.

              They are also parked out in the boonies in Australia while promoting themselves as the better Business Bureau for Scientology outside of the Church:

              “If they are unethical, working to personally profit, without caring about results, and undermining the workability of the tech, then Milestone Two will advise you to steer well clear of them.”

              Like they have been conducting tech inspections all over the planet.

              I have news for you. The U.S. Scientology community is very tight. Everything that happens here spreads like wild fire within 48 hours of the event from coast to coast.

              Of the original 16 members of that group, who has a name up there because they paid for it, how many do you think are still active?

              Because I have already heard from three of them that the constant attacks, fair gaming, and witch hunts has made them want to distance themselves from that group. Buttons get flat on that shit and people are not stupid.

              • If you have any familiarity with history, police, justice, segregation and ethnic cleansing have not been sold in the market place. These have been enforced as a tax on mankind. Nobody purchases it. They are taxed for it.

            • This same time last year, Milestone 2 had 16 members. Not sure why Brian or anyone else would consider them a danger. The membership has not expanded for a year. Not sure why standard tech can’t pull that funky stat up, but, whatever. Keeping it real you do have to find out what is wanted and needed, and be able to produce it to get a heartbeat in a new business at all.

      • Brian wrote:

        “True disciples of Hubbard.”

        Thank you for posting this about Milestone 2, Brian.

        People who follow L Ron Hubbard’s ethics, tech, and policy in an unquestioning, literal way (in other words, 100% standardly) are a danger to a free society. Being led by the writings Hubbard, and letting Scientology do their thinking for them, they are highly likely to become a totalitarian anti-civil rights group that believes in never fearing to hurt another in a just cause.

        We saw it with the Church of Scientology which is a group that did all the above. Why would anyone believe that it would not happen with Milestone 2?

        Thanks for your warning, Brian.

        As Oracle said they appear to be a group about 15 or 16 strong. They are not likely to ever get much bigger than that, I believe.

        But they should be watched.

        At least for their entertainment value!

        Alanzo

        Alanzo

    • It was because of a post here on Marty’s blog by Brian that I realized milestone2 was still up and running and could be read even if not a “member” — I went there — and honestly became quite upset while reading someone’s article. Shocked I would say. Curious as to HOW the person could create such a different view of what a few years earlier we had discussed. Often. It kept me up a good part of the night. My mind no longer in some semblance of harmony but BANGING BACK AND FORTH.

      “Enlightenment” had felt somewhat close at hand before reading this article (just kidding. It’s my sense of humor) This article sent me into the path of hell(s) as I wanted to reach inside the computer and throttle the person to a pulp.

      What had been a few years earlier an area completely scorned by this person was now the persons NEW best area to help and disseminate … puleeeeze …

      Anyway — I agree with Brian —

      A potential dangerous group to send anyone for auditing. And or help.

      UNLESS you believe that the person in front of you has the RIGHT to tell you how to think, act, behave, embrace your family and/or friends. That the person has a crystal clear view of his/her last multi bazillion years and all the causes and conditions that lead to right here and now.

      IF you believe that … go for it.

      But recognize you’ve been warned🙂

      Windhorse

      • It’s a curious combination of hatred and falsehood that discredits the promise of enlightenment. Close the doors and windows and the air becomes stifling. My enlightenment is too far off to risk it to hypocrisy😉

        Perhaps that’s just the nature of anonymous communication on the Internet. I see nice places, but others where, to paraphrase a computer game developer, you’d think you’d just opened the gates of hell.

        Ultimately, they have to live with it. I wonder if it makes them happy? Maybe they don’t notice?

        Oh, yes. Freedom = Subjugation.

      • WH, I understand your dismay. People can get easily restimulated by PURPOSE and not just by “the reactive mind”, you can understand how people can get pushed left and right, up and down, and wholly manipulated by WORDS. Some people are masters at this game. Refreshingly, (thank you), there is only a sucker born every minute. The 59 seconds in between, other types are born.

    • Brian: “Here is the post that branded me as a hater.”

      Where in that thread are you branded as a hater? I see nothing but a lot of polite responses to your post. Was it the post by Jim Logan that you say was taken down? If so, the fact that it was taken down by the moderator would the significant thing! I think you’re twisting the truth again. And I don’t know why you feel compelled to do so.

      • This is a violation of Discussion Policy by Marildi.

        ________________________________

      • No need for me to justify my dear Mirildi. I am personally comfortable with your experience of me.

        You have a right to it. You had more zest and zing. No need to her Vinaire. That is her real honest view. And in civil society we have a right to our experiences as being valid.

        Mirildi is very thoughtful and passionate. I honor and protect her right to see me as someone who “always” twists the truth.

        I’m ok with it and so is she. Always agreeing can be boring. I appreciate her courage to tell me how she feels about me.

        Long live freedom of speech!!

        • And……….. here is an elephant in the room;

          whatever happened to “can communicate to anybody about any subject?”

          Think of it. Scientologists boast mastery of communication. I think that is delusional as evidenced by Milestone 2, Ron’s purported next child’s inability to deal with reasonable questions without suppressing them.

          Communication skill???? Laughable at best, delusional at worst.

          • Two words were left out of the EP. It was actually,

            “Can communicate to anybody about any subject except Scientology.”

            ________________________________

          • It was these questions that got me banned. That is the real issue. Not me ha ha ha. Why would these questions be considered “entheta”? Think about it.

            • martyrathbun09

              Brian,
              It was my raising the very same questions that resulted in their formation and continuing dramatization (see, Keeping Scientology Working). I don’t hold it against those people. I feel for them. Keep an eye out for my next post which will explain why that is.
              Marty

            • Brian, where did you get the idea that you were banned?

              • I cannot post anymore. Which is fine with me. These questions I asked I felt were so so so important. And there were comments made that allude to dead agenting was created by Ron for good reason.

                I guess you had to be there Mirildi.

                • My question was “Where did you get the idea you were banned.?”

                  Your so-called answer was “I cannot post anymore.”

                  That’s an evasive no-answer. Were you told you were banned? Or, did you try to post a comment and it was deleted? If so, what was the comment?

        • Brian: “I honor and protect her right to see me as someone who ‘always’ twists the truth.”

          No, my statement was: “I think you’re twisting the truth again.”

          The above does not mean “always”? Your implying that it does is again twisting the truth.

          Aside from that, rather than posting something very noble sounding (thus deflecting from the actual issue) why don’t you speak to the substance of my post and the question I asked? Here it is again:

          “In that thread are you branded as a hater [as you had stated]? I see nothing but a lot of polite responses to your post. Was it the post by Jim Logan that you say was taken down? If so, the fact that it was taken down by the moderator would be the significant thing!”

          • Brian, bad boy! You didn’t duplicate Marildi.  

            ________________________________

            • This is a violation of discussion policy. Focusing on participants!😛

              • LOL! OKay. Hahaha. The Discussion Policy is now in play.

                I am really happy to see the restraint Valkov have been using lately. And you too, Marildi.

                You two are fast becoming my most favorite Platinum status participants.

                • “The Discussion Policy is now in play.”

                  Not exactly. What is in play is discussing “The Discussion Policy.” But thanks for your patronizing words about me and Val. You deserve Patron status.🙂

          • Brian the Truth Twister; The Typhone of Tall Tale

            Yes, it was taken, then I was given the deep six ha ha. All because of questions.

            Mirildi, I am comfortable with whatever you think of me, and feel no need to debate with you my motives.

            But please keep up the good work judging me. I can use the ego devolving workout. It is actually more valuable to me than those who think I share truth as opposed to twist it.

            • Brian the Truth Twister; The Typhone of Tall Tale

              “yes it was taken down” meaning Jim’s was. Then replaced with a nice resonse. Then I could not post anymore.

              All because of the booby trapped that Ron implanted, to explode in one’s brain when Ron is criticised or questioned.

              Just like what happens to you my dear Mirildi.🙂

              • “All because of the booby trapped that Ron implanted, to explode in one’s brain when Ron is criticised or questioned. Just like what happens to you my dear Mirildi.”

                I wasn’t criticizing or questioning Ron – it was YOU. And you are still skirting around the question and trying to change the subject. It’s starting to look like it really didn’t happen the way you said it did and that you simply wanted to paint that picture for your own purposes.

                Seriously, if there was something on that thread that was offensive, you should say what it was. Because so far, you’ve given nothing to justify your words that you were “branded a hater” by the site.

                • Brian the Truth Twister; The Typhone of Tall Tale

                  It is easier to allow you to dub in than for me to talk with you Mirildi. And a better ego work out to be judged by you.

                  Ha ha , I just thought of that song that Marilyn Monroe sang:

                  “I wanna be loved by you………..”

                  I will twist the truth of these lyrics to:

                  “I wanna be judged by you, just wanna be judged by you”

                  Big hugs!!!! And a kiss on the cheek!! You have such a strong will Mirildi. That is admirable. But I think sometimes you get stuck in fixed ideas, dig in, get attached and don’t let go.

                  Maybe some years hence you will embrace the practice of letting go. Maybe some years hence you will understand that what I am saying is actually based on caring and not attacking.

                  Please, you can make me wrong and get it now. Learn to let go🙂

            • The logical fallacy called Style over Substance:

              “Wow the crowds with your style and they may not notice that your content is not so hot. Use elaborate language that sounds good and fills up the space you have, covering the fact that you may actually have very little to say.” http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/style_substance.htm

              “Very little to say” – or is it no basis for your accusations?

        • Marildi is just like me, and I am just like Marildi… in essence, I mean.

          We both have our additives. Haha.

    • Brian: “I voiced support of them for their practice of Scientology.”

      Brian’s interrogation: “The concern is certainly warranted if going by the letter of the law is followed.
      The word “squirels” and the implication of naming people with this title of disdain I’m sure does not rest well with many.
      Will your organization be different than the one Ron created? If not, could you truly say it is 100% standard?
      How will you stamp out “incorrect technology?”
      Will KRs go to a Central Committee?
      How will you demand blows against the enemy? And who is the enemy? Enemies exist in church writings: standardly.”

      I don’t know Brian. Seems as if you were not supporting anyone there but rather conducting an investigation. At best, making them wrong. If you suspect this 16 member group connected by a thin invisible Internet line is a “dangerous group”, perhaps you should reinspect your own purpose line to ATTACK or BE ATTACKED. You really don’t need to attack anyone unless you suspect they will attack YOU. But why would someone want to attack you? Because they have their own purposes to ATTACK. This is all about purpose.

      Purposes to HARM ATTACK and SUPPRESS are re stimulated onto members of the Church. But if you don’t mock these purposes up, or you did not have them there to begin with, this has nothing to do with you.

      What I see here is that you are on the same page, expecting people to rise into their purposes to ATTACK this group. You have therefore already aligned yourself with the theories they work hard to preserve as holy scripture. So how are you different?

      • And what about the ethnic cleaning purposes while I’m at it?

        Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history.

        How many mocked up the ethnic cleansing purposes to “fit in?”

        “Somebody some day will say ‘this is illegal.’ By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, “LRH Relationship to Orgs”

        “ENEMY SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 18 October 1967

        “A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1) “Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists”

        “The names and connections, at this time, of the bitterly opposing enemy are: 1. Psychiatry and psychology (not medicine). 2. The heads of news media who are also directors of psychiatric front groups. 3. A few key political figures in the fields of “mental health” and education. 4. A decline of monetary stability caused by the current planning of bankers who are also directors of psychiatric front organizations [that] would make us unable to function.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 16 February 1969, “TARGETS, DEFENSE”

        “Having viewed slum clearance projects in most major cities of the world may I state that you have conceived and created in the Johannesburg townships what is probably the most impressive and adequate resettlement activity in existence.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard in a letter to H.F. Verwoerd (widely considered to be the architect of South Africa’s apartheid system) dated November 7, 1960, reprinted in K.T.C. Kotzé, INQUIRY INTO THE EFFECTS AND PRACTICES OF SCIENTOLOGY, p. 59, Pretoria 1973

        “In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, 1989 Ed., p. 145 [The “Tone Scale” is Scientology’s measure of mental and spiritual health.]

        “There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170

        “The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the Tone Scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170

        “A Venezuelan dictator once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 171

        “We’re playing for blood, the stake is EARTH.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 7 November 1962

        “When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe – never permit an ‘open-minded’ approach… If they enrolled, they’re aboard, and if they’re aboard they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us – win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half minded about being Scientologists… When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare… The proper instruction attitude is, ‘We’d rather have you dead than incapable.’”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING, 7 February 1965, reissued 27 August 1980

        Ethnic cleansing vs. genocide[edit]
        The crimes committed during an ethnic cleansing are similar to those of genocide, but while genocide includes an intent at complete or partial destruction of the target group, ethnic cleansing may involve murder only to the point of mobilizing the target group out of the territory. Hence there may be varied degrees of mass murder in an ethnic cleansing, often subsiding when the target group appears to be leaving the desired territory, while during genocide the mass murder is ubiquitous and constant throughout the process, continuing even while the target group tries to flee.[2][3]

        “Ethnic cleansing is not to be confused with genocide; however, academic discourse considers both as existing in a spectrum of assaults on nations or religio-ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or population transfer whereas genocide is the intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group. Some academics consider genocide as a subset of “murderous ethnic cleansing.” Thus, these concepts are different, but related; “literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people.”

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

        When you look at the abuse, domestic terrorism, lying on nantional television to millions of viewers, perjury in the courts, and you wonder how these became so viscous and immoral, you can think about the fact that they have ethnic cleansing purposes. So, what does the rest matter? They want to rid the world of anyone who is not a Scientologists or contributing to that “ideal scene”.

        This is not religious, it is political. The truth is, anyone “not in good standing” with the Church is “Fairgame”. And they “do not matter” or count with the valuable species on Earth.

        It flips back on the Church to key people into genicide / ethnic cleansing purposes. Because they are still keyed into these purposes when they are kicked out onto the street or flee, and their focus goes onto cleansing the world of Scientology. And Scientologists!

        There is nothing “special” about ethnic cleansing goals and purposes.

        “The purpose of ethnic cleansing is to remove competitors. The party implementing this policy sees a risk (or a useful scapegoat) in a particular ethnic group, and uses propaganda about that group to stir up FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) in the general population. The targeted ethnic group is marginalized and demonized. It can also be conveniently blamed for the economic, moral and political woes of that region.”

        From Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

        Did you see the video where David Miscavige rants about eliminating psychiatrists? What do you think the purpose of CCRH is? It is ETHNIC CLEANSING.

        Who are the competitors of the Church? Psychiatrists.

        And it isn’t one sided madness. There are people out here now who want to cleanse the world of Scientologists.

        These are ethnic cleansing goals.

        Do I have to cleanse the world of anyone? No. You start picking and choosing the ones “to go”.

        Does Milestone 2 group have the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history.

        Yes. It falls along ethnic cleansing purposes.

        Be thankful you were banned.

        • I thought Scientology Technology was supposed to eradicate the need for such “extraordinarily harsh solutions.” Instead the fact that such harsh solutions were resorted to in Scientology is the admission of ultimate failure of Scientology Technology.   Scientology Technology, as it exists, has a very limited applicability of simply removing surface engrams. The removal of surface engrams can be remarkable though.

          ________________________________

        • The Ethnic Cleansing purpose bleed through the Internet now on some forums.

          Recently posted on Milestone 1: “I consider most of the rest of the Indies the absolute rock-bottom barrel trash of Scientology. Freezoners or Indies…It’s sewage”.

          “Independent” was stricken from the Identity. Only “Scientologists” now. No “Independent Scientologist” Identity permitted. Clean swipe ethnic cleaning.

          Laughter. It is a nasty purpose to key in on people. Because the purpose is to unmock someone else. You know what Hubbard said about a purpose to unmock someone else?

          From the Tech Dictionary:

          Unmock. 1. Take down or destroy. 2. Make nothing of.

          Suppressive Groups: “Specialize in injuring or killing persons or damaging their cases or which advocate suppression of mankind.

          Suppressive Person: 7. A person with certain behavior characteristics and who suppresses other people in his vicinity.

          Evil Purpose: Destructive Intentions.

          That’s Scientology bible right there.

          • Of course when the ethnic begins, so does the bearing of false witness, false reports and fair gaming.

            “When Milestone Two was launched in April of 2013, with the clear purpose of making sure that standard Scientology is available, there was an open attack from the “Independent Scientologist” community on certain blogs and on Facebook.”

            Right here you see, is the explanation of why the ethnic cleansing needs to take place. It is an entire community, “Independent Scientology Community” that is suppressive now. That launched this “open attack”.

            What the hell is the above statement ? An attack on the Independent Scientology Community. Who, by the way flowed a lot of power to these people. Matters not. She surely isn’t implying that I launched any attack, unless she didn’t get the memo distributed behind my back by her good friend, assuring everyone I knew, that I was a , well, never mind. Let’s just say thetan trash on some level.

            Until the people that are keyed into the ethnic cleansing can be sorted out, the Scientology groups are bobby trapped to unmock themselves , by unmocking one another, through ethnic cleansing and permittable genocide. Disconnection and attacking and destroying their own kind. Which you find in the serial killers running around the Int Base that became lounge lizards at the abortion clinics.

            This is not a Scientology only situation. If this is a prison planet, a penile colony, as Hubbard promised we were and it is. Then we have been through the mill of ethnic cleansing by the mere fact we are here. So, this would be a situation we share with our fellow man.

            Except most of our fellow man do not continue to perpetuate this ser fac on others.

      • I am glad for the Int Base. The Int Base was the Scientology dream. There, at the Int Base, a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous and pure religion, culture, and history (quals) was created. This was the dream. The ethnic cleansing dream.

        How did that work out for everyone? How ethical were those people? How sane were those people? How did “living the dream” work out for them? The hole. False imprisonment. Domestic terrorism and domestic violence. Kidnapping. Prison details. Public humiliation and sadism. That was the result of the ethnic cleansing Scientology Dream. It turned into a fucking nightmare.

        This in itself, proves that Hubbard’s theories that a Scientology only society is the best one. Sorry to have to point this out, but Scientology only societies only have become nightmares of abuse and criminality.

        Why? Once they created the ethnic cleansing purposes are still in fulll blown dramatization. So then, the “good” from the “bad” ethnic cleansing begins within the group of Scientologists. The “productive” from the “unproductive”. The “on source” ones from the “off source” ones. What do you think the whole list 1 rs’er evolution was? Ethnic cleansing within the group.

      • This is a violation of the Discussion Policy. 

        ________________________________

      • Does this make me burn my books and stomp on everything Hubbard thought of? No. I do not feel invalidated at all because of my experience in Scientology. Or guess what, because of anyone else’s. None of my experience is invalidated either by the people who judge me that never walked in my shoes. He had some things right and some things wrong. When “criticism of Hubbard” becomes a social crime though, you can count me out. When your freedom to evaluate information is suppressed, and you are expected view your own thoughts as having zero value, and make everything out of someone else. that is a choice. Fundamentalist is an identity.

        fun·da·men·tal·ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
        n.
        1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

        I have a right to choose my own identity. If others do not give me applause for that identity, it does not cave me in or make me think less of myself. Hubbard wasn’t a fundamentalist was he? He was not there on the same terms as anyone else. I do think at the beginning of it all, and really until the end, he had very good intentions. He was brilliant. He made progress. He opened doors. And he made mistakes and put his own interests above his clients. A common mistake in the service industry. Since when does this mean I must surrender without question to his ideas? When the Church of Scientology can’t stay afloat selling and delivering Scientology, and is dependent on beggars, if you can’t step back and assess this situation and see that some things do not add up, and you are attacked for wanting to sort this out because you actually CARE about keeping the good stuff going, and you are attacked for wanting to CORRECT, it is time to shift out of some suppression.

      • I mean, some people get star struck.

        starstruck
        When you meet someone you are very fond of, like a celebrity, movie star, etc. and you get completely overwhelmed, paralyzed and/or speechless by the experience.
        I’ve just bumped into Scarlett Johansson tits at Starbucks. I’m still starstruck!

        I got really starstruck when I saw George Michael on that public toilet.

        Mr George Lucas made a surprise appereance at the Star Wars Convention last night. We all screamed. Everybody was soooo starstruck!

        http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=starstruck

      • Whatever my motive is interpreted by anyone is totally ok with me. You will see me as you wish.
        This discussion is important to be had. Consider me once again a willing piñata.

        The issue, in my view is: can violent retribution against critics be recreated out in the field by true believers?

        To an adult with good communication skills, my questions could have been a threshold to new understanding. My questions are not sourced from made up judgemental accusatory assumptions.

        They are sourced from realities made up by Ron.

        Considering these questions other than valid, in the hopes understanding what 100% standard means, and thereby will violent retribution once again rear it’s ugly head, is, in my view, still having vestigial thought forms of Hubbard haunting one’s cabesa.

        Thanks for your take Oracle.

        • Yes, intentions are built into thoughts. When Hubbard’s materials are applied exactly certain intentions are going to materialize. There are no two ways about it.

          ________________________________

      • Hey Oracle, go back a few posts to Idee Fixè. That is where the love fest happened.🙂

    • Well, all I can say to this is, you must have your rasons, but I believe in the principle “Innocent until proven guilty”. I would beware of starting a witch hunt with such “inspection before the fact”. Have they actually done anything to anyone, that you know of? If there is ever to be any professionalism in the dekivery of auditing and training, I think it is necessary to have some kind of standards, and most professional activites have some kind of certification process. It only makes sense to do so.
      I read through the comments, and they seem entirely rational to me. How does whatever this group does, impact you anyway? They are talking about auditors who style themselves as practicing “standard tech”, which I don’t think you are doing. If you go to a psychologist or chiroprsctor, wouldn’t you want them to have the ‘seal of approval’ of their respective professional organizations?

