Scientology: Past and Present

Continued, from last post Scientology’s Worship of the Past:

The highest level of the bridge (the one-path-covers-all series of specific steps one must follow in order to arrive to native state) Hubbard left behind, OT (Operating Thetan) VIII, is a foray into the deep past for the purpose of identifying and validating one’s fundamental whole track identity.  Thus, along with the deep past, identity – or ego –  is made an obsession with scientology.  The original client-centered therapy that scientology copied and scientology itself – up to the level of Clear – aim for stripping those ‘false’ identities one tends to collect and adopt so as to reach a state of self-actualization where a person finds his own self.  However,  in scientology one is not permitted to take that self-actualization so as to transcend self and explore new horizons.  Instead, scientology teaches that knowing oneself is not good enough; one must become someone else: the superhuman, ubermensch, operating thetan.  And to get there the scientologists starts anew on an endless journey stripping what he is indoctrinated to believe are thousands upon thousands of foreign personalities he is continuing to play out unconsciously.  In fact, unwilling to admit the failure of scientology to erase the subconscious, Hubbard came up with a new explanation for the continuing subconscious dramas Clears continue to play out.  That is a science fiction mythology that anthropomorphizes every sub-conscious thought the Clear has.

More fundamentally,  scientology’s tenet of the everlasting individuality makes Clear self-actualizing a minor way station.  The further an individual progresses along the bridge the more he is convinced that he possesses a continuing core identity which one can never fully realize absent thousands of hours of more auditing.  That is a self that has been a separate, identifiable individual basic personality for what varies between adherents from quadrillions to an infinity of years.  The longer one participates the more firmly one believes in his individuated separateness from all other beings and the entire universe.   And so after spending perhaps years to attain the state of Clear the false identity stripping starts anew and this time continues until the scientologist dies.

To believe that scientology has secrets in store that will release the self from this obsession with time and identity would be irrational.  For the past twenty-eight years scientology’s leaders have been attempting to read Hubbard’s solo (self-administered meditations) sessions after his own passage through his highest published level.  Because of the non-sequitur nature of the scrawl he left behind, they have unsuccessfully attempted to divine what levels Ron may have ventured into beyond OT VIII.  The only thing they do purport to know for certain is this: those ventures were even further into the deeper past than even quadrillions of years.

That is indisputable fact if Ron’s last two most trusted aides can be trusted as they were by Ron. Both of them made public presentations of a handwritten sheet of paper purported to be a worksheet from one of Hubbard’s late-life sessions.  Pat Broeker did so at the L. Ron Hubbard funeral event in Hollywood in January 1986.  Years later David Miscavige – who later deposed Broeker -pulled the same stunt in a special “OT Summit” briefing aboard scientology’s ship the Freewinds.  They presented the same full 14 ½” sheet of paper covered in numbers in L. Ron Hubbard’s handwriting.  Scientology’s elite of the elite claimed that was a date Hubbard was addressing in his post-OT VIII self auditing. They promised to divine what OT IX, X, ‘and so on’ were from study of those worksheets.  To date they have apparently failed to create those revelations. So, the only thing the world knows about scientology’s as yet uncodified levels is that they direct attention to dates in the past that are so ancient the numbers alone can fill a foolscap sheet of paper.

Lest people mistake that worship of the past is something David Miscavige and Pat Broeker misinterpreted from Hubbard’s final days, realize it is much the same in scientology circles outside of the official organization.  While Miscavige and Broeker promised OT levels IX, X, and ‘so on’, the leading independent scientology organization offers fifty-five (55) such levels beyond Clear – or four and one half times the invitations to regress yet further into the past.

And so, behind the face of the scientologist trying his darnedest to project the image of the upbeat maverick fully in the present lies a hidden obsession to ultimately return to native state, quadrillions of years or more into the past.  That this cognitive dissonant state (present vs. past) would appear to be the pressure-packed counterposing of the perfect, polar dichotomy is not so by accident.  A dispassionate and informed study of Hubbard’s research and discovery path reveals it to be an inevitability.

336 responses to “Scientology: Past and Present

  1. The Anti Scientology Song:

  2. “A dispassionate and informed study of Hubbard’s research and discovery path reveals it to be an inevitability.”

    As is all theism.

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmations_%28L._Ron_Hubbard%29
      The “Affirmations” (also referred to as the “Admissions”) are a work said to have been written by L. Ron Hubbard in the late 1940s, a few years before he established Dianetics (1950) or Scientology (1952). They consist of a series of statements by and addressed to Hubbard, relating to various physical, sexual, psychological and social issues that he was encountering in his life. After the Affirmations became public knowledge in 1984 the Church of Scientology has disputed their authenticity, though in legal papers it has described the Affirmations as having been “written by” Hubbard and sought to retain ownership of them. The Affirmations appear to have been intended to be used as a form of self-hypnosis with the intention of resolving the author’s psychological problems and instilling a positive mental attitude. They are closely linked to the occult philosophy of Thelema, devised by Aleister Crowley in the early 20th century, in which Hubbard participated for a while during 1945–46. In her book Inside Scientology: The Story of America’s Most Secretive Religion, Janet Reitman calls the Affirmations “the most revealing psychological self-assessment, complete with exhortations to himself, that [Hubbard] had ever made.”[1]

  3. Deeper and deeper into the past. One way to create a complexity and not confront his own Achilles heel, his pride. I would have to think that the deeper one follows Ron and presses on in this search for his native state, the more likely they are moving away from ever realizing it and being at peace. Its a collapsed bridge. Run.

  4. Mark N. Roberts

    Good post, Marty.
    Whatever Ron was working on his last few years, it didn’t improve his ability to communicate with others. He was very uncommunicative and reclusive. His papers were not understandable to others.

    Whatever he was working on his last few years, it didn’t improve his ability to handle his body, he suffered from a series of strokes and died relatively young.

    Whatever he was working on, it didn’t help his family life, as demonstrated by his wife and children’s foibles.

    Whatever he was working on, it didn’t spawn the ability to choose his next life and control it in a way that would be recognizable and helpful to the rest of us. If, in some fantasy, he left this realm for some purpose of his own, then he abandoned the race of beings which helped him and got him to his believed lofty plane.

    In short, he didn’t produce the product. But, he got many of us started. Maybe we can do better.
    Mark

  5. “In short, he didn’t produce the product. But, he got many of us started. Maybe we can do better.”

    A very level-headed and broad perspective, Mark. I would just add that some of what he came up with may not have gotten the sought-for “full product,” but there is value to those “lesser products” – both in and of themselves and for use in future research.

    • I agree Marildi. Whatever helps a being to free themselves from suffering is good.

      Freudian therapy has its place. But it is my experience that Scientology could only be called that: a mental therapy with a dangerously flawed reputation, with a twist of admin.

      And beyond any doubt, according to my studies and experience, Scientology is incapable of producing a sage or liberated being. But it may help with some basic emotions in a “this life context” or an occasional past life context.

      The danger is: once the cheese has been shoved in the pie hole, one then has to navigate the dangerous waters of Ron’s flaws that are presented as standard tech, in writing, word cleared and ethics.

      How would you, Marildi, respond to a new person who loves auditing and reads that Ron say’s Scientology is man’s “only road out?”

      He has a blown out happy session, thinks auditing is the greatest, Ron is elevated to genius and wiseman status, then reads that Scientology is the only path to freedom.

      What would you say to that person?

      • “The danger is: once the cheese has been shoved in the pie hole, one then has to navigate the dangerous waters of Ron’s flaws that are presented as standard tech, in writing, word cleared and ethics.”

        I don’t see it like that, Brian. But it’s an argument I’ve heard before – that we have no choice but to continue to do it Ron’s way, or the CoS way – period. In other words – it’s all or nothing at all. This is simply no longer the case. We are now free to use our own judgement about any aspect of the tech, or scientology in general, and we can compare it to other things. Or even look at other things in themselves and forget about scientology if it doesn’t suit us.

        So I have yet to see that the waters are “dangerous,” as you say. Having the willingness to think and look for oneself and not accept anything on sheer belief, then the idea of scientology being “the only road out” becomes just another statement that has to be evaluated.

        The goal of attaining great powers (which may only have been a reg line, or somebody’s marketing scheme) doesn’t have to be one’s personal goal – and it wasn’t the original goal of scientology, for that matter. Things like having scientology become our whole lives, or becoming obsessed with the past, etc. don’t have to be accepted either – whether those ideas came from Ron or others.

        As to what I might say to a new guy about it being “the only road out,” I would tell him I don’t have reason to believe that, but that it may be one of the best roads to take a person a good part of the way out. And I would recommend to the new person that he follow the basic principle of think and look for himself. That’s actually a lesson I learned from scientology when I first got in – and even more so when I got out. It has to be one of the best lessons a person can learn.

        Thanks for your theta way of expressing your reply to me.🙂

        • I think one of the truths from my view is that if you are “in” it indeed remains Ron’s way or the highway. Only if you are “out” do you have freedom to explore and compare. To the newbie, I’d say read the published characteristics of cults and mind control, and don’t let anyone run those processes or indoctrination on you. Of course, that would mean you would have to immediately leave the church or at least be in ethics.

          As to not seeing dangerous waters, I guess it depends on what you mean. For me, I’d say books can and have been written on the dangers — psychological, spiritual, financial, familial, societal, ethical, etc. I would want any keyed out newbie to read and absorb all those views, and understand that the high he or she just experienced from auditing is not dependent on Scientology, but can be replicated in other ways.

          As to the goals of great powers being a reg line or a marketing scheme, well, I agree that they certainly were that, and more. Starting with DMSMH on through the early grade charts, superpowers were not only hinted at, but specified and guaranteed (standard tech works 100% of the time) by the old man himself. To the newbie, I’d say the published products of Clear and OT VIII have not been objectively demonstrated to be achievable via Scientology even after over a half century of trying. Caveat emptor, if you think you are buying a real result, but if you don’t care about demonstrably real results and mainly want to be part of a religious group / family, then it’s a free world — at least on the outside.

          I do agree that Scientology has some good things. I can attest that as PC and auditor, I saw some good effects. But the best tasting Kool-Aid becomes lethal once you add the cyanide.

          • FOTF2012: “…I’d say books can and have been written on the dangers — psychological, spiritual, financial, familial, societal, ethical, etc.”

            True, many books have been written about those dangers – which exist in the CoS version of scientology, and I would certainly not advise anyone to get involved with the CoS. But do we know whether those dangers exist outside the CoS? In other words, have any books been written about scientology as practiced outside the CoS, do you know? Or has anybody even looked very much into it? That would even be the correct scientific protocol for research on the basic subject of scientology – i.e. not to just study one particular version of it.

            You also wrote: “Starting with DMSMH on through the early grade charts, superpowers were not only hinted at, but specified and guaranteed (standard tech works 100% of the time) by the old man himself.”

            I had a comm cycle recently with a friend who made a very good observation. He said that, from the beginning, LRH should have stipulated that the tech was an evolving methodology, and that any changes to the current standard would be issued by bulletin and policy. As well, a more sensible and acceptable KSW1 type of policy would have been “Deviations from the current standard are not permitted.”

            Then when LRH needed to keep changing, for example, the definition of Clear as the tech evolved, there would not have been the resulting disappointment and confusion. I remember reading LRH admitting to often being over-enthusiastic, so it seems he had awareness of this flaw.

            Another thing you wrote: “To the newbie, I’d say the published products of Clear and OT VIII have not been objectively demonstrated to be achievable via Scientology even after over a half century of trying.”

            Not everyone is convinced that any truth has to be objectively demonstrated.before an individual can have knowledge of it as truth, through direct perception. That and the other points you made seem to me to all go back to what I was saying in the comment above, which is that people are free now to do as they wish with scientology.

            • To simplify, I’d say Hubbard wrote way too much, didn’t get rid of policies and HCOB’s that were outdated or changed which left people having to study way too much and prone to much confusion. In other words, he screwed up by bookkeeping one could call it, and not keeping it simple enough. Just a thought! In fact he kept dumbing it down supposedly, while creating more confusion. He may have well got caught up with that himself. Not too smart actually.

            • Marildi: that people are free now to do as they wish with scientology .. this statement is not true .. I simply refute to take the Basics .. and as a result I am declared .. but see: They rewrite my account (and also for the rest of the familiy) and write in books .. see, it is four times the same books each for everyone .. so I said it is criminal to do so and they should correct that immediately .. but the answer was, that I would read entheta in the internet, and it would be the source for refusing the Basics .. it is a lie because I did not read anything in the internet at this time ..

              Following you see, I am not free at all .. if I do not read the Basics, I am simply not permitted to be a scientologist .. and my 43 years of member is also thrown into the waste .. I am now simply called as suppressive ..

              Lets say finally. I know some scientologists who has bought the Basics (mostly delivered without order .. I got myself two sets without asking for .. one in english and one in hebreic .. my wife got another one in france)

              So how you are free when you MUST read it ..

              • Friend, I never for a moment said you were free WITHIN the CoS. Are you not aware that scientology is being practiced by others, outside the CoS? That’s where people can be free, if they so choose. And they are not doing any of the things you wrote about.

        • Great reply. Independent thought, yes indeed!

          Yet I cannot refrain from thinking that what you are proposing is an approach that Ron would have you declared, chased down and ruined utterly.

          I respect that you have made the subject fit the rigors of sovereign thought, as you experience it, but the founder himself would have you punished for such things.

          How do you reconcile that?

          Marildi, I have only ever had theta for you. The rest is just some fun we have exchanging the passions of thought.

          I respect your strength and sense of loyalty.🙂

          It makes for a ruckus energetic exchange! We philosophers love it!

          Be well and have a great day.

          • “Yet I cannot refrain from thinking that what you are proposing is an approach that Ron would have you declared, chased down and ruined utterly.”

            Brian, are you still stuck in worrying about what LRH would have done? You need to set yourself free from that. I have.😉

            And thanks for the compliment. On my part, I have to say, you seem to be evolving in a very positive way since our first exchanges a couple years ago. You must be doing something right.🙂

            • I would say that what has changed, from my view, is the criticism of Ron is accepted more readily.
              I am actually the same. But this forum has evolved. And there are many people allowing themselves the freedom to judge Ron. Back then even Marty warned me and suggest I may be booted off this blog for skewing sacred cows.

              Back then I was attacked by many with quite a degree of vitriol for doing so, including you.

              So I would say thank you for evolving.

              • Back then only Micsavige was criticized. Then slowly Scientology as a subject started to be dissected; various writings etc.

                Then one time, I think it was Windhorse, I asked her, why don’t you use Ron instead of Scientology in assigning source of these things.

                Then I would really get it from some. I was accused of being a troll, an SP, only wanting to enturbulate, you actually vowed twice or three times to never to respond to me again.

                All because I used the name Ron in trying to point out the source of so of this craziness.

                It took a long time for some to allow themselves to overcome the brain washing of not criticizing Hubbard. The thought control was quite deep.

                I was a willing piñata. And you Marildi my dear were quite nasty with me. Only once did I descend into a mean sarcasm with you, but thankfully Marty edited it out. It was then I posted that I was just a student working on humility and I apologized.

                Memories, fascinating how we have different ones of the same thing.

                • Brian. Evolution and enlightenment can be fun. Not easy, but fun, tho it does take some time. I know what you’re saying, as I went through a rather short period of that myself.

                  • Indeed deE. We all have our role to play with each other. And no doubt this is great fun!
                    Some folks like sports. I’m not much of a sports guy. But I love love love exchanging views with others. Agree/disagree; it’s all good.
                    I appreciate every one:-)

                • Very different memories, indeed. Selective, at best.🙂

                  Did you watch the TED talk that was posted on the previous thread, titled “The Fiction of Memory”? This memory expert says that memory works sort of like Wikipedia – you can go in there and change it, and so can other people. That goes along with the theory that we co-create our universe. We influence each other’s PT perceptions as well as past memories. To my way of thinking, this is why negative thoughts, statements and attitudes, beyond what is necessary, are contagious and pernicious.

                  Another TED talk was posted by LDW at the bottom of this thread. It’s all about scientific proof of how the mind can heal literally anything. That is how powerful our minds are.

                  • Marildi, you have characteristically avoided the truth once again. But at least you are not fuming like before. I’ll take that as progress.🙂

                    • I guess you missed the point about excessive negativity. Were you “characteristically avoiding the truth once again”?

                    • I was simply saying Marildi that you are not getting as angry with vitriol towards me when I brought up Ron as the source of this madness.

                      Many now do use the name Ron without the attack attack attack command so diabolically imprinted into minds.

                      Back then I would get the riot act from those who were still subject to the “anyone criticizing Ron is bad” hypnosis.

                      If you do not remember that’s ok. I’ll do some research for clarity’s sake and post here. And I shall give the links to prove it. For the sake of clarity only.

                      You were quite nasty. But now you are much better.

                    • Now of course we have some critics who attack attack attack when a person fails to state the obligatory condemnation of Ron….. and suggests that some of the ideas he promoted were actually OK or useful or constructive.

                    • “If you do not remember that’s ok. I’ll do some research for clarity’s sake and post here. And I shall give the links to prove it. For the sake of clarity only.

                      You were quite nasty. But now you are much better.

                      No need Brian.

                      Everybody person who was once a Scientologist deserves full redemption from Scientology.

                      Alanzo

                    • “Everybody person” is a new term I coined to designate a person and all of their body thetans.

                      Alanzo

                    • Quick thinking for misspeaking – and hilarious too.😀

              • Thank you for this, Brian. I’ve just started reading some of the older posts and I do see that people are evolving. It must be very difficult to change so much when you exit.

                Do I take this comment to mean that you were a freer thinker earlier on?

                I typed what’s below in response to one of your posts, and now I can’t find it…so it’s truly out of context. I like your posts.

                I think that Scientology is a microcosm of our human situation. It’s hard to break out of the mind control in or out of Scientology. I’m watching this website for direction.

                Anyway, here is the out of context response to whatever you said…lol.

                It doesn’t make sense that the human dynamic wouldn’t have a function. It can be rather complex in nature, because we are complex (multi-faceted beings).

                Consider a tree. Not only does it hold the soil in place, create homes for creatures – often providing food through fruit and leaves – but trees also hold carbon, the greenhouse gasses that we have too much of. A tree also looks a lot like a dendrite, so a tree might be a brain cell for our Planet.

                Humanity is much more complex than trees. We have freedom of motion, hand-eye coordination as well as brains that think, and we are social and can work together to accomplish large tasks. Why would we neglect to realize our function?

                Because we were lied to and then herded around for thousands of years in a state of illiteracy. When a large percentage of humans learned how to read, we became ready to function properly. (See those letters…read…ready…that’s not a coincidence.)

                When ‘as above, so below’ became the belief, we were molded to follow the powerful people who kept enabling us to eat. They could have (and at times have) gotten rid of us all a long time ago by burning all the crops, but they didn’t. They want us to work for them.

                We are confused. We are supposed to be doing other things.

                I’m taking an educated guess that humanity is part of the Universe’s immune system – it makes sense that our function is to do 100,000,000 different things, we are capable of the function ‘immune system’. Because we are not functioning properly, we give the Universe AIDS. The Universe can’t allow AIDS to spread. If humanity doesn’t wake up and function, then to stop humanity from spreading the Universe would have to destroy us. I don’t think God wants us destroyed. He doesn’t want to ‘cut off’ any portion of His body. You wouldn’t cut off your little finger, even if it got an infection. You would try your hardest to heal it. Only the worst case scenario, gangrene, would make you cut it off – and that would still be reluctantly. That’s how God feels about each and every part of the Universe.

                So, take a look around at all the murders and molestations and other crimes against humanity and all the dynamics. Aren’t we infected right now?

                The Universe has several options – EMP burst from a big sun spot…super-volcanoes blow and darken the sky which kills the plants…a tiny asteroid hits the CDC and releases smallpox and ‘who knows what else’ upon humanity…and of course, there is always WWIII.

                We’re like sitting ducks. Our planet doesn’t have shields (but some evidence supports the fact that we once had shields), we are not organized for disaster preparedness and relief (we are wasting our time keeping the 1% money machine in power), they don’t have 8 billion vials of vaccines for the worst things that could be unleashed upon us (and it’s looking like they don’t want that anyway)…and WWIII is already in the works (and we are not stopping it). Quack, quack, quack!

                • Granny, I’ve been out since 82. I have dumped most if not all of the hypnosis. My purpose for being here was to clear the way for Xes to embrace the reality of other paths, divest myself from any left over baggage.

                  For the most part I am the same, but now, as opposed to when I came aboard, only Miscavige was being criticized. The name of Ron was never brought up in association with the atrocities that he himself wrote and implemented.

                  When I pointed out that these atrocities were from Ron, it was like I set off an emotional bomb and I started getting hate.

                  I took it as a challenge and decided to hold my ground so that it would one day be ok to see clearly where all this madness came from.

                  There is a well known X Scientologist who recently erased my question on their YouTube Vid. I asked,”why do you just use the word Scientology, it was Ron who created the things you protest?”

                  My entry was erased. This happened only about two weeks ago.

                  Some cannot still get past all the mind fuck.