      • I think it is the “holier than thou” ser fac. Standard tech has been available out here in the field since the Dianetics book was printed. It didn’t suddenly become available because of a new Internet Group. This is itself is a false report and implies there is only one place to go to for “standard tech”. They are self positioned as the RTC out here. Which is fine with me. I have no problem with how they present themselves. But I don’t care to discount everyone else out here practicing because they haven’t applied for a membership there.

      • Why don’t you reread this and see the message that is being conveyed:

        “When Milestone Two was launched in April of 2013, with the clear purpose of making sure that standard Scientology is available,…”

        First of, all, standard tech was available out here long before April of 2013.

        What is the purpose of RTC?

        From their web site:

        “Religious Technology Center (RTC) exists to ensure that this can occur. Its purpose is to protect the public from misapplication of the technology and to see that the religious technologies of Dianetics and Scientology remain in proper hands and are properly ministered.”

        https://www.rtc.org/guarant/index.html

        The basic purpose flows through time brother. You’ve got to give Hubbard that.

        • martyrathbun09

          Valkov,
          She has responded to you with several detailed, particularized facts about the acts of the new self-styled guarantors. I am not posting them as am not going to allow this forum to get dragged back into the gutter. If you and Oracle want to explore this in more detail directly with one another I can arrange the swapping of email contact info registered with your comments on my admin page.
          Marty

          • Sorry Marty, I did not realize she was responding to my posts. You may certainly give her my email addy, if she wishes to comm with me. I have no bone to pick with them either way, I was curious how someone over there might respond to my post about TIR.

            As far as I’m concerned, it is fine with me if they want to provide what they understand to be “standard tech” LRH style, if they ‘do it right’ which the CoS didn’t for reasons I believe we are still trying to elucidate. I am still cranky about the whole CoS thing going awry. I’m very much a ‘live and let live’ person basically, that’s the issue I am sensitive about, will they “let live”? Will they “maintain good relations with the environment”? Time will tell.

            Even as tangentially involved with Scientology as I was, I saw a few people manifesting harmful attitudes, 3Ping, and creating arcxs, etc back in the 1970s, apparently using LRH policy – or their interpretation of it. I hope MTwo does not fall into that and will continue to move on up. Since I do not consider myself as a “Scientologist” because I am not a trained auditor, I do not feel I really ‘belong’ over there. My post over there was a little trial balloon to see how they would respond to a potentially friendly, but nonetheless an “outsider” type person. I used to post over at ESMB although I did not really ‘belong’ over there either, but I could still find ways to occassionally post constructively there without automatically agreeing with all of it.
            So there’s my train of thought about all that.

            By the way, that comment you made way back on this thread about my misassumption about Life Repair vs. Client-centered Rogerian therapy principles brought about a great result for me. I reviewed my therapy experiences with 3 different modalities and got a great new look at it all, including the difference between the true client-centered approach and Scientology approach. Thanks!

      • From the RTC web site:

        “THE GUARANTOR OF SCIENTOLOGY’S FUTURE”

        From the Milestone site:

        “What is Milestone Two?
        Milestone Two is a community of people who want to see that the LRH aims for Scientology are met.”

        Copies. They are copying RTC, which was set up by David Miscavige.
        He is the Chairman of the Board there. Not sure who is the COB of Milestone .Although I have my suspicions.

        Fine with me. They say Imitation is the best flattery.

      • Innocent until proven guilty? This is like 5% of my story. Respecting the privacy of my children.

        • T.O., That post was a comment to Brian. Although I don’t mind you chiming in, I’m not sure what the 5% of your story deal is all about.

          • I agree with professional standards. My point is that this idea is not a new idea outside of the Church. People have been running practices out here since the 1950’s. Standard Scientology has been available out here in the field since before these people ever signed up for a tr’s course. There is absolutely zero evidence that Marty has ever been anything less than 100% professional and standard with his counseling practice. Thousands of people over the years have been out here using professional standards that produce results and have happy P.C’s. They have NOT been attacked by the others. The others have not set up groups to exclude them. I realize they were RTC staff but they were not techies in the Church. Jim was a cramm officer. You can be that by doing a cram officer hat. Doesn’t make you a tech expert. Or mean you have any idea of what standard tech is. I have seen Logan’s standards first hand. I wouldn’t pay him to give me a pedicure. Not sure what is experience is as a “professional” auditor. His experience with the tech is as an RPFer. He was trusted with RPF’ers in the Church, until he failed with that and was escorted off the base by security. Now he is a “tech guru”. I think Lana’s experience in the Church that was the most successful was as a cook. Not a professional one like Sinar who was a trained chef and could have been cooking for the president at the White House. Anyway, so now they want to be the RTC chapter outside of the Church. The people at RTC in the Church are not professional techies either. David Miscavige is a failed auditor who blew off a class lV Internship and he put himself in charge of Hubbard’s legacy too. Would you go to David Miscavige for a session? Who would? Yet, isn’t this what is all about? But who would go to that guy for a session? Nobody. Yet, he is “carrying the torch”. He decides who can audit and who can not. Who is standard and who is not. Who can be a member and who can not.
            How many times must I watch the same play with different characters? Yet, there are people out here who still watch the same shit unfold all over again. And will even pay to be a part of the drama.

          • As far as I am concerned, the people who “carry the torch” for any benefits available in Scientology, and forward a legacy for Hubbard, are the people who use Scientology to set others up for WINS. Not losses and conflict. And those are the only people who carry the torch and create a legacy.

            If you are running around and setting people up for losses, and conflict, and cut comm lines, the only legacy you are forwarding is that of the Grimm Reaper.

  19. Marty said: Apparently, only one of the four traditional biblical Gospels relates inarguably that Jesus Christ was God temporarily visiting earth. The book of Luke could and has been interpreted to say that Jesus was an extraordinary man who ascended – or was ascended – from humble beginnings to develop the message that humankind has found so inspiring for 2000 years. Only the Gospel popularly known as that related by John was definitive about Jesus’ other-worldly provenance. As noted by religious scholar and bestselling author Elaine Pagels in her book Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas: “Unlike Luke, who depicts Jesus as a man raised to divine status, John, as does the hymn Paul quotes, pictures him instead as a divine being who descended to earth – temporarily – to take on human form.”

    I was not born in the Christian religion, and I have always looked at Christianity objectively. This is what I get from the above.

    (1) God is a being not from this planet. He may not even be from this universe. This is a “concrete” and not an abstract view.
    (2) Humans are from this planet.
    (3) God took a human form. That form was of Jesus.
    (4) Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus.
    (5) John emphasizes the God aspect of Jesus.

    The thought seems to be that God is divine. Humans are not divine. It is impossible for a human to be divine. It is an anomaly and it needs to be explained in some way. This is being done by giving divinity other-worldly status.

    The questions that arise are, “What is divinity? Why is it so rare on earth to be considered other-worldly? Is it really that rare? Are there any political motives in depicting divinity to be so rare? Are there any political benefits in depicting divinity so concretely, and not as an abstract potential of humanity?”

    .

  20. Speaking of Gods and whatnot,This, “bitter defrocked apostate” designation authored by Miscavige, is evidence that Miscavige views Scientology as a belief system, not a science.

    a·pos·tate
    1.
    a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.
    1.
    abandoning a religious or political belief or principle.

    Every time he uses the phrase he is communicating to the world, that Scientology is a belief system, nothing more.

    The “defrocked” part implies the former member was raped before he was tossed out on the streets. A frock is a dense knitted over garment worn by sailors and fishermen, as Guernsey frock, jersey frock (now usually simply Guernsey and jersey). Or a ladies dress.

    It gets funnier and funnier.

    In truth, the proper word they are looking for is INFIDEL. in·fi·del
    ˈ
    1.
    a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one’s own.
    “they wanted to secure the Holy Places from the infidel”
    synonyms: unbeliever, disbeliever, nonbeliever, agnostic, atheist; heathen, pagan, idolater, heretic, freethinker, dissenter, nonconformist; archaicpaynim; rarenullifidian
    “a holy war against the infidels”

    A holy way against the infidels is exactly what the fanatics that are in fact POLITICIANS, are waging in their assaults.

    “In P.R.” you are supposed to make something well thought of, NOT take the thing into WORSHIP status. Unless people are WORSHIPPING Hubbard, they are considered infidels. Like you know, if you said, “Hubbard chased pussy” or something like that, even though it was true for him, they would attack you. It violates the “holy worship” status. You know, they have been taught that he was holy.

    People read the sec checks and introvert. Hell, it was HIM that thought of those things. He was street smart. But they do not think about that.

    Others have seen sec checks differently than me. If you suspect you are not safe or secure, there is a reason behind it. Why would someone be out to get you? So you get to the bottom of THAT and you suddenly get less paranoid. You have to get down to what you did, that you might think someone else is attacking you or may be attacking you. Then you find some personal security.

    Well that got all alter ised sideways to not be about YOU but the Organization.

    The thing is, behind every overt, and I say this after at least 800 HOURS minimum of sec checks and O/W write ups, you have to look inside of that overt incident and understand your own rightness in trying to solve a problem. And if you do not acknowledge that rightness, you become your own executioner. And the “religion” you are involved in has just set you up to do yourself in. Because you asked to condemn yourself without mercy.

    Not sure It matters to me what planet or neighborhood he came from. I have gotten to the point where it is all funny on some level. Almost pure comedy. Because of the identities. Even “X SCIENTOLOGIST” is an IDENTITY. “Critic” is an identity. If Scientology is supposed to make you more and more you, why the fuck do you have to do an identity swap to be involved? The wardrobe department is ever growing. “Staff” “Public” “Patron” “Sir” “Commander” “Chairman of the Board”. “Religious” “Bitter defrocked apostate” is an IDENTITY Miscavige tried to enforce on people!

    God forbid you point out the guy is obsessed with voyeurism and has been chasing pussy at the Int Base! When he does it, it isn’t really happening!

    I mean, O.K. if you did not want to be YOU, at least you can check into the game and do a wardrobe swap. But the minute you are NOT YOU, you are OUT OF VALENCE and the tech does not work anyway. I think there are a lot of fine and magical things to experience by walking some of the paths Hubbard laid out. But Scientology is like driving a car, once you find you are in a neighborhood that is not bringing you joy, you have a right, even a DUTY TO YOURSELF, to head in another direction. This is where I hit up against the fanatics that think you have no right to change direction. And you are expected to go down into worshiping bodies and sacrifice. Symbols such as “patron meritorious”. Look at SYMBOLS on the tone scale.Slide down the admin scale from goals and purposes to “Ideal Scenes” and Ideal Orgs.

    Yeah. Hubbard went up, and he went down. He went North and he went South. He went East and then West. Some people followed him every where he went, some people only followed him south, some people followed him to the edge of town and went back on to their own home. I followed him only North even when he tried to take me South. But keeping it real, more than 99.9 percent of the Earth people were not even curious. There are a few people that didn’t follow him anywhere and work diligently to discount everything about him. I still can’t figure that out.

    At the end of the day what I think about everyone I have ever met involved in this experience, is, “Who were you before you became involved in this?”
    Or, “Who were you before you became a Scientologist?” Who was that person and why did that person lead you here?

    I was and have been that same person the whole time. I did not want to be someone else. I just wanted to be a better me. So, you know, I had a different experience.

    The thing about the experience that becomes very unhealthy, is when you are told in so many ways, that the “YOU”, that came in the front in the front door, is unacceptable to humanity. That invalidates the person that made you curious to begin with! So, it did not make sense to me to trash that individual. This a major sabotage in the culture. “The customer is always wrong”. And it has gone that way because of the PEOPLE who discount themselves in every way as the person they were before they got involved with this.

    If you were not very fucking cool to begin with you would not have been curious.

    • No, not replying to myself. Just using this tool for a P.S. to what I posted. There is a beauty in needy people that reach. There is a beauty in want. Once you discount that , there is nothing left. I never chose to discount that part of myself. If you can hang on to that person that you were with out apologies, there is a lot of beautiful magic in this world to wallow in. This is a humble admission, that you have a want and need. If you can’t own it, you just won’t know about it.

      • I think the worse crime you can commit against another person, is when they come to you for help, and you promise that, and then hold back. I am not mad at Hubbard in any regard, because every relationship with him was a two way street. Some critics didn’t even take up that challenge. There are people that worked their way into this arena like ticks on a dog and did very little to assist their fellow man. I know for sure Marty is not one of them. That I know for sure. Mike Rinder is not one of them. Karen is not one of them. I know my auditors were not one of them. These are the person to person experiences that equal humanity. People who do not set you up for losses, when you clearly indicate you need a win. These are the people I have loved in the Scientology experience.

        • Just a few to mention here. Not all of the ones that made me love them. That would take a little time. I’ve read things on the net, people that were involved for years. They never mention that they loved anyone. Only everyone they hate. How can you go through this with out love? A lot of people apparently do. So, you know, you have to add this into the equation.

          • Not sure what else to say here but you’ve really got inside my head with this, Oracle. I’ve got some thinking to do…

          • Oracle,
            You make me feel like I’m 19 again. Your several posts here above are very real to me. I was 19 in 1969 and it took about that long for the Summer of Love of 1967 to work it’s way down to Atlanta GA where I was. But for me for those years it was about love. Even though I spent more time looking than finding. And a lot of the love part for me was finding conversation and sometimes putting my heart on the line as part of the conversations. These were then and still are the truly great ones. I know what you mean when you talk of the people you loved in the Scientology experience. That’s really why I started the Scientology experience in 1972. I was looking for the conversations. Prior to that I was looking for conversations at 3 of the big pop festivals. And on the streets of Atlanta. I avoided Vietnam in 1969 as it wasn’t a conversation I wanted. And sitting on the back side of the stage in Piedmont Park Atlanta on Sundays in 1970 when the Allman Brothers set up and played for free where I watched the world’s 2 best drummers play together. I’d played drums since I was 10 years old so this was quite a conversation to me to watch them. In 1972 I joined Scientology as I thought the conversations would be better. I’ve never been unhappy about that as I know who I was and why I did it. And I know why I quit the church also. Those who only hate are unreal to me.

    • Yes many true things you say Oracle.
      L Ron Hubbard – north, east, west, south, up, down in out.
      Enough truth to grab interest, enough help to want more, enough hope for personal growth, salvation, enlightenment. Enough force to trample people.
      Highest “condition” Power – pink legs, kill for me, follow me anywhere, fall on your own sword if you need to, but then, “Power change” is anybody going to come along with enough greed/power/willingness to crush who could take over on the failure that is scientology, I’m winning totally in the clouds, I’m losing everthing not a shred of sanity left, too many BTs. Can anybody bring it off? yes, here comes a little man miscavage, bone crusher, self styled super power man, glittering self agrandizing pope with no kindness. Good things in scientology, bad things – I’d say its a wash. Like waves crossing waves and cancelling each other out.
      Sounds like a religious play to me, or L Ron story overweight bad teeth swashbuckler.

    • Very good points, Oracle. You’ve given me some things to think about.

      • Owning me has been alright. Owning others has been the hard part. They don’t always get it when you love them.

        • There is a serious flip side to this. I never walked in Hubbard’s shoes. He didn’t walk in mine either. He can judge me, but I can’t judge him according to his followers. It is a one way street..And that is rule one of the Scientology game. Still, I judge him him to be alright.

          I can guarantee you this, for everyone of his friends that tore me up with his measuring stick, ( and I can count them on one hand) , O.K. maybe four since I have been posting on the net, seriously, I have gained more enemies leaving Scientology than I did when I was in it, that counts too. I’m not stupid.

          But you kind of need to ask yourself or know, Who was Hubbard before Scientology? Did you know that man? He was important too. Just like you were.

          • It goes both ways. But people do not seem to view “following” as a two way street. that It is. They blame it all on the leader and seem to forget they needed direction. People do not follow… that do not need a leader. And that is why you see people leaving the Church because it is booby trapped with losses now, oh so obsessed with hanging their life on the leader. (Big deal Dave, you had your audition on a prison planet and failed. How bad does it get? I didn’t bother to show up for this audition. I’m laughing. ) Another competent exec could have sorted out Hubbard’s inapplicable policies which in all fairness, he wrote a policy about throwing out his old policies that no longer mattered but David couldn’t think with that. He couldn’t think with Hubbard. The purpose of a Church is to translate the gospel. And Miscavige couldn’t think with Hubbard. It just comes down to this stupid little simplicity. The guy in charge did not have the ability to translate. He didn’t even have the ability to duplicate. Look at the admin scale. Figure out where ideal scenes is. (Ideal Orgs). Way South for a leader. The leader can’t think with the fucking admin scale! And I can translate Hubbard a whole lot better than him and so can the whole of us here. His symbology is his ticket. His COB status. Well, a lot of us are more uptone than symbols on the tone scale. All of what I have said does not discount the fact, that we gave him every chance with our trust. WE, contributed to him and what he is. WE, built him. WE, mocked him up. I can take responsibility for that.

      • Still don’t get how anyone could disconnect from Marty who knows how to do a doubt formula. He trained at Flag and on the Freewinds and was trusted with the Church’s most prized P.C., and he has people out here that only did a qual sec hat or was only trusted to audited people on the RPF, and they are gaining allies.O.K. 16 on the planet. Not for nothing but that is some fucked up shit. Long time Scientologists totally incapable of doing a doubt formula, which is nothing but a math equation.

        • I find myself getting over complicated. The truth is, the red flag for me, is when you are forbidden from reading books. And in the Scientology culture, you know you can be fair gamed for reading books. Even the Internet. And what was Marty fair gamed for out here? Reading books and commenting about them. Man when it is a crime to read a book you had better shift gears real quick.

  21. Marty said: Of course it is understood that all of the Gospels were written up to a century after Jesus strode the earth, all reporting their own interpretations of words Jesus purportedly spoke and deeds he had carried out long before. In the past one-hundred and twenty years, more significant purported Gospels have been discovered – including those of Thomas and Mary Magdalene. Those discoveries have added to the rich diversity of opinions, interpretations, and faiths of Christianity. That includes the idea that Jesus communicated that every human potentially had within themselves the same abilities and divinity as Jesus.

    What I get from the above is:
    (1) Gospels present a much later view of the life and actions of Jesus. It would be best to look at them as being subjective.
    (2) It is also discovered that some gospels that presented a natural rather than a super-natural view of divinity were suppressed.

    This points to some political motive behind presenting divinity as something super-natural and other-worldly.

    .

  22. Marty said: In scientology no such plurality of interpretation is open to the worshipper. That is because scientology’s messiah made it clear himself on more than one occasion that he did not ascend from humble beginnings, or any earthly beginnings at all, to develop a message with which to lift humanity. Instead, scientology’s author L. Ron Hubbard explicitly stated that he descended to earth in human form in order to deliver its people from evil. He was so dead serious about being taken literally – and not interpreted – that he instituted penalties for any interpretation of his words whatsoever that were tantamount to permanent spiritual death. And if that did not shut up the purveyors of interpretations, such heretics were to be mercilessly harassed to the point of personal and familial ruin. He created a corporate structure which directed hundreds of millions of dollars toward etching his words on stainless steel plates, sealing them in titanium capsules and placing them in vaults in deep veins of granite so that those words could never be altered. One example of those sacred words comes from Ron’s Journal 1968: “And please for my sake, don’t forget one thing, I am your friend. I am not from this planet. I am trying to do my best to do a job to bring tolerance and humanity to this planet in a very materialistic and often cruel age.”

    What I get from the above is:
    (1) In Scientology, the “rare” divinity of its founder is presented as supernatural and other-worldly.
    (2) This presentation of divinity was not only designed by the founder himself but it enforced too with deadly intention.

    I still remember how, in early seventies on Flagship Apollo, Hubbard directed Andre Clavel, the artist who drew for the Advanced Magazine, to depict him as Maitreya, the successor of Buddha. I remember this clearly because Andre asked me questions about Buddha and Maitreya. I told him that the Hindi word for ‘friend’ was derived from Maitreya. That picture drawn by Andre is here:

    http://vinaire.me/2014/07/21/the-controversy-of-scientology/

    This seems to assert a definite political motive in Scientology for presenting divinity so concretely in the founder, and as something super-natural and other-worldly.

    .

  23. Marty said: That was the same year that Hubbard delivered scientology’s most sacred, secret and advanced liturgy – the Class VIII Course. On the course ‘deans of scientology’ were created by learning from Hubbard that humankind could not be brought to ‘respond to reason.’ That is why he commanded the scientology deans that “You are the people the planet obeys. You are the people who own the planet.” Whether any dean of scientology – or the group collectively – ever lived up to those dictates, two things remain scripturally clear (and will remain so apparently forever) from Hubbard’s apex year of discovery. Those are, a) there is only one God in scientology, and b) the adherent will believe it because that God has commanded that it will never be appreciated by appeal to reason.

    What I get from the above is:
    (1) The founder did seem to have a political strategy in presenting divinity in himself and making it super-natural and other-worldly.
    (2) The strategy included the creation of super-secret levels of training and auditing in Scientology.
    (3) In these levels he replaced ‘any effort to reason’ by ‘enforcement of his will’.

    Thus, the founder of Scientology cast himself in the role of God as the ruler of the wills of scientologists.

    Good analysis, Marty!

  24. Here is an essay on Divinity:

    “Socrates almost had his finger on it when he posed the question, “Can man be made self-determined and responsible for his own actions?”

    “Plato lost it when he recommended the use of religion (supernatural authority and fear) to control the wild beast nature latent in every person.