                  Like a time bomb, “have you ever had a critical thought towards L Ron Hubbard?”, explodes and causes the person to attack the questioner.

                  It is pretty diabolical. And laid in the mind quite deep.

                  • “There is a well known X Scientologist who recently erased my question on their YouTube Vid. I asked,”why do you just use the word Scientology, it was Ron who created the things you protest?”

                    My entry was erased. This happened only about two weeks ago.

                    Some cannot still get past all the mind fuck.

                    Like a time bomb, “have you ever had a critical thought towards L Ron Hubbard?”, explodes and causes the person to attack the questioner.

                    It is pretty diabolical. And laid in the mind quite deep.”

                    Yes, I understand the strategy: there are some people, mainly independents who are still scientologists themselves, who are targeting still-in-the-Church Scientologists with their messaging in order to get them out of the Church. Some fully-out Xes believe in this strategy as well.

                    The strategy is this: They employ the ARC Triangle by staying within these Scientologists “reality” so as not to cause an ARC break with them by criticizing Ron as something less than “mankind’s greatest friend”. They refrain from saying all they know to be the truth about LRH and Scientology to these Churchies in order to bring them along some kind of path out of the church.

                    They are also applying “gradients” in the belief that, on the way out of Scientology, first a Scientologist realizes that DM is a squirrel while still believing that LRH was their loyal friend. And only later do they realize that LRH was always Source.

                    These Xes and Indies don’t want to “ARC break” or go “out-gradient” on these still-in Scientologists by telling them the truth about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology as they know it.

                    There is some workability to this approach, and I understand why they do it.

                    I mostly disagree with it, however.

                    The problem with it, as I see it, is that the route out of Scientology is like a raging torrent of water down a mountain valley in the wake of a catastrophic damn break.

                    As the busted houses and families and careers go streaming down the valley, each boulder or felled tree is something for a person to grab onto to be “safe” from the disaster of waking up from Scientology. Some people stay on these rocks long after they should have just started swimming. The whole valley is a disaster area. There is no place to build a new life in it.

                    Best to let go of the rock or tree and swim all the way out.

                    Only then can you find a new place to build a new home, and start a new life. There is no place to live in that washed out valley any more.

                    Plus, it is totally exhausting to continue to lie to people about Scientology – after Scientology. You should just tell the truth to people about Scientology as you know it and not be so manipulative.

                    People can take it. And it’s a lot quicker for everyone. Too much time has been wasted in Scientology to keep lying to people about it.

                    Alanzo

                    • Mark C. Rathbun

                      Alanzo, I think you describe a small handful of people. And even then not very accurately. I think for the most part these folks harbor either or both of the following: a) intent to make a parasitic living off the fall out, b) they are still in, in their own minds.

                    • Yes, there is a slice of Indy parasites in there.

                      My experience is mostly as an Ex talking to other exes.

                      Indy OSA was able to influence some Exes a few years ago to avoid targeting L Ron Hubbard directly because it “turned people off” and after all, LRH was dead and no longer had any influence on Scientology. David Miscavige is the correct target as “The Who”.

                      Indy OSA no longer exists.

                      Alanzo

                    • Mark C. Rathbun

                      Well, I spearheaded a lot of that, and I then definitely fit squarely within category b.

                    • Thanks for saying that, Marty.

                      I really very much respect and appreciate it.

                      Alanzo

                    • I have also thought about the gradient as well Alanzo. I think there can be truth in it. What a mind fuck geeze!

                    • You’re a good man Marty

                    • deElizabethan

                      Fantastic analogy Alanzo and makes perfect sense and gives me more to think about. Thank you.

                  • Hi Brian,

                    I just read Dianetics for the first time a couple of months ago, but I sensed it had some important points. I noticed that L Ron didn’t try and make himself understood to the general population. He used big words and then began to alter the meanings of other words. This already sets the stage for ‘setting his followers apart from the ordinary masses’…wogs, right?

                    I was floundering around the internet – totally aMAZEd by all things Scientology – when I found Marty’s blog. Reading his book and his blog set me straight.

                    I find it amazing how so many Xes still stick together – comrades from the same wreckage??? You all have history both in Scientology and within various blogs. Unfortunately, you were all somewhat wounded by the hypnosis. Getting to read all of your posts is almost like watching a reality show. I’m definitely an outsider, but everyone’s being nice to me.

                    I have an agenda. I believe that humanity has a function and we are currently neglecting that function. I believe we are the immune system for the Universe and that we have both physical and spiritual tasks that we are disregarding. Humanity is off track.

                    I respect many aspects of X Scientologists. As a group, you are intelligent, articulate and kind. Those are great characteristics. And Scientology instilled excellent study habits, military order and the ideology that Earth needs to be ‘cleared’.

                    I don’t look at the word ‘cleared’ in the same way as Scientology, but the need for the entire planet to be considered in need of help is obvious to me. Think of it this way – if reincarnation is real and we need a womb to be reborn, where would you NOT want to be reborn?? Those places need our attention immediately.

                    Dianetics was difficult to read because there were already quite a few inconsistencies in that one book. I made notes as I was reading, and I was surprised that those inconsistencies were not addressed in such a late reprinting of the book. I found out later that every word L Ron wrote or spoke was being treated as gospel. Through this blog, I’m learning that it would take a lifetime to sort it all out. Marty gave much of his life to Scientology and I look to him as the sorter.

                    I never had to accept those inconsistencies as gospel, so I just ‘thought through them’. In other words, I would try and consider what L Ron must have meant, but if I couldn’t I just kept reading. I didn’t allow myself to get totally mind fucked (as you so aptly called it). But I was completely drawn to the ideas set forth in the book.

                    I know there is a part of the brain that exists in hiding. It is the R Complex, or the reptilian brain. This portion of the brain is in charge of survival – fight, flight, freeze. I had already written a short booklet about the devastating affects this portion of the brain can have on us physically, so when I read Dianetics, I was convinced that L Ron was describing the same portion of the brain, however, he was too early to see the proof.

                    If you have time, I invite you to read the booklet so you can witness the insidiousness of the syndrome that is plaguing humanity. If you do get a chance to read it, I would welcome your comparison of my theories and those of L Ron’s. I’m sure you will see some similarities with L Ron’s discussions of the reactive mind. I’m asking you because you made a statement in the blog that you love the interchange of ideas. Me, too!

                    Read the ‘about the book’ section first. The booklet is set to read for free here – it’s very short:

                    http://www.blurb.com/b/958269-dear-oprah-i-know-why-you-keep-gaining-it-all-back

                    Thanks for your time, Brian, and your steadfast will. I look forward to getting to know you.

                    Granny

              • It must have been so frustrating for you Brian.. but you are persevering..you know what they say..

                ” Patience is a VIRGIN.. “

                • Not frustrating Baby, challenging and sometimes envigorating. Being skewered and misjudged is the best time to neutralize the egos need to be understood.
                  The best realizations happen during misunderstandings with the right attitude: constant vigilance.

                  But thank you for caring.

            • And my dear Marildi, regarding me being “stuck”. Yes, indeed, I am willingly stuck. Because there are atrocities that still need to be uncovered for people.

              I would call it persistence. I would call it caring for the welfare of others. You may use whatever adjective your experience commands.

              To really understand what I am “stuck” in, please go to today’s Underground Bunker. It’s entry perfectly illustrates what we are all “stuck” in and what you seem to deny, in yourself and others.

              I believe my nudging still has a purpose. Tag, you’re it🙂

              PS
              I love Tedx. I have gone to Ideacityonline. Canada’s answer to the Ted Talks. Google it. The presenters are stellar. A friend of mine spoke there and I was comped with an $11,000 dollar vacation last year. Very inspiring.

        • Brian says..
          “one then has to navigate the dangerous waters of Ron’s flaws that are presented as standard tech, in writing, word cleared and ethics.”
          …………………………………….
          Marildi says..
          “So I have yet to see that the waters are “dangerous,” as you say. ”
          ……………………………………..
          Maraldi have you seen the dangerous water of Ron’s flaws in others during their navigation presented as standard tech, writing, word cleared and ethics?

          Are you just saying that if you use everything that has been instructed by LRH that there are no dangerous flaws with Standard tech, in writing, word cleared and ethics? Thank you

          • No, BB, I’m not saying that. See my reply to FOTF2012. I think that will answer your question pretty well.

            • Marildi said..”But do we know whether those dangers exist outside the CoS?”
              ………………………………….
              But Marildi it seems like you are saying that you recognize the dangers within CoS..but you aren’t convinced by the dangers that Hubs designed within his Mind Control System.

              and his hypnotic drills.

              • That’s right – the way the CoS practices the tech isn’t necessarily (if ever) how independent scientologists do. Even some of the posters on this blog who agree with Marty’s views, are applying scientology as professionals – but they do so based on their personal discernment of what to include and what to exclude, as they consider some of it to be valuable.

                • Marildi.. I understand that there is a variety of posters on this blog. I am quite aware that there are indies.

                  You didn’t really answer my question.

                  • You had written: “…you aren’t convinced by the dangers that Hubs designed within his Mind Control System and his hypnotic drills.”

                    I tried to answer that by saying some people are practicing the tech in such a way as to avoid any inherent dangers – meaning that there doesn’t have to be any danger in practicing scientology. As to whether the tech was DESIGNED as a mind control system, my answer to that is I don’t believe that was the case, at least not in the beginning. And as for the drills being hypnotic, that’s way too much of a stretch, IMO. I do understand you see it differently.

                    • Mark C. Rathbun

                      Like who?

                    • Watchful Navigator was one that you seemed to think was “practicing the tech in such a way as to avoid any inherent dangers” (quoting what I wrote above). He had commented on his disagreement with the following (from your blog post “Scientology Thought Control”:

                      “D. That now considering oneself one of the elite, every time you engage in self-absorbed, introspective processes to make yourself feel better you are improving humankind’s lot. A sort of imbued megalomaniac narcissism is effectuated re-enforcing a-c above.”

                      Your reply was: “That passage did not mean to impugn your clearly selfless form of practice.” https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/09/26/scientology-thought-control/#comment-319989

                    • Mark C. Rathbun

                      Ok, you are done here.

                    • I hope you can understand that I have 4th dynamic purposes too, the same as you. I know I’ve made mistakes in trying to forward them, as I think all of us have, but I’m doing the best I can.

                    • Marildi, do you audit solo OT levels?
                      Do you believe in and run Bts?
                      Do you run implants from implant stations that are standard Scientology?

                      Scientology is to a very great degree these things I mentioned.

                      Do you run Bts? And do you think you are freeing OT3 fleas?

                      I am very curious if you believe this is the Scientology that you are talking about. Because these things are Scientology. Are they not?

                    • Brian, I have not done the OT levels and I have very little personal reality on BT’s or implants. But are you aware of the fact that these ideas are not, by a long shot, limited to scientology?

                      If you google “psychic implants” you will get 420,000 results. There are a huge number of websites and blogs that are talking about this subject. Here’s a quote from one I picked at random from the google results:

                      “Any area of weakness that you have in your physical, emotional and/or mental bodies is guaranteed to have parasites and negative extraterrestrial implants. This is nothing to be afraid of for everybody on Earth has them and we have had them for all of our past lives.”
                      http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v397/__show_article/_a000397-000201.htm

                      A while back, I also found a 2008 paper all about “attached spirits,” meaning attached to the body. The title of the paper is “Depossession Healing: A Comparison of William Baldwin’s ‘Spirit Releasement Therapy’ and Dae Mo Nim’s Ancestor Liberation.” Here’s an excerpt:

                      “Dr. Shakuntala Modi [psychiatrist], who developed her own depossession techniques, gives the following description of one of her clinical sessions with a hypnotized patient named Dave:

                      “’As Dave looked, he was surprised to see that he had many layers of these spirits still left in different parts of his body. He described these layers as thin layers of a pastry. He indicated having twelve layers in his brain, fifteen layers in his eyes, fifteen layers in his shoulders, four layers in his lower back and twenty-nine layers in his abdominal area. We requested angels of the Light to remove entities from each and every layer of his body. He described how the angels, very patiently and systematically, released the entities from each layer and helped them to the Light. Then the angels cleansed and healed those areas and filled and shielded them with the Light.’
                      […]

                      “Dr. William Baldwin, together with his wife Judith, developed their clinical depossession techniques, which he later termed Spirit Releasement Therapy, quite independently of Dae Mo Nim. For numerous reasons, it is safe to suggest that Baldwin and Dae Mo Nim had no knowledge of each other’s efforts. Yet, they arrived at stunningly similar understandings of the nature of attached, i.e., possessing, earthbound spirits, as well as of how their liberation can be affected. http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Publications/JournalUnificationStudies9/JUS9-07.html

                    • To Miraldi re OT levels:

                      Cool, thanks for letting me know. Then you audit what? Actually I know people enjoy the grades and other things. I’m glad you enjoy what you do.

                      Regarding the spirit stuff I am aware of some of it. There is a lot of superstition in it.

                      So, in defending the existence of these things you are, in my view, justifying BTs somehow? 

                      It seems that we have come to a point in Scientology – it’s proceedures and doctrinal adherence – that everything is up to individual interpretation. The OT levels were and are the long sought after prize. So when I talk to you I am not talking to someone who honors the original Scientology as created by Ron.
                      Am I correct?

                    • Brian: “So, in defending the existence of these things you are, in my view, justifying BTs somehow?”

                      I’m simply saying that there are others who – independently from each other – have perceived the existence of BT’s, and that there are other therapies which apparently help people by “freeing” their BT’s.

                    • Marildi, if you see the validity in BTs, why are you not auditing them as a Scientologist?
                      OT3 was and is considered a major step by Ron.

                    • BT is a wrong definition given to the phenomenon.

    • Mark N. Roberts

      Marildi said: ” I would just add that some of what he came up with may not have gotten the sought-for “full product,” but there is value to those “lesser products” – both in and of themselves and for use in future research.”

      Sensible as usual, Marildi. The only argument I could imagine is a bunch of obscure large words and rambling jibber jabber. Or perhaps an “I am right and you are hypnotized” type of comment.

      I have missed your sensibility the last couple of weeks. Some may have missed arguing with you. Either way, you were missed.
      Mark.

      • Thank you, Mark. Theta as ever!

        I miss you too when you are off on one of your projects. But that’s the way you roll. ♥🙂

  6. I meant to comment on the past article Scientology’s Worship of The Past but am just now getting a chance to do so. That last article by Marty has helped me understand the “glue” that made me think Scientology auditing was something I had to have and at one point in my life it made me spend every dime I had because of that error in my thinking. That is a pretty big hypnotism. That’s a pretty big “held down 7”, which is a phrase Hubbard used and described in his 1949 essay titled “Dianetics – The Evolution of A Science” and I think he talked about it in his earlier work “The Original Thesis” as well. That idea Hubbard had presented in his early essay was that if an adding machine had the number 7 key stuck, or held down, the adding machine would always give the wrong answer, even though the adding machine was perfect in all other ways. And the answer was to receive Dianetics and Scientology to find and get rid of “held down 7’s”. Thus Dianetics was supposed to get rid of hypnotisms, that supposedly we all carry with us until we are “Clear”, and being “Clear” means essentially that all of our “held down 7’s” are no longer held down – thus our mind, our computing machine, is clear and functioning giving correct answers. That is what a “Clear” is supposed to be.

    Yet to find myself realizing over recent years just how hypnotized I was to allow Scientology to lead me down the path of thinking that the only way I would have any future was to address the past. That really caused me some problems in my life. I liked myself prior to Dianetics and Scientology. I think Hubbard’s solution sucked him down into his own past and, sadly it seems, his life ended in that condition. Thus his solution became his problem, and lots of other people’s problems, and he demonstrated that by his own life. That is how I view it. Maybe that is why he told one of his trusted aids before he died that he “had failed”.

    And Scientology and Dianetics came full circle. I.e., the desire to become un-hypnotized after I read Dianetics when I was a youngster led to spending years of my life hypnotized. If there is any value to an undercut gradient, I think Marty got the right gradient for me in these last several articles he has written.

  7. Back to the Future, Long Form, Expanded.

  8. Hi Marty,
    I think the old days – pre big bang – were hell. Hell started out with youthful misunderstandings on the part of our Creator. He had to grow up to be fully in control of His power of creation. When He did finally ‘realize His Buddha Nature’ He imbued this physical creation with Love. Before big bang was Hell with a seed of Love. After big bang was control with lots of Love growing throughout His creation.

    He created Sleep for all those who were not ready for Love and He enabled those individuals to attain that level through metamorphosis during their period of sleep.

    If L Ron got trapped in the pre big bang Hell, it would have taken him more lifetimes than he’s ever had to overcome that Hell.

    Love is the answer. It has been since the big bang. Iamvalkov sent me to the Spiritual Rescue Technology website that I’m sure you are aware of. I like his take on respecting entities and turning them into allies or at least freeing them from their pain. Fighting them just makes them angry.

    L Ron might be in a new human body right now, or he might be in his Heavenly Body helping us from the collective consciousness. I hope he has found some loving kindness. I’m so sorry he confounded so many kind people while trying to battle his own demons.

  9. Excellent article! Scientology’s belief gets analyzed to the core.
    In the end it is all based on something that does not exist: the native state.
    Just as Paradise (another native state) does not exist.
    I presume it helps some people to think and believe that these things exist.
    I do not judge them, but they should realize it has consequences. You will risk to get misled or psychologically oppressed. And in the end you’ll be left with a major ‘failed purpose’.

    • sara: And in the end you’ll be left with a major ‘failed purpose’

      Yes .. but only if you believe in it .. LRH leads you in a position in which you were never before .. you have to go a route which leads you down down down down down down to your beginning .. and he tells you that you were at all time controlled and implanted and manipulated like mad .. simply said, you were stupid like mad .. and now he gives you his hand and you will find out about your original beingnass .. nice work .. but what is when you are still your original beingness .. what is when you were never an OT ..

      • Sorry, Friend, I don’t understand what you are saying here.

        • sara: And in the end you’ll be left with a major ‘failed purpose’

          Sorry for my comment if you did not get that. I spoke about “failed purpose” .. have not got really that it was purpose in the first place but acknowledged that the purpose was unreachable in the first place ..

          Not really so bad what I have said, I wanted only to say, if you go a wrong way then you will always have a failed purpose ..

          I wanted only to acknowledge that you run into a failed purpose when your bridge fails .. and wanted to say that the purpose was maybe not your own right purpose ..

  10. If I may…

    “And so, behind the face of the scientologist trying his darnedest to project the image of the upbeat maverick fully in the present lies a hidden obsession to ultimately return to native state, quadrillions of years or more into the past. ”

    Change the word ‘scientologist’ in the above paragraph to ‘drug addict’ or any other addiction (escape from life) and it wouldn’t be far off describing many a lost soul.

    I can’t wait to see this book published. Your work rings very true on many levels.

    😊

  11. Vicar, in his short but excellent comment, wrote:

    “I would have to think that the deeper one follows Ron and presses on in this search for his native state, the more likely they are moving away from ever realizing it and being at peace. Its a collapsed bridge. Run.”

    I would add this to his statement:

    And what if this goal of “native state” that Ron implanted into his open, receptive and spiritually vulnerable followers never existed?

    What if the idea of a “thetan” was just that – an idea?

    I’m re-watching one of the best episodic TV series ever produced, “Six Feet Under”. In Season 2, Ruth joins a cult called “The Plan” where all one’s problems in life are explained through the central metaphor of a house.

    The cult teaching is that “You are the Architect of the house you live in”. And followers talk about “cracks in their foundation” that have to be fixed, and other ways of re-framing their problems and working on the issues they face in life so that they come to a new viewpoint on them and a renewed energy to do something about them.

    Listening to Ruth sit at the dinner table and preach to her children using house metaphors to describe everything in life is just hilarious. And quite cringe-worthy if you’ve ever been a Scientologist.

    Adopting this simple house metaphor and trying to pack your whole life into it, and then forgetting that it’s just a metaphor and your life can not possibly fit into a metaphor, really illuminates the problem that thinking with a cult ideology causes.

    There was no “native state” that any other person could ever describe to you, and what a “thetan” is does not exist except in the English words used to describe it, along with the cult ideology it is fixed in.

    What’s funny is that, for a while, Ruth really does improve her life using the central house metaphor. She fixes her relationships and fights against loneliness and moves from boyfriend to boyfriend trying to be happy.

    So yes, the metaphor works for a while, until it doesn’t. By the end of the season Ruth is gone from “The Plan” and back to being her depressed and lonely self again – the mental and emotional states that she was always trying to escape. Like the 99.9% of people who ever got involved in Scientology, she tried it, got some wins for a while, and left.

    She did not let her whole life get derailed and retarded by thinking with a simple cult metaphor. Yes. Even Ruth Fisher could tell she was in a cult.

    Hubbard’s “Bridge” and “whole track” were only metaphors for the solution to all our problems, and his construct of a “thetan” is no one who ever existed.

    But thinking with them helped for a while.

    Until they didn’t.

    So I think that the questions a person should ask themselves after Scientology are:

    1. Can I tell when I am using a metaphor or some other Scientology construct to think with?

    2. What reality is being represented by that metaphor or construct and how accurate is it in describing that reality? Where does it hold up? Where does it fall down in relation to the reality?