    “Aristotle came close to defining it, but the logic that brought him so close to an understanding of divinity, also prevented him from defining it precisely. Let us take a look at that one final step that he could not take…”

    IS THERE DIVINITY?

    .

  25. The Indo European root of the word divine means: to shine

    • This is very interesting because I see that consciousness oscillates between perceiving and recognizing.

      Since consciousness is an oscillation, there is some justification in making an association between consciousness and light, which is also a fundamental oscillation. It appears that this association is intuitive and it has existed since ancient times. Thus, we may assume consciousness to have the form of light and the essence of awareness.

      • LRH called it “postulating and perceiving” (what is postulated). You call it “oscillation”. Big whoop. Do you wonder I get annoyed? “A rose by any other name…..”

        • Postulating is “assuming something which is not there” as opposed to “recognizing what is there.”

          At no level is awareness ‘static’, whether actual or potential, as Hubbard assumes. If there is any ‘static’ it is part of reality being relative to dynamic. There is no absolute ‘Static’ that creates reality. Hubbard is being self-contradictory here..

          Awareness is a disturbance like light. Both oscillate. That is why I got the idea that awareness has the physical form of light, Please see

          http://vinaire.me/2014/07/13/the-ground-state-of-the-universe/

          .

          • Where does LRH say that awareness is static? I don’t have that idea from any LRH I have read or heard.

            • The definition of static includes awareness (ability to postulate and perceive). This, to me, is an inconsistency. Even potential awareness is not static because there is awareness of that potential. All awareness is dynamic being relative to “absence of awareness.”

              • You are contradicting yourself again. You have recently stated that in your view, “everything has awareness” – rocks, trees, electrons, whatever. And you say static is part of ‘everything”. If so, then static also has awareness.
                I however, do not view “ability” as necessarily implying ‘awareness’. Soil can absorb water, it has the ability to absorb water, without being aware of that particular ability.

                You are just making things up. But that is fine, it can be fun to make things up. LRH thought that is what thetans basically do. I guess you are a thetan. That would be my inference…. 🙂

                • Valkov, it seems that you are taking human-centric viewpoint of awareness. That is why you are saying that soil has no awareness. This parallels the obsolete human-centric view that earth is the center of this universe.

                  Earth is simply an example of a planet, though a developed one. Similarly, human awareness is simply an example of awareness that is very much developed.

                  Just look for your self and don’t accuse me so glibly of making things up.

                  .

              • It is beyond me, how you can conflate “ability to postulate and perceive” with “awareness”. One does not imply the other in either direction. For example, a mirror has the “ability” to reflect light. That does not imply any “awareness” on the part of the mirror. I can only conclude that you have different meanings in mind, for these words.

                • To me awareness is an oscillation between perceiving and recognizing. An extension of this activity would be postulating or assuming.

                  Per LRH’s definition, Static is capable of awareness. This definition is relative to the Ground State, which has no definition.

                  In case of inanimate objects, their properties provide their essence, spirit, or awareness,

                  This is the concept of Dharma in Vedas.

          • Vin: “Postulating is “assuming something which is not there”.

            I don’t have that idea at all, as far as the Axioms are concerned. One it’s postulated, a postulate is there. Before it’s postulated it’s not there. Once it’s postulated, it is there, and can then be perceived. There is a whole school of Buddhism based in this idea – the “Mind Only” (Chittamatra) school. I understand this as a very subtle level of ‘mind’. It is possible that a solid, ‘gross’ reality can develop on this subtle basis. Subtle and gross are common Buddhist terms.

            • LOL! What you are saying applies to an assumption too!

              Once it is assumed, an assumption is there. Before it’s assumed it’s not there. Once it is assumed, it is there, and can then be perceived. Hahaha!

      • Yes. For a change, let me give you some credit. In Buddhism, there are references to developing the “Clear Light Mind”. This is actually a central concept of the teachings. teachings. A person is seen as based upon a kernel of “light”. This is consciousness, which is seen as having no beginning and no end.
        “But the basic ultimate innermost subtle consciousness will always remain. It has no beginning, and it will have no end. That consciousness will remain. When we reach Buddhahood, that consciousness becomes enlightened all-knowing. Still, the consciousness will remain an individual thing. For example, the Buddha Shakyamuni’s consciousness and the Buddha Kashyapa’s consciousness are distinct individual things. This individuality of consciousness is not lost upon the attainment of Buddhahood.”

        http://www.amazon.com/The-Buddha-Nature-Eternal-Buddhism/dp/1885394195

      • Brian the Truth Twister; The Typhone of Tall Tale

        Consciousness is pure joy. Pure joy is radiant. We are radiant. My spiritual goal is not nothing. Maybe it is yours Vinay, to become nothing. But that is not how I see it.

        I would rather be a happy idiot with diminished capacity to cognize complexities, than be in command of all the correct facts about life and be devoid of joy.

        One may know all the intellectual facts about roses. But how dry are those facts compared to seeing and smelling a real rose.

        One may know all the words and facts in a travel brochure, be expert in it.

        But until they go there, it is only assumptions that inform, imaginings of the mind.

        • Hear, hear. (Grow an ear!)

        • Brian said, “My spiritual goal is not nothing. Maybe it is yours Vinay, to become nothing. But that is not how I see it.”

          The goal is exteriorization from self.🙂

          http://vinaire.me/2014/05/30/being-self-centric-scientology/

          • Brian the Truth Twister; The Typhone of Tall Tale

            Vin, hi! I’ll bet talking to you I person would be fun.

            How can a “something” become exterior from “itself”?

            If that something does not exist, a self, than there is nothing to be done.

            You are saying “a nothing” becomes exterior from “itself”

            If nothing is nothing, than it can’t be freed from itself. Because there is no self to be freed from.

            I think I just hurt myself:-))

            I am glad there are enough theories and thoughts to keep you entertained Vinay.

          • Vinaire: “The goal is exteriorization from self.”

            Who or what is exteriorizing?

            • Who or what is an illusion. The focus should be on absence of fixation.

              • I am coming to call this the “Buddhist end-run” around a question. It is a re-direction to “the teaching” instead of answering the question. Buddha was very good at it. Vinnie is getting better at it. It is a ‘staying on point’ maneuver. LRH developed drill for it – how to give a non-answer.

              • When the absence of fixation is attained Vinay, who knows that to have occurred? If there is no one there?

                If Buddha attained that state, how is it that he considers it desirable?

                If he attained the state of nothing, why would we want to attain it?

                Buddha says Nirvana is Bliss. How does he know this, if he wasn’t there to experience it?

                If Nirvana is nothing, why strive for it?

                Why do you strive for it Vinaire?

                What motivates you to attain Nirvana?

                • Brian. looks like my concept of Nirvana is different from yours. I see Nirvana as follows:

                  We come across the term “Nirvana” in the context of Buddhism. Buddha is said to have attained nirvana in his thirties. He then lived actively to a grand age of 80, a rarity for his time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  That is true enlightenment.

                  For full post with links, please click below.

                  http://vinaire.me/2010/07/17/what-is-nirvana/

                  .

                  • After the ego is nulled- Bliss remains.

                    There is pleasure and there is BLISS.
                    Forgo the first to possess the second. – Buddha

                    Always speaking of what is not, sometimes can negate and obfuscate what is.
                    Brian

                    • I would like to second that, Brian. Here is an excerpt from Buddhanet.net, which is a comprehensive site about Buddhism:

                      “Nirvana literally means “unbound’ as in “Mind like fire unbound”. This beautiful image is of a flame burning by itself. Just the flame, not something burning and giving off a flame. Picture a flame burning on a wick or stick, it seems to hover around or just above the thing burning. The flame seems to be independent of the thing burning but it clings to the stick and is bound to it. This sense of the flame being unbound has often been misunderstood to mean the flame is extinguished or blown out. This is completely opposite to the meaning of the symbol. The flame “burns” and gives light but is no longer bound to any combustible material. The flame is not blown out – the clinging and the clung to is extinguished. The flame of our true nature, which is awakening, burns independently. Ultimately Nirvana is beyond conception and intellectual understanding. Full understanding only comes through direct experience of this “state’ which is beyond the limitations and definitions of space and time.”

                      There’s a lot of talk about the “negative gain” that is available from Buddhism. Getting rid of “defilements”, getting rid of “wrong views”, etc etc. But there is not so much said, at least in the literature that is available in English, about what the “positive gains” are, that emerge as one travels that path. To me , the “flame” of above quote, refers to the Bliss you speak of , as well as other qualities.

                      http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/8foldpath.htm

  26. Another captivating, thought-provoking post, Marty! Excellent.
    Since we are speaking of monotheism, I will be slightly pedantic and give the root of the word: from the greek “mono”, meaning ‘one’ and “theos”, meaning god or spiritual power, leader — and, figuratively, creator (due to its Indo-European root that, apparently, is traced back to a concept that actually meant ‘lord’ or ‘maker’)
    When one looks at this etimology, the term monotheistic could be applied to Scientology. The philosophy and its practice have a creator, a lord or spiritual leader.
    Now, this, in itself, could pretty much settle the question, if not for the fact that monotheistic religions, on this planet, are the furthest thing from an actual esoteric affair. When one really studies the Bible, one reads a tale steeped in allegory concerning pretty horrible facts that occurred at a time when humanity was still reeling from the aftermath of one of this planet’s worst wars.
    However, let me clarify and premise the rest of this comment with this words: I am a staunch believer that the words of the Bible, both in the Old Testament and the New, as they are interpreted today, are not to be taken literally. As I have mentioned, these documents are deeply allegorical and mistranslated.
    With this said, the story that is recounted in these documents is the story no one, in charge of the main monotheistic religions, would want you to know or believe in.
    In essence, it is the story of how certain alien beings came to earth and genetically manipulated the GE line on this planet to create other, lesser beings (in their perspective), who could work for them and extract precious ore and minerals. This occurred as far back as twenty thousand years ago — however, dating this is unnecessary for the purpose of this post; I only mention it to give you a time frame so you can follow my line of reasoning.
    Now, whether we call them Angels, Annunaki or Marcabians — or whatever else we may wish to call them — the fact remains that the natural order of evolution on this planet has been tampered with, it has been toyed with. The result is our current physical status quo. I say physical because the tampering has been only on a genetic level, as far as these documents describe. Nonetheless, I believe a certain amount of spiritual tampering probably has been done, too, to prevent us from fully awakening our potential.
    In case one wonders where I got this data from, I invite you to do extensive research on David Icke’s materials and also to look into these people’s work: Alex Collier and Zachariah Sitchin.
    So, why the long prologue? It’s because of this statement I’m about to make:
    “The story of L. Ron Hubbard, his epiphany and acquisition of knowledge, his ascent into a pseudo-messianic role in a particular section of society, with its eventual formation of a religious group, which has cult-like elements, is nothing more than a dramatization of earlier such stories and roles, played out (or ascribed to) by people who were under the control of a specific alien implant.”
    I use the word implant in the Scientology meaning of an idea or set of ideas inculcated in one or more people to determine their behavior thereafter.
    I make this statement knowing there could be a lot of disagreement on the matter. However, I invite you to consider that I do not necessarily mean that the man himself was aware of this dramatization or consciously dramatizing this set of events for his own aggrandizement; rather, I would like you to notice the general reaction of those who most ardently support the current regime of the Church of Scientology; they are the ones who are enforcing this world-view of Hubbard and are, thus, dramatizing the implant.
    This “messianic” concept is an idea that has been inculcated in Terrans since their inception by those aliens that genetically altered them into existence; a little bit like in the movie The Matrix, where humanity believed in Neo being The One. This concept is deeply rooted in our belief systems: there will be some One who will come and deliver us from evil.
    Scientology, and Hubbard, strongly played this card in identifying Hubbard as Metteyya, the re-incarnation of Buddha. Whether Hubbard was factually Metteyya or not, is neither here nor there. The fact remains that Hubbard played very strongly on the fact of being the One, as can be seen by people who are strongly discouraged from asserting they were this or that important person in their back track. Any auditor, who knows their auditing tech, knows that there are remedies for people who assert they were Jesus Christ, Confucius, Lao Tze or (god forbid) Buddha in a past life (to name just a few).
    No one is allowed to be these people because the messianic status of Hubbard could be attacked, therefore sending the whole house of cards into shambles. This implant apparently only works when one person alone is the messiah.
    The Bible has the same implant. The first comandment is a re-enforcement of that implant: “Thou shalt have no other God than me” (paraphrased). The meaning of this is: I am the One, the Savior, your Lord.
    In order to understand the Bible and the genus of all this type of documents, one should investigate the actual time line of events that took place around that era — the one that spans from the fall of Atlantis to the consolidation of the Sumerian Empire (it appears that the Sumerian civilization covered an area that greatly resembled the Empire of Alexander the Great — unlike what current historians believe). These were times that are covered in the Bible. The Great Flood myth is an allegory for the war that took place on Earth about fourteen thousand to eleven thousand years ago. The aftermath of this war is the main core of the scriptures of the religions of Sumer and later of the Jews. The Bible describes how these alien overlords, who posed as gods, regrouped and set in motion a plan of conquest that is still going on today.
    There were more than one race of aliens meddling with mankind. The race known today as Aryans had managed to escape the deluge and the devastation of the war and had regrouped at the southern end of the Ural mountains. From there, they gradually divided into two major groups that populated Europe and the Middle Eastern part of Asia, all the way to the Indus valley. Allegedly, another race sprung back up in a close area to where the Aryans regrouped: this is mentioned in the Bible, as being the landing place of Noah’s Ark.
    One particular god, who to my understanding was not Aryan but of a reptilian race, is described in the Bible by the name of Yahweh. His race was known to Terrans as the Elohim, at the time. In Babylon and Sumer, they were known as the Annunaki, according to Zachariah Sitchin; they were of the same race but of an enemy faction. About five thousand years after the Great Flood (read: major nuclear war), give or take a few centuries, Yahweh took power in the land of Canaan. It began around the time the Jews were in Egypt, when he came down with the Ten Comandments and, since then, he was their Lord. He promised the Jews the land of Canaan and environs. He told them that, if they swore blind loyalty to him, he would make them the race who would be the material overlords of this planet — he would bring riches and salvation to them.
    It is the same implant, can you see? I am the One who will save you, the One who will lead you to your “promised land” — Moses is my earthly representative and speaks with my voice.
    Several thousands of years later, the Romans (who believed or held allegiance to another alien faction, which was Aryan in origin) invade the lands of the Jews and thus another Messiah is created, to free the “oppressed”. This time, his name is Jesus. He still works for Yahweh, the “One true god”, but he is “his son”, now.
    Same patter of spiritual liberation, similar allegories and miracles — except that now instead of blinding acceptance of the One god, a message of love and tolerance is preached but… only for those who “take the word of the One god in their hearts”, only for those who make “the One their savior”.
    Can you see how this is the same implant? The same pattern?
    Earlier, we have the Hindu Rama, who was the avatar of the hindu god Vishnu. He was an Aryan alien, who took human form to save the Earth, and so forth and lead his people from oppression. All these are different dramatizations of the same implant, played over and over, to keep us in a state of subservience.
    Coming back to Scientology, nowadays, the full messianic implant is being played with Miscavige. I have no way of knowing whether Hubbard created this of his own volition or something went wrong during the research on the upper levels. However, there is a clearly marked difference between the flavor of early Scientology and the flavor the movement assumed in the mid-sixties, when a lot of the research revolved around cleaning up sins and evil intentions.
    I am probably preaching to the choir for many of you; still, I believe that a clear statement and analysis of this factor (the similarities of this implant being dramatized over and over) was worth making.
    If you disagree, or find this particularly anathema, feed me to the lions — wouldn’t be the first time…!

    • Couldn’t the earliest implant simply be “awareness”?

      • Vinaire,
        depends what your definition of awareness is.

        • How about regular dictionary definition?

          • Ok. Well, then no. I don’t see it that way. Awareness cannot be “implanted”. Awareness is, to my understanding, a concept of knowing one knows. In order to know, an entity must be able to consider.
            Now, reading the responses you also made to Valkov, it appears to me that you understand that an “awareness”, or a potentiality of awareness, existed before individuals were aware (thus becoming conscious). That’s fine; however, who or what was being aware then?
            I must also mention, here, that simple truths are the most powerful — they are also the easiest to explain and understand. I have full certainty of this. Philosophical conundrums that circle back and forth and seem to never get an answer do not appear to me to be truth.
            This is the bottom line I am trying to make: It could be said that our ability to be aware is the first spark that gave us an individuality. One could say that, before being aware, we might not have been “individual”. However, I don’t think this is true either.
            I believe there are “higher densities” (one may call them dimensions) where a plurality is unnecessary. It does not mean that one is not an individual but the concept is sort of reduntant. It is difficult to fully explain this concept in a dualistic density like this one. The closest concept could be Nirvana but even that one doesn’t quite cut it.
            I conjecture that, in a non-pluralistic density like the one I mentioned above, individual awareness might not be necessary and might not exist. However, as we come down into pluralistic densities, like the dual density we live in, awareness is born to give us a sense of separateness from everything else. Now, one might ask if this was not “forced on” or “implanted” into someone? Possibly; however, I think it was more of a natural reflex to be able to exist in this density.

            • FLAVP: “That’s fine; however, who or what was being aware then?”

              How does “who or what” comes about? What is “who or what” made up of?

            • Could the idea of individuality be implanted?

              • Let me opinionate about this. Sure, the idea of individuality can be implanted. Any idea could be implanted.

                • Then Axiom # 1 could be an implant.

                  • All of reality as you know it could be the result of implants which make you fixated on believing that existence exists- better ditch it all those ideas! 🙂 Set yourself free of them. Oh, but you can’t set yourself free of anything because the self does not exist. Right? I think we have arrived at the central paradox of Buddhism’s presentation of itself. An inconsistency big enough to drive a truck through…… 🙂

                    • Awareness = no fixation
                      Awareness of awareness = Fixation (interiorization into self)
                      Thetan = awareness of awareness unit = implant.

      • No, because that creates an infinite regression – who did the first implant? There is no beginning in such a chain. That is why Buddha said awareness or consciousness (if they are the same) is beginningless and endless.

        • It is a fixed idea to think that “who” must come before awareness.

          Arising of awareness is followed by consciousness (self-awareness), which is followed by emergence of forms. It is only then that consciousness breaks down into viewpoints, and there comes about a relative sense of who, what, where and when.

          .

          • That’s bs. It’s not a “fixed idea” at all. Calling it that is a violation of discussion policy. It is one possible idea among many possible ideas.

            You appear to be making a distinction between awareness and consciousness. I’m not sure this is a valid distinction, nor that you are consistent in how you use these two words. Do you have definitions for these two words, that make a distinction between them?

    • Flavp, I think you would enjoy reading Harold Percivals account of this. The chapter entitled “Gods and their religions”, starting on page 647 in the book “Thinking and Destiny”. There is a pdf version free online. He goes into how and why the cycle repeats.

    • Mark N Roberts

      Quite a paper, Flavp.
      I have been a leader and have been led, many times. Got a lot more sex and better quarters when I was the leader.

      Control control control. I have written papers on the origin of this very heavy subject. This article gives me much additional insight into how it has played out. This should give us all insight into where things are going. God(s) help us. It’s not going to be pretty.
      Mark

      • Mark,
        I appreciate your comment.
        Yes, it isn’t pretty, if we let things go the way they’re going. The only solution, though, is to work to raise the genral awareness of the people of Earth. We have very fast communication lines today and we can spread the truth faster. The truth may not be accepted by many but at least they have been told about it. If they remain completely ignorant of it, when the time comes that they will need to know truth from lies, they will be able at least to make their own right choices.
        What I am trying to say is that the negative forces on this planet do very much intend to dramatize the Book of Revelations on Earth. They are going to do that in one way or the other — they’ve been planning this for a long time.
        Our only weapon is our level of consciousness. We cannot really be spiritually harmed unless we go along with it.
        As far as being a leader is concerned, better quarters and sex are probably the only advantages and perks one gets in that position; however, that’s not really being a leader.
        “Rank has its priviledges, rank has its responsibilities” is something Nelson invented to justify his buggering of the young sailors on board his vessel. I have no way of knowing if that was a good thing or not. I suppose, it was good for Nelson and not so good for the young sailor; unless, of course, the young sailor achieved a sort of concubine status that granted him certain perks, as well. I could go for that.

    • Flavp,
      “Alex Collier and Zachariah Sitchin.”

      I recently read the book “The 12th Planet”. It was on the recommendation of a blog poster. I found it rough going because of the constant use of words translated from Sumerian. If I wanted to learn about these events, is there a quicker way?

      Kind Regards,
      George M. White

      • George,
        Go on You Tube and search either for Alex Collier or David Icke’s lectures and speeches. The book Children of the Matrix by David Icke is sort of an eye-opener. I agree that Sitchin is a bit of a hard grind for someone who may be just starting on this subject. Go for Icke and Collier first.
        Hope it helps.

  27. About myths, literalisms and transcendence.

    An excerpt from “The Jesus Mysteries” book:
    http://www.themysteryexperience.com/the-jesus-mysteries/

    The Pagan Daemon/eidolon doctrine casts light on the otherwise baffling Gnostic teaching known as “Illusionism”.

    The Gnostic Illusionist view of the crucifixion was not meant to be taken as a historical account of events. It is a myth that encodes the perennial mystical teachings that a human being is made up of two parts: an earthly part which suffers and dies (the eidolon), and an eternal spiritual witness (the Daemon), which is untouched by suffering and experiences this world as a passing illusion.

    This teaches that the incarnate Higher Self (represented by Jesus) seems to suffer when the eidolon suffers, but in reality is always the untouched witness. In The Acts of John Jesus explains:

    You heard that I suffered, but I suffered not.
    An unsuffering one was I, yet suffered.
    One pierced was I, yet I was not abused.
    One hanged was I, and yet not hanged.
    Blood flowed from me, yet did not flow.

  28. Let me clarify the inconsistency associated with the STATIC of Axiom 1:

    (1) “Static – Dynamic” is a dichotomy.
    (2) A dichotomy basically refers to a scale by its two opposite ends.
    (3) These two ends of the scale are part of an infinite gradient. They do not exist independent of each other.
    (4) Static and dynamic form two ends of a scale. They cannot exist independent of each other.
    (5) Axiom # 1 is Hubbard’s sleight of hand for the general masses who can be hypnotized easily. It comes from Hubbard’s THETA-MEST theory where he separates STATIC from DYNAMIC, making them independent of each other, and thus absolute in themselves.
    (6) He presents the universe an an absolute “dynamic” and then creates the idea of an absolute ‘static” outside this universe. Hubbard thus creates and aribitrary universe that does not contain everything contradicting the definition of universe. He also contradicts his dictum that Absolutes are unobtainable.
    (7) This is magic.if believed.
    (8) This is self-contradiction when observed with mindfulness.

  29. Yep, Scientology is monotheistic, and the door to any type of research into it was slammed shut, denying it real workability and credibility.

    It’s carefully laid out as a gradual shift from self-determinism to lrh’s determinism.

    I think a group needs to strip it down and completely rebuild it, it was a boat sailing for space or some other dimension, nobody knows… now it’s a boat with a pirate at the helm, the new captain is an uneducated douchebag sailing it into the rocks and stealing from everyone on board.

    Figure out where we do want the boat to go, who can ride it and build it accordingly.

    Maybe that’s what is going on but it seems like all anyone in the indie-ex-scene is doing is deconstructing it, or jumping ship onto some other ship, any other ship, looking for a better ship. I think the parts are right in front of us we just need to pick them up and do something useful with them.

  30. I have started to keep a record of all the objections made by Valkov to not-is the inconsistency in Axiom 1: Here is the beginning of that list:

    1. Static is beyond words.

    Not so. Static is defined by Axiom #1, Factor #1, and with further explanations provided in the books “Scn 8-8008” and “The Phoenix Lectures”.

    2. There is no personality or self to Static.

    The “self” of Static is “peculiar and particular abilities” or “individuality” as described by Hubbard. Thus, Static is an awareness even if that awareness of peculiar abilities. As a result it must be a disturbance that has the form of light.

    3. Static is exterior to everything we can know and perceive.

    Static is not exterior to the “ability to postulate and perceive.”

    4. Static is basically not in the universe.

    A universe is the superset of all that exists. If the ability to postulate and perceive exists then that ability is part of this universe. Therefore, static, as an ability, is part of this universe.

    [More to come…]
    :

    • Is there a point in all this? I am not finding that it is helpful or adds to my knowledge of anything existing in a meaningful way. Just sayin’

      This discussion has devolved into something similar to “how many thetans can dance on the head of a pin.” It has about that much use to me.

    • “A universe is the superset of all that exists.” That’s your definition of ‘a universe’. Even that may be illogically stated, as you used the word “a”. THat implies there may be more than one universe, in which case your definition is inconsistent, self contradictory, because if it is the superset of of all that exists, then it is ALL and there cannot be any other universes. IF there actually are other universes, then Static could very well be OUTSIDE this one we are in. You seem to be “monotheistic” about “the universe”, except you did let that word “a” slip in there….. 🙂

    • Static is not exterior to the “ability etc”. How so. That does not logically follow, either. I have a chair and I do sit in it a lot, but I am quite capable of being exterior to it. I might even argue I am exterior to it even when I am sitting in it. So, I ‘have’ something in no way implies I am not exterior to it. But right now I am going to interiorize into my automobile and let it take me to the store because I am out of half-and-half for my tea and coffee. Ford willing, of course.
      Wow! Talk about big-time interiorization! I am in my body, which is going to take me to my car, then get in my car itself, carrying me right along with it. I wil be double-interiorized!

  31. Here is my conclusion from

    Hubbard, Scientology and Buddhism

    “My conclusion is that Hubbard tried to position Scientology using the popularity of Buddhism. He defined the goals of Scientology to be similar to the goals of Buddhism; and the state of Clear to be similar to the state of Bodhi. According to him, Scientology far surpassed the results of Buddhism.

    “But the truth is that through the technique of mindfulness Buddha could see that the self was illusory, and he took steps to help others transcend that illusion. However, Hubbard and Scientology went in the opposite direction making the empowering of individuality to be its goal. These two goals are completely opposite of each other.

    “Buddha lived a long fulfilling life of 80 years in the relatively primitive conditions that prevailed 2600 years ago in India. He passed away peacefully surrounded by his disciples.

    “Hubbard lived for 74 years in the comfortable affluence of twentieth century America. He died while living in hiding, alone and in quite an unhappy and disturbed state of mind.”

  32. Here is an additional reference of Hubbard minimizing Buddha’s efforts and accomplishments.

    From Hubbard’s Lecture 6211C01 The Road to Truth:

    “Now, Buddha – Gautama Siddhartha – nobody should say any hard words about this man, because he told everybody he was just a man, he was trying to set men free and he was trying to help people out and so forth. And all that was perfectly true. And he discovered how to exteriorize without being able to stably exteriorize, without discovering any of the rules or laws of exteriorization, without making it possible for anybody else to exteriorize at will.

    “How many hundred million people, since twenty-five hundred years ago until now, did Gautama Siddhartha totally condemn to utter and complete slavery by not walking down that road all the way?

    “Because that-those half-truths have been used and used and misused and abused and booby-trapped and monkeyed up and so forth. That’s merely because he didn’t go all the way down the road, don’t you see?

    “Now, knowing this sort of thing, it takes a rather brave man to walk in the direction of truth because he knows very definitely that he must go on down the road. If he knows anything at all, he realizes that the traps of existence and the upsets of existence are composed of half-truths, and that all work to amuse or enlighten or something is susceptible to being employed in the field of enslavement.

    “The slave makers always use it; it serves as the mechanism to trap by the two-way flow, don’t you see? Somebody comes along and want to set everybody free and naturally the reverse flow on it is to trap everybody. One has to recognize this as an action.”

    Buddha did go all the way down the road. He discovered that self was an illusion too, and that the ultimate reality was beyond the illusion of self.

    Hubbard, on the other hand got trapped in the illusion of self, and he actively trapped others by promising them super-natural abilities through OT levels.

    .

    • Let’s assume Buddha did “go all the way down that road”. Why not grant him that? Now, 2,600 years later, how many people have been able to follow him “all the way down that road”? Where are they? Let them step forward and announce themselves, I say.

      So although Siddhartha may have walked that road all the way to the end, did he leave it marked well enough for the rest of us to follow. Did he really leave us a complete step-by-step “how-to”?

      I think not.

      • I think that George has given a pretty good answer to your questions here:

        “We have a tradition in Theravada which includes many saints who have in modern times achieved the highest goal. You never hear about it because they do not announce it. It is against policy.”

        https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310528

        Actually, Valkov, this response from George was to you. Did you read it?

        • Yes, I read it, and I very much appreciated his response. There is a lot of meat there. My post was too challenging, I admit. I was annoyed at your constant carping about how superior Buddha was to LRH, so I issued a challenge. I do not expect those to have reached nirvana to step up and say, “I have attained nirvana and it is “da bomb!” However in Eastern martial arts there are different color belts depending on the degree one has attained. Something like that is worth considering. Of course the danger is inflating egos, but one would think someone who has attained nirvana would be immune to that?

          • VAL: “I was annoyed at your constant carping about how superior Buddha was to LRH,”

            That is an interesting revelation.

            • What’s to reveal? Your perseveration about some things is well known. How come you don’t post on Geir’s blog anymore? That would be an interesting revelation.

              • in other words, I think you are fixated on certain ideas and perceptions associated with scientology, LRH, and Buddha, at least aprtly based on a culturally derived worldview. But then, I have my ‘kamma’ too.

                • Ideas only change in discussion mode and not in the debate mode. I find Geir, you and Marildi always in a debate mode, and rarely in a discussion mode. That is why my ideas appear fixated to you because I cannot get past you the basic ideas.

              • I have stopped visiting Geir’s Blog because Geir doesn’t care for Discussion Policy, and there is proper discussion like the one I am having with George here.

      • Valkov,
        From my experience, the Buddha did leave a well-marked step by step method to follow. I know this because in meditation I have reached far higher states that I could even imagine in Scientology. It is like the old apples and oranges analogy. In addition, when I get to the end of the eight-fold path with right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, it is possible to see the end of the path in a controlled way. We have in Theravada the concept of “stream entry”. I achieved stream entry about 14 years ago. It is a moment when nirvana is within reach and you know it. This is what Hubbard missed. He never attained “right view” and stream entry. Thus he was analyzing Buddhism from the wrong point of view. This is specifically why he said Buddha never walked the total road to Truth. Hubbard could have easily walked “the road to truth”, if he had taken the time and the mental effort to see it. The fact that Hubbard denied Nirvana proves that he never attained stream entry. He was looking at Buddhism from the outside. Hubbard could never grasp the dynamic nature of life. Hubbard devised his own method to analyze life with the thetan as the key. From this perspective of exteriorization, he only got a distorted view of reality. In actual fact, Nirvana is to Buddhists an actual element. This is where Hubbard went wrong. He was dealing with matter energy, space and time. He left out actually two elements. First, he left out Nirvana. Second, he claimed that Buddhists were confused about the word “Dharma” ( we actually say Dhamma – Hubbard did not know Pali).
        He went as far as to say that we have about ten definitions. He then dismissed Buddhism in the lecture. He violated his own study tech. He did not clear them. He thus by-passed the second important element. In its basic form Dhamma means natural law or Buddha’s teaching. This Hubbard was forever trapped in the “subject/object” mode and never got out even to his last day.

        Kind Regards,
        GMW

        • Thanks Mr. White. I actually am aware that there is a Buddhist “bridge”, having either 4 or 8 ‘stages of enlightenment’ by most accounts, depending on who is counting. These stages are analogous to “EPs” in scientology – things a person can ‘see’ within himself, in either positive or negative terms. In other words, there is negative gain, where a person no longer ‘has’ certain impediments, and positive gain, where he has gained a new ability.

          I think different paths are comparable only in that they are based on the seeking of the basic or ultimate truth(s) of life. I’ve started a project of ‘studying’ scientology, which I will need to complete down the line. Otr I may not. Who knows? However, my perception of any path is that it must be pursued just as you say you have been pursuing Theravada – with great thoroughness!

          I appreciate your thoughts on LRH vs. Buddha, Scientology vs. Buddhism, because they are first-hand. Someday I hope to be able to do a point-by-point comparison.

          I can’t evaluate your remarks because I am not that deep into my studies. There are 3,000 + hours of LRH recorded lectures. There are many hours of theory and practical auditor training. There are many hours of ‘sitting in the chair’, beyond studying the theory.
          I’ve barely scratched the surface!
          Anything I can say is speculation. The discussion is moot because there are always imponderables. Double-blind studies are not possible. There are not two of you, or two of me, or four of each of us, that could each follow different paths from the same starting point, and compare the results after say, 20 years…. ‘Where’ would you be in your personal progress towards ‘enightenment’, if you had not had the scientology experience you had before entering Buddhism? Or vice-versa? That’s how I see life.

          It will be a miracle if I can integrate my own single experience into a meaningful whole! Thus I am, as I have been for quite awhile, at a position of “I don’t know”.

          In any case, I am very glad you have been posting here! It truly has been a breath of fresh air as someone said. Thank you and best wishes!
          .

          • VAL: ”I can’t evaluate your remarks because I am not that deep into my studies. There are 3,000 + hours of LRH recorded lectures. There are many hours of theory and practical auditor training. There are many hours of ‘sitting in the chair’, beyond studying the theory.”

            I think you can cut down the above estimates of the time required considerably if you use Subject Clearing in focusing on the fundamentals of Scientology first.

          • Thanks Valkov,
            ” I can’t evaluate your remarks because I am not that deep into my studies. There are 3,000 + hours of LRH recorded lectures. There are many hours of theory and practical auditor training. There are many hours of ‘sitting in the chair’, beyond studying the theory.
            I’ve barely scratched the surface!”

            I spent about seventeen years in very intense study of all of Hubbard’s tapes , books, lectures etc. In addition, I did all of the auditing up to Class IV/OT VIII.
            Good luck on your journey. Get a soft chair and a good coffee pot.
            I recommend the PDC tapes as well. I listened to the complete set almost 60 times.

            Much Metta,
            GMW

            • Wow! All I can say for myself is that I somehow came into this life with what I believe is a kind of ‘intuitive’ understanding of some ‘basic’ truth. I am admittedly a dilettante. My chart does show a Grand Trine in Air. And a Grand Cross in the Primaries of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. Who knows what all that really means, but it seems significant. I can tell you from personal experience, Ouch!

  33. Tom Gallagher

    Let’s cut to the quick……………

    ‘Ron is GAWD! ‘

    That’s the noise evangelical scientology cultists make when they are trying to say “LRH is God.”

    HIP HIP HOORAY!

  34. https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310528

    George, you are a very level headed person, and it is a joy discussing Buddhism with you.

    I have the background of Hinduism, which is a religion. Buddhism is eastern psychology and not a religion. My interest in Buddhism arose after I came across Scientology. My recognition of mindfulness came through Hubbard’s TR0. So, there is a lot for which I have to be thankful to Hubbard, but Hinduism helped me recognize that Hubbard was fixated on self, and Scientology was limited in that respect. I could see OT levels to be more of a fixation on self, so I did not take that route. Instead I took the route of Mindfulness.

    I have never studied Buddhism in detail to appreciate the differences between Therveda, Mahayana and Tibetan. I am glad that you are bringing up those differences in discussion with Valkov. I am basically a scientist and am interested in organizing the basics of knowledge. That is what I found attractive about Hubbard. In Scientology I loved the Study tech and Data Series.

    But Scientology was good to get me started. To me it has been like the kindergarten of “scientific spirituality”. There is much more out there than TR0, Study Tech, Data Series and Auditing. All that data needs to be organized “scientifically”. I now find Study Tech and Word Clearing to be very limited. It has a missing dimension that I have tried to incorporate in Subject Clearing on my blog. Please see

    Subject Clearing

    You can certainly help me in applying subject clearing (a form of mindfulness) to Buddhism. This is the only way that I think that I would be able to understand and organize what Buddha might have said.

    Thank you for being there.

    Much regards,
    Vinaire

    • vinaire,
      Thank you for the kind words. I like your blog post on subject clearing. It should be posted in every high school in the USA.

      “You can certainly help me in applying subject clearing (a form of mindfulness) to Buddhism. This is the only way that I think that I would be able to understand and organize what Buddha might have said.”

      My wife and I work as a team in learning Theravada Buddhism. I introduced her to the basics and she took off from there. She loves to study Pali and this really helps. Here is the outline of how we learned Buddhism in very simplified form.

      At the beginning we kept in mind:
      The Triple Gem which is Buddha, the Teaching and the Sangha( monks). The Buddha said to treat each as a resource. We got to know Buddha the person – his compassion and his life. We learned what the Buddha said –
      not what others said about his teaching. We asked questions of the monks.
      We travelled to West Virginia to meet monks and we talked with them. We were fortunate to have an active Vihara and an active Buddhist community in Tampa. We purchased every single used book on Theravada. We have now over 100.

      Here is the core of what we did over and over:

      1. Meditate
      2. Study Discources – Read what the Buddha said.
      3. Read books on Buddhism
      4. Talk to monks – ask questions; clear up concepts.
      5. Listen to Tapes, podcasts, and CD’s Find a favorite monk.
      6. Study Pali
      7 Go to 1 and repeat.

      We invested an average of 4 hours per day for about 10 years.

      Vinnaire, I have a great book for you.
      George Grimm, The Doctrine of the Buddha.

      Kind Regards,
      George M. White

      • GMW: ”Thank you for the kind words. I like your blog post on subject clearing. It should be posted in every high school in the USA.“

        That is the best compliment I have ever received. Thank you.

        Subject Clearing came about from my desire to scientifically approach the very confusing subject of spirituality. This subject is full of assumptions and wild speculations motivated by the desire to know. The concepts in this area need to be organized in a consistent and coherent manner.

        This is one of the reasons I was attracted to Hubbard’s work. He was like a breath of fresh air. He did an organization in this subject which no one had attempted before on this scale. It brought a lot of concepts together for me. I got so good that I was able to perceive inconsistencies in Hubbard’s work itself. Well, that was progress.

        I was a Word Clearer during many years in Sea Org, Word Clearing was an excellent approach to understanding and I had lots of wins from it. But I soon found its limitation as a word clearer on the Flag TRs Course. Word Clearing was grounding into the students some wrong concepts embedded in some of Hubbard’s definitions. When I tried to correct it, I was literally creamed with Qual Cramming and Ethics.

        Obviously, I was taken off as the Word Clearer for the Flag TRs Course, where, once, at the end of the course, students happen to clap for me too along with clapping for Hubbard. Haha! That must have enraged some people!

        So I had plenty of motivation to come up with Subject Clearing.🙂

        .

      • Dear George, you are the perfect partner for me to discuss spirituality with because you have put a lot of effort in understanding Buddhism. By now you must be familiar with both western and eastern way of thinking like I am. I admire yours and your wife’s effort in learning Theravada Buddhism.

        The eastern and western systems of thinking are different and that is pertinent to sort out the inconsistencies between respective spiritual systems.

        My premise is that all spiritual knowledge must be consistent. If there is any inconsistency then there is also an assumption there. That assumption needs to be ferreted out.

        When I study I don’t try to remember. I am only studying to spot inconsistencies with a view to sort them out. It is from the resolution of inconsistencies that I learn.

        What does Theravada say about Nirvana or the Ground State of all existence? How does it compare to the concept of Scientology Static.

        >

        • vinaire,
          “What does Theravada say about Nirvana or the Ground State of all existence? How does it compare to the concept of Scientology Static.”

          My wife and I worked on this one for a very long time. I can outline some of the work. It has been several years since this research so I will do my best.

          Hubbard basically states that the Thetan is, in the end, in a small amount of mass. This is actually the key to understanding Scientology. Hubbard also differentiates a static as “no wavelength, no motion and no mass”. The bridge between the two is the “potential to postulate”. So in the end you have a static that is in little or “no mass” but always with the potential to postulate.
          In Theravada Buddhism, the end game is Nirvana or Cessation. It is like a flame that goes out because the fuel is taken away. This fuel is kamma in many forms. Hubbard’s “potential to postulate” in Theravada would be classified as ‘bhava kamma” the desire for being. Hubbard puts an ace in the hole for himself and the thetan. Thus Hubbard, in Theravada terms, would be clinging to existence or samsara, endless re-birth. Now death, in Theravada is sort of a double illusion. In other words, we see death because we are caught in a mental trap. We also see death because of what I can call the “reverse flow” of existence. This means that all things are from multiple causes not a single cause. For Hubbard, death is dropping the body which proves that he is caught in the first illusion. Hubbard looked at the Buddha and said he did not “reverse the flow” because he did not solve all the personal problems of all people on planet earth. Buddha actually put together a consistent philosophy. Buddha knew “reverse flow” in many ways which I will leave out for now. In Theravada Buddhist terms, this ability of the thetan to postulate is actally a hinderance. In other words, you need silence. In the West, Buddhism is rejected because we obviously build great cities with technology, we extend life and some of us really enjoy life. The most common thing I hear is “I’m not suffering; I do not need the Buddha.”. This is great until death; you only live once so enjoy it. My doctor keeps me whole. This is why Hubbard did not like Buddhism. He had power and money.
          The question of the “ground of existence” is more complex from a Theravada viewpoint and gets really involved. I can tell you that I suspect that Hubbard misunderstood both Nirvana and the similar Hindu Moksha. This is my suspicion. Buddha gave some information on the structure of the universe but it is very, very difficult to translate into English and some is in serious dispute. However, the key to all of it is the famous passage about “mind leading”. In Theravada Buddhism MIND is key not theta or the thetan. Very very big difference. It is not theta/mest at all; it is mind matter.
          There are thetans in Buddhism but they are impermanent beings who sort of get stuck in some aspects of karma. Some disputed literature suggests that these spirits are “cleaned up” after a very, very long time. This is all speculation and in dispute by scholars.
          When the Buddha attained enlightenment, he spent 49 days thanking the universe and all beings, animals and even trees for giving him shade. He had the “big bang” in his head. It was not exteriorization. He gave us his path and some clues. He did it before modern Quantum Physics and Singularity, which I think Hubbard would deny.

          Kind Regards,
          GMW

          • George, I think I am going to shut up now because I have been taking too much bandwidth on Marty’s Blog. Besides the kind of discussions I have been engaged in are too out-gradient for most people.

            I think I shall restrict myself to simple exercises on mindfulness that may benefit maximum number of people. Could you please give me feedback on the following exercise. This exercise should be very simple for anyone to do.

            http://vinaire.me/2014/07/27/mindfulness-1-observe-without-expecting/

            Thanks,
            Vinaire

            • vinaire,

              “George, I think I am going to shut up now because I have been taking too much bandwidth on Marty’s Blog. Besides the kind of discussions I have been engaged in are too out-gradient for most people.”