    3. Why don’t I just think with the reality instead?

    If you haven’t seen “6 Feet Under” I really recommend it. It’s even worth a subscription to HBO to be able to have access to it.

    It’s only $15 per month.

    Be sure to tell them that Alanzo sent you so I can get my FSM commission.

    Alanzo

    • Hi Alanzo

      Thank you for that. I somehow had not really looked at those things as metaphors before. That adds another dimension to my understandings.

      Something that may interest you, in regards to using “metaphors”, is a method that has been used in a medical context.

      Here is a link for information about “Creative Visualization” that gets into some of its uses.

      http://www.psitek.net/pages/PsiTek-creative-visualization12.html#gsc.tab=0

      I have actually used a method similar to this for many years to “heal” all sorts of things, physical and mental.

      For those who may not want to bother going to the link I will give a brief summary of how “visualizations” are used to “heal”.

      Say you have a headache… one way that has been found to deal with that, is to visualize the headache. Get an idea of where it is, its size, and the feeling or pain you are experiencing. Then you visualize your concept of the headache getting smaller and weaker. You keep doing this until the headache is gone.
      You could also get the feeling of the pain or pressure flowing out of your head and down your neck.
      You could visualize taking the whole ball of pain and throwing it out into space.

      If you know that this kind of headache, for you, is the result of blood pressure issues, you could visualize gradually lowering your blood pressure, simply get the idea that it is reducing, get the feeling of it reducing, etc.

      Another use is to create a visualization that is completely outside of the physical reality of a headache. Instead of approaching the headache more directly, one use a more creative metaphor. One could associate the headache with a cloud. Then one simply makes the cloud dissipate.

      There are Scientology tools that are used similarly.

      “Find a black spot and turn it white.”
      “Get the feeling of the tone level of the area and bring it up-tone”.
      “Flow affinity or admiration into the area”.
      ——-
      These things seem to work because the person doing them believes they will. It is likely that the stronger the person’s certainty that such methods are going to work, the better chance there is of them doing so. It could also be that this is one way to communicate with the body itself.

      Dreams could well be a demonstration of this at a somewhat automatic level. I have seen evidence of that in some of mine.

      This whole concept also seems to align with the “placebo effect”. The cures attributed to the “placebo effect” could well be due to the receiver of the placebo visualizing that it is curing him.

      Whether one knows it is a visualization (or a metaphor) or not, results often still occur.

      Unfortunately it has been observed, in some cases, that if the patient who has been cured by a placebo, finds out that he has been “tricked”, he may quickly relapse.

      Those who know that they are visualizing, but still can make this work, are likely better off because they know their involvement. They have a better chance of making realistic evaluations in the area.

      Oh dear… I guess it wasn’t all that brief…

      Eric

    • Alanzo characteristically put forth the following interesting food for thought;

      “And what if this goal of “native state” that Ron implanted into his open, receptive and spiritually vulnerable followers never existed?
      What if the idea of a “thetan” was just that – an idea?

      I know in hindsight that I accepted too much on face value. Most of us never critically examined what Ron said. We were lazy thinkers. And we willingly allowed ourselves to be sucked in. I don’t know that most of us would even now take the time to make the mental effort to objectively look at a lot of what we swallowed. We are hoping Marty does it for us. My advise is for folks to reconnect with the highest attributes of the religion of their youth or something that embodies and holds compassion and charity in high esteem. Find a way to practice that in your daily life. I think if there is native state or thetan, those activities would go hand in hand. A person can be forgiven for getting into scientology. Its very appealing on its face and promises. But to stay with it is a selfish dirty pleasure. All first dynamic based need and indulgence. Not the folks I want to connect with anyway. They are not part of any solution this world needs. They only have been led to think that they are.

      • Vicar

        This line does not ring true for me at all.
        “All first dynamic based need and indulgence.”

        Here’s why:

        Personally I, and I know of others, got into Scientology, or stayed in Scientology, in order to help others. For someone who has such goals, Scientology seemed to offer some tools.

        Like many pursuits, a person’s chronic emotional tone, their spiritual awareness, and their regard for others, will influence their goals and their involvement with whatever they engage in.. Some people rarely consider deliberately harming others, conning them, or defrauding them, for personal gain, or for any other reason. Others consider that nothing is of any value unless it benefits them personally.

        I believe that the reality of reasons for staying in Scientology are far more complex than a blanket statement that anyone who stayed with Scientology did so because it was “”All first dynamic based need and indulgence.”

        Eric

    • Reminded me of a saying in my resignation letter ” it was fun until it wasn’t”.

    • Alanzo, you state it as a fact that the construct of a thetan does not exist, but that is your VIEWPOINT, right? (But you don’t state it as your opinion, but as a certainty). I could state that there is no way you could prove what you say, but I do recognize the validity of you having an opinion or a viewpoint … as we beings all are all capable of having them of course.

  12. SINCE HEMI ASKS SO MANY QUESTIONS I AM INTERLINEATING THE ANSWERS IN ALL CAPS THROUGHOUT HIS COMMENT HERE – MARK:
    Marty,
    Native state is beingness out of TIME. Or if you wish, the only present time there is. You know that. Anybody who touched/experienced it, however slightly, knows this. Ron knew and said it, and so did the Buddhas and all great sages. It is never what you once were, but what you once ARE. QUITE THE CONTRARY, YOU ARE NOT-ISING RON’S OWN PATH – AS PER THE POST IT PLANTS YOU FIRMLY IN THE PAST WITH THE DELUSION THAT YOU ARE TOTALLY IN THE PRESENT.
    The question how to get there…? who knows. Do you? YES. Ron thought he did and presented it. So did the Buddha and the other sages. So do Ron’s Org, and the various Indies, Gurdjieff, Osho, just to name a few.

    Do you have a practical way of your own, that you can suggest which you believe to be valid/better? YES, I OFFER A COURSE IN IT. Practical as in “what to do” – not as in “what not to do”. as the latter is not too practical for the long run. (Practical meaning not just reading books, but by practicing) IF YOU READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS YOU WILL KNOW THAT I AM NOW WRITING TO FOREWARN PEOPLE WHO HAVEN’T GONE THE SCIENTOLOGY CULT ROUTE. I DID NOT BEGIN TO DO THAT UNTIL I WAS CONFIDENT I COULD OFFER A WAY OUT OF AND BEYOND SCIENTOLOGY AND BETTER THAN IT FOR THE BEGINNER. YOUR NOTE ABOUT ‘NOT BY READING BOOKS’ BUT INSTEAD ‘BY PRACTICE’ IS PART OF MIND NUMBING CULT BUBBLE YOU HAVE CHOSEN INCIDENTALLY. OF COURSE IT ENTAILS READING BOOKS. HARNESSING YOUR HORSE TO A SINGLE POST HAS LEFT YOU IN A MINISCULE UNIVERSE ASSERTING SELF RIGHTEOUSLY THAT IT IS ALL RIGHT THERE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF YOUR HORSE HITCH.

    2 years ago you were part of setting up the place where I practice a spiritual way.(Dror, Israel). You saw for yourself the wonderful results there, thanks much to (not only, but) you too. You were happy about it. All people involved were happy. Life changed for many people. Now you claim you helped set up an off beat and dangerous hypnotic center?! QUITE THE CONTRARY, YOUR GURU THERE CHOSE THE RON HUBBARD WAY OF ATTEMPTING TO MONOPOLIZE THE TECH JUST LIKE MISCAVIGE- EXCEPT A WHOLE HELL OF A LOT LESS COMPETENTLY. AS PART OF THAT HE COUNTENANCED ATTACKS ON MY WIFE AND REFUSED TO TAKE ANY IOTA OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT UNDER RON’S IMPLANTED BELIEF THAT IF IT IS DONE IN THE NAME OF SCIENTOLOGY, THEN ANYTHING GOES. It hurts. THE TRUTH OFTEN DOES. It is too big a Zig Zag. FOR ALL RON’S BLUSTER, SCIENTOLOGISTS DON’T SEEM TO HAVE A GREAT TOLERANCE FOR RANDOMITY. Too much of a black and white, QUITE THE CONTRARY IT IS FREEDOM FROM SCIENTOLOGY’S TWO-VALUED, BLACK AND WHITE LOGIC UNIVERSE VIEW and far cry from blending, integrating, evolving – which I fully agree with.
    I have been doing Nots for long time now. I won’t do an advert here. This level is not easy, and not all lovey-dovey Kool aid drinking. AS RON NOTED BEFORE HE LOST IT, IN SCIENTOLOGY EFFECTIVE KNOWLEDGE, IF IT DEPARTS FROM SIMPLICITY IT HAS ENTERED THE REALM OF CULT. SO, YES, PLEASE NO ADVERTISEMENTS. Hell, no. And the tech is not perfect!
    But I have been far less in the past ever since starting, and I have touched and done some pretty incredible things in P.T (e.g. work, people, friendships), and occasionally, more than a few times I have lightly touched that native true present time state. How do I know for sure, objectively? I don’t. Except for this: In those times, the tears dripping down my chicks were unmistakable and I was the furthest thing from being SAD. So, that has to account for something in the realm of awareness and spirituality.

    If this comment is out of sync with your current direction, fair enough, do not post it, it is fine with me. It is your blog. In that case, just keep it as a friends comm to you.
    Hemi

    • Mark C. Rathbun

      SEE MY NOTES IN RESPONSE INTERLINEATED WITHIN YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS.

      • Marty are you offering course work to people who are requesting decompression / deconstruction services? I hope so.

        I know you are doing so on your blog but a 1-1 would be fabulous.

      • Marty, it was very moral and ethical of you to name this blog post “Past and Present” because it is obvious the Church of Scientology has not future yet.🙂

      • Marty,
        I asked you 3 questions 2 of which were the same really.
        And I said a few things I feel and believe.
        In return I got a heap of evaluations, invalidations, acusations. Then you distort one of my questions, completely, to mean something I did not say, (straw man) and label ME: under the influence of ” MIND NUMBING CULT”. And as to the rest… I am totally wrong.
        I’ve had that approach tried before, by others, doesn’t work on me.
        Sorry to be blunt Marty, this way you will convince me of nothing.
        When I get some time, and if you wish I can elaborate and reason on everything. PRIVATELY. And not like this. Sorry.
        Hemi

        • Mark C. Rathbun

          Another trademark of scientology: victimhood. Probably its greatest implanted dichotomous cognitive dissonance: Certainty in total causation while objectively dramatizing utter effect. No need for explanations. I know you all have them, ad nauseum.

          • I am not a victim, please do not insist on it my friend. Whatever I AM, or am not I’d rather find out myself. I’m sure we can agree on that.
            And possibly on being a bit lighter and funnier. Just a bit. That’s IMHO safest route to truth.
            Here’s a story about a victim, that can raise a smile or two with scientologists, Zen and other Buddhists, Jewish, Taoists, Christians and so on…Namaste.

            There once was a monastery that was very strict. Following a vow of silence, no one was allowed to speak at all. But there was one exception to this rule. Every ten years, the monks were permitted to speak just two words. After spending his first ten years at the monastery, one monk went to the head monk. “It has been ten years,” said the head monk. “What are the two words you would like to speak?”

            “Bed… hard…” said the monk.
            “I see,” replied the head monk.

            Ten years later, the monk returned to the head monk’s office. “It has been
            ten more years,” said the head monk. “What are the two words you would
            like to speak?”

            “Food… stinks…” said the monk.
            “I see,” replied the head monk.

            Yet another ten years passed and the monk once again met with the head
            monk who asked, “What are your two words now, after these ten years?”

            “I… quit!” said the monk.
            “Well, I can see why,” replied the head monk. “All you ever do is complain.”
            ………………………………………………………………….

            • Mark C. Rathbun

              In keeping with what I have already disclosed about this ego-centric ‘religion’ – never compromise with your own reality.

      • “IF YOU READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS YOU WILL KNOW THAT I AM NOW WRITING TO FOREWARN PEOPLE WHO HAVEN’T GONE THE SCIENTOLOGY CULT ROUTE. I DID NOT BEGIN TO DO THAT UNTIL I WAS CONFIDENT I COULD OFFER A WAY OUT OF AND BEYOND SCIENTOLOGY AND BETTER THAN IT FOR THE BEGINNER.”

        Fair enough. All to the good if you can do those things.

        • Mark C. Rathbun

          Thanks nurse Ratchet. But, your evaluation yet again demonstrates the built in arrogance of scientologists.

  13. There can be little doubt as to the validity of the core premise that Scientology traps a person in, first, their own and then a fabricated past. The fabrication starts well before a person reaches Clear with the subtle yet insistent pressure to delve into past lives. This may not be the case in Dianetics, but it is certainly a requisite for Scientology processing. In his 1952 book “What To Audit” (subsequently re-titled “A History of Man”, L Ron Hubbard went so far as to say . . .

    . . . THE AUDITOR WHO INSISTS ON AUDITING THE CURRENT LIFETIME ONLY, WHEN HE HAS THE WHOLE TRACK TECHNIQUE AVAILABLE, IS WASTING TIME AND EFFORT AND IS, IN FACT, SWINDLING HIS PRECLEAR . . .

    ^^^caps in original

    . . . and there is a special run down for those having difficulty in remembering past lives where the PC is told to to begin by imagining those past lives. With such manipulations and with the instruction to Auditors to impose total control over the mind of the PC, there is little that can be said to be therapeutic about the run-way to Clear. Sure, there are all sorts of “gains” apparently made, but so far they all seem to be wallowing about in the “correlation vs causation” dilemma until such time as they can be objectively quantified. And, no: the plural of “success story” is not “data”.

    To date, there has not been a single manifestation of the state of Clear as defined by L Ron Hubbard. Putting that glaring outpoint aside, even when a person reaches the state of Clear they are immediately trapped in that parlous “Non-Interference Zone” where they are more dependent on future processing than they were before encountering the subject. Hardly a state of “self actualised”.

    So far as the OT levels are concerned . . .

    . . . While Miscavige and Broeker promised OT levels IX, X, and ‘so on’, the leading independent scientology organization offers fifty-five (55) such levels beyond Clear – or four and one half times the invitations to regress yet further into the past.

    . . . it wasn’t Mscavige or Broeker who promised OT levels IX, X, and “so on”, it was L Ron Hubbard. For example, in HCOB 30 Jul 73 “Scientology, Current State of the Subject and Materials”, L Ron Hubbard said, inter alia . . .

    . . . There are perhaps 15 levels above OT VII fully developed but existing only in unissued note form, pending more people’s full attainment of OT VI & VII . . .

    SIx months later, in HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-Up”, L Ron Hubbard reiterated that promise when he said . . .

    . . . OT VIII has been in existence all those several years, and to it has been added a very large number of OT grades. None of them have been issued. Notes for all these grades are in existence . . .

    . . . which, perhaps, explains the resources and decades spend spying on Pat Broeker after he left Scientology; did he actually manage to retain some of those notes? I tend to suspect that L Ron Hubbard’s promises were more lies and, as you suggest here, that the sum total of any notes on OT levels above VIII amount to little more than a single fooscap page of digits.

    That the Free Zone is able offer OT levels up to, what was it 55 or something, is due to L Ron Hubbard telepathically communicating with Bill Robertson. According to Cap’n Bill, “The Free Zone Decree was received on Earth on the 10th of November, 1982 at 1030 GMT. It states, ‘as relayed from mainship, Sector 9′ . . . ” and that’s just the start of the Rons’ Org crazy. ESMB is replete with details for those wanting to go down that particular rabbit hole.

    • “To date, there has not been a single manifestation of the state of Clear as defined by L Ron Hubbard.”

      I politely disagree. I’ve known plenty of people that never a Church of Scientology that seemed perfectly clear to me. I don’t think every one needs the Church of Scientology to go clear or be clear. Look at Anthony Robbins. If you think “there are no clears”, you have already been sold on the idea that everyone has a reactive mind. I don’t know why people buy in to that, it has never been proven. It is an assumption. And it is the first agreement upon which all others are built in Scientology.

      Did I have one? Yes. I didn’t automatically assume every else did though just because I did. Did I get on top of my social circuits? The ones that were connected to my identity, yes.

      Are there people out there that choose not to have case as part of their identity? They are all over the place.

      • With similar politeness, I shall expose your conclusion as an “acceptable truth”.

        . . . Are there people out there that choose not to have case as part of their identity? They are all over the place.

        Hardly surprising. No one in the whole world has “case” as part of their identity because, “case”, as defined by L Ron Hubbard does not exist. It is just like Engrams, and Secondaries, and Locks, and Clusters – all imaginary gizmos attached in rube goldbergian fashion to L Ron Hubbard’s scam designed to distract people into a contemplation of a frabricated past while they hand over cash in present time to do so.

        But, hey, for the sake of argument, lets say “case” does exist. In that scenario, “not having case” is but one item in the wider list of qualities used by L Ron Hubbard to define Clear. In order for there to be actual manifestations of that state of being, as you suggest, such individuals would also have no need to wear glasses, would never catch colds, would have a demonstrable photographic memory going back thousands of life times, and have an IQ level so high as to be off the charts. Your conclusion is like saying a motor vehicle is just a gear-stick and a hand-brake. L Ron Hubbard made even wilder claims about the state of Clear – being able to regrow teeth, and being more able than Jesus, for example – but, perhaps, just those first four as listed, along with your half-truth, would be sufficient to provide evidence of Scientology’s ability to create Clears.

        The last time L Ron Hubbard’s publicly demonstrated the wonders of Clear was when he presented Sonia Bianca to the world. That didn’t work out too well for him, or Sonia, and there has never been another individual made available as proof ever since. Instead, Scientology now relies on apologists defending the state of Clear by bald assertion, word-clowning statements using partial definitions, reflected glory by including remarkable individuals who have had nothing to with Scientology as “evidence”, and all other permutations of the dissemination requirement to utter “acceptable truths”.

        Not gonna fly.

        If, indeed, there is such a state, as defined by L Ron Hubbard, then, as that ex-Scientologist legend, Jason Beghe, once demanded:

        show me the mother-fucking Clear

        • Crepuscule said…

          ” It is just like Engrams, and Secondaries, and Locks, and Clusters – all imaginary gizmos attached in rube goldbergian fashion to L Ron Hubbard’s scam designed to distract people into a contemplation of a frabricated past while they hand over cash in present time to do so.
          ……………………………………………………………………………….

          You speak for many Crepuscule.. Con game..and the stake was good people’s critical thinking skills.. A trap was set for a person’s mind on the 1st course.

          ” A Mind is a terrible thing to waste! “

        • “With similar politeness, I shall expose your conclusion….”

          I wasn’t hiding my conclusion, not sure what there was to “expose”. I laid it in the table for everyone to read. Your inner Perry Mason is working over time for no reason.

  14. In fact, unwilling to admit the failure of scientology to erase the subconscious, Hubbard came up with a new explanation for the continuing subconscious dramas Clears continue to play out ..

    What is this subconscious? Wikipedia: Sigmund Freud: “If someone talks of subconsciousness, I cannot tell whether he means the term topographically – to indicate something lying in the mind beneath consciousness – or qualitatively – to indicate another consciousness, a subterranean one, as it were. He is probably not clear about any of it. The only trustworthy antithesis is between conscious and unconscious.”

    Lets say I walk my way and suddenly stopps my body. Obviously an unconscious reaction about something about which I am not aware for myself. I would simply think that some attention did flew across my way.

    There is an interesting thing, sometimes one of my feets are stopp going, and I found out that it occures when a nice women is around me, and I did not realize it with my body eyes .. I realized it once when I met Christine Mc Vie Singer from Fleetwood Mac .. she was in a car, and on the way to go out of, and my foot did stop my going ..

    I would never call that subconscious or unconscious .. although it could be called this way .. but I would not do .. for me it is a postulate once given and then never erased ..

    So on, I have never given a postulate that BTs can invade my body .. I had never an idea that anybody could be ever interested in such stuff .. but for LRH it became his OT levels .. but unfortunately if you ever pick up such an idea .. you can run that forever .. there is no end possible .. you can think there will be an end .. but there cannot be an end .. see, if it were the truth, you had to do it with every future body again .. and again and again ..

    It is the same with engrams. You have to handle such stuff every lifetime again and again and again .. there is no stopp included .. if you believe in it you will go on forever to handle engrams .. again and again ..

    It is the same with Overt and Withhold .. you can run that also forever, there is no stop included .. I mean, you have every day some hundred or thousand withhold .. if you go on this line of handling this, your life will be only a handling of withholds and missed withholds .. and you will never become any better et al .. but more importand seems that you blame you always for thinking wrong thoughts ..

    What? Here was some comm about the universe .. is it creatied or was it always there. If it was always there, then you would not have a start, then you would have only change .. and there would be no stop. It would always run on change without any end .. but maybe it it this way .. only that I do not believe in it ..

    I have a story which may be really stupid. Lets say LRH went up to OT as real and has real super powers without end .. whatever he now postulates becomes really real .. lets say he has only super power about scientologist because the rest did not hear him clearly because of they aberrations and faked up beingnesses .. so LRH did split himself up to 1 Mio thetan and did all of them hang around the good scientologist .. all of them would have him as a BT .. and a cluster because LRH himself was a multiple personality ..