              First of all, I looked at the link as you requested. It is light and easy. I think it is the right method to apply.
              As I indicated on another thread, this long section on Marty’s blog will end soon when he changes topic.
              I am personally in excellent shape right now, much better for the great discussion. As Ricky Nelson said in the song “Garden Party”
              “You can’t please everyone”.
              I am expecting that the next section on Marty’s Blog will be exciting as usual.

              Kind Regards,
              GMW

          • Thanks again George! I think a key point is that the ‘bridges’ of Buddhism and Scientology are to different bridges and do not lead to the same place. I have not been focusing on this because I am still often surprised at the ‘concordance’ I see between statements of Buddha and statements of LRH. They are sometimes just plain uncanny, which is what I notice. But that can be found between many religious teachings. The differences are important, too.

            LRH did not need to study Buddhism. He had a different goal in mind. It was “the playing of a better game”. This included a better, happier life right here in this world, in this universe. Good plumbing, good food, good medicine, less war. Look at India or China, Korea, Cambodia, Burma etc. These are countries “Buddhist” countries. In 2,000 years, what has Buddhism done for them? I think LRH nailed it that the Eastern philosophy in general is about passively “enduring”, while the Western has been about “striking a hard blow”, about “arriving”. (The Phoenix Lectures).
            Thus LRH’s goal was never “nirvana”.

            I think today the world stands at the brink of a new synthesis. People like Ken Wilbur have been working to integrate the hard-won knowledge from both streams – the Eastern and the Western. Meditators have been getting psychology degrees and becoming therapists. And vice-versa. Psychologists and psychiatrists are becoming meditators, yogis. Only a small percentage of people will be interested in Buddhism specifically, or Scientology specifically, or Magick, or or or or, at any one time.

            Wilbur in fact has a theory that depending on which point of an evolutionary cycle a person is at, s/he will be interested in an “inward” teaching like Buddhism or Scientology, or outward teachings an studies like engineering and physics. This is a principle from the materials on Dissemination, too. Example: the idea of “suffering and the last straw”. Many, perhaps most, people have not reached that stage, where they are ready to actually devote a lot of time and energy to the discipline of a deep study of a liberating technology. Many people do not want “nirvana”. They want to be reborn, particularly if they can live with a better, healthier, more long-lasting body. They are not tired of living. They simply want living to be more fun than it sometimes is. When they have suffered enough, they start noticing Buddhism or Scientology or whatever. But things must be BAD ENOUGH before they do so.

            • Valkov,
              “LRH did not need to study Buddhism. He had a different goal in mind. It was “the playing of a better game”. This included a better, happier life right here in this world, in this universe. Good plumbing, good food, good medicine, less war. ”

              You are very correct. That is the riddle. He did not even NEED to give the talk on “The Road To Truth”.

              GMW

            • Val, the above is one of the best posts on this thread in terms of the bigger picture, and shows you to have one of the broadest and most unbiased viewpoints.

              Btw, it’s true that the dissemination materials focused on finding the person’s “ruin” – i.e. what was ruining their life, from their viewpoint. But having been a Public Reg for a few years, I can tell you it was not all that uncommon to come across people who were interested in Scientology because they wanted to help others. “Help” is at a higher level on the Awareness Characteristic than “Ruin.” I’m guessing that Wilbur’s ideas probably incorporate this difference in the evolution of people.

              • Yes. Back in the day, Peter F. Gihma wrote up a little manual of Dissemination. One of the chapters is about exactly that – there are two types of people. One is ‘overt-aggressive’. They come in because they want to learn how to help others. They don’t necessarily see themselves as needing any help. He said as many as 50% will be this type. I believe he gave some LRH references about this.

                http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/index.php?dir=Books%2FTELL+IT+LIKE+IT+IS%2F

                • Typing too fast. Peter F. GILHAM.

                • “Overt-agressive” sounds better than “hard-headed” or “mean woman”🙂

                  • But beware of the Drama Triangle. It turns out those are valences and a person tends to rotate through them over time…… 🙂

                    I wondered how you would take that song…… BUt “overt-aggressive” sounds too much like some kind of technical jargon used by ‘eggheads’, as academic intellectuals were called by rednecks back in the 1950s…. whereas anyone can understand ‘hard-headed woman’. 🙂

              • What I mainly recall about Wilbur is his thesis that the East focused on “transpersonal psychology”, while the West has been focusing on Personal, individual psychology. He said these are actually a continuum of psychological development. He synthesized the two into as I recall, a scale of about 7 or 8 developmental stages. His thesis is that both are necessary,
                that a healthy individual development from birth through adulthood will lead to better results as a person attempts to advance into the higher stages of transpersonal psychological development. He points out examples of how development can be stunted or suppressed, and how some of that can be built in to a culture, creating a kind of ‘glass ceiling’ beyond which a person will have difficulty growing.
                Marty recommended Wilbur’s book A Brief History of Everything to me, and it is well worth reading. There is a lot more in the book!

                • Thanks. From your post descriptions and Marty’s, I get that Wilbur makes a lot of sense. My sister is big on him too.

      • GMW: “Vinnaire, I have a great book for you.
        George Grimm, The Doctrine of the Buddha.”

        George, I found an old Indian Edition of this book. It is a translation by Bhikku Silacara. It has 411 pages. Chapter III is “The Method of Handing down the “Marvel”. Is this the book you have in mind?

  35. I think that it is about time to conclude this discussion on Axiom #1. The discussion with Valkov has been quite enlightening. Here is my conclusion.

    Hubbard defined thetan as awareness of awareness unit. He was correct in narrowing everything down to awareness. All life starts with awareness. But beyond that he fictionalized a thetan.

    The correct scientific reasoning would have been as follows:

    (1) It is recognized that life starts with awareness.

    (2) Therefore, the dichotomy here would be “no awareness – awareness.”

    (3) Beyond awareness would be no awareness and any area beyond awareness would be unknowable.

    (4) We cannot tell if there is no life beyond awareness because that area is unknowable.

    (5) But we can use “absence of awareness” as a reference point of all awareness just like we use “zero” as a reference point for all numbers.

    (6) From this reference point the “Static” of Scientology, which refers to a specific type of individuality, would be a point of awareness.

    (7) Thus, “Static” of Scientiology is a variable in itself. It is not the reference point of all life as assumed by Hubbard.

    Q.E.D.
    .

    • It all sounds pretty good right up to #7. You don’t take it quite far enough. I would say Static is the ultimate variable. That is what, possibly, makes it the reference point of all life. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “reference point of life”, but it could be called ‘the ultimate variable’ because everything existing proceeds from it. The existence of awareness or lack of awareness, those are moot points. here’s a possibly real, concrete analogy: some scientists have recently conjectured that the sun, and every star, contains in its depths a black hole. A black hole cannot be seen, because light cannot escape its gravity. At best we can see its ‘event horizon’. What is beyond that, is ‘unknowable’ in a real sense. It is beyond our perception. However, it is clear that the sun, and every star, emits a lot of light. Yet apparently there is some reason to think it might contain at its center, a black hole. Interesting, huh?

      • Valkov: “but it could be called ‘the ultimate variable’ because everything existing proceeds from it.”

        Really!

        • As LRH defined it, Yes, really.

          Let me explain it this way: One needs to get out of the fixation on words. For example: Life IS basically a Static. The, or ‘a’, Static does not exist, by definition. No mass, no location in time or space, etc etc. Static does not exist. However, LIFE is basically a Static. Get it? Everything proceeds from nothing. Everything is Empty of ‘own being’. Language is the problem. All language can do is approximate. That was a good choice of words on your part, a few posts back. Congratulations!

  36. I have come to believe that Valkov and Marildi are operating on a
    “logic” very different from mine. So, one of the items on my list is to understand their specialized logic.

  37. I think that Scientology does something to people’s logic circuits. It will be an interesting area to investigate.

    • vin,
      Good point. You are looking at something that I have been looking at for more than 25 years since I left Scientology. After more than 25 years, the stuff still comes off when least expected. The difference is that now there is no pain associated with it. It comes off like lint.
      I am also going to use this thread to reply to Marildi because there are no more slots on the original post. Marildi is looking at the contradictions in what I say especially in regard to my viewpoint on”Buddha enslaved beings.” I am at the same time shocked, offended and “not offended”. This has a great deal to do with getting away from Hubbard. More than ten years ago, we were “shocked” by Hubbard. Today we feel superior to him. There is a difference.
      If I seem to contradict myself, it is simply that I admit I am, as the Buddha said,
      dealing with mind. I am offended by Marildi’s interpretation of Hubbard but I don’t know exactly why. I think that Marildi is using words like “only” “merely” in an attempt to qualify what Hubbard said. We are looking more at what Hubbard said as part of a puzzle. Our minds are forming a viewpoint based on science and logic. We are fitting Hubbard into what we know to find the truth. Marildi is starting with Hubbard as the “truth” and then sharply forcing the issue into space and time. That, IMHO, is why a comment was made about “wierd”.

      GMW

      • GMW: “I am also going to use this thread to reply to Marildi because there are no more slots on the original post.”

        George, you can aways get a link to a comment by clicking on its date, and then continue discussion on that comment in a new thread. You can post this link at the beginning of the new thread to refer to the previous comment.

      • GMW: ” Good point. You are looking at something that I have been looking at for more than 25 years since I left Scientology. After more than 25 years, the stuff still comes off when least expected. The difference is that now there is no pain associated with it. It comes off like lint. “

        George, you are correct. I have addressed this problem for myself as follows:

        (1) Start looking at Scientology staring from its fundamentals.
        (2) Spot an inconsistency.
        (3) Contemplate on that inconsistency.
        (4) Research by looking up non-Scientology references on that area of inconsistency.
        (5) Resolve the inconsistency and record the resulting observations on a blog.

        That is how my blog came about. I have then used the blog for my other passions, such as, mathematics and physics.

        Here my method of contemplation:
        http://vinaire.me/2013/09/11/contemplation-2/

        .

      • GMW: ”… looking at the contradictions in what I say especially in regard to my viewpoint on ”Buddha enslaved beings.” I am at the same time shocked, offended and “not offended”. This has a great deal to do with getting away from Hubbard. More than ten years ago, we were “shocked” by Hubbard. Today we feel superior to him. There is a difference. “

        George, I have better and broader understanding now compared to what I had when in Scientology, but I feel neither superior nor inferior to Hubbard. I think that Hubbard contributed a lot in terms of motivating a scientific discussion in the area of spirituality. This is what motivated your study of Buddhism. This is what we are doing right now.

        In an overall sense, I feel indebted and respectful to Hubbard even when I do not hold back in criticizing his work and behavior where I feel that it needs to be criticized. He was, pure and simple, a man like you and me, who was trying to understand himself and the universe. He went about the way his Buddha nature prompted him. He could not have controlled it. Nobody can control their Buddha nature without rebooting it through Nirvana. Haha!

        Buddha did not enslave beings. He was following his Buddha nature too. By “Buddha Nature” I mean the core construction of one’s nature. It is based on awareness. Awareness does not get amplified by “awareness of awareness”. It just gets a new dimension. The downside of “awareness of awareness” is that it leads to interiorization.

        Anyway, you seem to be confronted with an inconsistency here. Maybe you can test out the procedure I have laid out in http://vinaire.me/2013/09/11/contemplation-2/ to resolve this inconsistency and give me some feedback on how to improve this procedure further.

        Thanks,
        Vinaire

        • Vin, what you wrote here is commendable and upgrades my image of you😉 :

          “…I have better and broader understanding now compared to what I had when in Scientology, but I feel neither superior nor inferior to Hubbard. I think that Hubbard contributed a lot in terms of motivating a scientific discussion in the area of spirituality…

          “In an overall sense, I feel indebted and respectful to Hubbard even when I do not hold back in criticizing his work and behavior where I feel that it needs to be criticized. He was, pure and simple, a man like you and me, who was trying to understand himself and the universe. He went about the way his Buddha nature prompted him.”

          • Marildi, I never think in terms of what image anybody has of me.

            But, I am glad you like what I wrote and I can understand why it is on your wave-length.

            There are other things that I wrote, which you could have appreciated but you didn’t.

            Things are as they are. That is the reality.

          • Mark N Roberts

            Buddha nature.
            After examining many thousands of key moments and many more incidental moments, over a large expanse of time, and studying the thoughts, considerations, postulates, opinions made during and following these moments, I have gained maybe a little insight.

            My nature is comprised of: A blank slate. Decisions made surrounding experiences/interactions. Opinions, purposes acquired from others through observation, suggestion, instruction, coercion, implantation. I did not start with a “nature”, it was acquired. Not only that, but it shifts from time to time.

            The trick is to be conscious of the source and reason for your nature from moment to moment. To be the conscious source of your own nature.
            Just my observation.
            Talk to ya in a bit. Got 5 mi. of pavement to pound.
            Mark

            • There is some commentary about Buddha nature in Buddhism. (Boy that makes me sound bright, doesn’t it? Like outgumping gump. 🙂 )

              My question is, what is the ‘nature’ of a ‘blank slate’?

              • Mark N Roberts

                Val asked;
                “My question is, what is the ‘nature’ of a ‘blank slate’?”

                Now that really is the final question isn’t it. I’ve had just glimpses and could give only inadequate analogies such as a newborn baby, or as a child waking up at a relative’s house and not knowing where you are, but curious to know. Or having moments of blank timelessness during TR-0, but they all fall short.

                Sorry to cop out on this, but we are all trying to nail this one down. Time to set up the tee pee and light a pipe.

                You get the E-mail I sent?
                Mark

          • Yeah, Vinnie is on a real roll in that post! 🙂

      • GMW: ”I am offended by Marildi’s interpretation of Hubbard but I don’t know exactly why. I think that Marildi is using words like “only” “merely” in an attempt to qualify what Hubbard said. We are looking more at what Hubbard said as part of a puzzle. Our minds are forming a viewpoint based on science and logic. We are fitting Hubbard into what we know to find the truth. Marildi is starting with Hubbard as the “truth” and then sharply forcing the issue into space and time. That, IMHO, is why a comment was made about “weird”.“

        The only thing I can say in criticism of Marildi at this point is that she is very good at ignoring other people’s viewpoints. She needs to apply the Discussion Policy, especially point #5.

        Complaining that the other person is not answering their question.

        A person cannot see the answer even when it is given to him if he is already committed to another answer. An indication of that is this complaint that he is not getting an answer. The solution is for the person to honestly look at the answer that he has already committed himself to. Why is that answer adequate? Why is the other person’s stance being looked upon as “no-answer”?

        If he then finds an inconsistency, then he should bring it to the table for discussion. But as long as that person is justifying an inconsistency with an existing answer, no discussion is possible.”

        http://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/

        .

        • “The only thing I can say in criticism of Marildi at this point is that she is very good at ignoring other people’s viewpoints.”

          That’s a generality. Can you give a specific instance?

        • vinaire,
          OK I went to your blog and did the excercize. I invested about 20 minutes and really tried to give you a good test.
          Overall, it is methodical and well written. However, I had at first a problem getting my inconsistency classified. Might suggest a 0 in which you talk about types of inconsistencies. For example, you could say: trivial or philosophical or personal or in a frienship etc.. Then explore a little from there.
          OK so now I have my inconsistency: It is that Marildi’s comment offended me but Hubbard’s words did not. Marildi is simply tring to explain Hubbard. This should be easy. Now I go through the steps and focus. Here is what comes out:
          I should also respect Hubbard’s religion. The Buddha said there is some truth in religion and you must look. Marildi is trying to interpret Hubbard and I am feeling offended. Marildi admires Hubbard and is trying to make him look good. I want to paste Hubbard because he is saying bad things about the Buddha.
          Here is what else comes out and I am not responsible for it because I am just doing an excercize.
          Hubbard had the idea of “The Road to Truth”. He never took the time to understand Buddha’s “Road to Truth”. Hubbard made the assumption that he knew Buddhism. I made the assumption that Hubbard knew the truth. Hubbard knew a “half truth” but says the Buddha only knew a “half truth”
          Hubbard skirts the issue of learning Buddhism with “exteriorization’ By doing this he wipes the slate clean and can say anything he wants in his subjective mind. Hubbard says “Damm reality, full speed ahead”. “Road to Truth” is merely a mental construct. The real “Road to Truth” is hidden from Hubbard. He did not read the Discources so he does not know that Buddha outlined a series of helpful steps for average people. For example, he gives tips on how to spot a fool. Now Hubbard is totally unaware that King Asoka a few hundred years after Buddha’s death started one of the greatest Buddhist political states ever. But Hubbard discounts that because the world is a total mess today and Buddhism did not clear the planet. Hubbard is culture bound and sees monks as “croaking frogs”. Hubbard develops a technology with his e-meter to clear the planet and develop OT’s. No OT’s are developed and Hubbard’s tech is taken over not by a King Asoka but by would be king Miscavige. The story ends because this “croaking frog” ( yours truly)
          is now chanting for Hubbard. I did chant for him yesterday in Pali and I will chant again for him.
          Now Marildi can say anything she wants and I won’t be offended.
          Honor to the Blessed One, the Supreme Buddha!

          Kind Regards,
          GMW

          • GMW: ”OK I went to your blog and did the excercize. I invested about 20 minutes and really tried to give you a good test.

            “Overall, it is methodical and well written. However, I had at first a problem getting my inconsistency classified. Might suggest a 0 in which you talk about types of inconsistencies. For example, you could say: trivial or philosophical or personal or in a friendship etc.. Then explore a little from there.

            George, you are wonderful partner in discussion. Thank you for going to my blog and critiquing the essay on CONTEMPLATION. You are right that the word inconsistency needs to be better defined and categorized. In general, An inconsistency would be anything that a person is puzzled about. I shall put together another essay, just on the subject of inconsistency, with examples, and put it as a reference on Step 0. This discussion on the inconsistency you are faced with, will also help me write that document.

            • Mark N Roberts

              A list of some of the most common inconsistencies as a starting gradient may be helpful. Not as a guide to a particular path, but as a practice and familiarization step. I believe that most individuals need some assistance getting to the starting gate where they are then released on their own recognizance.

          • GMW: ”OK so now I have my inconsistency: It is that Marildi’s comment offended me but Hubbard’s words did not. Marildi is simply trying to explain Hubbard. This should be easy. Now I go through the steps and focus.”

            I like the way you have worded the inconsistency. I have only one concern. This contemplation is going to be quite personal to you. Do you want to continue with it on this blog, or discuss the process privately on Skype.

            I am sure Marildi will understand that she is going to be only an external purveyor of stimulation. This contemplation should not violate her privacy at all. It would only display George’s mind in a naked fashion.

            It would be something like a real auditing demonstration to a class of students, as LRH did in the beginning.
            .

            • vinaire,
              “I like the way you have worded the inconsistency. I have only one concern. This contemplation is going to be quite personal to you. Do you want to continue with it on this blog, or discuss the process privately on Skype.”

              I think it would be fair to end the exercise at this point. Skype is not one of my favorite methods of communication.

              Kind Regards,
              GMW

          • GMW: ”Here is what comes out:

            “I should also respect Hubbard’s religion. The Buddha said there is some truth in religion and you must look. Marildi is trying to interpret Hubbard and I am feeling offended. Marildi admires Hubbard and is trying to make him look good. I want to paste Hubbard because he is saying bad things about the Buddha…”

            I am assuming that you are familiar with the two references on the Contemplation document that need to be followed. So we have this chatter going in your mind. I hope you did not get into figuring out all the significances in this chatter; because that is not what one should be doing. This is not auditing of significances. It is following what puzzles one the most

            How did you on the following step:

            6. Look in and around this area of inconsistency to see if any details have been hidden from you.

            Did you look for things or considerations that might be hidden? Did anything come up that was hidden before? You do not have to spell it out.

            I may not be fair to you here. With another person I would first put him through the “12 Steps of Mindfulness” and the exercise on “Being There”.

            .

            • vinaire,

              “Did you look for things or considerations that might be hidden? Did anything come up that was hidden before? You do not have to spell it out.”

              It is very difficult and not appropriate to answer all of the questions on the blog. I just did the test to give you some limited feedback. I have Theravadin guidelines to use in my own practice.
              Thanks.

              GMW

              • If you have your Theravedin Guidelines, then, as I see, you did not test the exercise properly.

                But thanks for making some effort and giving some feedback.

          • George, I must explain that since one is not concerned with the significance of the chatter, other than that “there is chatter”, you do not have to tell me or anybody what those significances are.

      • George, you could have replied to my comment the same way you replied to the previous one on that same sub-thread. And I also find it odd that you don’t speak to me directly, even in this spot on the thread.

        Regarding what you wrote here: “I think that Marildi is using words like ‘only’ ‘merely’ in an attempt to qualify what Hubbard said,” those words were intended to communicate that Hubbard himself had qualified his statement about Buddha, And after using them, I quoted exactly what HE said so as to show how he did so and how he explained what he meant. You and others are free to see it that way or not. I was stating my own understanding.

        You also wrote: “We are fitting Hubbard into what we know to find the truth. Marildi is starting with Hubbard as the ‘truth’ and then sharply forcing the issue into space and time.”

        It is purely your assumption that I start with Hubbard as the truth. I do what you claim to do, which is to fit Hubbard into what I know – and I don’t always agree with him, so your assumption is incorrect.

        What I get is that you base your views about Hubbard largely on your personal opinion about the validity of soul/thetan. So far in my journey, I think Hubbard (along with many others, including many Buddhists) got it right about the thetan. For that reason, you may see my views as weird – but, again, that would be based on your own personal beliefs. I don’t see your personal views and the ideas based on them as weird, even though they differ from mine.

        Lastly, you wrote: “I am offended by Marildi’s interpretation of Hubbard but I don’t know exactly why.”

        I think it would have been a lot kinder if you had worked that out before berating me.

        • MARILDI: George, you could have replied to my comment the same way you replied to the previous one on that same sub-thread. And I also find it odd that you don’t speak to me directly, even in this spot on the thread…

          Here is another example, Marildi, of a “debate mode” and not a “discussion mode”. A “debate mode” is intolerant and aggressive. It is trying to make itself right by attacking the other viewpoint.

          In my opinion, you specialize in it. Valkov did too, but he is doing better now.

        • MARILDI: Regarding what you wrote here: “I think that Marildi is using words like ‘only’ ‘merely’ in an attempt to qualify what Hubbard said,” those words were intended to communicate that Hubbard himself had qualified his statement about Buddha, And after using them, I quoted exactly what HE said so as to show how he did so and how he explained what he meant. You and others are free to see it that way or not. I was stating my own understanding.

          Marildi, why don’t you let other people draw their own understanding of LRH materials. You seem to be a very energetic cop trying to push a very literal understanding that you have down other people’s throats.

        • MARILDI: You also wrote: “We are fitting Hubbard into what we know to find the truth. Marildi is starting with Hubbard as the ‘truth’ and then sharply forcing the issue into space and time.”
          It is purely your assumption that I start with Hubbard as the truth. I do what you claim to do, which is to fit Hubbard into what I know – and I don’t always agree with him, so your assumption is incorrect.

          Marildi, As I noticed, you hardly reveal your viewpoint, instead you try to hide behind quotations as if you are following the “verbal tech” policy. But it is my opinion that you are very afraid of your viewpoint being criticized. I am sorry to say, but you do come across the way George characterized you. Please take a good look at your viewpoint.

          • Again focusing on participants? And with opinions, no less. Why not take a look at your own viewpoints? Find the inconsistencies.

        • MARILDI: What I get is that you base your views about Hubbard largely on your personal opinion about the validity of soul/thetan. So far in my journey, I think Hubbard (along with many others, including many Buddhists) got it right about the thetan. For that reason, you may see my views as weird – but, again, that would be based on your own personal beliefs. I don’t see your personal views and the ideas based on them as weird, even though they differ from mine.

          Marildi, can we discuss your view about the thetan? Or, do you think there is nothing to discuss because your mind is made up and that’s all that matters.

        • MARILDI: Lastly, you wrote: “I am offended by Marildi’s interpretation of Hubbard but I don’t know exactly why.”
          I think it would have been a lot kinder if you had worked that out before berating me.

          Marildi, have you ever read the following essay carefully? Can you tell me what you think of it? Or, would you dismiss it outright because it is written by Vinaire and not by LRH?

          The Quest for Certainty

        • marildi,
          Sorry I did not respond to you directly but I forgot that I could use the date. It is my error. I just got stuck.

          ” I think it would have been a lot kinder if you had worked that out before berating me.”

          So sorry for that as well. I blame myself and the computer thread.

          “For that reason, you may see my views as weird – but, again, that would be based on your own personal beliefs. I don’t see your personal views and the ideas”

          Marildi, no problem with that statement. It is all OK. I think I understand you much better now. This blog has helped me to see your views and that you are entitled to them.

          This whole discussion about “The Road To Truth” was a great adventure. I thank Marty Rathbun for his blog and for giving us all the opportunity to discuss it. Vinaire and Val also put forth a great effort with data. Alonzo and a few others contributed as well. Quite honestly, I thought I was the only person on the blog who had trouble with your interpretations. Now that I see others who question you, I feel like I am not alone. This fact has made me more comfortable. I think I sent you also the section from Marty.
          You may say whatever you wish.

          “I don’t see your personal views and the ideas.”

          This is probably because I use the Buddha as a guide. I do have personal views and ideas.
          However, I try to stay very on course on the blog keeping in with the discussions. Many people have said on this blog: “Many paths”.
          You probably were immune from Hubbard’s greed for money and this is what I say with certainty: To charge such high prices, he needed to get it
          totally correct. He came up with some nice ideas and I appreciate his effort. However, in the end, Hubbard is probably like Will Farrell about 5 years ago – the most overpaid actor in Hollywood. This is not meant to criticize Hubbard. It is just my way of saying it.
          The statements Hubbard made about the Buddha, no matter how you interpret them, needed to be clarified. I think this blog did that.

          Kind Regards,
          GMW

          • George: “I thought I was the only person on the blog who had trouble with your interpretations…The statements Hubbard made about the Buddha, no matter how you interpret them, needed to be clarified. I think this blog did that.”

            Clarification may or may not have occurred on “this blog.” I can only think of two others who spoke up and posted comments in disagreement with my “interpretation.” Furthermore, as you know, not long ago on another forum, most posters were in disagreement and “had trouble with” YOUR interpretations – of a variety of Hubbard’s statements. So I don’t think anything has necessarily been “clarified.”

            • I will say, my take is similar to yours mar, in that it is not the same meaning, to say that “Buddha enslaved countless thousands” vs. saying “Budddha was possibly indirectly responsible for the enslavement of countless thousands.” LRH did not even state it was so, he phrased it as a question. That’s my take on it.
              To the extent others were involved in using and applying Buddhism each according to his own lights, they also bear some responsibility for the outcomes that resulted. Did Buddha in some way condemn generations of Tibetan serfs to slavery or indentured servitude at the hands of the Lamas there? I think not. The same could be said about Christians, Muslims, whatever.
              However I do not speak for LRH it’s just my take on what he might have meant. He certainly did sound disappointed in how it played out, even reading them, his words sound bitter. But it’s all conjecture to me. Perhaps he thought Buddha had done more, achieved more and was at that time disappointed? I simply say I don’t know, to avoid cherry-picking as much as I can.
              And, I think this is George’s structured way of processing the information, for which I credit him, as it works pretty well.

              • So, looking at the state of the world, I can say, “I am disappointed in both Buddha and Hubbard.” So? Does this kind of a statement accomplish anything?

                • vinaire,
                  It accomplishes nothing and I think that is the key. The Buddha was considered a revolutionary. Hubbard looked at him 2,600 years later.
                  We now look back at Hubbard who had big dreams.
                  I can play with words all day long:

                  When the future Quantum Physics computer Guru arises, he says:

                  “Hubbard was only a man. Nothing bad should be said about him.
                  How many beings did he condemn to slavery by not walking the whole
                  way on the Road to Truth”.

                  GMW

                  • Hubbard was quite ornery in many respects.

                    • I ascribe that to his Moon in Virgo. It is not the best position for a person’s Moon, in that they are reputed to be fussy, critical, and often difficult to get along with.

                    • I didn’t know you believe in Astrology.

                    • I wouldn’t say I ‘believe’ in astrology, but I find the astrology of personality as shown in time-of-birth charts to be interesting, and I seem to occassionally see some correlations between the items in a chart, with a person’s beingness. I looked into it for awhile years ago. It is a symbol set related to Western Alchemy.

                      The circular charts are fascinating to me because between the Elements, the various Modes, the Houses, and the Aspects, a chart really does seem to represent every possible aspect of existence and one’s relationship to it. It even has an empty center, like a properly drawn chart of the Dynamics of Scientology.

                      I never got into the Progressions, the supposed influences of the progressing planets and all that. I know little more of Astrology, as perhaps LRH knew of Buddhism. It does seem to be based on some kind of basic observations or agreements. What is interesting is that different cultures have different versions…..

                    • Didn’t Hubbard say that all reality is created by the thetan and that thetan is senior to reality?

                      Do you find astrology consistent or inconsistent with Hubbard’s datum? I find it to be inconsistent.

                      Or do you think thetan is a subset of total reality?

                • Of course it does. It is called here, in the West, ‘sharing your feelings’. It gets them off your chest. In America, when asked “How are you?”, the ritual response is “Fine.” Among Russians, you ask that, and you’ll hear all about how that person is! Lumbago and all. NO ‘stiff upper lip’ there. It drives my English-background wife crazy. She has stopped flogging me for it, however, after some decades. Welcome to ’emotions’.

              • valkov,
                “And, I think this is George’s structured way of processing the information, for which I credit him, as it works pretty well.”

                This is correct. I recently did some research into how the brain actually processes information in sleep and when awake. I found it interesting.
                When the mind is sleeping, it creates dreams which are like scrambled ideas with a meaning. You can fly and do all sorts of things. When you are awake the brain uses a different neuron switch pattern which is more grounded.
                I think L Ron Hubbard and the Mormon Joseph Smith both had very creative minds almost like a sleep pattern when awake.
                When Marildi interpreted “The Road To Truth”, I could not handle it in my awake mind. I had to spend several nights in deep sleep and in actual dreams to assimilate it. That is why it offended me. I could not handle it when awake. The mind and the brain eventually put it into a pattern that I can handle “Hubbard said Buddha enslaved beings.” I can work with that and
                I don’t find it offensive because I made it. Marildi comes along with her interpretation of a very private subject, and I get bent.
                GMW

                • I totally got that! You do have a lot of insight, by my lights. And I agree that LRH operated that way – like he was awake and asleep at the same time. I don’t know if he was born that way, but he in fact wrote two novels around the title “Slaves of Sleep”, of a man who becomes aware of being in another world when he is sleeping. Like lucid dreaming. I think LRH may have been trying for “Lucid waking” as well? There is the whole idea that “Man is asleep”, which is a thread in Eastern thinking, brought to the West by people like Gurdjieff and others. Evgen LRH mentions “let homo sapiens snore in the bulk”, while we look for those who are more conscious. (History of Man, I believe.)

                  By the way, if I remember correctly LRH’s natal chart features a Grand Trine in Water with his Moon a bit at odds with that by being the Earth sign Virgo, giving him a critical analytical and picky bent. The Grand Trine is a powerful formation indicating great attainment.
                  I am no astrologer, but some of the ‘astrology of personality’ seems to make intuitive sense to me.

                  Other than that I am not very familiar with Western alchemical traditions upon which I believe LRH built a lot of his conceptualizations. And I have also seen the resemblance to Joseph Smith, even in the history of that church.

              • Thanks, Val. I really appreciate you speaking up and giving your take on the LRH quote.

                I do think that LRH was just trying to emphasize the idea that even in the case of Buddhism – which I believe he gave more credit to than any other path in history – the teachings could be used to enslave. And this was simply because that path DID contain a valid road to truth. In other words, it wasn’t a put down, in actuality, it was high praise.

                On another note, you wrote: “To the extent others were involved in using and applying Buddhism each according to his own lights, they also bear some responsibility for the outcomes that resulted.”

                I think that idea is also applicable to Scientology and former Scientologists. including the aspect of their own personal experience in Scientology, as well as what occurred with the movement as a whole.

            • marildi,
              ” Furthermore, as you know, not long ago on another forum, most posters were in disagreement and “had trouble with” YOUR interpretations – of a variety of Hubbard’s statements. So I don’t think anything has necessarily been “clarified.””

              If you check the record, I think that slightly more than 50% liked the comments. However, I was never trying to please other people on that blog. In that type of environment I expected to be even more heavily criticized. People appreciated the fact that I gave testimony to the OT 8 Student Briefing in which Hubbard reveals his Biblical mission. The problems came from one or two people at the end. By the way, I read the “12th planet” book referred to by one member. What do you think of it?

              Kind Regards,
              GMW

              • George: “If you check the record, I think that slightly more than 50% liked the comments…People appreciated the fact that I gave testimony to the OT 8 Student Briefing…”

                Yes, the testimony that the Student Briefing bulletin was on the initial OT VIII course was appreciated by most – but not YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of that bulletin. On that, you got almost nothing but disagreement. And it’s not the case that the posters there are particularly pro-LRH/Scn, so I don’t think you can chalk it up to that.

                • marildi,
                  “YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of that bulletin. On that, you got almost nothing but disagreement.”

                  No problem with that statement. I expected no agreement. Almost nothing was a bonus. As I said, I was not out to win a popularity contest on that blog. I even stated at the beginning that my interpretations were mine alone and no one needed to accept them. If you check the record, you will see that I said I wanted to “give testimony”. People liked the fact that I gave testimony. Almost everyone did not like my interpretation. I expected no agreement. I feel justified.
                  All I ever wanted to do was authenticate the OT VIII Student Briefing.
                  I never would have even brought it up. Agreement with my interpretation is totally irrelevant to me. In essence, “Don’t kill the messenger”. I am only delivering the message. Interpretation is what I think about it, which very few on the blog wanted to hear. No problem at all with that.
                  Think of it as marketing. Where is the target audience. The truth of the OTVIII student Briefing is in each student. How can I interpret it for anyone?
                  Totally impossible.
                  I never made a claim about the truth of my interpretation. It is mine alone.
                  I think that the Biblical symbols and the mention of Lucifer make tough reading for anyone. By the way, you fail to mention the private conversations I had with a blog participant. He was quite nice to me and very professional even after he criticized my interpretation. We got it sorted out.

                  Did you read the “12th Planet Book”?

                  MM,
                  G

                  • George: “I expected no agreement. Almost nothing was a bonus. As I said, I was not out to win a popularity contest on that blog. I even stated at the beginning that my interpretations were mine alone and no one needed to accept them.”

                    The point is that words on a page, or those spoken in a lecture, have specific meanings based on the agreed-upon definitions and other aspects of language. Most of the time, there isn’t even a problem with ambiguity creating more than one possible meaning. Now, one’s OPINION of the meaning is an entirely different thing, and I think you are conflating the two.

                    Posters on the other forum generally disagreed with your understanding of the ideas LRH was expressing in the Student Briefing bulletin – not your opinion of those ideas. I brought the subject up because of your claim that the LRH quote we’ve been talking about on this blog got “clarified” due to the fact that one or two people got the same understanding you did, I thought that was faulty logic on your part, because if that clarified the matter then it should work the same way on the other forum too, shouldn’t it? But actually, in neither case was anything “clarified.”

                    No I haven’t read *The 12th Planet*. As I recall, it was recommended to you as something that would help you understand the Student Briefing bulletin. What did you think of it?

                    • marildi,
                      OK, let’s just look at it in this way and be done with it once and for all.
                      You love to interpret Hubbard. You have stated that you have a firm grasp of his tech. That is great. Therefore, keep the role of Hubbard’s interpreter. Quite honestly, you will be dealing with a small group of former Scientologists. You can interpret Hubbard to them to the end of this life.
                      I don’t agree with your interpretations of Hubbard for the most part. I think you dig into the meaning because you are unconsciously defending him.
                      I want no major part of interpreting Hubbard’s exact details to Scientologists. Scientologists can judge for themselves. I only wish to express my interpretation to the public and use what I know to Scientologists. Quite honestly, it is not worth it to get into Hubbard’s tech. Most people just want to analyze him in terms of what led to his mental meanderings. This is just like Joseph Smith and the Mormons. The scholars have taken over with interpretation. Someday you will be out of a job when the scholars get a good grip on him. Don’t be surprised if Marty writes a good book about Hubbard. This is a better strategy given the major decline in Scientology. You might be interested to know that most people I talk to about the Student Briefing want to use their own interpretations of it. I won’t mention names because I don’t want to start something without talking to them first. So in the end, these people don’t listen to me but create their own view. You are using an incorrect case to assume that the people on that blog represent a non-biased viewpoint. I have been out of Scientology for over 25 years and I don’t see it as a viable technology at present. You want to defend it and resurrect it. OK that is fine. Do it with my blessing. You can say what you want about how you interpret Hubbard. The official Church does not care. Most people in the public see the document as a lot of science fiction. They don’t believe anything Hubbard said. So good luck with the interpretation of the small elite. Can we just end this? I don’t care about the deeper meaning of what Hubbard said. I do care about his claims in regard to Buddhism. That I do care about. You know also that I objected to your interpretation of the “Road to Truth” tape. I still object to it, and I will not use it. However, you are entitled to your opinion.
                      The 12th planet is , as I expected, real stretch of the imagination. It is written in a style which makes the truth hard to see. Basically, space aliens landed on Earth in the Middle East. The inhabitants of Earth learned advanced techniques to build the city. They developed a language which talks of space ships, visits etc. The most compelling data is an ancient picture which looks like a person with a space helmet and goggles. It is very, very primitive. I watched a few commentaries from Scientists who just blasted the whole idea as nonsense. The city could have been built with available technology. The story in the 12th planet is very compelling in that it describes earth and all of the planets. The big out point is that you see very, very little hard evidence. You need to rely on the translator and you are at his mercy. For example, he translates a word as space ship or vehicle. You are in the dark on this. In the end, the book is literally built on shifting sand and very, very speculative. The only thing I really learned was that the Story of Gilgamesh originated at that time. Gilgamesh is very popular and I remember his stories as a wrestler.
                      I could very easily torch the 12th planet completely. However, one dude on the blog was so certain about it I will give it one more chance if any new evidence emerges. The book does try to explain a lot of ancient mysteries about the flood and the Bible. Thus it has some narrative value.

                      MM,
                      G

                    • I haven’t read 12th Planet, but a fairly credible book about some of those “ancient mysteries” offers a more mundane yet very comprehensive explanation of past events and places, like Atlantis, the Flood(s), ancient pictures and maps, etc. It is Graham Hancock’s “Fingerprints of the Gods”. It’s good read which asembles tons of anomalies into a comprehensive and realistic scenario without bring in aliens and all that. It doesn’t account for the tribe that believes they or they mentors came from Sirius(or some star…), but it accounts for nearly everything else.

                      Apparently there is available a complete pdf of this book:
                      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread581075/pg1

                      If not it’s on Amazon etc.

                    • George: “You have stated that you have a firm grasp of his tech.”

                      You’re going to have to show me where I said anything like that

                      You also wrote: “I don’t agree with your interpretations of Hubbard for the most part. I think you dig into the meaning because you are unconsciously defending him.”

                      No, I’m consciously defending him. When I feel he is being mis-quoted or judged unfairly, that is. There’s enough that can be justifiably criticized without adding misduplication and other false claims.

                      Are you unconsciously trying to get back at him?

                      MM,
                      M

            • For true clarification Subject Clearing helps. Nobody can clarify something completely for the other person.

  38. I was a Scientology staff member in the 1970’s. I remember listening to a couple of public Scientologists commenting on the terrible state of the world and how Ron might just have to “as is” the universe. I never bought the Ron is God concept, but I believed in the technology. I remember thinking before I “blew” the org: there are some pretty good ideas here, but they are all wrapped-up in an L. Ron Hubbard Cult.

  39. Thanks! Laughter! Sha Nay Nay is back on holiday. Laughter!

  40. Wow! I just found my book called “The Command Channels Of Scientology”, complete with the giant fold out showing RTC on top of everyone. I even have a checksheet that goes with it. I wonder how David is getting away with saying he has nothing to do with the organizations below him and their activities?

  41. Recently, I’ve been bumping into friends and/or acquaintances — long term and short term buddhists — from many different traditions: Theravadin, Tibetan Buddhist, Zen Buddhist, Insight Meditation – who have been to a 10 day Goenka retreat.

    I’m adding this information because to the best of my knowledge of reading this blog since 2009, Goenka has not been mentioned.

    Most recently a very close friend — suffering tremendous losses because of a separation two years ago and now divorce as well as losing her boyfriend (who came after the divorce) decided to go on a 10 day Goenka retreat. She has been deeply involved with buddhism for about 10 years. She is also a yoga instructor. I would say that she had become clinically depressed and had been fighting it for about a year.

    ANYWAY — she came back from her 10 day retreat – transformed. Seriously. That said — I saw her yesterday during a morning practice session and she started crying.

    So — does this 10 day retreat FIX it — nope. But she learned MORE tools to deal with the trials and tribulations of life. I don’t care what tradition one follows or doesn’t. What philosophy one has or doesn’t. What upbringing one had or didn’t —– there ARE trials and tribulations with living.

    No matter where. Some worse by far than others. None are left in a perfect land of bliss while walking the earth. (some can overcome serious problems THANKS to their sanity – which is developed … using tools)

    I plan to attend a Goenka retreat sometime in February 2015. There are retreats centers all over the world. (who knew?) They are growing.

    http://www.dhamma.org

    If you feel so inclined or curious, take a few minutes to watch a series of videos by Mr. Goenka. They are on the site on the right “Vipassana Meditation” introduction by S.N. Goenka. You have to listen carefully as he does have an accent. But it’s definitely understandable.

    No matter where you may live – there is probably a Goenka retreat center within a few hours of you.

    He is very clear that it is not a religion. But a technique that can help anyone become a “better” human being. Which after all — in the end is what I believe we would all like to be.

    (being a person who makes less of others because he and only he and HIS chosen “religion” knows — isn’t a better human being but a better-more- arrogant-person propped up by a handful (figuratively) of others who think the smae way. Majority rules is not a winning slogan)

    (I will add that although I don’t know if Marty is continuing to deliver services that I believe anyone could benefit from being in front of a highly skilled and compassionate, well studied and pondered auditor such as Marty.

    It is yet another very profound tool to help a human being unwrap this complicated outer layer we call “the self” that hides to a greater or lesser degree – The Immortal Diamond)

    Windhorse

    • Vipassana meditation is good! I have written about it on my blog.

      >

    • This looks very interesting. Thanks. Too cool that they have courses for children and teens too at the Oregon location.

    • windhorse,
      I have heard Mr. Goenka mentioned at our Vihara. Whatever works is best.
      I met a young lady at our Vihara who was having big trouble understanding even one concept. She was lost. We could not help her. She came in one day bright, cheerful and together. I told her she looked great. She said she hooked up with a new teacher in another religion. ( I do not remember its name ). I told her to go and keep with it. The monk blessed her and we sent her along.