    What it means finally .. it is a game in a game in a game ..

      • vinairie: Good points! .. thank you for your acknowledment .. I say only what I have seen or felt about what goes on in scientology as I have it seen or experienced ..

        There are a lot of differences given from others .. there were people who did want to go deeper and deeper into unconscious .. and they thought that there must be a hidden source or incident which caused him to be as he is .. I myself do acknowledge every communication .. do not discuss about .. you know, say yes or no or mmh or mmmmmh .. last is called as TR 2 1/2 .. but it is nothing to fill my couriosity ..

        Last days I went down and asked me what is it all about this discussion about LRH works. It is not so bad what he did. He gave some ideas for everyone useable in life .. he was surely better than most of this guys who wrote books of self bettering procedures ..

        I have here a group of Jehova ( jw.org) .. this group increase .. you can get help up to Grad III here .. without any cost .. I read all the stuff, and found that they will not handle a SerFac .. if they would do, they would erase themselves ..

        So on, unfortunately is that the church run it an equal way. With the idea of dianetic clear Such a clear is not cleared from SerFacs .. and it is a lost tech after .. it means lot of OTs came up without clearing SerFacs .. but as said in my last comment .. it is a postulate .. and postulates make your life .. you should catch it at Grade IV .. clear it and should go to Grad V and VI and VII for clear up why you take a SerFac in the first place. But this is not part of the bridge today .. there is no SerFac cleared .. because it is a sensible point to get it anyway .. but surely it would bring up a being who is cleared .. would never go the same way as before ..

        I found that LRH gave always a point in 6-7 views. If you take views as a point you are lost. You will never understand LRH. I found further that in normal stage man will always pick up views .. and not points .. because he has to put views together to a point before he understand really ..

        I made an experiment last days. I had an idea and tried to deliver it. It was the idea that 1, 2, 3 would be the basic of all mind.

        So I did the experiment. I gave forcefully the numbers 1, 2, 3 in a row. What do you think what the meter did? Very interestingly, because with 1 the TA went higher .. and with 2 normal and with 3 lower .. if it is true it gives a new sight on the meter .. and the whole work from LRH about it ..

        Lets say my imagination about. If you sit around in an OT III session ( I have never done that) .. you ask for a BT in your left foot .. if you do that you must have to go from 3 to 1 and than to 2 … invariably ..

        • Lets say in addition the meanings .. 1 is you yourself alone, 2 is your are with other who agree, and 3 is you are together with others who disagree

          In a mind of a person is only 1 and 3 unwanted .. so it can causes some charge .. so when an auditor says okay after your comment, it may blow again to 2 ..

          As I know, the original work of LRH works only this way ..

        • Friend, You are right about ser facs not handled even in OTs.

          All accusations that fly on these blogs are due to unhandled ser facs. All violations of Discussion Policy are because of Ser facs.
          .

          • vinaire: it is quite visible that SerFac are not handled .. because most of people I met do not know what it is et al .. they know the words but not the sense .. best which I can get is a SerFac as answer .. and it looks bad to me since many years that allegedly OTs did deliver me SerFacs of his own as advices for me ..

            Lets say something about me. LRH studied the bridge upwards, means he picked up the lowest level to increase that .. I did study the bridge downwards .. so LRH briefings are all intended to bring you up .. my study is based on the question why it went down .. so the crosspoint of my study and LRH briefings became SerFac. Why? It is simply because you go down if you collect a SerFac and you will not go up as long you get hold of such stuff .. it means you loose freedom when you pick up in SerFac and you will increase when you give up this stuff .. and it means you will never get Clearing (from the Awareness Scale) if you hold on to SerFacs ..

            And I know about what I am speaking. The way to be OT is surely when you are free of this stuff .. if not you will never become an OT ..

            It was last days, where I thought that I should step out of my SerFac which I have now .. I felt my body did blew up .. he did not like that so much .. interestingly – or not? But it is my idea .. and I wrote something in this blog about Birth and Death .. anyway, if SerFac is not smoothly handled .. there will never be a Clear or OT as a result .. impossible ..

            My heart for it ..

            • Friend, your following points are very interesting:

              (1) “allegedly OTs did deliver me SerFacs of his own as advices for me…”

              (2) “you go down if you collect a SerFac and you will not go up as long you get hold of such stuff…”

              (3) “you will never get Clearing (from the Awareness Scale) if you hold on to SerFacs…”

              (4) “The way to be OT is surely when you are free of this stuff .. if not you will never become an OT ..”

              (5) “if SerFac is not smoothly handled .. there will never be a Clear or OT as a result .. impossible ..”

              I am totally with you. Compassion comes only when SerFacs are gone. LRH was carrying quite a few SerFacs.

              SERVICE FACSIMILE (Tech Dict): Part of the “package” is to be right by making wrong.

              Those who have unhandled SerFacs also oppose the Discussion Policy because that policy tries to discipline people against accusing others by making themselves right and others wrong.
              .

  15. I just re watched Six Feet under, myself.
    I got a thrill out of Ruth basically telling them all to go fuck themselves.
    The audience was stunned until the leader demonstrated to them how they should feel about the situation.

    The only cure for the reactive mind is to not agree to have one. This cost me thousands when I was at PAC. AO thought it was great! Sign on the dotted line and go OT! Asho was pissed because AO was stealing their stat. What a mess.

  16. Marty,

    Thank you very much for all you have done.
    I personally consider this post and the previous one the perfect ending for this interminable saga.
    I wish you much success in your future endeavors.

  17. I’m never sure which I like better — the great blog posts or the interesting comments and debates that follow! Good stuff. Thanks.

    I found it very insightful to realize that BTs and all the OT regression work came out of a failure of Clear to handle the mind. When I first heard of BTs on the Internet, I thought “no way — that’s got to be made up!” (I got to Clear but not OT.)

    Then I learned it was true, and I learned about the Xenu story, and the Wall of Fire, and the Prison Planet we supposedly live on. I cannot express how deeply disillusioning it was to learn that the supposed “Bridge” led not to a fundamental change in _level_ of consciousness, but to a fundamental change in _a creation story_ — and a trite one at that, since a novice sci-fi writer could have done better with the Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon times that Hubbard thought were dramatizations of the Whole Track.

    Thus Hubbard believed that 1950s sci-fi, being dramatizations, necessarily were evidence of the reality of his “visions” and auditing results. I have no doubt that had Hubbard started his religion today, we thetans would have been transported not by DCs but by exact replicas of the space shuttle, and we would have been controlled not by frozen glycol but by waves of Higgs bosons or quarks or something.

    For me, learning about the OT beliefs was like finding out that at the end of the rainbow there was not a pot of gold at all, but a tin can filled with copper colored plastic like out of a Wheaties box. My hope was for at least a glimpse into the ineffable, the numinous, the nearly magical “ground” of the universe. For as much money as we all spent, we should have at least gotten a much better story!

    • “For me, learning about the OT beliefs was like finding out that at the end of the rainbow there was not a pot of gold at all, but a tin can filled with copper colored plastic like out of a Wheaties box.”

      Great point. A few years after completing OT VIII on the Freewinds in 1988,
      I had the idea of a “Cracker Jack Box”. You look inside for the prize and you find a tiny plastic statue of Lucifer with a Hubbard face and a head wearing a naval cap. My sixth grade Catholic school teacher Sister Polycarpa explained Lucifer better in 1956. Miscaviige comes along and makes OT VIII the end of blame, shame and regret. The end of blame and shame in order to justify all manner of crimes. The end of regret to keep one toe in sanity.

  18. I think Mary has hit upon a core issue here and has made valid points.

    The minute a P.C. stops “mocking up the past”, he is of no use to the Church.

    What you do in an auditing session, is you mock up the past. On the clearing course platens, and/or on original OTlV, you are supposed to get to point where you see that you have been doing this.

    What are you doing when you are ordered to write overts and with holds? You are being asked to sit down and mock up the past and wallow in it.

    There is certain auditing that rises above this “past” auditing, auditing that gets into purposes, goals, things like that. I spent seven years in the case cracking unit at Flag as a public P.C. after I went clear, getting every rundown and sec check available because when asked about the “past”, I kept saying, “There is nothing there”. This was a very disturbing issue to the people in tech.

    This is how the P.C. works for the auditor. The auditor asks the P.C. to mock up the past, and the P.C. does it.

    That they take 40K from people, send them to the Freewinds, and ask them to sit down and mock up the past and wallow in it again, seems redundant to me. I would not be the slightest bit interested myself.

    Since the clearing course platens and original OTlV have been suppressed out of existance, not even available to look at for the current Scientologist, the new customers are not privy to this unless they somehow work it out to figure it out for themselves.

    David Miscavige has become a millionaire, getting other people, to get other people, to mock up “the past” and wallow in it.

    It’s funny on some level.

    • Mocking up the past and wallowing in it seems to be addictive to a lot of people. I’m not judging. I do it myself when some part of it is more interesting than my present. I am just aware of what I am doing. A lot of people like to mock up other people’s past and wallow in that too. That is what I am doing when I read an autobiography.

    • What do you think David Miscavige is doing to the OTVll’s that are on lines? He forces them to fly to Flag every six months, mock up the past and wallow in it. And pay for it.

      • The Oracle wrote:

        “What do you think David Miscavige is doing to the OTVll’s that are on lines? He forces them to fly to Flag every six months, mock up the past and wallow in it. And pay for it.

        Obviously, your comment here was motivated by your hatred of David Miscavige.

        I mean if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you, too.

        Right?

        If not, in what way would it be true for me but not true for you?

        Do you love to hate and hate to love, Oracle?

        Alanzo

        • You announce that I have a hatred for David Miscavige. That is presumptuous and suggests you hold some special key to my inner workings.

          People who steal, assume everyone else is stealing.

          People who lie, suspect everyone else is lying.

          Because am willing to confront what David Miscavige REALLY IS, does not = I have hatred for Miscavige. I got played, I admitted it. That was on me. It is funny on some level. I can laugh at myself.

          I believe justice with regards to his going ons would be highly beneficial for many people.

          I see other people have gotten played, or are getting played, perhaps I should stop pointing it out to them.

          I really can not think of a person I have hated in my life. My auditing has not been based around terminals, more like identities and purposes. In all of my auditing history, I have had to have my ruds flown three times on people.

          Please do not imply that you know me, based on yourself. You don’t.

          You say, “I mean if it’s true for me, then it’s true for you, too.”

          I have no idea how you did on the math on this. We are not all the same.

          No, I do not “hate to love”, and I do not “love to hate”. Some people want you to hate, this is the real damage. Since I understand that as a PURPOSE, and that people who have the PURPOSE to hate, align with that, I can set it on the side an an option. Not one I choose because I live for pleasure moments. That falls along my purpose line. I would like to see David in court because that would bring me pleasure. That would put some truth on the table. That would only be FAIR.

          Behind all of that, my buttons on getting played, or being a fool, aren’t all that big.

          There are people that have used Scientology or the subject of Scientology to harm attack and suppress other people. They are not all inside the Church. There are people out here, against Scientology, that are also using Scientology or the subject of Scientology, as a license to harm attack and suppress other people. They are all in the same bag, seriously. It’s the purpose to harm attack or suppress. If I hadn’t been played in the Church and sucked it up, I could have been played out here by people doing the exact same thing.

          Getting played once and acting a fool, I can confront and see as funny.

          Getting played over and over and over in the same way in the same game does not make a fool. It makes me dense. I have purposes to be a fool, because it is a learning tool. But I do not label other people fools because I can not know if that is the purpose behind their choices. They may have noble reasons behind their ideas that are very holy.

          I do not have purposes to be dense. I like to keep it fluid. Like water. that can stream down a creek, evaporate on a hot steamy night, go up into the air, and fall back down in drops of rain.

          Not a rock that catches up toilet paper at the bottom of the creek.

          • David Miscavige is simply part of the situation. He is as much stuck in the Scientology maze any anybody else. Actually, he is stuck to a much greater degree because he is made to act as a functioning part of this maze.

            .

            • “…..he is made to act as a functioning part of this maze.”

              That is exactly the defense line he is going to offer up in court. He was just “following orders”. He wasn’t giving them, he was only following them.

          • T.O., this post is eloquent.

        • Lastly, Alanzo, if you think I meant to imply that you “hate to love” and “love to hate”, I did not say that about you.

          I meant to illustrate that you can find good qualities in others to admire if you choose to look for them. If it isn’t about something that they ARE, it can be something that they ARE NOT.

          If it isn’t about something they DOING, it can be something that they not doing.

          Admiration by omission is a valid thing. If you get mad at the mail man for incompetence, you cant think about the fact that he is not a dead beat dad.

          • Personally, Oracle, I have never believed that your criticisms of David Miscavige are motivated by hatred.

            Yet you have repeatedly said and implied, in many ways and in many places, that my criticism of L Ron Hubbard as the source of abuse in Scientology is motivated by hatred.

            So why am I motivated by hatred for what I write and you are not motivated by hatred for what you write?

            Alanzo

            • “Yet you have repeatedly said and implied, in many ways and in many places, that my criticism of L Ron Hubbard as the source of abuse in Scientology is motivated by hatred.”

              Are you saying you are ambivalent about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology? If so, I beg your pardon.

            • My urges to see David in courtroom, called in by his seniors in the community, has nothing to do with Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard. I think he could really use some help and guidance from his seniors. It’s about humanity, not Scientology.

              • The Oracle wrote:

                “My urges to see David in courtroom, called in by his seniors in the community, has nothing to do with Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard. I think he could really use some help and guidance from his seniors. It’s about humanity, not Scientology.”

                So why is that true for you, and not for me?

                Alanzo

              • I hadn’t considered you would be able to see Hubbard in a courtroom.

                I am talking about a present time “problem” that dabbles in domestic terrorism.

            • Maybe the Universe is using Alanzo is Oracle’s alter-ego.

          • A lot of people do not think of David Miscavige as having seniors. Oh but he does. The minute he leaves the Int base, and even while he is at the Int Base, any old regular police officer on city payroll is his senior. They can tell him to sit, and he must sit. They can tell him to stand, and he must stand. They can tell him to put his hands behind his back, and he must put his hands behind his back, Those are just the most senior. He has thousands of seniors above them. They can order him into a courtroom, and his little feet will need to scurry there. He has left the door open now, to be handled by a senior. I think it will be a relief for him when someone else tells him what to do . Mercy.

    • People get lured in to Scientology, promised they can forget “the past”. Then for OT8 and for everyone that paid for it up to the Maiden Voyage, Miscavige was promising people they could REMEMBER “the past”. (Freedom from amnesia on the whole track). The people that are clear are already supposed to be beyond it, but apparently someone hasn’t told them, and on OTVll he insists to “make it” they must come back every six months and mock up “the past” they have been freed from. Cha ching cha ching. They get taxed for mocking up “the past”, getting rid of “the past”, and then mocking “the past” back up again. They are FORCED to mock it back up with every sec check! That IS worship of “the past”. It doesn’t invalidate anybodies wins. It doesn’t invalidate anyone’s “past”. But Marty is making a good point.

    • Mark N. Roberts

      Oracle.
      I have been looking at your comment for a couple of days now. I’m missing some data or some understanding here.

      “Mocking up the past” I get the concept of “knowing” as being different from closing your eyes and “re-creating a picture” of something that happened around you. Re-creating would include smelling again the bacon you cooked this morning, or feeling that warm breeze on a spring afternoon.

      But I would normally put in the same category, that queezy feeling when your baby daughter throws up on your shirt while being burped. At that time it is not intentional, but it is still a re-creation of a past picture or feeling. Then, before Clear, you are asked to re-create uncomfortable facsimiles on command.

      Then, after so called Clear, one is instructed specifically not to look directly at any incidents in your past, not even a Dianetic Assist. (Contact and touch assists only for current injuries) No narrative at all. This holds true for the original and new OT levels. Spot and date the “Mass” of incidents without looking directly at them.

      I understand being stuck in a past incident, whether real or imagined, and keeping it in the present and ‘wallowing’ in it. I guess what I am asking is what do you mean by ‘mocking up’ the past, for you to define what it is that is normal and what is harmful or abnormal.

      This is not any kind of disagreement, far from it. I want to understand it better. I have done a lot of looking in the past, but perhaps I have been just running my brand of NED, never having reached the so called state of clear as defined by Scn. I have been going over the Clearing Course and OT level instruction HCOBs, old and new, and I seem to understand Ron’s warnings, but haven’t run into the problems indicated.

      I have gained many understandings, far beyond those stated for the lower levels, but have just missed the dangers stated for anything above that. I am currently working on a positive processing strategy for myself based on the Original OT-4/7, Super Scio, and other systems, with the addition of what I have learned myself over the last 5-6 years.

      A deeper understanding of what you were talking about would be very helpful
      Mark
      PS: For the last week I have been running exercises of re-creating pictures and discarding them. Saving and wasting facsimiles. Having and not having memories. It has been quite fun actually.

      • If you move, time wise, into the future, there is nothing there. It just hasn’t “happened” yet.

        “The past” is in your head. It is not here now. It wouldn’t exist at all if people didn’t recreate it or drag it into the now. A lot of people “look back” all day long. Become entwined with memories they own just like they own thier couch.

        You might like this:

        http://www.amazon.com/The-Illusion-Time-Eckhart-Tolle/dp/1894884906

        • Eckhart Tolle. His books and videos were very helpful for a year or more on my path and I think he holds a grand place in one’s adventure. Thanks TO.

        • Mark N. Roberts

          Thank you for your attention, Oracle.
          I was looking for a little deeper detail, but perhaps the simple answer is the best.

          It seems that your outlook is similar to Ron’s when he mentioned in one of his earlier books, in that Dianetics has a finite limit, that sooner or later you start solidifying the bank as much as you are resolving it. Different wording, similar concept.

          Fortunately, so far, I have been able to end cycle after each effort of digging into the past. I once mentioned that between so called sessions, I always do something that fully involves my attention in present time. Positive processing is an increasingly larger part of my work. I also pay close attention to my daily goings on. Seems to be working.

          Any additional advices are appreciated. Looking into the book, “The Illusion of Time”
          Mark

        • Past may be considered as a storage bin existing in now. This storage bin has the property of automatically providing associations relevant to what is being looked at in now.

          This storage bin is never meant to be dug into or ransacked, because that is the action of which madness is made.

          • Moreover, I think the reactive mind can be least of our problems. I think the analytical mind is a hindrance. People refer to it in order to “know”. It can be just as circuity as the reactive mind if not more so. The “Scientology mind” people can mock up can be a heavy burden also.

            • I see “analytical-reactive” as a dichotomy that may be plotted on a scale of infinte gradient like any other dichotomy. Those characteristics are relative. there is no binary form of mind as analytical or reactive.

              Therefore, mind is very much misunderstood in Scientology because this binary treatment of it. Mind is a multi-dimensional “definition-logic” matrix. It behaves analytically or reactively depending on how finely or coarsely various associations are activated.

              This whole matrix exists in now. Time is just a parameter in this matrix. This matrix is simply too complex to be intelligently manipulated by any kind of interference.

              The 12 Aspects of Mindfulness is the way to go.
              .

            • TO – I like that!
              “The “Scientology mind” people can mock up can be a heavy burden also.”

          • Mark N. Roberts

            Evenin’ Vin.
            You have been busy lately.
            Interesting take you have on the past, the mind, memory banks, storage locker. If we keep looking and thinking perhaps we’ll get it right someday. Just, never stop looking.

            You said: “This storage bin is never meant to be dug into or ransacked, because that is the action of which madness is made.”

            Here is a complete difference in our viewpoint, observations. In my crazy world, there is no “never meant to be…” It is a completely invented concept that has no actual meaning. For there to be a “meant” there has to be a “mean-er” (Please forgive me for that word.) It implies a creator, a controller, a big boss, someone other than us, above us, who lays down the law, makes the rules that we MUST follow.

            Secondly ” that is the action of which madness is made.” This would imply by logic that there is some specific action or common phenomenon which causes some specific or set of specific aberrations. If so, then lets find out exactly what it is and what they are and develop a handling or work around. Having all your knowledge and experience immediately available would certainly be an advantage in most areas of life. Just makes sense to me.

            Me, I have gone over several thousand whole track incidents, several I have verified physically. In 3 years, retirement age, I’ll take a trip out west and visit some of my old native stomping grounds. Well, try anyway. I always wanted to see the grand canyon anyway.

            Could it all be delusion? Well, duh, yea. But I live by the rule, K.I.S.S Keep is simple stupid. And the principles I have put forth in the past are by far the most simple answers and easily match the most of my observations. But I don’t disagree with others ideas, I offer mine and let them mingle. I find value in your work. Keep it up.
            Mark

            • Mark N: “Here is a complete difference in our viewpoint, observations. In my crazy world, there is no “never meant to be…” It is a completely invented concept that has no actual meaning. For there to be a “meant” there has to be a “mean-er” (Please forgive me for that word.) It implies a creator, a controller, a big boss, someone other than us, above us, who lays down the law, makes the rules that we MUST follow.”

              Again you are looking through a human-centric filter. Please take a look at the following, especially about the observer.

              The Human-Centric Fixation

              You seem to have a fixation on self (who). Reality is senior to self. Self precipitates fron reality.
              .

        • Mark N. Roberts

          “The Power of Now”
          Good book. I see several principles from the Tao and aspects of mindfulness. Living in the now has obvious value.

          I of course must be tempered by the first key to success. “The greatest guarantee of success is not necessarily hard work or intelligence, it is the ability to put forth sustained effort toward a goal.” (MNR)
          Mark

  19. I kind of have to respectfully disagree.

    I hit Native State shortly after finishing the FPRD basic list.

    Putting it to words is difficult, kind of like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who famously said “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

    I know it.

    Since there is no time in Native state, the experience could have been hours, or seconds. But the self determined decision to “live in the time stream” was made, once I got my fill of “no randomity, pure knowingness”,
    and here I am, no worse for the wear. Life goes on. One of the things illuminated was the Code of Honor item “Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.” Some people put the emphasis on “never”. For me the correct emphasis is on “fear”. Your mileage may vary.

    However, other “minds” were still sleeping, and had no ears to hear what I had to say. And that is where my journey out of the “collective-mind-set” started. And continues to this day. Rock on.

    • Tom respectfully
      “One of the things illuminated was the Code of Honor item “Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.” Some people put the emphasis on “never”. For me the correct emphasis is on “fear”. Your mileage may vary.
      ……………………………………………………….
      Are you saying that you would hurt another in a just cause?

      Would you give me an example what a just cause is or would be? Thank you

      • Baby, I’m sure you could think of your own examples, but, would you fear to hurt a drug dealer giving drugs away outside a school? Or, how about a parent beating their child? Or, a man beating his wife? Did the passengers of Flight 93 fear to hurt the hijackers of the plane, when they stormed to pilot’s cabin?

        Really, the real-life examples are just too numerous.

        • Mark N. Roberts

          Mornin’ Val, Baby, Tom.
          It is clear to me (from my viewpoint) that everyone sees everything from his own viewpoint. From the phrase “Never fear to….”, some immediately notice the words “hurt another” and take that as the main thought. Others key on the idea of “just cause”. And even others think first of “Never fear”.

          You might say, “Yea, I know, I know”. But this is more important and revealing than thought at first glance. This is a small example of a very basic nature of people and an insight into the most inner workings of all of us here.

          We all FOLLOW thousand of opinions, ideas, decisions,and considerations that we have formed and forgotten through our whole life. The key word here is ‘follow’. Like it or not, we are following our past experiences, reacting, for lack of a better word, to present time experience like a pre-programmed computer, according to our past programming.

          This was described, rather crudely, by Mr. Hubbard and many others in different ways. What they failed to realized is how subtle and pervasive this is in all our thoughts in a day to day, minute by minute, second by second manner. It is not just a reactive or analytical thing. It is an infinite gradient of less or a little more or a little more or a lot or a whole lot.

          Operating on full automatic, having little bits of clarity and creativeness, seeing things quite clearly for the most part, to being fully in PT having full use of and being fully in charge of your acquired knowledge.

          The concept of FOLLOWING your acquired experiences, and being in charge of and using your experiences is an important factor in understanding your purposes and identity. How much choice do you have over your own opinions? Can you choose or change your opinions and outlook easily? How much? Which opinions can you change easily? Which could you change with overwhelming new information? Which are you thoroughly locked in to and cannot change.

          How much of your identity is an accumulation of experiences that you are standing beside and merely watching play out. What actually IS the basic you?

          You can easily see this playing out all the time. Just read a comment on this blog consisting of several sentences. Then look at the comments to follow. Notice which ones key on words which are not a central point of the comment, were not important to the major thought. They (and myself from time to time) are FOLLOWING purposes, intentions, opinions, that they are not consciously controlling. They are drawn to certain things and compelled to respond in a certain manner.

          The concept of being reactive is not a black and white thing, but an infinite gradient of more or less, determined by your experiences and decisions and how stuck you are in them.

          But you can exercise control and creativeness to a greater and greater degree. It is possible to have a choice. It is worth striving for. It comes down to: Do you want to improve yourself by amassing more quantities of data, or getting hold of better data, or do you want to improve YOURSELF, and how you HANDLE data. Do you want to change your conditions and accumulations, or do you want to change YOU.
          Mark

        • Val I understand that. I was speaking to a person in a ” Native State” and wondering what he meant by that. Thank you .

          • Native state is basically the undifferentiated state of Bliss as described by all those Eastern mystics and yogis. It has been desribed in many different ways by mystics of different cultures, but basically that’s it. It is often a brief experience. Hubbard described it as a state one passes through, not a place one remains in.

            For a more modern take on it, try psychologist Abraham Maslow’s “Toward a Psychology of Being”.
            Here is a short excerpt:
            chrome-extension://bpmcpldpdmajfigpchkicefoigmkfalc/views/app.html

            • Mark C. Rathbun

              Not even similar. Not even close.

            • Val..I know what native state is.. I studied Dianetics for 2 long years..
              This is from What Scientology Won’t Tell You site.

              “Scientology proposes that in its “native state” the spirit/thetan is immortal and god-like and possesses the potentiality of knowing everything, but that in present time its true capabilities have been lost and forgotten. As an immortal entity, the spirit/thetan lives on after body death and is born into a new physical body, again and again, lifetime after lifetime, in an endless cycle of birth and death. As a result of traumatic incidents extending back from the present life through a long series of “past lifetimes” hidden from conscious memory, the spirit/thetan has become trapped in the physical body and the physical/MEST universe. ”
              …………………………………………………………………….

              I was asking Tom.. but you keep answering for him.
              During his being in Native State..
              “One of the things illuminated was the Code of Honor item “Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.” Some people put the emphasis on “never”. For me the correct emphasis is on “fear”.

              What would / will he do for just cause..or for the greater good? You know the whole ” Fair Game” thing..

              “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

          • baby, you asked Tom, “Are you saying that you would hurt another in a just cause?” and,
            “Would you give me an example what a just cause is or would be? Thank you.”

            The point is, Tom did not say he was in a “native state”. He said he had experienced it at some time in the past.

            So I ask you hten, would you ever hurt another in what you would consider to be a “just cause”? And what might such a cause be, in your view?

            • I think that people on this blog, who are being nasty to others, feel justified per this Code of Honor.

              • Who is being nasty? I see people participating in an open dialogue vinaire.
                There are serious issues being discussed. I follow Marty’s discussion policy not yours.

            • Ok.. I should have said while you experienced Native State..
              I just wondered while in that state how far he would have gone to protect Scn. for the greater good.

              Me? Oh I absolutely would hurt another to stop them from your examples..
              ” a drug dealer giving drugs away outside a school? Or, how about a parent beating their child? Or, a man beating his wife? Did the passengers of Flight 93 fear to hurt the hijackers of the plane, when they stormed to pilot’s cabin?”

              I am not talking about those in the ” Wog World ” I am talking about someone who follows a man who would say/ write this.

              ” If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace.”

              — L. Ron Hubbard, HCOPL 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs

              • Mark N. Roberts

                “Never fear to hurt……just cause.”
                To me it depends primarily on three things

                What are your true intentions.
                Where do you draw the line.
                How much common sense do you have.
                Mark

                • Thank you Mark.. but you and I both know what Hubbard meant. For example..There was no common sense involved in R-45?
                  City of Clearwater Commission Hearings 1982..

                  “R2-45″

                  ” Despite the general exposure of many Scientology practice policies and attacks in the media over the past several years, resulting primarily from the F.B.I.’s seizure of documents from Scientology headquarters, there exists in Hubbard’s twisted mind and writings a little known policy called “R2-45” [garbled] in the book, “The Creation of Human Ability – A Handbook of Scientology” written by Hubbard and distributed by the Church of Scientology of California, the following quote appears:

                  “R2-45 – an enormously effective process for exteriorization, but its use is frowned upon by this society at this time.”

                  “Exteriorization”, in Scientology policy is death. The policy refers to shooting a person in the head. In a short internal Scientology memorandum called “Racket Exposed”, Hubbard attacks a number of individuals, subjects them to the “Fair Game” doctrine, and states as follows:

                  “Any Sea Organization member contacting any of them is to use auditing process R2-45″

                  It is unknown to the authors of this Report whether the process was used on those individuals.

                  During a meeting of Scientologists in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1954, Hubbard demonstrated the R2-45 auditing process by firing a shot into the floor during the middle of the meeting. There is some evidence to suggest that between 1975 and 1977, during the F.B.I. investigation of Scientology, meetings of Scientology executives were held in which there were discussion relative to auditing high level F.B.I. members with auditing process R2-45.”

                  • Mark N. Roberts

                    Hi Babe.
                    No, I don’t know what Hubbard meant by this sentence, as suggested by you. I look at each phrase, principle, paragraph, on up the line in its own space and time, as itself.

                    When I first saw R2-45 in COHA when I WAS 12, I chuckled and said, “I need that process like I need a hole in the head”. If Ron or some Guardians Office Member ever suggested using this process on another, it shows how deeply disturbed they had become.

                    Fear will always produce a wrong answer for the situation one is in. Fear’s hesitation and inaction will produce pain and misery for those around you, not to mention yourself.

                    And for all it is worth, I have used the process R2-45 in the distant past when conditions called for it. The main thought at the time was, “Oops, time to go”. I do not recommend it. It’s a rough road back.
                    Mark

                    • Mark.. There is just to much information about the Honor Code to write. I will just leave a link to Marty’s post about it..and make sure that you read the comments.

                      ” I look at each phrase, principle, paragraph, on up the line in its own space and time, as itself.”

                      Awww Mark.. Google is your friend. So many have been Fair Gamed in the name of honor. ( Mosey/ Marty/ Mike R ..too many to count.) Many have been harmed due to Scientologies Ethics. Dm is just continuing what Hubbard created.

                      https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/03/16/scientologys-code-of-honor/

                    • Mark N. Roberts

                      Afternoon BB.
                      There is value and danger in every point of the Code of Honor.
                      Depends on what grabs you.

                      If one likes harming people then it gives them free reign. If one feels that vengeance is justice, then there you are.

                      You hear what you listen for.
                      Advice is the easiest and hardest thing to give to someone. It always goes through their ‘filters’ as has been said lately.
                      Mark

        • Sanctimonious. Sigh.

      • Ok. But first, an ethical code is not a moral code. One adopts it or not, in the cycle of observing, deciding and acting in the deciding phase of things.
        Defending the weak, helpless or undefended against robbers or highwaymen, for example. In this case there is honor to be gained in the breech, dis-honor in ignoring or walking away..

        • Tom wrote:

          “Ok. But first, an ethical code is not a moral code.

          Yes it is.

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral

          These are synonyms, and Hubbard’s re-definition of these words were attempts to insert his own moral system upon you as part of the synthetic personality of “Scientologist” that he wanted you to adopt.

          Read Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics”. You’ll find these concepts totally clear – unlike what Hubbard said about him and Socrates and Plato in “The Basis of Ethics”.

          http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

          I think that a study of this book is essential for anyone who ever adopted Hubbard’s ideas about ethics and morals as a Scientologist. After all, Hubbard was highly critical of the Greeks and their whole subject of ethics. You should study what he was criticizing in order to see if he was right.

          Right?

          You will see exactly what Hubbard did when you read this book. You’ll see a lot of the basics of Scientology in there. And you will see what Hubbard LEFT OUT from this book, and it will be extremely revealing of what Hubbard was really up to by leaving out what he chose to leave out.

          For example, right off, in Book 1, you will see Aristotle spending a great deal of time and care to define the word “Good” so that no one could ever control you with an undefined “good” like Hubbard did with his undefined good in “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”.

          Did you ever notice how Hubbard never defined “Good” in that formula?

          Why do you think he did that?

          Well read Aristotle’s discussion of “the good” in Book 1 and you will see exactly why Hubbard never defined Good, and left out Aristotle’s work. Then criticized him so you would never read it.

          Hubbard tried to confuse you about morals and ethics by creating a distinction without a difference here. He fucked with your sense of morals and ethics, on purpose, as an essential element of his brainwashing operation called Scientology.

          Alanzo

          • I haven’t read the book you’re talking about, but I do appear to see the ethics/morals issue, as well as the issue of the definition of “good”, differently from what you describe.
            Regardless of the words used, the first issue is a valid one IMO. Having lived in different cultures, it seems obvious to me that “mprals” vary widely from culture to culture. And, there is a lot of ambiguity around the root “ethos”, ethic”, ethics”. However the central issue I see is that there is a need for a word that refers to the field of studying a “meta-ethical” view of things.

            As for the defintion of “good”, I don’t see how that can be missed. It is summed up against the background and context of “optimum survival”, across the totality of the Dynamics. That seems pretty clear, and I can think of numerous examples in real life.
            All that said, it takes nothing away from the potential value of studying the Nicomathean Ethics and the thought of Aristotle.

            • Valkov wrote:

              All that said, it takes nothing away from the potential value of studying the Nicomathean Ethics and the thought of Aristotle.

              You said it, Valkov.

              Hubbard’s ethics and Aristotle’s ethics are really not comparable.

              Anyone who would study and adopt Hubbard’s ethics, and does not take the time to study Aristotle’s is depraved by Hubbard, in my opinion.

              Literally, they are a depraved cultist.

              http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deprave

              Alanzo

            • Valkov wrote:

              “As for the defintion of “good”, I don’t see how that can be missed. It is summed up against the background and context of “optimum survival”, across the totality of the Dynamics. That seems pretty clear, and I can think of numerous examples in real life.”

              “Optimum Survival” is a weasel term.

              It can mean anything, so therefore it means nothing.

              What is “optimum survival” for one person could be “everlasting love”. And for another, like Hubbard, it could be “everlasting wealth”.

              Because “optimum survival” can mean BOTH these things, then as a definition for a goal in an ethics formula, it means anything you want it to mean – or anything those in power over you want it to mean.

              Aristotle’s “Good” however, is so clearly defined that it can not be used against someone’s interests who knows the definition.

              And if Aristotle’s definition for “good” was used in “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”, instead of the weasel concept “optimum survival”, then Hubbard could not have gotten away with half of what he did. And Miscavige would never made it as a Scientologist.

              You have to be on the lookout for those weasel words and weasel terms, Valkov. They seem to get you every time. Maybe you have so little experience with Scientology, you don’t know what the effect of those weasel terms were on Scientologists, and so you remain fooled by them.

              Actually being in Scientology, and seeing how an ideology was used to enslave people, was an excellent education for me, Valkov.

              So keep on blogging, Val: You could learn a thing or two from me.

              Alanzo

              • You keep sliding around what I post without apparently grasping what I mean.
                Those things you mention are not examples of “optimum survival”. Optimum survival is in the context of ALL the Dynamics. For example, a corporation uses a method of extracting oil or natural gas from the earth, using methods that pollute the groundwater from which we draw or water for human use. This extends to pollutants leaching into lakes and rivers, poisoning the habitats of many other lifeforms and eventually causing their extinction. In the meantime spoiling them as a food source for ourselves and other creatures. Would you call that ethical?
                Or, for example, in meeting the demand for electricity, instead of developing alternative methods of production, countries burn coal to produce it. This leads to the emission of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every day, which starts causing climate change, and increases the occurence of asthma and increased deaths among children and the elderly, and negatively affects the health of everyone. At the same time, the demand for coal results in a lot of strip-mining and destruction of habitat across wider and wider areas of the world, resulting in the extinction of species.

                These are examples of NON “optimum survival” decisions and courses of action, ie, “unethical” courses of action across the Dynamics. There are many others. Bombing Iraq and Syria back into the stone age, using drones to kill random villagers in Pakistan, etc might also qualify as “unethical” in terms of the lower 4 Dynamics.
                Anyway, these are obvious examples to me, of how to use the concepts of “optimum survival” in the context of the Dynamics. It has nothing to do with “”all love all the time” and that kind of drivel.
                It has to do with what kind of life my children and grandchildren will have in the future, because of ill-considered actions taken today.
                Airy-fairy talk about Aristotle accomplishes nothing. If you don’t have a sense of what is “ethical” and what is not by now, I venture to think you never will.

                • Here’s an example from real life. You tell me – is “optimum survival” involved here?

                  https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/mailalert/968/stop-forest-destruction-for-tar-sand-oil-say-no-to-ceta

                • “Airy-fairy talk about Aristotle accomplishes nothing. If you don’t have a sense of what is “ethical” and what is not by now, I venture to think you never will.

                  This from a guy who learned “ethics” from L Ron Hubbard, and after years of being exposed to the incredibly unethical and immoral practices of Hubbard and his followers – even leaving the Church himself decades ago to protect himself from them – still believes that L Ron Hubbard actually has something of value to teach people about ethics and morals.

                  Amazing.

                  Alanzo

                  • Maybe he just doesn’t hate to love and love to hate.

                  • LRH said 1+1=2. Show us the new math, Al, where that isn’t true. Invective ill becomes you Al. In some discussions it is called ad hom. Whereever it occurs, I simply call it “politics”. Where else can one find so many blatant attempts to impugn the character of others with whom one is supposedly having a civilized highbrow discussion about “Aristotle” and “ethics”? It’s laughable! 🙂

                  • Tghis is ad-hom by defintion. How do you know anything about how, when and where I learned about Ethics?
                    In fact you don’t.
                    Stating it the way you did could be considered a blatant lie told about me, by you. Especially stated with such absolute certainty.
                    Blatant lying. Where did you learn that, Al? You’d probably say you learned it in the CoS, and from LRH. But maybe you are not really such a victim as that. Maybe you were born that way, eh?

            • LRH described the eight dynamics from a human-centric fixation and that very much colors the idea of “greatest good.”

              Here is how dynamics look like from a reality-centric view.

              The Eighth Dynamic
              .

              • Hubbard’s breakdown of “all and everything” may not be the only one possible, but I do not accept your polarity of “human centric vs. reality centric” as a standard, so your essay means not so much to me. It appears too much “vinaire-centric”.

                The fact is, any division of “all and everything” is somewhat arbitrary; and you seem to see a bias that I don’t see. The lower Dynamics are the lower Dynamics; the entire scheme is not “entered” in those. In fact, the lower Dynamics are a subset of the higher ones and could not exist without them. Can you imagine a First, Second, or 4th Dynamic existing in a vacuum without MEST, Life energy, or God? Out there in interstellar space, perhaps? The idea is absurd. Think it through, please.

          • Roger From Switzerland Thought

            Thanks, was the first time I looked at the definition of those 2 words in a normal dictionary. I’ m just a little bit confused about why I never did it. I only knew the def. as taught in Scientology……hm ?

            • Hubbard did point out right from the start that the common dictionary defintions of those two words were “circular”, buy which he meant one was used to define the other and vice-versa. That was his rationale for defining them separately. Actually he was simply pointing out the difference, because if you Google – ‘ethics derivation’ – you will find plenty of results to encyclopedia defintions and articles that clearly show that “ethics” is considered to be the “study of morals”, because “morals” vary from culture to culture and group to group.
              In other words, they do NOT mean the same thing.
              http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/194023/ethics/59237/The-origins-of-ethics

              • Roger From Switzerland Thought

                Thank you very much for the link Iamvalkov. It’s a very clear Definition.

                Ethics or out-ethics became a term of generality in RCS that could mean nearly anything….

                Just, was also wondering about the Definition of enemy which includes hate and wanting to harm, but I can dimly remember that LRH had his own Definition.
                But, per my understanding of today i can safely assume that 90% of Scientologist that ever where doing the conditon of enemy, never were acting as an enemy of the subject they were doing the condition on…..

              • Val said..
                “That was his rationale for defining them separately.”
                …………………………………………………………………..
                Hubs always talked out of both sides of his mouth.. He was a Bull Shitter. and you continue to make excuses for his nonsense Val.

                His .. Made up words.. His changing definitions to mean what he wanted the words to mean.

                How can you possibly give any credence to a man who wrote this blather?

                “Leukemia is evidently psychosomatic in origin and at least eight cases of leukemia had been treated successfully by Dianetics after medicine had traditionally given up. The source of leukemia has been reported to be an engram containing the phrase ‘It turns my blood to water.”
                ―L. Ron Hubbard
                Source/Notes:
                Journal of Scientology Issue 15-G (1953)

                • I have noticed that instead of discussing the ideas I post, you change the subject to, for example, “what a liar Hubbard was”, etc. We all know he was often a liar, as bad as any politician at times, but that doesn’t change the fact that ideas he presented can be discussed on their own merits.
                  For example, here’s an idea: 1+1=2. If Hubbard said that, would you go into a tirade about what a liar Hubbard was? Was you refuse to accept that 1+1=2?
                  It’s not a discussion of anything when you simply change the subject back to your agenda in response to someone’s post.

                  • You stated what Hubbard said..I stated what Hubbard said. How did you know what his rationale is/was?

                    You are a Hubbard apologist.. You defend him at all costs. I don’t.
                    Are you saying that the only way to discuss things with you is to agree with you? Because I will tell you.. ” It ain’t gonna happen.”

                    Val.. Let me tell you. Most people who blow nowadays say that the number one reason they blew is because of the Internet. Words are powerful.