      GMW

      • George:

        Did you watch the few videos I mentioned? It doesn’t appear as if you did because if you did you would glean that he does not consider his teachings to be A PATH. He expressly says — becoming a “better Christian, a better Buddhist etc.” In other words he stresses a TECHNIQUE which helps create the Art of Living.

        I appreciate Oracle’s comment above because she obviously went to the website and saw there were programs for children and teens.

        In other words — TO ME — Oracle is CURIOUS about learning/living/etc.

        I’ve found from buddhist discussions with you, George, that you frankly make sure the buck STOPS COLD with Theravadan. That is what has WORKED FOR YOU. Doesn’t mean – that it is what will work for others or is meant to.

        I believe you are wrapping buddhism up into a very tight ball that not everyone will have the karma/kamma to connect to BUT they might connect to Tibetan Buddhism or Zen or Vietnamese or Insight Meditation. These TOO are buddhism.

        Although I am pretty sure you will say that in fact they are not.

        Buddhism — Tibetan Buddhism studied deeply WITH meditation at it’s core — has helped me tremendously. I don’t feel as if I’ve been led astray. I feel as if I’m becoming kinder which is basically my wish. For the suffering of myself AND others to cease.

        Moreover, I feel AS IF I am doing what the buddha said … check it out and see if it works for you.

        I have heard it said by many within buddhism that the buddha taught over 80,000 teachings — SO THAT all the different types of human beings could potentially hear what he had to say. Some will be drawn to teaching #10005, others to teaching #13,007 etc (ALL as an example – please do not take this literally)

        Years ago — someone said on Marty’s blog (pretty sure it was Mike Rinder) when you and I had a VERY VERY brief discussion about buddhism (brief relative to all these comments between you and Vinaire on this and a few other threads) to recognize that this wasn’t a buddhist blog and therefore take those comments off line …

        I think it would be a great idea for you and Vinaire would respect the fact that perhaps others would like to share their points of view without concern of having them being batted back through esoteric discussions.

        You are both tremendous scholars – I just think there is room here for a broader discussion — not quite the narrow focus.

        Marty has been gracious to not monitor this — but speaking for myself I find it to be an endless loop between two people and ultimately gets tiresome.

        Om gate gate …

        Windhorse

          • Thank you so much Vinaire. I watched with tears during most of the film.

            As one man said — his anger didn’t go away in a BAM/flash … it’s still subsiding …

            As is mine.

            I am looking forward to my first Vipassana Goenka retreat probably in February. The courses are booked months in advance and that is the first opening and the closest to me.

            Meanwhile – I will continue to meditate and learn at the Tibetan Buddhist center (which is open to all traditions) nearby.

            Thank you again. Wonderful uplifting and hopeful film.

            BTW — a few acquaintances of mine are very involved with bringing meditation to prisons in the US and Canada.

            http://fredericklenzfoundation.org/prison-dharma-network

            Although I feel that perhaps Mr. Goenka’s program will ultimately be more successful due to the insistence of 10 days of silence … and the repeat offerings of retreats.

            And the lack of “philosophy” with the program. Just vipassana.

            Very inspiring.

            Thank you again,

            Love,
            Windhorse

            • You are welcome, Windhorse.

              The mindfulness exercises that I am currently working out are based on Vipassana technique.

              http://vinaire.me/research-on-learning/

              I applied Vippasana technique naturally when I first did TR0 in 1969, and then later on Flag in early 70s.

              All knowledge from whatever source is welcome by me. After that it is just a matter of spotting inconsistencies and resolving them. There should be no bias.

            • It’s good to hear from you, windhorse. Speaking of meditation, it’s been a while since I posted this. This lady has one heck of a set of pipes, and here she is testifying to her experience with meditation:

              How ’bout getting off these antibiotics
              How ’bout stopping eating when I’m full up
              How ’bout them transparent dangling carrots
              How ’bout that ever elusive ‘could’ve’

              Thank you India
              Thank you terror
              Thank you disillusionment
              Thank you frailty
              Thank you consequence
              Thank you thank you silence

              How ’bout me not blaming you for everything
              How ’bout me enjoying the moment for once
              How ’bout how good it feels to finally forgive you
              How ’bout taking you up on your support

              Thank you India
              Thank you terror
              Thank you disillusionment
              Thank you frailty
              Thank you consequence
              Thank you thank you silence

              The moment I let go of it was the moment
              I got more than I could handle
              The moment I jumped off of it
              Was the moment I touched down

              How ’bout professing just how much you love me
              How ’bout taking him up on a back-massage
              How ’bout unabashedly bawling your eyes out
              How ’bout grieving it all one at a time

              Thank you India
              Thank you terror
              Thank you disillusionment
              Thank you frailty
              Thank you consequence
              Thank you thank you silence

              How ’bout no longer being masochistic
              How ’bout remembering your divinity
              How ’bout reflecting each-other in our last splendor
              How ’bout not equating death with stopping

              Thank you India
              Thank you clarity
              Thank you disillusionment
              Thank you nothingness
              Thank you consequence
              Thank you thank you silence

        • Vippasana ia paractice of mindfulness. Per Wikipedia (see Seven Factors of Enlightenment) Mindfulness means to recognize the dhammas (phenomena or reality). So, this is psychology and not religion.

          In defense of George, he did say that Buddhism is psychology and not religion as interpreted in the West.

          My interest is in knowledge. Scientology is knowledge, Buddhism is knowledge. I think this blog is about knowledge. I don’t understand why Windhorse is discriminating against Buddhist knowledge? Does she want to stick to Scientology knowledge only?

          I do understand that sometimes discussion become quite esoteric. But does Windhorse have objections to discussing Static? I see bias on part of Windhorse here.

          .

          • Of course you see ‘bias’! Every ‘person’ by definition is ‘biased’. Viewpoint IS bias. What in the world do you expect??? It’s the diversity that makes life interesting, so what the heck is your point? Or the point of your catechism?

        • windhorse,
          “I’ve found from buddhist discussions with you, George, that you frankly make sure the buck STOPS COLD with Theravadan. That is what has WORKED FOR YOU. Doesn’t mean – that it is what will work for others or is meant to.

          I believe you are wrapping buddhism up into a very tight ball that not everyone will have the karma/kamma to connect to BUT they might connect to Tibetan Buddhism or Zen or Vietnamese or Insight Meditation. These TOO are buddhism.”

          I actually agree with you. There is no dispute on this point. This is one of the reasons Theravadin is called the lesser vehicle. I think that your wish will be fulfilled because Marty will soon move to a new topic and it will not be in the scope of Buddhism. Actually, the entire thread started with Brian who made the point that Hubbard was weak in Eastern Religion. That tiny thread grew into a volume. Sorry if it offended you.
          Peace to you.

          Much Metta,
          GMW

  42. This is in response to

    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310715

    GMW: ”In theory you are correct. However, the practical application, in my opinion, creates difficulties. Even the Budddha said that his teaching would be grasped by only a few ‘with no dust in their eyes.’ ”

    Thank you, George. My primary concern is theory. I want to make sure that I understand the theory correctly. I have been helped by Hubbard in interpreting that interiorization is essentially a fixation. Now I want to apply the hypothesis that mindfulness will gradually unfixate the attention and exteriorize the person. I see the 12 aspects of mindfulness as follows.

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

    The next step would be to work out the exercises for mindfulness on a gradient. I shall be presenting these exercises soon.

    .

  43. This is in response to

    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310715

    GMW: ”My wife and I spent over ten years working with public who wandered into our Vihara in Tampa. I was sort of a middle person between the monks and anyone who was interested in Buddhism. After ten years, we only could reach only one in one-hundred. It was not because of our theory. We had that down cold. We traced the problem to two factors:

    1. Modern culture and technology creates a strong illusion. Even if a person is having problems, there are hundreds of ways to adventure. It is very easy for people to seek help. Those without problems are far too happy because electronics such as TV divert their attention.

    2. The concept of “no self” is very subtle and difficult to feel, comprehend or practice. I gave many lectures to hundreds of adult and early 20′s college students. They loved our talks. The teacher would say “Wow, you got them motivated. Most wrote about Buddhism and the papers were great!” However, we never got one college student to return for advanced theory.”

    George, my understanding of the difficulty that you and your wife ran into is that the people you were dealing with were too distracted to implement a more permanent solution to their problems through Buddhism. Looks like a better gradient is needed at Tampa Vihara for teaching Buddhism.

    Here I would give credit to Hubbard for coming up with the right gradient for the current society. His TRs Course, Upper Indocs, Basic Dianetic auditing and the Basic Study Manual were very appealing to me. Maybe similar introductory courses can be developed from the knowledge of Buddhism to provide more permanent solutions.

    Here is the outline for developing introductory exercises based on Mindfulness.

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

    .

    • vinaire,
      Thanks. We may get back to teaching. We may not. Your post is very well-written. The great thing about Theravada is that we have only three of the Buddha’s words in all of Div2 and Div3. The Buddha said “Come and see”.
      A lot of our young, modern temple monks have been involved in stronger public relations.
      As an aside. we had three types of people come in:

      1. 85% simply want meditation. They don’t care what type.
      2. About 10% want to know the mysteries of Buddhism.
      3. 5% want to nail both you and the monks and prove that they
      are the smartest beings in the universe. Sound familiar?

      GMW

      • George, can you help put together simple exercise (meditation or otherwise) that build up mindfulness.

        For me, TR0 was a wonderful exercise that, along with Study Tech and Data Series, got me started on the path of mindfulness. But it didn’t do so for many other people. So this area needs to be properly thought out and organized.

        I find that mindfulness helps one take charge of their mind. It prevents the chances of any conditioning.

        Thanks,
        Vinaire

  44. This is in response to

    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310715

    GMW: ”As far as the data about interiorization and exteriorization is concerned, it has been my special topic of research in the last few weeks. If you read past data on this blog, you can see the issue. OT-TR zero is confused with meditation. The benefits of OT-TR zero are real and students cling to it. Mindfullness, on the other hand, techically requires “right view” to be in place. Without “right view” there is no traction. “Right view” implies actual “stream entry”. The path factors are out of balance to the average public person. ”

    George, OT-0 helped me to develop the right view and led me to “stream entry”. It was however wriiten in a very skimpy manner and data from some other HCOBs was required to understand it. Lot of people had trouble applying it. I used to be the word clearer for the famous Flag TRs Course, and could speed up the progress of the student through TR-0.

    I think we can use the TR-0 model to develop exercises for the ‘Right view’. Here is one:

    MINDFULNESS #1: Observe without expecting or attempting to get an answer.
    1. Observe as usual. Notice the environment and other people.
    2. While observing, spot expectations that you have one at a time.
    3. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and then move on.
    4. Spot extraneous thoughts. Notice any underlying expectation.
    5. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and move on.
    6. Spot uncontrolled thinking. Notice the possible scenarios the mind is trying to predict.
    7. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and move on.
    8. Spot unanswered questions. Notice the speculations that the mind might be entertaining.
    9. Don’t suppress them. Simply become aware of them, and move on.
    10. Expand your span of attention and let the perceptions pour in.
    11. Let the realizations present themselves to you without you making any effort.

    For full exercise please see

    http://vinaire.me/2014/07/27/mindfulness-1-dealing-with-expectations/

    .

    • For those wondering at GMW’s reference to “stream entry”, here is a short intro to Buddhist stages of enlightenment, kind of a Buddhist Grade Chart:

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

      • A stream enterer seems to be one who has finally grasped what it is like to see things as they are.

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

        • What I would be a bit careful about is, ‘feeding cognitions’ to people. If someone’s experience is different, or they don’t think of it in exactly those words, a person might think s/he has not achieved the state. It becomes a form of ‘evaluating for them’. It can all then become a stultifying formalism.

          • I believe that a person should be free to make up his mind. That ability is strenghtened when he learns to see things as they are.

            That is what I learned on the TR-0 and I am very thankful to Hubbard for that. It is unfortunate that Hubbard and Scientology do not emphasize on this ability enough. Not enough is done to strengthen that ability right at the beginning of the bridge.

          • Mark N Roberts

            Val said;
            “… ‘feeding cognitions’ to people.”

            This, I believe, is an observation, realization of immense magnitude. It is very high on the relative importance scale.

            The instruction and pep talk before a battle can guide your actions. The successes and failures during the battle and the conversations with fellow soldiers after the battle determine your decisions about the battle. These decisions determine your attitude. This attitude, once forgotten, become full blown aberrations.

            When I realized the importance of finding information related to any incident, which I had acquired from others, often casually, the success of my work improved dramatically.
            Mark

      • Valkov,
        Thanks for posting the link.

        Abandoned fetters of stream entry:

        1. identity view
        2. doubt
        3. ritual attachment

        3. ritual attachment is, in my opinion, most mis-understood in the West.
        It is Hubbard’s “croaking frogs”. People see the news and they see Buddhists doing rituals. These are not “ignorant rituals’. Flowers, for example, have the meaning of impermanence. That is why you see them so often.
        Chanting is another misunderstood. I publicly chanted for 10 years. It is a bonding process, not a ritual.

        Kind Regards,
        GMW

        • It is not surprising that people in the West look at Eastern religions through the filter of the ideas spread by the Christian Church over the centuries.

          • And vice-versa. The next evolution ought to be the integration of the two streams of knowledge, Eastern and Western, instead of favoring one over the other and being all parochial and chauvinistic about one or the other, as though they were sports teams engaged in a struggle of some kind. They are different in significant ways, like apples and oranges at the very least.

            • No need to be defensive!

              There should be no bias. There should be spotting of inconsistency and discussion of it.

              • There is nothing defensive about my post. I am proposing a possible next step in the evolution of consciousness. Anew synthesis is exactly the resolution of inconsistencies or dichotomies that appear as paradoxes of life. You appear to be proposing being able to nap better. Are the inconsistencies you speak so much about, keeping you awake at night? Perhaps you want to be released from them? (negative gain). I once read an analogy , that the “personality is the organ of digestion of experience”. Do you find inconsistencies to be indigestible? One solution is to wash your food well. Another might be to process potential foods into more digestible forms. That would be dialectics.

                • What do you think we are trying to do here? It is closer looking with mindfulness that is needed to see exactly what is there. Subject Clearing will help.

                  It is not synthesis that is needed. That is figure-figure.
                  .

  45. This is in response to

    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310715

    GMW: ” Hubbard invented his “out/int” in a very much more simplified fashion. You just imagine that your attention is immortal and that it moves. That it is subjective is not important. Yes, Hubbard actually does interiorize beings into self but it is quite easy given the roots of lust. Framed out mindfullness based on body, feelings, mental constructs, and objects is more difficult and thus not practiced as much. In addition, you can get sensuality blasted on electronics constantly hitting a person. Then you get lack of attention and it all breaks down. The Hubbard way creates a being and keeps one into “bhava kamma” which is enjoyed in our society of plenty.

    Hubbard’s approach was to create fast dramatic effects. There is definitely an advantage to that. But the drawback is that these effects do not go deep enough as is the case with Buddhism. For example, the int/ext process takes care of fixed attention on the body and that is all. It doesn’t take care of fixed attention on other significances, the key one of which is self.

    I have been working for some years now in understanding the gradients required here. I believe I can start putting all that stuff together with some help from others who are similarly inclined. We don’t have to worry about creating and destroying the beingness. It’ll all come out in the wash.

    .

  46. Well, there was some non-factual suppositions about TIR being posted on the Milestone Two blog, so I posted the following. We will see what kind of reception it gets. Doe sit sound too cranky?

    “I don’t mean to sound critical, but there are some non-factual suppositions about TIR being posted. Ever wonder why CoS allowed Gerbode to go ahead and incorporate dianetic procedures into TIR? That is what he did, and it was allowed by LRH and the CoS, without a peep of protest or denunciation.
    I see it as all to the good, especially in view of the suppressive direction the CoS went in subsequent years, after LRH passed. Many “book one” techniques were incorporated into Metapsychology (Gerbode’s overall structure) as TIR. It has taken decades to become accepted by mainstream therapy certification organizations. TIR practitioners have been out in the trenches helping traumatized people, while the CoS retreated into delusions of “eradicating psychiatry” and creating “ideal orgs” as the IAS went on to bankrupt the public and annihilate org income around the world. Miscavige led the CoS into delusion instead of integrating tech into the society. The history and origins of TIR are not what has been posted here so far, which are only suppositions.
    PS, I am not a TIR practitioner, nor trained in TIR. I just happen to know a little about it’s origins, having been around in the 1970s and 1980s.”

  47. Here is a new post on Possibly Helpful Advice blog, which I feel is relevant to the discussions of Buddhism vs. Scientology attitudes towards some matters. http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=17378

    It is titled “A technical explanation why NOTs auditing as done in the COS can be harmful to your health and sanity”.

    I am not on those levels and have never done them, but what he says rings true to me. Your mileage may vary.

  48. This is in response to George (GMW)

    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310721

    GMW: ”In Theravada we have spirit realms of impermanent gods, ghosts, and other very, very strange beings. This is sort of a “waiting area” which cannot be considered “between lives”. Some of this is also disputed, but Buddha talked about a few specific cases. These spirits are blended from various proportions of matter and “mind”. You basically get immaterial spirits with a primitive consciousness. In Theravada, most of these spirits are at a serious disadvantage without a full human mind.”

    Exactly! I am simply looking at it from the perspective of my background, which is Nuclear Engineering. The fundamental realization for me has been as follows:

    Spiritual and physical are relative aspects and not separate and absolute in themselves.

    Abrahamic religions have long regarded spiritual and physical to be absolute aspects in themselves. This has been adequate on a human scale. But, on the cosmic scale, we find it necessary to regard spiritual and physical to be relative aspects.

    A spiritual state will have physical form, no matter how subtle. And a physical state will have some spiritual characteristics, no matter how subdued. Thus, consciousness is both physical and spiritual having the form of light, and essence of awareness.

    Therefore, as the body disintegrates after death, the disintegrated parts have their own self. The previous “whole” self does not remain. In the disintegrated parts the physical and spiritual aspects go together. This would account for “impermanent gods, ghosts, and other very, very strange beings.”

    .

  49. This is in response to George (GMW)

    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310721

    GMW: ”These “beings” can actually change realms. Remember the fairy tale of the princess and the frog who turns into the prince? That is ancient Buddhism at work. There are “selves” in the spirit realm but they are impermanent. A Buddha can communicate with a few of these higher beings.
    The average person is too low on the scale.”

    I can see that after death, the body disintegrates, and so does the self along with it. This disintegration can keep on going through many levels ending up at the most subtle level of molecules/atoms and electromagnetic patterns.

    I would not assign them any opinion, such as, “higher” or “lower”. They are what they are. Science may come up with the means of perceiving and identifying them. Who knows! The first step is to better understand what we are dealing with here.

    Of course, they are all impermanent.

    .

  50. This is in response to George (GMW)

    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310721

    GMW: ” The concept of “no soul” in Theravada must be seen in its negative form as really a “working construct”. That is to say, it is not something to discuss in theory. It is, no soul, a practical method which is a “characteristic” of existence.”

    Yes, the “soul” of something is simply its properties. It is the “awareness” of that thing. Everything interacts exactly per its properties.

    Hubbard was correct in differentiating between “awareness” and the “awareness of awareness”. Humans have “awareness of awareness” but other things have “awareness” only. But we have totally misunderstood what these two things are by looking at them from a “human-centric” viewpoint.

    Beingness = “Existing-ness”

    A phenomenon exists as a spiritual essence and a physical form. The spiritual and physical aspects go together. They cannot be separated as some absolutes.

    ”I” = The basic viewpoint of beingness (self)

    An animal has “existing-ness”. Therefore, an animal has beingness. Therefore, and animal has an “I”. The “I” of an animal consists of its physical form, and its interactions with its environment. It will include all its instincts and the functionality of its body.

    A mineral also has “existing-ness”. Therefore, a mineral has beingness. The “I” of a mineral consists of the space-time its physical form occupies, and the awareness it extends through its chemical properties.

    Hubbard was incorrect in his “human-centric” definitions for “beingness” and “I”. When we apply the more inclusive definitions to humans we see that the “I” of a human being consists of the human form and its vast capacity for interactions. It will include his intelligence and skills.

    But we also find that “awareness” is something that exists all across the board as “properties of things.” The property of glue is to be sticky. That is its awareness. It is not awareness of awareness. We get the definition of awareness wrong when we look at it from a “human-centric” viewpoint.

    The awareness of humans shall include all the properties of humans, whether humans are aware of them or not.

    The basic peculiarity among humans is that they want to be aware of their awareness. Animals don’t. The minerals don’t. Objects don’t.

    So, this peculiarity of “awareness of awareness” is not common to beingness all across the board. It is peculiar to humans only. And it is a two-edged sword. It also leads to FIXATION and INTERIORIZATION.

    There is no such thing as fixation or interiorization among animals and minerals. But there is fixation or interiorization among humans and the origin of that is “awareness of awareness”.

    Hubbard immortalizes “awareness of awareness” in the definition of THETAN and reverses the whole evolution by putting Thetan at the beginning of the track. The truth is that track starts with “awareness” only. The “awareness of awareness” enters the track much later at the level of humans.

    I know that this turns the Intelligent Design Theory of Abrahamic Religions on its head. But mindfulness has led me to this understanding.

    For my complete reasoning underlying the above, please see:

    http://vinaire.me/2014/07/18/beingness-viewpoint-and-reality/

    .

    • Note: I didn’t intend to bold the section “An animal has … “human-centric” viewpoint”.