                    The reason I post is to educate..to inform and to give them hope that there is life out here. I want to show that the emperor ( First Hubbard now DM) has no clothes.

                    But to keep defending Hubs is just making those stuck .. stay within the confines of the bubble because they think it’s them NOT Scientology.

                  • Val.. Let me tell you my thoughts about Hubbard that might surprise you.
                    And I’ve never written them before.

                    Yes.. He was charming. He must have had a lot of natural Charisma to attract so many followers. I met his great grandson Jamie and if Hubbard had 1/3 of his charm he would have been delightful.

                    With his charm he was manipulative. He charmed the masses with his
                    “Aw Shucks ” humor. He was a hard worker as in he wrote so many Sci-Fi books and did try to make a living out of doing so.

                    When he came forward with Dianetics it was perfect timing. People were searching for answers. So it was the ” Perfect Storm” as far as the seekers seeking for knowledge to make their place in the world fit and a man who was not only giving them knowledge, but tools.

                    He collected ideas from others. It was a best selling book.It wasn’t as he touted ” New Thoughts.” But people were hungry ( Cybernetics time) for self discovery. He claimed Science of the mind. It wasn’t.

                    And then.. Scientology came along. He held total control over other’s minds and spirituality. He created a World Domination Scheme via his systematic hypnotic drills. He created a mind trap. He got good people to do bad things all in his name. Those who followed him thought he was God.

                    He ruined lives and I am sorry that he did.

                    • “I am sorry that he did”
                      and Angry. And that is why I lend my voice.

                    • deElizabethan

                      BabyBunker, I remember reading Psycho-cybernetics or Pycho-cybernetics in ’70, those searching days for me, before Dianetics and it was helpful, only it had no practices or how too’s which I found interesting then in the latter. Also was intrigued with the idea of Engrams being a reason or answer to problems. Of course that all changed down the road.

            • Roger –

              Can you recall the lecture by Hubbard where he taught about how important it was to not only create interest, but to also to create disinterest?

              I believe that Hubbard created disinterest in those things he criticized to Scientologists.

              Any subject that would reveal what he was really doing to Scientologists was a subject that he created disinterest in.

              One of the areas that Hubbard created disinterest for Scientologists was studying ethics from Aristotle and the Greeks.

              He also did this with logic, law and civil rights, social psychology, psychology, psychiatry, etc.

              A good thing to do after scientology is to study any subject that Hubbard criticized in Scientology.

              That would probably be one of the fastest ways to recover from the depravity of Scientology.

              Alanzo

              • Roger From Switzerland Thought

                Alonzo,

                I started to move on up a Little higher when I decided to study the Basics of the Basics (by a hint of Lrh as he dedicated Dianetics to Will Durant). I read all books of ” History of Civilization” by Will Durant.
                After I finished them I was out of Scientology as what I learned was that Man has created the great freedoms we are enjoying in the western world and we are living in a great civilization which is improving itself continously. I learned about the great philosophers and thinkers of the past, that postulated our present. Lrh was just joking and degradind about those fools, while he was stealing their ideas. They achieved Million times more then he ever achieved.

                My wife wich was trained as an early childhood educator 35 years ago went back to School to upgrade her certificate. Many times she came back from School and just was crying about the nonsense she had learned in Scientology and the time she had wasted while the world continued to evolve. Did you know that Science found out what’s a key component of developing intellingence in early childhood and they’re applying it with great success on Young Kids and it got nothing to do with study tech ? The greeks knew it already somehow, but now they could scientifically prove it.

                You’re totally right about LRH wanting to keeps us disinterested in any other technology.

                Months ago I was in a bookstore and there I saw this book from Kahnemann – Thinking fast and slow – . I never heard about it but somehow this book attracted me, but it cost about 30 $ and it was written by a psychologist ! How horrible. Nevertheless I had the Feeling I should try it. But 30$ for the nonsense of a psychologist ! My god I must be crazy. I thought about over 30 Minutes and then just bought it. It was one of the best decision in my life.. The book is an eye opener.

                Love most of your Posts.

                • Roger wrote:

                  “I started to move on up a Little higher when I decided to study the Basics of the Basics (by a hint of Lrh as he dedicated Dianetics to Will Durant). I read all books of ” History of Civilization” by Will Durant.

                  After I finished them I was out of Scientology as what I learned was that Man has created the great freedoms we are enjoying in the western world and we are living in a great civilization which is improving itself continuously. I learned about the great philosophers and thinkers of the past, that postulated our present. Lrh was just joking and degrading about those fools, while he was stealing their ideas. They achieved Million times more then he ever achieved.

                  This is similar to what happened to me as well.

                  The more I learned about “the humanities” from a perspective that had nothing to do with LRH’s perspective, the more I realized how inadequate and mean the “Scientology humanities” were.

                  Once you read real philosophy, and not LRH philosophy, or real history and not LRH history, real ethics and not LRH ethics, or real logic and not LRH logic, most people never ever go back to the LRH versions.

                  Some people remain trapped inside the LRH versions of these subjects, even after they have been exposed to the real versions. It’s always astounding to me how that can happen.

                  Confirmation bias?
                  Laziness?
                  Fear?

                  It’s like being stuck in kindergarten all your life, long after you can’t fit into the little desks any more.

                  Alanzo

                • Roger you just tell your wife that she is in Chapter 2 of her life. I am proud that she went back to school. Good for her. Both of you are very brave.

                  From a former teacher before I got into Mental Health you just give her a big hug from me. You tell her to dry her tears and relish the freedom!

          • Al, they are not synonyms according to the encyclopedias. The words denote two different levels of meaning.

          • singanddanceall

            Alanzo, since you are familiar with Aristotle.

            Are you familiar with Hubbard’s 1936 letter to Dean Wilbur stating he will use Dean Wilbur’s book on Rhetoric to write a book in the future?

            http://backincomm.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/dear-dean-wilbur/

            Here is a snip from the letter, Hubbard telling his thoughts:

            “Do not allow this to upset you in any way. Put it down that I am a rebel, a nonconformist, anything. Some of these days I am going to set down these things in a book, and your rhetoric, very battered now, will be open on the desk beside me when I write it.”

            Is anybody here who posts familiar with this letter? And has anybody done research on Dean Wilbur and his books in Rhetoric? This would give another insight into the mind of Hubbard.

            The letter was posted in full at the SA Back in Comm blog a few months ago, and it is also posted on the COS website.

            The reason why I ask this question is because Hubbard did indeed use the rules of Aristotle Rhetoric in Dianetics & Scientology to persuade people. For he stated in the snip above, that Dean Wilbur’s book was very battered, meaning he used it a lot.

            Hubbard mentioned 3 forms of case gain being education, processing and change of environment.

            What I find interesting is that Hubbard never taught Aristotle Rhetoric yet he was well learned in it.

            Since my involvement in scientology spans from 1987 to present, I never learned Aristotle Rhetoric either.

            I found this website to explain it very good if one looks from the scientology POV and if one compares to Hubbards means of persuasion.

            How did Hubbard persuade? Did he use credibility? Did he use emotions? Did he use logic? To try to persuade?

            http://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/11/14/classical-rhetoric-101-an-introduction/

            • Yes, singanddanceall –

              When you begin to study rhetoric and see how Hubbard knowingly used it on Scientologists, it’s yet whole ‘nother area of Hubbard’s depravity.

              That there are Scientologists who continue to defend and apologize Hubbard after seeing this befuddles me.

              Alanzo

            • Roger From Switzerland Thought

              singanddanceall,

              Great post and fabulous reference about Rhetoric.
              LRH knew about the power of Rhetoric but never introduced it as a technology to Scientologists.
              Imagine Scientologist getting Rhetoric classes.
              What would have happened ?

            • OK, you convinced me. I am studting Rhetoric 101.🙂

            • From Rhetoric 101

              “But from ancient times up through the early 20th century, men believed learning the art of rhetoric was a noble pursuit and considered it an essential element of a well-rounded education. They saw rhetoric as a vital tool to teach truth more effectively and as a weapon to protect themselves from those who argued unfairly and for nefarious purposes…

              “Studying rhetoric will equip you with the linguistic tools to make you more persuasive in your dealings with others and thus expand your circle of influence…

              “If you want to be a well-informed voter and citizen, you must be fully cognizant of the tactics and techniques being used on you. Such knowledge empowers you to discern truth from B.S.

              “And as a citizen you have a right to voice your opinion on issues. Do so effectively by studying up on your rhetoric first.”

              Wow! I am sold. Haha. I shall now be using it on my blog and in the comments here.
              .

            • “When we allow ourselves to be easily swayed by advertising, whether political or commercial, we give another person control over our minds. Studying rhetoric puts up a defensive shield around your brain (no tin foil necessary!), allowing you to see through the smoke and mirrors, filter out external messages and follow your own inner compass.”

            • Below is another excerpt from that letter by Hubbard to his former professor:

              “When I wrote that theme for you (I wish I had it now) I was not referring to rhetoric, but to the rest of the university. Besides yourself, no other man there had anything to say other than dry, textbook things. That was not education to me. I wanted the contact of culture, perhaps, or maybe I wanted a chance to think. You were the only man there who would let a chap think. Walking into your classes or walking with you back to your office after a class was quite like stepping out of a hydraulic press into a spring day. You wanted a man to figure things out for himself and you respected your students. You were one bright spot in an otherwise zero-zero world.
              […]
              There was one remaining link between cultural and regimented education which had survived American mass production and that link was yourself.

              • singanddanceall, you wrote “Are you familiar with Hubbard’s 1936 letter to Dean Wilbur stating he will use Dean Wilbur’s book on Rhetoric to write a book in the future?’

                Here are the two basic definitions of “rhetoric”:

                : language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable
                : the art or skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively especially as a way to persuade or influence people
                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric

                I think it’s clear from the whole letter that Hubbard was talking about Dean Wilbur’s “skill of speaking or writing formally and effectively” – the central point he (Hubbard) was making was that he wanted to be a writer and have the kind of skill at it that Wilbur had.

                • singanddanceall

                  yes, no doubt.

                  And hubbard became an effective speaker. How many lectures are there?

                  But, look at the stats.

                  How many are in, how many are out?

                  How did hubbard keep people in?

                  What did he say to do to those that disagreed with him?

                  Is this critical thinking employed and taught by hubbard?

                  or is it just keep you going up the bridge?

                  Since I’m married to an OT8, I do have a comparison to make and to observe.

                  Somebody not married to an OT8 will not have a comparison to make.

                  And one is not allowed to question the states of “clear” and “OT” in scientology, for that is invalidation, thus one can never make a comparison in scientology other than what hubbard said. And if you question what hubbard said, why it’s back to word clearing, qual, pts/sp, etc.

                  Scientology is a closed loop system. Some call it a hamster wheel, some call it brainwashing, some call it hypnosis,
                  it’s all of the above.

                  LOL

              • Mark N. Roberts

                Further insight in to one of Mr. Hubbards original purposes.
                Mark

                • Mark, I think I sold him short by only pointing out that one purpose, the purpose he had to be a writer. In the same letter, he also wrote the following, which would tie in with the purpose to write:

                  “I wanted the contact of culture, perhaps, or maybe I wanted a chance to think. You were the only man there who would let a chap think…You wanted a man to figure things out for himself and you respected your students. ..There was one remaining link between cultural and regimented education which had survived American mass production and that link was yourself.”

                  In the above, he used the word “cultural” in the sense of “relating to the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a society.” That reminded me of something I was told by a scientologist I knew back in the early 80’s, when I was new in scientology. He was an old timer by the name of Ray Noll, who had apparently known LRH personally. He told me that at a certain point in time, LRH realized he was leading a movement that could positively change the whole of society for the better. (That’s as close as I can recall to his wording, but that was the idea he expressed.)

                  It’s debatable as to what LRH’s eventual purposes were but I think, as you noted, that the “original” purpose comes through in the letter he wrote to his former professor. That same purpose was also expressed in both the Goal of Scientology and the Aims of Scientology and in what he wrote here:

                  “My purpose is to bring a barbarism out of the mud it thinks conceived it and to form, here on Earth, a civilization based on human understanding, not violence.”

                  In other words, the idea of producing a superman with unlimited powers wasn’t the intention, at least not in the beginning, even though he talked about those powers as existing potentials.

                  • singanddanceall

                    I’m still wondering why people need to be “hard sold” into doing scientology?

                    Laughing.

                  • Mark N. Roberts

                    Yes Marildi,
                    Mr. Hubbard was many people, as are you and I. He was brilliant, controlling, curious, over confident. He had an enormous love for humanity and would treat individuals with great attention, and yet sometimes treat people with great disdain, as pets or property.

                    People will put their attention one one aspect of him, argue that he was this or that, AND THEY ARE ALL CORRECT. He actually was this, and he actually was that.

                    You can learn a lot about a person by which part of Hubbard draws their attention, their admiration, their ire.
                    THAT draws my attention.
                    Mark

                    • Great comment, Mark. I have had the same views, but haven’t expressed them as well. Thanks for that.

          • I guess you see what you see, and I see what I see. And they aren’t the same. In Book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics a differentiation is made between Ethos (character) and habit. Further, for example, a criminal defense lawyer may have a moral code that eschews murder, rape and drug dealing, but the ethics of his job (which we assume was of his choosing) require that he give the best defense possible for his client.

            So to my mind there are differences.
            Your mileage may vary.
            Speaking of good:
            Do you happen to know his (Hubbard’s) definition of evil?

            • “Do you happen to know his (Hubbard’s) definition of evil?

              Which one are you referring to?

              Alanzo

              • The basic evil: Man’s lack of integrity to himself.
                Basic overt against self is to betray your own postulates.

                6207c24 shsbc-193 Routine 3GA, Part 1

                I spent quite a bit of time in Scn, and never saw that definition until several days ago.

                • Tom wrote:

                  “The basic evil: Man’s lack of integrity to himself.
                  Basic overt against self is to betray your own postulates.

                  6207c24 shsbc-193 Routine 3GA, Part 1

                  I spent quite a bit of time in Scn, and never saw that definition until several days ago.

                  It’s a good one. I studied that tape on the BC and I remember thinking how good that was.

                  I was also doing the FPRD First Dynamic list at the time.

                  Doing the First Dynamic list was one of the things that got me out of Scientology.

                  Any time you sit for hours and hours and look at things that you have done to yourself that you consider an overt, you are going to become more aware of what you have done.

                  I saw that being in Scientology and subjecting myself to that cult environment was an overt to myself. And it was an overt to others to support it.

                  Alanzo

                  • Alanzo “Doing the First Dynamic list was one of the things that got me out of Scientology.
                    I happened upon a Wise group offering an experimental First Dynamic only, ethics course which I did and got tremendous gain from. So after being away from the organization for many years and coming back, it greatly helped me see the truth which enabled me to leave within one years time, with honor intact.

                • Tom,
                  Thank you very much for the discovery posted.
                  This fits in so well with the thetan:
                  1. Man’s lack of integity to himself as an evil is non-Christian, I think.
                  2. Betray your own postulates as a basic overt is very Crowley, I think.
                  GMW
                  Keep up the data flow, if you can.
                  GMW

                  • Shakespeare, methinks:
                    “This above all: to thine own self be true,
                    And it must follow, as the night the day,
                    Thou canst not then be false to any man.” – Hamlet

                    • “Shakespeare, methinks:
                      “This above all: to thine own self be true,
                      And it must follow, as the night the day,
                      Thou canst not then be false to any man.” – Hamlet

                      Spoken by Polonius. This was great advice for his son.

                      His advice for Ophelia, his daughter, could have used a little tweaking, I think.

                      Has anyone ever considered that the whole of Hamlet was really about good and bad parenting?

                      Alanzo

            • From the tech dictionary:

              EVIL, 1 . that which inhibits or brings plus or minus randomity into the organism, which is contrary to the survival motives of the organism. (Scn 0-8, p. 92) 2 . may be classified as those things which tend to limit the dynamic thrust of the individual, his family, his group, his race, or life in general in the dynamic drive, also limited by the observation, the observer and his ability to observe. (DTOT, pp. 20-21) 3. evil is the opposite of good, and is anything which is destructive more than it is constructive along any of the various dynamics. A thing which does more destruction than construction is evil from the viewpoint of the individual, the future, group, species, life, or mest that it destroys. (SOS, Bk. 2, p. 34)

              • Roger From Switzerland Thought

                “1 . that which inhibits or brings plus or minus randomity into the organism, which is contrary to the survival motives of the organism.”

                Honestly I don’t know what that means, no mu’s on it a nd I woul,d make a clay of 3 Kids being very alive and not wanting to go to bed while i’m totally tired and want to sleep. Are those Kids now evil ?

                • Roger, to determine what is evil vs. what is good, you could use LOGIC 7:
                  ———————————
                  LOGIC 7:

                  GRADIENT SCALES ARE NECESSARY TO THE EVALUATION OF PROBLEMS AND THEIR DATA.

                  This is the tool of infinity-valued logic: Absolutes are unobtainable. Terms such as good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong are used only in conjunction with gradient scales. On the scale of right and wrong, everything above zero or center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and everything below center would be more and more wrong, approaching infinite wrongness. All things assisting the survival of the survivor are considered to be RIGHT for the survivor. All things inhibiting survival from the viewpoint of the survivor can be considered WRONG for the survivor. The more a thing assists survival, the more it can be considered right for the survivor; the more a thing or action inhibits survival, the more it is wrong from the viewpoint of the intended survivor.

                  COROLLARY—any datum has only relative truth.
                  COROLLARY—truth is relative to environments, experience and truth.
                  ———————————-

                  • Marildi –

                    Where is the technology in LRH’s word clearing for when the LRH passage that the student does not understand simply makes no sense?

                    For instance, in KSW, there are many paragraphs that are simply wrong or nonsensical, such as the “ratio” of people who would destroy good technology with bad.

                    As a word clearer, were you ever allowed to end the word clearing session by telling the student, “Well, you know all the words and this passage by LRH still just make no sense. Thank you. Return to study”.

                    If you had been given that option as a word clearer, what would have been the result?

                    Alanzo

                    • Al, I honestly don’t recall ever having a problem with students not being able to make sense of their materials once their words were cleared, or the skipped gradient of understanding was handled by showing them other references

                      For example, many of them had a problem with the word “percentages” in KSW1 (which you apparently did too – and still do?). I always made sure students who had trouble with that line were looking in a big enough dictionary so as to have a good variety of choices, such as are given in Merriam-Webster:
                      —————————————-
                      1a : a part of a whole expressed in hundredths [a high percentage of students attended]
                      b : the result obtained by multiplying a number by a percent [the percentage equals the rate times the base]
                      2a : a share of winnings or profits
                      b : advantage, profit [no percentage in going around looking like an old sack of laundry — Wallace Stegner]
                      3: an indeterminate part : proportion
                      4a : probability
                      b : favorable odds
                      ——————————————-

                      I myself found definition #4 clarified the sentence quite well.

                    • Marildi –

                      Do you realize that you are still wearing the word clearer’s hat for L Ron Hubbard’s writings?

                      The underlying assumption of the word clearer’s hat is that everything Hubbard wrote was sensible and true.

                      There’s not a human being alive, or dead, for which that is true.

                      And given all Hubbard’s faults, which you yourself have acknowledged many times, you know that underlying assumption is not true for him.

                      So why are you still wearing the word clearer’s hat for L Ron Hubbard?

                      Alanzo

                    • I was a Vedic word clearer on Flag.
                      .

    • “One of the things illuminated was the Code of Honor item “Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.” Some people put the emphasis on ‘never’. For me the correct emphasis is on ‘fear’. Your mileage may vary.”

      Tom, can you say more about how that and other things were “illuminated.” Or do you just mean that you had “pure knowingness” about things in general?

      And do you consider that this Native State is the same as what is meant by nirvana (if you know enough about it)?

      • I could probably fill a book, but this is Mark’s blog. I will give one example of one “cognition chain”: JC Bach wrote in his “Art of Keyboard Playing” circa 1750 that some players acquired their gifts through “the larceny of listening”. That phrase kind of stuck with me…post this experience, I realized that his negative attitude towards this was due to the “2 crimes in the physical universe” (Being there and Communicating) and that the primary factor in THAT was “duplication”. And had he had a more enlightened view, he should have been happy that others wanted to “duplicate” his inventions. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery and all.

        And no, I do not equate this to nirvana, heaven, or any “elsewhereness of bliss eternal”. It was “no mass, no wavelength, no location in space or time, with the ability to postulate and perceive.”

        It was also a “no game condition”.

        • Tom: “It was ‘no mass, no wavelength, no location in space or time, with the ability to postulate and perceive. It was also a ‘no game condition’.”

          Awesome. Thank you so much.

          I get that what you experienced was a state above Tone 40 where the scales of beingness begin at Serenity of Beingness. The operating basis of ARC, and all the scales describing its descent downwards into greater and greater condensation, concern existence in the physical universe; whereas, what you experienced (if I understood you correctly) is the “co-existence of static” – which, as stated in Axiom 25, is a state that the scales “fall away from”:

          AXIOM 25. Affinity is a scale of attitudes which falls away from the co-existence of static, through the interpositions of distance and energy, to create identity, down to close proximity but mystery.