    • vinaire,

      “Hubbard immortalizes “awareness of awareness” in the definition of THETAN and reverses the whole evolution by putting Thetan at the beginning of the track. The truth is that track starts with “awareness” only. The “awareness of awareness” enters the track much later at the level of humans.”

      In the 1980-1990 period, Scientology release a series of taped lectures called “The Time Track of Theta”. These are no longer sold as a package.
      Chuck Beatty is a total expert on this subject so I am only going to start with what I know. Chuck, if you are out there, I would like to hear from you on this
      one. From what I gather, there is a contradiction in Hubbard’s cosmology.

      1. In the tapes, he states that a great body of theta existed before the creation of the universe. Thetans broke off as little or big. At any rate it is the old idea of like a mass of karma, but this is really not true. Karma is not a mass. This is sort of the “awareness of awareness theory”.
      2. Chuck posted that Hubbard also believed in a type of starting point that evolved from multiple beings, perhaps thetans who were pre-existing.

      Vinaire, Does point #1 have any historical basis in Hindu thinking?

      GMW

      • GMW: ”1. In the tapes, he states that a great body of theta existed before the creation of the universe. Thetans broke off as little or big. At any rate it is the old idea of like a mass of karma, but this is really not true. Karma is not a mass. This is sort of the “awareness of awareness theory”.

        “2. Chuck posted that Hubbard also believed in a type of starting point that evolved from multiple beings, perhaps thetans who were pre-existing.

        “Vinaire, Does point #1 have any historical basis in Hindu thinking?”

        .

        No, point #1 above has no historical basis in Hinduism. The following is much closer to Hindu philosophy.

        Awareness is known to arise, change and disappear. It may be likened to a disturbance that arises, changes and disappears. We may assume some ground state, which when disturbed gives rise to awareness.

        The ground state is the undisturbed state. It is an absence of awareness. It shall forever remain unknown because there is no awareness to accompany it.

        The ground state is similar to that sound sleep in which no time seems to have passed. That time is just gone and cannot be found in memory either.

        Awareness is a disturbance of some ground state, which is unknowable.

        .

        The idea of self exists throughout the spectrum of life. There is mineral self, plant self, the animal self, and the human self. Thus self is relative. The absolute Self of the Vedas is arrived at through the process of “neti, neti” (not this, not that). It leads to the same ground state described above.

        The concepts of “Brahma” in Hinduism and “Nirvana” in Buddhism are based on this ground state. “Mahamudra” of Tantra is an attempt to describe this ground state.

        The ultimate Self of Vedas arrived at through the process of “neti, neti” is the same ground state.

        For the complete document please see

        http://vinaire.me/2014/07/13/the-ground-state-of-the-universe/

        • vinaire,

          Thanks for the information on Hinduism. I am going to try to
          find out where Hubbard got his “mass of theta theory.”

          “The ground state is the undisturbed state. It is an absence of awareness. It shall forever remain unknown because there is no awareness to accompany it.”

          I remember the above idea from when I read your blog. Have you ever read AS Eddington? He was a friend of Einstein’s. He studied mysticism in the early 20th century.

          Kind Regards,
          GMW

          • The question becomes:
            (1) What is Mass?
            (2) What is Theta?
            (3) What is “Mass of Theta?” How does it come about?

            Subject Clearing is needed.

          • First Reading

            George asks; ” I am going to try to
            find out where Hubbard got his “mass of theta theory.” As I see it, In the Bible (Book of Genesis) its simply called God, from which all life came. I am sure LRH was familiar with it. To me, he is just redefining in his own words what has been in print for thousands of years. We can call it a theory. But its anything but original or unique. All life came from God, man was made in his image, big chunks, little chunks, no chunks at all. Sometimes I think we could be better off focusing or revisiting what we already knew.

      • Mark N Roberts

        From Vin:
        ” Chuck posted that Hubbard also believed in a type of starting point that evolved from multiple beings, perhaps thetans who were pre-existing.”

        This aligns with Ken Ogger’s theory of this series of universes as being initiated by pre-existing beings who sparked new, clean, inexperienced beings to interact.

        In my work I have not seen this. I have not seen the “Jewel of Knowledge”, but I have seen many instances of instruction and built methods of instruction designed to teach and implant individuals with “The way things are done around here”. I just haven’t found a group of beings that are superior to this SERIES of universes. Or should I say ‘not yet’. I’m not looking for it, just looking.
        Mark

      • George, I have not listened to those particular tapes, but from reading books like History of Man and others, my understanding that after having speculated about a “common body of theta”, LRH totally refuted the idea and came to believe it was not true. I believe this is part of Vin’s denunciation of LRH as being “self-centric” and too focused on “individuality”.

        It is consistent with Buddhist theory as I understand it, that before the beginning is “awareness”, just as you say. There is not “awareness of awareness” early on, because there are no “secondary awarenesses” for the early awareness to be aware of – they had not yet arisen. These would be, for example, physical bodies with their own senses, animal or human, or for that matter any type of organism with its own sense organs – even a robot with camera eyes, auditory receptors etc. Possibly even beings with more subtle bodies only, such as the various ‘gods’ of myth. As long as these had an awareness of some kind,,ie had their own sense organs and perceptions, then the “primal awareness” if I may call it that, could then be aware of their awarenesses.
        All that, to say “yes, awareness of awareness came later.”

        • Valkov,
          Thanks for the information about the change in Hubbard’s mind. I will keep this in mind as I search data bases or better yet hear from Chuck Beatty.
          This whole issue of awareness arises in Buddhism during the intervals between “big bangs”, eons, or “Kalpas” in Pali. The Buddha is very clear about the present human being – form, feeling, perception, consciousness and mental formations.
          However, Buddha said he traced back 91 Kalpas or big bangs. The issue is what happens to all the beings? If there is bad karma, it must burn out. The translation from Pali is difficult at best. These “beings” are in a state of “suspension” until there is a new big bang. This is how the line of moral causality it traced.
          This is totally theoretical stuff and in dispute so I will not dwell on it. It is just speculation.

          Kind Regards,
          GMW

          • One should never assume that the source is always correct, whether it is Buddha or LRH. There are no absolute truths.

            The safest avenue is to spot inconsistencies and resolve them for oneself.

          • It is supposed to be ‘speculation’ in Scientology also. LRH actually classified it as “parascientology”. He included even Dianetics, engrams, thetans, whole track, all that stuff in “para-scientology”. Look what people did with it! There is a difficult but very useful word – “reification”, “reify”. For example, ‘Brahma’ is the reification of an abstract principle. Some believers believe there is actually such a ‘person’ as Brahma. It is the same with various concepts in Scientology. For example, Static. It is clear that Static, by definition, does not exist. No mass, no motion, no location in time or space. However, it is also said that “Life is basically a Static.” Look at how people have taken that!

            Here’s another example: The Supreme court has ruled that a corporation is a ‘person’. Well, the ‘self’ is a similar conventional fiction. ‘Corporate’ means embodied, after all. I believe it goes back to the Romans, so, Latin.

            Thus Buddha is quite correct in saying that a permanent ‘self’ does not exist. It is a conventional fiction, ultimately a mental construct.

        • Common body of theta was just a speculation with no consistency to anything.

        • Valkov: “…my understanding that after having speculated about a ‘common body of theta’, LRH totally refuted the idea and came to believe it was not true.”

          Here’s one reference, from *The Creation of Human Ability*:

          “It can be concluded that the thetan is an individual separate from every other thetan and that he has never been part of any other thetan. There are many ‘phony’ incidents implanted on the track whereby an individual is made to feel that he is a result of explosion having occurred to a larger body. He is also made to feel that he was at one time ‘whole’ and is now only a splinter of himself. This is only an effort to reduce him. He has always been himself, he will always be himself, down to a time when he is entirely identified with this universe, at which time he would no longer be himself simply because he would no longer be conscious.”

          And from the Tech Dictionary:

          “ONENESS, people have had the idea that there was a main body of theta and everybody became “one” when you got to the top of the tone scale. Fortunately that isn’t true. But you go down tone scale and everybody becomes one. And the oneness is mest. There’s no individuality whatsoever in mest. (PDC 6)”

  51. This is in response to George’s post on rebirth.

    https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/scientology-a-monotheistic-religion/#comment-310718

    GMW: ” The self does “evaporate” at death, but we need to account for the next life. This happens with a special type of “rel-linking kamma”. This specialized Kamma contains a package of good and bad deeds in a balance.”

    George, I understand that there is a difference between the death of an ordinary person, and the death of a Buddha. The “next-life” routine applies to the ordinary death, and not to the death of a Buddha. Here is my reasoning.

    (1) The “self” evaporates completely only in the case of a Buddha. Some residual “self” is left in ordinary death.

    (2) Complete evaporation in the case of a Buddha means that disintegration of a body occurs completely to the level of elements of the Periodic Table. No organic, DNA type molecules are left. However, in case of ordinary death, organic, DNA type molecules are left as residues.

    (3) This is just a hypothesis at the moment. DNA molecules contain the most basic programming in the form of genetic code. The genetic code contains not only the instructions for the structure of the body, but also instructions for the elemental programming which constructs the self.

    (4) This gives a new meaning to the concept of “Kamma” or to the “Theory of Karma.”

    (5) I have always looked at “Karma” as not something “good” or “bad”, but as “an incomplete cycle of action.” It is like “as-isness” not take to completion. Let me call it “incomplete as-isness.” It is a residue.

    (6) This residue of “incomplete as-isness” is what prevents a DNA molecule from disintegrating completely. The complete integration takes place only in case of Buddha where no such residues exist.

    (7) New bodies with new selves are created with residual DNA molecules. Thus, what is transferred from one life to the next are not complete “selves” but only certain characteristics made up of “incomplete as-isness.”

    This is just a hypothesis at a very early stage. A lot needs to be worked out here. The advanced teachings that you are referring to could provide some clues here.

    .

    • vinaire,
      The difference in Theravada is threefold:

      1. Buddha
      2. Saint
      3. Ordinary person.

      Both the Buddha and his saints achieved Nirvana – no difference.
      Ordinary folks keep the re-link at the last breath of life.
      In actual fact, the Buddha delayed his Nirvana in order to teach.
      It has been noted that several saints died before the Buddha. Thus
      they actually achieved it before him.

      GMW

      • Your post seems to indicate that a person does not actually achieve Nirvana until the body dies. This is I believe, what Vin called “parinirvana”, and I believe there are Buddhist who believe one can achieve Nirvana while still with a living body. This understanding would be that Buddha achieved Nirvana while sitting under the tree, but lived to teach another 50 years or so. He simply maintained a communication line of some kind to that body so others could see and hear him, so he could teach. My take on it is that if he so wished, he could subsequently associate himself with another body in the future in order to continue teaching at some point.
        I see the difference as being this: That having achieved Nirvana, he could knowingly associate himself with bodies if he wished to do so. In other words, the association would not be compulsive, which it is with most people who are caught in the mechanism of the repeating “cycle of birth and death”.

        Having achieved Nirvana, Buddha would not be subject to the mechanics of the compulsion to be reborn. That is, after all, what “kamma” is and does, no? It is part of a mechanical process of dissolution and reformation, is it not?

        I see the main, perhaps the only, difference between an ‘enlightened’ and an ‘ignorant’ being, as being the enlightened one no longer has as much or perhaps any, mechanisms operating below his level of awareness. I don’t know Sanskrit or Pali, but in the Slavic languages, the root for ‘awake’ is ‘budh’, and awake means more conscious or more aware.

        • Valkov,
          This is a difficult concept because I have yet to experience it. The analogy used by the Buddha was cooling embers after a fire. If you were still in a body, you need to deal with the “remainder” – that is the tug and pull of the body. When the body dies, the last embers go out.
          Once Nirvana is achieved there is no desire for a body.

          GMW

          • Do you see any inconsistency in the concepts of Nirvana and Parinirvana?

            • vinaire,
              I just take it on faith since I never investigated it. I never see any inconsistency.
              GMW

              • That is like Marildi taking the definition of “thetan” on faith and never seeing any inconsistency. Haha!

                But here are these two concepts of “nirvana” and “thetan” that can never be consistent with each other.

                I think some people just resort to faith because they are prevented from looking because of too much confusion. I think Marildi is sitting in a big confusion, which is somehow being restrained by the concept of “thetan”.. Her confusion is not gone. It is still there.

                I don’t know about you yet.

          • Mark N Roberts

            Afternoon George.
            Here is a statement that may have been your opinion or of some belief which you were relaying.
            “Once Nirvana is achieved there is no desire for a body.”

            Whatever the origin, I believe it is a somewhat dangerous statement, setting individuals up for a big surprise and letdown. According to my recollection, there have been many isms and izms which had great value and produced higher states in a similar manner that a release is produced in Scn. Get a person feeling good, uptone. Add a little bit of knowledge of current spiritual nature and bang, he is flying high and strong. Loving life and all those around him. I have been in this and similar states many times. Feeling wise, access to knowledge long forgotten, free as a bird. This may last for an hour, a year, or centuries.

            Then crash, or a grinding halt. A sudden overwhelm, a creeping confusion, a few big errors, something drags you down and you don’t know what to do about it. A situation where you have limited choices and the ones you pick don’t produce the expected result. (A form of overt) Some mechanical/electronic device that you don’t know how to handle, and you get dragged in…….AGAIN.

            You got to feeling good yet you failed to go over the fine details, do the due diligence and learn exactly how you got down low in the first place, and then the second place and the third. WHEN and WHY did I allow myself to get into this condition. I hear the phrase often, ‘What was I thinking’, but I rarely see someone look at exactly what they were thinking. It can be difficult and time consuming. It’s work. I would rather relax, clear my mind and regain that release I had earlier. Then I’ll feel better.

            Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not discounting yours or anyone else’s method of spiritual improvement. It is vital and necessary. It is pretty much impossible to get to the second or third floor without walking through the first. But it is incomplete and impermanent.

            Now, if you just don’t believe in whole track individuality, then just click delete and go to the next post. That is your belief, this is mine. Mine is based on believed recalls, lots of them. I have been through this many, many times. I have meditated without end, studied ancient knowledge, loved and taught my fellows and written ancient texts. Yet here I am, trying to get back again to a better state. But never before have I tried studying my, and others, past in such detail. It is worth a shot, since all the methods I have tried before have brought me here, to this little world circling this rimstar. Past due for a change.

            I have lived countless lives of peace and love and wisdom, only to fall right back in the rock pit, or in prison, or in a cancer ward. Or worse, thrown out in no space, alone, with no map back. I know that my work is not currently your work, but hopefully I have put a bug in your ear which may click some day in the future. Worth a shot. Besides, I may need your help some day, and I will need the best help I can get.

            I consider you a friend.
            Thanks for listening, Mark

            • Mark N Roberts

              Also, it has been my experience that individuals go through cycles, following different purposes for periods of time, similar to but not exactly as described by Ken Ogger. To be wise, to be holy, to be strong, to be smart, etc. I am working to break and gain control and choice over this cycle for myself and eventually assist others in doing so.
              These purposes weren’t mine in the first place, but they aligned with more basic purposes of my own, so I went along. I eventually believed in them fully. I believe that if the instillation of these purposes, and why, are not viewed and understood fully, one is likely to fall back into them. I am looking for a more permanent solution.

              For a time in my life I wanted nothing more than to be liked and admired. I recognized this and shifted gears. But the underlying cause was still there until I found the source. It could have easily resurfaced later.

              It was all a lie. It was fun for awhile but that time is over.
              Mark

          • Yes, the Desire is gone. As per the CDEI scale mechanism, that releases one from compulsively coming back like a helpless puppet. However that does not mean to me, that one may not choose to associate oneself with a body or bodies in the future. Of course, one may choose not to. That’s the theory, anyway.

        • Check out Nirvana and Parinirvanain Wikipedia.

          There should be no bias in case of knowledge. All knowledge is there to be examined freely. Then it is simply a matter of resolving inconsistencies.

          The only policy necessary is the Discussion Policy.

  52. Mark N Roberts

    Well, the body improvement program is going well. Initial soreness gone.
    feeling lighter and more energetic, which is an indicator that I was feeling heavy and tired.
    Again, this is a program to handle an outpoint in my life. A human body is enough of a restimulation when in perfect shape, let alone when it gets in lax condition.
    There are agreements and implants which coerce one to use the brain for certain functions. It is also the primary means of communication with the body and environment. Until those issues are completely, or at least mostly resolved, it is good to keep it in proper working order.
    There are many of you out there who have experienced moments when you weren’t using the brain as a via to the universe. Feels good don’t it. Well, to get back to that level, the brain needs to be in good enough shape to not lock up your attention. The same with the rest of your body.
    This was the original purpose of the purif. but that is just one factor. Practically every religion and philosophy has suggested keeping the body in good shape. Just keep in mind that having a great body is not the final purpose. It is one part, an intermediate step in reaching your true goals. Don’t get stuck on it. Don’t discount it.

    A glass of water first thing in the morning, a wide variety of fruits and vegs., moderate amount of healthy proteins, little or no simple carbs and grains, enough exercise to get your heart going and breathing hard. It’s not complicated and you know it already.

    DOING IS SENIOR TO THINKING.
    Mark

  53. Marty, You are right Scientology evolving into a religion.

    And I will point out why this is exactly is killing the Organization, in my eyes.

    The command to worship Hubbard, what does this do? I will tell you.

    Recently posted on Milestone 2 :

    “Over the last several years an interesting phenomena then occurred. Many people on the list of the 500 “Indies” denounced Scientology and became critical of LRH.”

    “As time has passed, a significant number of those claiming they are “Independent Scientologists” have stated publicly that they have no intention of continuing up The Bridge, and they do not audit, do not train, do not apply LRH tech in their lives. They have abandoned the subject, the philosophies and in support of their new “group”, they find fault with the body of work and with the Founder.

    At this point I consider the term “Independent Scientologist” a misnomer.”

    Skipping over the generalities , What is the protest read here? Critical of L. R. H..

    What does that tell you? Critical of L.R.H. is a crime. And this is the way it is the Church.

    So, who can audited on L.R.H. or Scientology? Nobody! Unless you want to be an infidel!

    Look at all of the noise out here about Hubbard, Scientology and the Church.

    Do you think for one minute if it was legal to mention your ARCX’s in the Church, all of the noise would be out here all over the public lines? No.

    So, how did it work out to suppress all doubts or criticism or ARCX’s in the Church?

    This enforced worshipping means you can not clean up your ARCX’s or upsets / case about it, in a fundamentalist group . Then when you leave and start to itsa you are attacked.

    Let me point out something else you might not have looked at. Anyone you are worshipping, you have a LOT of charge on.

    • Frankly, the fact that you can point out situations, and you are not all worshippy, kind of tells me your heart is clean.

    • And this explains why the fundamentalists get so vicious of accusing others of having evil purps on Hubbard and attacking them and suppressing them. Their with holds get missed.

    • I’m no tech guru but what I am pointing out is Scientology 101.

      The fanatics are the ones with the biggest charge on Hubbard.

      fa·nat·ic (f-ntk)
      n.
      A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

      1. a person whose enthusiasm or zeal for something is extreme or beyond normal limits
      2. a person devoted to a particular hobby or pastime; fan: a jazz fanatic.

      enthusiast, partizan, partisan – an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity
      Adj. 1. fanatic – marked by excessive enthusiasm for and intense devotion to a cause or idea; “rabid isolationist”.

      Noun 1. fanatic – a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause)fanatic – a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject”–Winston Churchill
      fiend
      enthusiast, partizan, partisan – an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity.

    • I really feel for ALL of the people out here, that were told they were evil by one of these fanatics. Wrong item. Wrong indication. And it has caused untold conflict and heartbreak between our fellow man. And I don’t blame anyone for attacking that. I just think it would be best to spot the PERSON or people that ran it on you, and think with the person to person experience for what it was. Or the group of people that ran it on you. People have every right to protest about that bullshit.

      • Mark N Roberts

        Oracle:
        Loved and learned from your recent posts. Spent most of the day catching up. Your intensity gives us strength.
        Thanks, Mark

        • Thanks Mark N Roberts. I’m just rolling with the punches. That is a gray area. People focus on wins and losses a lot. Rolling with the punch is this kind of parallel universe. You don’t care who the winner is, you don’t care who the loser is. It isn’t about that final vote. It has to do with forces and conditions. It doesn’t really take any strength , it is more like dancing. When you are a real dancer, you can dance anywhere, anytime.

    • For tech reference see “Fixated Person Rundown.”

      • At least Hubbard was smart enough to keep his enemies close. Who else would be willing to propitiate, suffer, sacrifice, kow tow, surrender, imprison themselves and one another, torture themselves and one another, and live with the self abnegation the Scientology fanatics do, except his bitter enemies with missed with holds? He has them all in one prison or another. Laughter! Anyone who could hate psychs is perfectly capable of hating Hubbard. He switched items on them too. Hysterical!
        He was right about them. Look at what they have done to the Church and the customers. Now they are out here stalking anyone capable of translating the tech or his meanings. The whole time Hubbard was parked in Creston, he made sure not one staff member from the base knew his home address or location. THAT is how much he trusted David Miscavige, he made sure Miscavige was never told of his location. He knew.

        • At least, I think his location was kept secret from the Int Base staff. Anyway, he did not co exist with them. He kept them parked far far away. I think rumor has it he did not feel safe enough legally to be there. But he didn’t want to be out on the ocean cruising with them where he had been safe to co exist with them.

      • Why don’t the both of you publish why you were up in my crib to begin with? You NEVER publish what I did for you. You NEVER publish what Marty did for you. You NEVER publish your out exchange and scams.