          What I got from various references is that it is possible for a thetan to go up to “co-existence of static,” and then to again decide (postulate) to BE (as per The Factors).

          With regard to nirvana, what you described is actually the concept I had of it, i.e. that one could go “up” to co-existence of static and then perhaps to again decide to BE and go back to beingness. This is what I envisioned as nirvana and what the Buddha did. I’m not sure that is right, though, as I’ve done very little study on the subject. You seem to think it means something else. What is your concept of Nirvana?

          • Marildi,

            You are missing the entire point of this post, and what we have being blogging here.

            It is not a matter of denying that people experienced altered states or peak experiences through auditing. Or invalidating their spiritual insights maliciously.

            It is accepting Hubbard’s labeling, naming and attaching a story line to those experiences, which cements the mind control.

            It is Hubbard who misappropriated the experience by calling it such and such and by adding a story line to the entire spiritual route, namely space opera.

            Traditionally that has been the blight of religion. And that IS what makes people stupid. But to be fair it is also been done by materialist science and political philosophies as well.

            It is the story, the narrative that colors and covers up what actually happened and spins it the way the story teller wants you to see it.

            If you want to own your spiritual experiences, you need to label them your way, if you can’t, then you have to look around until you find an articulation that permits you to own and integrate your experiences WITHOUT mythology or pseudo-scientific labeling.

            Here is something from the Tao #1:

            The Tao that can be told
            is not the eternal Tao
            The name that can be named
            is not the eternal Name.

            The unnamable is the eternally real.
            Naming is the origin
            of all particular things.

            • Sorry, Conan. This comment should have been put in the general reply category, not a reply to you. Thanks for your post.

              • Mark N. Roberts

                Hi Marildi.
                Your comment that begins “Communication lines are severed in this fashion:”
                I cannot find it. Would you post a link to the comment or send it to me?
                Thanks, Mark

                • It was a quote I changed my mind about posting because it shouldn’t have been directed at any particular person, so I asked Marty to delete it. But here’s the quote, if you are interested in commenting on it:

                  “Communication lines are severed in this fashion: (a) by permitting so much entheta to flow that the group will close them or avoid them; (b) pervert the communication and so invalidate the line so that afterwards none will pay attention to the line; (c) by glutting the line with too much volume of traffic (too much material for too little meaning); and (d) chopping the line through carelessness or malice or to gain authority (the principal reason why lines get tampered with).” (HCOPL 9 Jan 51)

                  • Mark N. Roberts

                    Thank you much Marildi.
                    I see these efforts to cut and invalidate communication play out in real life most every day. Except for the word ‘entheta’, I can hardly see anyone having a problem with this paragraph. Some may say, “Why didn’t he follow his own advices” but then, that would simply prove the validity of the statement in the first place.

                    “(b) pervert the communication and so invalidate the line so that afterwards none will pay attention to the line;”
                    I have been a victim and perhaps a perpetrator of this tactic, even on this site.
                    Mark

                    • Right you are, Mark. And in most respects this blog is the best. But too often it falls short of what it could be, when people’s agendas get in the way of having a true dialogue take place. It’s discouraging – as it apparently is intended to be.

  20. I see it as being pinned down, with a flow only in one direction and the results for the individual end in negation of self, reality, awareness of others giving you a brand of ‘know best’ attitude accompanied by the arrogance of someone ‘feeling’ superior when, in fact, is so introverted that no real creation/causation/observation can occur.

    This posting clarified further things for me and, as noted a couple of times before, you make us LOOK and that continues to be appreciated Marty.

  21. This I learned thru Solo Auditing: 17 (trillion), 543 (billion) 789 (million), 368 (thousand) and 2 years ago, I was a personal friend of Xenu’s. We used to hang out together in what eventually became the Van Allen Belt. It was a bit warm but that didn’t bother us. What bothered us was overpopulation and underpaid taxes. Which profoundly pissed us both off. I came up with the ‘Airplane look alike’ transit plan while Xenu came up with the Volcano thing, and we co-authored the implant idea. Which led us to today.

    But that’s not the point. The point is that in searching the past I found the ScientologyTruth, for which I shall be ever indebted to Ron and David (and Xenu).

    Now the difference between joking & degrading, and humor, is no laughing matter. Lol.

    • Laughter!

    • In the meantime, Xenu’s wife (Xena) was sent to a mountain hideaway to slave away in isolation. She and Shelly Miscavige now work together, where they continue to tally up the galactic tax bill. It turns out the whole purpose of Scientology was to get enough money to pay off that bill to Markab, at which point Earth will be clear and we can all wake up and go about our normal thetanly business. That’s where all those billions are going that Miscavige has salted away. He finally realized that if you can’t beat them, join them; so he got the IRS to forgive the local tax dues so he could pay off the galactic fines and penalties. Another thousand years and we can breathe free. I confirm that this is the truth.

      • Back in the day, before she married Xenu, Xena was totally hot.

        We used to smoke pot and park in a cemetery outside of town in my transporter that looked just like a Ford Pickup truck.

        Then she met Xenu and got all “responsible”.

        Xenu, or Xemu, as we used to call him, got jealous of me and banished me to Teegeeack just so we could never get together again.

        I still think of Xena sometimes. She’ll make me go blind, I know, or pull in pictures of pain eventually. I know all that, but I don’t care.

        Xena was totally hot.

        Alanzo

    • Scientology subject is an illusion to me now, it’s a long fiction narrative sold as reality. Today to me it’s a sad absurd illusion, and it unfortunately takes up so much of my mental time still overcoming its mental impact.

      People’s clever humor about it all is so refreshing, thanks. Hilarious suitable co-inventive criticism. (Have you read “One Was Stubborn”? — I would like some dissection of that book in Hubbard’s mental history by some smart clever long term “OT” Scientologists who have looked at the whole Hubbard Scientology narrative and Hubbard’s fiction roots.)

      Today’s thread is particularly good.

  22. 17 (trillion), 543 (billion) 789 (million), 368 (thousand) and 2 years ago ..

    you found something very interesting .. is this Xenu’s so old .. maybe yes, or was your meter damaged ..

    So tell me how the meter knows how long a year is. Which period for a year you have used. Earthtime. Xenu’s time .. but there were about 70 planets around which had all different timespan for a year .. how did you calculate your numbers .. lets see .. with 17 trillion you are out of the current mest universe time .. you are one of the oldest guys here .. fantastic ..

  23. Great comments about Hubbard’s focus on self actualization.

    Have you read “One Was Stubborn”?

    It’s the LRH short story, science fiction, which at several points talks about getting up to this high level OT state of being able to create the universe in front of one. The story has the main character alone in blank space struggling to put the physical universe there to even be in the physical universe again.

    So there is in the “One Was Stubborn” story this viewpoint that one has to have the identity of something, still, stubbornly, and the book ends with that character coming back to earth in a different time of history.

    It’s an interesting look from LRH into some of the “states” I thought were similar to what we were supposed to be achieving with the highest OT states.

    I’d love to hear others’ views of the “One Was Stubborn” books sections that talk about that and similar thoughts to your blog thread today.

    I always in my years, particularly when I was for a short couple years at ASI, interested in discovering any of LRH’s writings that somewhat touched on OT goals, and getting oneself up to these supposedly highest spiritual heights.

    “One Was Stubborn” was the closest story.

    It can be bought cheap on amazon.

    • Mark C. Rathbun

      Yes, and thanks for the recommend. The volume also had another story that I think speaks well to Ron’s means or motives which I will post on in the near future.

  24. I have to give a plug for your 3rd book, particularly your chapter 24, “Back at the Ranch” of your 3rd book, “Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior.” That chapter is one of the most fruitful pieces of new raw history that is underappreciated for all your wrote about what Sarge told you about LRH’s final months of life.

    LRH telling Sarge that LRH intended to go circle a star, which I interpreted to mean LRH was self C/Sing himself to go do the OT running program around a star, this persistent concept of LRH thinking of himself at his own soul that could just eject and go circle a star, I think fits in as proof to the bitter end of LRH acting just like you say in this essay blog post here today.

  25. ” For the past twenty-eight years scientology’s leaders have been attempting to read Hubbard’s solo (self-administered meditations) sessions after his own passage through his highest published level. Because of the non-sequitur nature of the scrawl he left behind, they have unsuccessfully attempted to divine what levels Ron may have ventured into beyond OT VIII. The only thing they do purport to know for certain is this: those ventures were even further into the deeper past than even quadrillions of years.”

    This is a gem comment! Really appreciate hearing you say this!

    I had thought that people should read LRH’s solo case folders, and his zillions of years auditing himself.

    Just an excellent statement of what has gone on, thanks for doing this blog Marty! Appreciate it!

    I certainly have been one to think exactly along the lines you write here, hoping to find some meaning in LRH’s scrawl, but of course since I was NOT qualified to read his solo folders, all I could do is hope there was something in them of importance.

    Thanks so much for all your discussions.

  26. I think it should be repeated, but in your blog postings Marty, you say some truly historical important things that aren’t even in your books.

    I’m 62, but ex member comments like your comment today about LRH’s solo case folders being examined, is something that is new in the public domain as history relevant to Hubbard’s written output.

    Scrawl.

    And the Clear identity.

    Do you know if LRH self C/Sed himself to do the “OT running program” in effect, did he scrawl anything about his intentions to go circle a star like he told Sarge he planned? Or was his plan to circle the star only verbal?

    Did LRH tell Ray Mitoff, when Ray went up to Creston I think 2 weeks before LRH died, I further was curious (obsessed, granted) to hear what Hubbard told Mitoff and/or wrote of his “needed and wanted’s” in that final meeting(s) with Mitoff for LRH’s “case.”

    Just an excellent blog comments today. Hubbard’s whole language, even the Hubbard extensively used word “case” is specific to a person’s “ego”.

  27. And so, so far, some of the morals from the experience with Ron Hubbard and Scientology could be:

    1. Gurus and groups that assign identities and/or significantly deal with identities empower identities and empower ego, and, so, can and do produce a highly disempowered, entrapped and limited soul seeking, in a catch 22 way, to desperately gain empowerment.

    2. Gurus and groups that significantly deal with the past empower the past and empower MEST as the source and cause of one’s issues, which can highly dim and drown the soul.

    3. Gurus and groups whose format is dependency-on-them driven can and have empowered dependency and weakened a soul.

    4. Gurus and groups that offer what your past is about or the mechanics it contains usurp a soul’s universe and so prevents it from having the awareness and the power to make the changes one wants.

    5. A being who has been assigned the identity of a Guru will very likely be exempted from being checked for walking their talk (walking the walk), and even after their utter failure, the “wisdoms” that led to their failure will still be considered guru quality.

    6. A soul affected with a high degree of insecurity will likely attach itself and remain attached to a guru or group that promises the most attractive state of security that soul can envision: Godliness.

    7. Gurus and groups that produce any random (non consistent and frequent) great experience or experiences in the absence of connection to other sources of wisdom and growth and great experiences, will likely produce a fanatical loyalty to that guru and group, and blindness about other available, just as valuable or more valuable sources, including a disconnection from the most awesome valuable source: Oneself.

    8. Letting go of Scientology is a bitch🙂

    Regards,
    Luis

  28. “However, in scientology one is not permitted to take that self-actualization so as to transcend self and explore new horizons. Instead, scientology teaches that knowing oneself is not good enough; one must become someone else: the superhuman, ubermensch, operating thetan.”

    Exploring new horizons! Without the silly fixed-ideas of becoming a superthetan in a group of superthetans who are ruling the world and putting ethics in on the subhumans who populate this tiny globe in the middle of nowhere, one might actually learn something new.

    Stuck inside the bubble where every new idea must be validated by Mr. L Ron Hubbard and approved in writing by Mr. David Miscavige, one’s growth is severly stunted.

    I’m even getting a bit stunted by trying to fit my evolving world view into the framework of the Veda and Buddah et al. They lived in the past, their words often were interpretations by others and even interpretations of opinions of interpretations.

    That’s one good thing about L Ron Hubbard. He absolutely insisted that his interpretations of past sages were set in stone so that they could never be mis-interpreted by mere mortals. This setting in stone allows anyone with half a brain to call bullshit when they see it. No one can say, “he didn’t really say that.” Because it’s right there in writing. He seemed to be pretty confident in the rightness of his interpretations. He might have scanned for inconsistencies, hypocricy and outright contradictions.

    Weeding out the useful from the useless and even hazardous has been a long, arduous and incomplete project for me. Since I intend to continue counseling others (on my own terms) it seemed necessary. Sorting out what exactly it was that enabled me to have the wins I did have was a big part of it.

    The penchant of Ron followers to scoff at “other practices” is at the core of the cult, and at the heart of their inability to change and possibly exacerbates their ill health.

    Something my wife just sent me, I believe is a good example of my point.

    If you haven’t seen this, Mark, I think you might like it.

    Les

    • Thank you Les and thank your wife for sending this incredible video. I’ve ordered her book and am sending this to several friends.

      Windhorse

    • Really enjoyed that:) Reminds me of one of my favorite success stories
      of your wife auditing a child from 2009. She seems to have a brilliant grasp
      of creating a calming situation.

      “I loved my auditing every second we had a session. I even loved the last 2 minutes of a session in a fiery sauna!🙂 I really liked it when my auditor made me lemon poppyseed muffins and let me audit her! I know the things I learned will help me later on in life. I will miss her and her muffins and lots more stuff. (P.S. The sauna will make you burn up 1 second after you step in! :-))”

      • I’d like to comment on this delightful story.
        Were COS to have the care of providing lemon poppyseed
        muffins or equivalent to clients this forum may not exist.
        Were they to empower clients to deliver basic auditing
        as a simplistic instructional method this could be revelatory.
        I loved this child’s statements.

  29. vinaire: Lets say something. I spoke last days with my wife about this and that and she blamed me for not handling my mind about some fixations around her .. I told her that I have never at any time spoke a second about my trouble with her .. I said, I had never any trouble about, and had never any trouble with anybody around about which I should speak in a session ..

    She callled me crazy. and asked me for what I was ever in a session when I had myself no trouble myself to stay with all the trouble around .. but I could not give an answer. I have an answer, but she would not understand that ..

    It is simply she went up to OT VII and wanted to cause the life around her as a smooth environment for her wish. She did not reach her wish, and ask me .. but my state on the bridge is objectives ..

    What I have done on the bridge is her question. I do not know .. the only thing I know is that we tried correct my session before .. so on this way we tried finally to handle 200 to 500 sessions .. it means we handled at all time past sessions .. nobody has never handled ..

    Please give me an idea how I can go out of this desaster .. would like to hear some meanings about ..

    • Friends, the objective processes help one see physical objects as they are. This is an important aspect of Mindfulness Therapy.

      We need objective processes that help one see mental objects as they are. This part is missing in the Scientology bridge. It is partially covered in Data Series written by LRH, but it was not incorporated by LRH in auditing. But it is covered in Mindfulness Therapy (see the link to Memory recall).

      Because of this missing part in Scientology Bridge, the OTs produced are flawed.

      Hope this awareness of what is missing from the Scientology Bridge helps.
      .

      • Don’t you think OpProByDup covers this?

      • OpProByDub is a little bit stupid .. if you are fit for it, it is nice to do, but if you are not, you will hit your head against the wall .. or something will flew out of the window .. or the auditor gets knocked out ..

        I myself went well out of this process. But I should mention that I had real a very good auditor, very good ARC .. very good comm-cycle .. so all this repeating cycles were filled with livingness .. if you do it a stupid way it will never work ..

        vinarie: the objectives should bring you into present time .. so seeing the real things and this includes mental objects for my understanding ..

        I agree with you that LRH did not objectiv include Data Series into his auditing .. but I thought once he will give that with OT levels .. but now I know that he did not .. he figures on OT all again in another sphere but basically the same ..

        Lets say, when you have an engram .. you have basically an ARCX .. it means, when you hang up on such stuff you have basically an ARCX and hold it against another or others .. and you blame then others for overts against you .. this is the pattern of all Dianetics – or what? Today you should give up your postulate (sometimes million years ago) .. nobody ask you here from whom this postulate came .. was it really your own postulate .. or was it really a BT who reenforced you to look at the ARCX because he had also an ARCX with you ..

        Lets say, a BT is per LRH completely stupid and his only power consist of giving you thoughts .. nice work .. but as you say and said, you can put that completely out with mindfullnes .. not really a great problem if you are aware about of the mind and physical environment ..

        But lets say if all is in good order about objectives .. there is no reason to audit Dianetics or BTs .. you are right for my view .. because you should clear where a person went illogical or (Data Series) where he went out of sense to himself ..

        Lets say in addition: I have never done the OT levels. If I had read from LRH the OT III message, I had said NO .. that is bullshit like mad ..

        After reading about for a long time in the internet .. it is still bullshit, but I understand more why people did take this as reality .. it is as you said, this guys have no pbjective realisation about her own minds .. they are all in a figure figure situation about believing in LRH rightness ..

        There was never a BT in the sense of LRH .. there are a lot of BTs around .. but none of them will harm you .. they are all only ARCX when you miss they communication .. or misinterpret it in a wrong way ..

        • Friend, your analysis of OT levels is spot on.

          On Scientology OT Levels, simply substitute the word “entity” by the word “mental object” and you will understand that the OT levels are an effort to look objectively at mental objects.

          It seems that a spiritual entity is a “definition–logic circuit.” It is a programmed loop that can be activated to run independently. It seems to be part of programming at macromolecule level.

          When brought into awareness of a larger context, this circuit levels out automatically and becomes absorbed into the larger context. It no longer functions as an independent loop.

          Sometimes this circuit is more complex and needs to be followed up like outpoints and narrowed down to the basic why. This is covered in “Mindfulness 11: Contemplate thoughtfully.”

          It is not necessary to assign any more significance to these entities or circuits. Leveling or resolution of such circuits may be accompanied by sensations and pictures but once they are gone that’s it. The content of those pictures does not matter. OT levels seems to assign unnecessary significance to such sensations and pictures.

          “Auditing” of these entities can just be limited to contemplation as described above. They are not “beings” that needs to be audited per the Grade Chart.

          • Vinaire: Friend, your analysis of OT levels is spot on .. please see, I am trained to be an OT (to some degree) .. I am a Shaolin .. I am trained to realise the objective and also being able to change it per my own wish ..

            Can I do that really in present time? To some degree yes, on the other side not so good .. but surely I know what it really needs to go on the route for being OT .. and be OT ..

            What I mean is basically simple, as a Shaolin you learn the objective for a millisecond .. and then you expand your time span about .. if you do so, a tiny thing becomes really big .. and you get a lot of space ..

            It means in my view, that an engram or BT can not exist as an entity or unconscious whateverness because it would blew up for themselves ..

            If you do that right, you can read minds of others as easy as your own mind ..

            So, I have looked at lot of OTs in my past .. they all were convinced that they can read minds. I can read minds easily (no problem) .. but I would never go around and telling that to others .. it is not good ARC to do so ..

            So, I read the minds of the OTs too .. but they found that I would have a heavy reactive mind and lot of walls where they cannot go through ..

            Intererestingly. Lets say why. Once an OT run this thing on me like mad, I had not the slightest feeling that he touched me really. I said to him that he damatize only his own mock ups about his mind .. not my mind ..

            This OT became ill next day .. and they found out that his last interview was with me .. so I have degraded him as an OT .. but I could stand that comfortably, but I found out that I was much more OT than all people around .. the guy did simply cave in on his own lies .. this only because of giving him his own flow .. one of the simplest thing to do in Shaolin .. it is not eval .. it is simply reject eval ..

            I have never done such again. I knew now that I can do something really which they only wanted to do .. thought what they can do, but couldn’t ..

            I have never seen a Scientologist who could read a mind. I am sure that LRH could do that very good, but he was never able to teach others how it is properly done .. so he used an e-meter for help .. but this device has failure on the most important parts ..

            • “So, I read the minds of the OTs too .. but they found that I would have a heavy reactive mind and lot of walls where they cannot go through ..”

              I would say that they are looking through their human-centric and Scientology generated filters. The ability to read other people’s minds depends on a lack of filters.
              .

        • Friend. I have seen your struggle. You do not have to answer these questions, but maybe when you are ready you can answer them yourself.
          Do you want to be a Scientologist?
          Do you want to be married to one?

          I certainly would not recommend anything to you. I will tell you that you have choices.

          • This is just hypnotism crap from Babybunker.

            • Bawwwwwwwwwwwwwhahahaha Vinnie.. I am a realist. These are questions that therapists ask.

              What the F*ck does asking yourself these questions and evaluating for one’s self ..balancing the pros and cons remotely any part of hypnotism?

              That is absolutely ludicrous ..
              I was married to an alcoholic. I had to ask myself hard questions.
              Did I want to continue to be married to an alcoholic?

              and unlike Scientologists I do believe we only go around once and need to just grab that brass ring and Live our life to the fullest.

              If it takes a professional mental health therapist to guide us..So Be It.

              • Are you running therapy on this blog?

                • Vinaire said..” Are you running therapy on this blog?”

                  Yes Vinaire I am. You can call me Dr. Phyliss ( Dr. Phil reference) That will cost you $50.00

                  Are you Running Your Blog on This Blog?

                  • Hello Dr. Phyllis (Babybunker) I’ll up it to $100. I’d rather listen to you than pay attention to the re-worded scientology look alike philosophy blog that Vin continually pushes, imnsho. Plus, you’re more real and fun!

                    • Oh you got a deal deElizabethan. Step into my office. Absolutely correct on your assessment. Thank you for your support.

                  • My effort is to simply understand this reality. Most people just accept it and live happily hypnotized.

                  • When you look at Scientology, you are looking at just the tip of the ice berg of hypnotism.

  30. Marty,

    This is an excellent essay, I think one of your best, as it summarizes the paradoxes that Hubbard stuck Scientologists with.

    To begin with I find the idea of selling Enlightment repulsive, and totally counterintuitive.

    To be fair to any well-meaning auditors, I think they should stick to the therapeutic parts of Scientology, and leave the esoteric, “mystical” OT levels out. Attempting to profit from this scam, without even understanding what’s really up, is to continue this cult predatory behavior.

    As far as “achieving”, “returning” or otherwise “attaining’ Native State, is a demonstration of the complete lack of common sense and analytical composure that Scientologists demonstrate.

    A careful study of Axioms one to three, will bring a clarification as to the fact that one does not move, return or achieve any state, in time or space. Rather one simple ceases to ignore basic awareness or project attention into something else.

    That both actions, ignoring and ceasing to ignore are essentially what we do, could be easily ascertained by simply looking around to ancient and well established wisdom systems.

    Assigning causation to Hubbard or Scientology for one’s state of being is a sure way to oblivion. Why not simply own up to who we really are?

    Scientologists continue to stupefy themselves by swimming in the little pool Hubbard build for them, while there is an ocean out there waiting to be explored.

    Peace and Enlightment to all.

  31. Animals are simply aware, whereas, humans are aware of being aware.

    “Awareness of awareness” translates as:
    (1) Introversion
    (2) Intelligence

    Animals are less introverted than humans. They are also less intelligent. However, not all introversion leads to intelligence. Introversion may lead to depression and psychosis also.

    “Awareness of awareness” is therefore a two-edged sword.

    Mindfulness is the practice of seeing things as they are. It leads to control of introversion. In introversion one is looking at mental objects. This is very close to the basic nature of the mind. Depression and psychosis shall occur to the degree mental objects are confused with the mind itself.

    Animals see physical objects as they are without introversion. Animals are less intelligent because they cannot perceive mental objects.

    Humans are more intelligent because they can see both physical and mental objects. Problems with humans is the confusion that may occur between the mind and the objects being perceived.

    Humans can be made more intelligent if the negative aspects of introversion are eliminated by improving the ability to see mental objects as they are. This is where mindfulness comes in.

    • Laughter! You aren’t going to let it go are you? Until you are certain you have become the leading expert on animals and their awareness, mentality, psychic conditions, etc.

      Basically you are saying that structure monitors function. And if you take up a certain kind of body, you will have bad karma or different capabilities or handicaps. For you to postulate such axioms, your fundamental premise must be that structure, monitors function.

      Now, having changed the color of my hair several times, I will allow for some truth in this. I got away with things as a blonde, that I never could have gotten away with as a brunette. My weenie dog is not going to be cooking breakfast tomorrow. But when you say things like:

      Animals are less introverted than humans.
      They are also less intelligent.
      Animals see physical objects as they are without introversion.
      Animals are less intelligent because they cannot perceive mental objects.

      It just makes me suspect either you have not spent much time in the company of animals, or because of some early teachings about “cast systems” you have ideas in place that hinder you from understanding the supernatural.

      The beings in animal bodies are the same as the beings in human bodies with the same potentials and handicaps.

      Some animals are more intelligent than some humans.

      Show me a ten week old baby that can ring a bell.

      If animals were not capable of introversion they would not care for their young. They have a sense of duty for a reason. There are adult humans that are not so mindful of their children and of other people’s children.

      • Neither structure monitors function, nor function monitiors structure. Evolution may give impression of one or the other, but they actually go hand-in-hand. It is a human-centric fixation that spirit and matter are separate.

        Your opinions are interesting but not convincing.

        .

      • Vinnie..Vinnie Vinnie.. I am an animal lover. You are wrong about animals on so many levels. I’m with Oracle on this one.

        • Is that supposed to be a logical argument, or is that an attempt at hypnotism?

          • Ok.. What is up with the hypnotism crap?

            • Do you expect me to just believe you on your say so or what?

              >

              • Or what

                • It seems like you are insisting others to accept your reality, without you having any clue to how you arrived at that reality in the first place.

                • At least I am looking at how I may have arrived at my reality.

                  • Vinaire. I do not have to look at how I have arrived at my reality. I know. And I continue to learn. And I continue to inform.

                    I have never insisted that others accept my reality.
                    ” Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is false, what is fictional, or what is abstract.” Wiki

                    Yes..I am a real person. I post on blogs. I am retired. I have doggies. I feel happy, sad, angry, content, entertained, frustrated depending on my mood.

                    and as Neil Diamond wrote for his song, ” I AM I SAID.”

                    I have arrived at my reality through the trials and tribulations in my life..and living in the present. I have few regrets. I have made amends to those I have hurt. I am loyal to my friends. I am spiritual. My life has not been perfect..nor is it now. That is my reality.

                  • Excellent. But please don’t make others wrong by saying such things as. “You are wrong about animals on so many levels.” unless you are ready to back up your reality fully.

                    • In my Post I said..
                      ” I’m with Oracle on this one.”

                      Meaning.. I agree with Oracle and you can review what Oracle said that pertains to you being wrong.

                      Vinaire… to say
                      ” unless you are ready to back up your reality fully.”

                      I DO know what reality means. I do not know what you mean by this statement. I don’t talk like that.

                      Are you asking me to give you facts regarding why I feel that you are wrong on so many levels about animals?

                      If you are then again refer to Oracle’s reply. That is a great answer.

                    • This goes for you as well as for Oracle: A hypnotized person can be very sure about their reality being right. Scientology emphasized certainty with no room for doubt so Scientologists could feel that they were right and others were wrong.
                      .

                    • Oracle has a fixation on “function monitors structure”. That is datum from Hubbard.

                      Function and structure go hand it hand. They monitor each other. You cannot have function without structure, cause without effect, or spirit without matter. The elements of these pairs are not separate from each other. They cannot stand alone as absolutes.

                    • Vinaire says to Baby..

                      “Oracle has a fixation on “function monitors structure”. That is datum from Hubbard.”

                      Answer. I refuse to discuss another poster with you.

                    • But you said you agree with Oracle’s post! Do you agree with “function monitors structure”? That was the basis of Oracle’s argument.

                  • Vinaire said..

                    1.”This goes for you as well as for Oracle: A hypnotized person can be very sure about their reality being right.”

                    ****I will not speak for Oracle. I can only speak for me. *****

                    Answer: Vinnie.. I give opinions. They are my opinions. I have done my homework on many subjects. I am not the smartest woman I know, but I do know where to get information when I need to.

                    When I google something I give the person or the site where I received this information credit.

                    I agree with Oracle and stated so. Period.

                    2. Scientology emphasized certainty with no room for doubt so Scientologists could feel that they were right and others were wrong.

                    Answer: I am not a Scientologist and never have been. I am disconnected and well informed.

                    When I make a statement I am giving an opinion. You do not have to agree or disagree. It is an opinion that I am sharing on this blog.

                    • So, your opinion was “Vinaire is wrong on many levels” Is that all?

                      You refuse to provide any basis because you are well informed. Is that what you are saying?

                      You then say that Oracle’s arguments are good enough for you. So, is “function monitors structure” your argument too?

                    • Vinaire I do not have the time or inclination to answer many of your points that you made regarding animals.

                      There is much scientific evidence to indicate otherwise.

                      You stated that animals can not perceive mental objects.
                      Animals have been tested neurologically to determine that they not only dream, but their dreams are complex.

                      This is one of so many articles written about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition

                      Let’s put this argument to bed. It serves no purpose.

                      Apparently you want me to apologize for hurting your ego. I don’t like to hurt anyone..but I won’t agree with someone because they are using manipulative tactics to do so.

                    • Dogs have bad dreams too.

                    • Dreaming, just like reactivity, does not necessarily mean that dogs recognize mental objects the way humans do.

                      >

                    • BB, there is something called relativity. Absolutist thinking does not work. You are trying to interpret what I said in with absolutist thinking. Do animals dream the same way as humans?

                      >

              • “Do you expect me to just believe you on your say so or what?”

                Why would you suspect her of being a liar about her own understandings?

                Why should you believe anything you can not perceive yourself? Maybe she can perceive things you can not. You aren’t bitching because you don’t get menstrual cramps.

                I get it that you think less of animals and want to believe they are less in theta. Maybe you enjoy the Tandoori more than we do.

                • Study hypnotism, mindfulness and the power of resolving inconsistencies.

                  >

                  • It is absolutely exhausting discussing anything with a ” Right Fighter.”
                    ( One who has to be right ALL THE TIME)

                    I left a link to animal cognitive thinking and all you chose to discuss was their dreams? You talk in circles Vinaire.

                    Circular reasoning, thinking or logic? I don’t care what you call it.. has all the hallmarks of a Scientology mindset. BLEH

                    • Can you tell which one of us is the one who has to be right ALL THE TIME? … WITH TOTAL CERTAINTY?

                    • ” Can you tell which one of us is the one who has to be right ALL THE TIME? … WITH TOTAL CERTAINTY?”
                      ………………………….
                      I’m sorry I can not hear you over Marty’s chuckling.

  32. Marty calls L Ron Hubbard out on his focus on the past in his scientology where it once was about bringing people in the present

    God may strike me I I am wrong.

  33. If Marty has a better “Best Duet ever ” I will submit to his choice.

    Marty(Mark)Rathbun cutest man ever ask Monique😉

    Yes Mark I am without shame, but here goes:

  34. I have concluded that scientology is akin to an Ebola-like viral pandemic.

    It consumes its host and then dies its own ignominious death.

    Hubbard’s legacy, destiny and destruction began a long time ago. Caligula-like megalomaniacs don’t have happy endings. They always seem to violently want to foist their bullshit on the rest of the world. Ugh!!

  35. From Tech Dictionary definitions, LRH seems to degine Morals correctly. However he goes off when defining Ethics.

    Per the link provided by Val, it makes sense that Ethics is an effort to study and evaluate morals from the perspective of the present. However, LRH takes ethics in a different direction altogether. He morphs the subject of ethics to his own reasoning.

  36. One thing I find puzzling is that in a state achieved by some, at least in the days when pc’s could have wins, is the erasure of one’s time track. All is in present time, which aligns nicely with other schools of thought. Yet even after reaching that state, one is pushed in further auditing to look continually into the past, which no longer exists. This creates a while new bank to work with, therefore there can never be an end to dependence on further auditing.

    • Mark N. Roberts

      Having full use of and understanding of the past is quite a different thing than the so called bank.

      I have full recall of and a good understanding of all the occurrences of yesterday afternoon, but I don’t dwell on it.
      Mark

  37. Thank you Marty. What you say is true.
    As of a few years ago I thought that to sort out my mind I would eventually need to ‘go back’ etc. Said another way – The way to handle the present difficulties is to deal with the past.
    I don’t think so anymore which is a great relief. However I do find that much of my mental time is still spent re-analyzing and overcoming the scientology indoctrination/brainwashing/hypnosis but it’s getting better.
    A few days ago I figured out a little trick to mindedness which is working wonderfully. It’s multitasking but this is better then nothing. Lots of times during the day I take a moment to hear everything I can around me. I can do it while doing other things.

    In ‘going back’ I had a hard time with Dianetics. Not only did I not like the book at all but I was never interested in running it – waste of time. Phoenix lectures and the data series were my start. After OT III (OT IV and sec checks) I refused to run my case OT III style. I figured after a while there must have been a big note in my PC file about it as I did not have to keep explaining myself as to why not and I never again did. When I got the ‘not clear’ R-Factor I figured this may be why until 99% of my friends got the same R-Factor.
    Ruds and FPRD were useful to a degree. It gave me the reality as to where the masses came from so I could handle with-out the auditor. I still think it would be nice to SOLO and handle Ruds now and then.
    Thank you for all your work un-raveling this. I’m going thru my early studies and getting the exact quotes which caused me my problems. Interesting to read LRH with my ‘me’ viewpoint. The outpoints pop out.
    LRH was a very cleaver man. He had a dangerous understanding of the human mind – enough understanding he could trap souls. I believe he did it for fame and money. He said a lot of poetic things too – kinda like some men I’ve known I’m glad I never married. Now I know It’s is always best to view a persons products to gauge their true intentions. The internet helps, so do all you guys yacking on it🙂

    • Cece wrote:

      “A few days ago I figured out a little trick to mindedness which is working wonderfully. It’s multitasking but this is better then nothing. Lots of times during the day I take a moment to hear everything I can around me. I can do it while doing other things.”

      This is a great technique. It really puts you into “present time”.

      Here’s a refinement of that technique that takes a little more concentration:

      1. While listening to the sounds around you, pick out one sound and focus on it.

      2. Differentiate and carefully examine:
      a. the actual physical source of the sound,
      b. the air as the medium in which the sounds are traveling through,
      c. your physical ear and the nerve channels, etc on which the sound is traveling into your brain,
      d. and the consciousness that is listening/watching/perceiving/interpreting all this.

      3. Separate, identify, and sort out the nature of all these as different entities.

      4. Submit a book report to Marty’s blog on what you find.

      Or not, depending on what you’d prefer.

      It’s a great exercise.

      The first time I tried it, it blew my fucking head off.

      It’s from The Abhidharma.

      http://buddhism.about.com/od/sacredbuddhisttexts/fl/The-Abhidharma.htm

      Others here are probably more familiar with this than I am. But it is one of the things that I have done to confidently place Scientology in the rearview as a source of anything spiritual for myself ever again.

      Alanzo

  38. There’s one truism that LRH never clued in on, IMHO:

    ‘Live by the sword; die by the sword.’

    His ethics ‘tech’ (on weird religious steroids) sure proved that out The end game is everyone declared SP.

    Welcome to the crowd…

    • “That which you fight you become…”. “that which you resist you become…”
      I hear it said a number of different ways in a number of lectures.

      The underlying mechanic being that by “fighting” something, one introduces alter-is-ness and not-is-ness, and thus persistence.

  39. To continue the thread.
    “To be or not to be” – I always thought of Hamlet as a Prince who should have looked at the wealth of his kingdom. Why be a melancholy Dane?

    • I’ve been re-studying Hamlet, and this time going through I see nothing but bad parenting.

      His mother marries her dead husband’s brother weeks after her husband dies (killed by that same brother). And then she just expects her son to deal with it.

      She offers really no coaching or help of any kind. Not even so much as a locational!

      And the newly minted husband actually plots to have Hamlet killed. What kind of a step father is that? True, he gets an instant family and this provides him a little stress, but come on.

      And then Polonious is a huge factor in his daughter Ophelia’s tragic suicide, basically calling her a whore for being in love with Hamlet.

      This time through, I see “Hamlet” as nothing but an onslaught of madness and murder from one generation down onto the next.

      Hamlet = Bad parenting.

      Probably the worst possible parenting ever.

      Think about it.

      Alanzo (:>

      • but realize that Shakespear wrote it down with the intention that you get the idiotic game .. you should spot the idiocity .. and he made it clever in a story for YOU .. it seems to me that you needed some time to spot the joke which lies in Shakespears Hamlet .. he reviewed to you a joke which he has seen .. a lot of movies today do the same .. not as good as done from Shakespear ..

        • Friend wrote:

          but realize that Shakespear wrote it down with the intention that you get the idiotic game .. you should spot the idiocity .. and he made it clever in a story for YOU”

          Oh yeah.

          Drama is nothing if not presenting a joke for you to spot.

          There is so much to spot in Shakespeare!

          What I like the most, from the point of view of a writer, is how justified his characters are for every move they make.

          You can clearly see WHY they do every single thing they do, every single thing they say. It’s as clear as day, and as inevitable as sunlight.

          And not only that, you know people in your own life right here today who have done and said those exact same things.

          Hamlet is like every college student I’ve ever known. Polonius is like every father I have ever known. Ophelia is as innocent as any woman has ever been.

          It is such a satisfying thing to immerse yourself in Shakespeare.

          Alanzo

  40. UPDATE: Contrary to previous posts, Chimp vs. Human DNA is proving to be less than 98% identical or similar. It appears to be more like 95% similar.
    https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/dna-similarities/greater-than-98-chimphuman-dna-similarity-not-any-more/

    • DNAs form macromolecules that have enough electrons in their combined outer shells to act like molecular computers. Here lies the basis of life.

      Transition from regular inanimate molecules to animated functional molecules happens through molecular computing ability.
      .

  41. vinarie: I am totally with you. Compassion comes only when SerFacs are gone. LRH was carrying quite a few SerFacs

    I said it in the Mike Rinder blog once, that LRH went on SerFac after his Rhodesia tour .. I went quite heavily under critic about .. mostly about my bad english .. I have tried to give the correct meaning of my post .. not so successful .. anyway ., it is true for me that LRH went on SerFac himself, and so he invented some ethics stuff which he never used before .. so he put in lower conditions and defined suppressive person .. in some way it was a way to knock around .. because he was knocked around himself in some ways .. so you have the SerFac .. it is my view ..

    Doesn’t matter really, LRH gave never a lecture about lower conditions, it was following simply a game for finding and handling guys who do not want to follow his path .. why he should give a lecture about? It would be very good work if he had done this – but he did not do this ..

    The WHY is for me that he fooled himself down in a SerFac .. gave some sloopy words about and let everyone alone with the meaning or sense of it and the practice ..

    After that, everybody could get down to say: You are a liability .. not saying for what or why .. erasing non-exsistense and danger ..

    LRH has never watched the way what happens when a stupid person calls you as a liability .. he has also never watched was he has caused with his Scientology Ethics .. I mean he is right in some points, but everybody know that without his advice .. but he gave his additions about PTS/SP .. which is also good enough .. but he has never give good advice about, so that all people can spin around about this .. but by the way, it is all SerFac ..

    In past I wrote LRH a letter about ..

  42. Yesterday I spent a whole day studying spiritual entities. I took a good look at the SRT site:

    http://spiritual-rescue-technology.com/

    KHTK looks at a “spiritual entity” as an interesting inconsistency. It seems that a spiritual entity is a “definition–logic circuit” as part of some macromolecule. And painful memory is part of this circuit that is messed up and acting as a loop.
    .

  43. Marildi said: “Great comment, Mark. I have had the same views, but haven’t expressed them as well. Thanks for that.”
    In reply to Hubbard being many people, and to look at what part of Hubbard draws attention from different people.

    Thank you, Marildi. The quality of words used can draw attention to the message being put forth. Sometimes the beauty of the words is the message. I think of that as poetry and prose. Care must sometimes be exercised to prevent the beauty of the words from overpowering the communication itself. But as an editor you understand this well.

    Just hope my messages stick in the back of some people’s mind. To put a bug a few ears is all I hope for.
    Mark

    • MarkNR: “Care must sometimes be exercised to prevent the beauty of the words from overpowering the communication itself. But as an editor you understand this well.”

      You may be saying the same thing as what I recall LRH saying (I wish I could remember where). It was something to the effect of him not wanting to resort to the use of aesthetics and thus essentially “overwhelm” people with its use in order to convince them of his ideas – rather than having them actually look at the ideas in themselves.

      So I was surprised some time after that when I read the issue “Clean Hands Make a Happy Life” – which is a piece of poetry! I think the aesthetics of it do give the message more power – in that it makes it more likely to communicate – not that it overpowered the message in the sense of obscuring it. Maybe I didn’t quite duplicate your meaning. Put a bit more aesthetics in it. (joke😀 )

      Btw, I do understand writing better when I’m wearing the hat of an editor than with my own writing! Which I suppose isn’t unusual. That’s why even the best, and best-selling, authors have their editors.

      • Editing. From Wiki
        “Editing is the process of selecting and preparing written, visual, audible and film media used to convey information. The editing process can involve correction, condensation, organization, and many other modifications performed with an intention of producing a correct, consistent, accurate and complete work.[1]

        The editing process often begins with the author’s idea for the work itself, continuing as a collaboration between the author and the editor as the work is created. As such, editing can involve creative skills, human relations and a precise set of methods.”

        Editing is a creative skill. It is not defined as the destroyer of communication, or the natural enemy of the writer.

        Hats off to you, Marildi. And you also, Marty, whose work sometimes includes this valuable skill.
        Mark

        • Thanks! Good quote. I’m what’s called a “copy editor,” which doesn’t necessarily include all the things listed under “editing.” But I have found it does involve “creative skills, human relations, and a precise set of methods.” I enjoy it a lot. It’s definitely a collaboration, and there’s a synergy that occurs between the writer and the copy editor.

          Hats off to you too for all your writings!😉

  44. Maybe it was addressed but I didn’t see it. If MissCabbage has not had auditing to speak of, how did he get to OT VII so he could look at the OT VIII papers? Or even the OT III issues?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s