Good vs. Evil

 

Choosing a side and then obsessively resisting against another side causes one mental and spiritual dissonance.  One doesn’t get relief from one’s dissonant self by changing sides and carrying on with resisting.  Agreeing to resist and then resisting is the trap.  Many a trap sells jazzed up forms of resistance.  Inspection of the salesmen on either side of most dramatic conflicts shows close parallels to those whom they invite you to resist.  Intuitive people can even perceive their similar exuded discordant wavelengths.

An easy mark for resistance recruiters is someone who has been deeply conditioned to resist.  Such folk are sitting ducks for re-enslavement by entrainment. Resisting against that which you once resisted for appeals to the denialist mind looking for return to the seeming comfortably numb stasis of two-valued thought.  It is the lazy, short-sighted condition experienced by those practicing denialism.

Both sides in denialist conflict depend upon one another for the continuation of their chosen crusade, in some cases even for their very identities.  All the while what you consider of the other side is precisely what it considers of you.  In the world of scientology this week while the post ‘Scientology’s Vortex of Hate’ was current, a prominent scientologist twittered that those interviewed in the documentary Going Clear were akin to ‘Nazis’ talking about Jews.   Meanwhile, one of those alleged ‘nazis’ publicly dropped the same ‘N’ word on scientology twice.   Two-valued logic thinking prevails: black vs. white, right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, God vs. the devil, America vs. the Nazis.

It is a game where everybody ultimately loses. Into the matrix one goes joined with and thoroughly dependent upon his nemesis for his very continued being.  One can even wind up difficult to distinguish from his enemy in terms of language and behaviors.

Transcending is often accompanied by some discomfort and some new thinking; and that requires a tad of courage.  The mechanics are similar to those employed in addiction rehabilitation.   The way out of the matrix is not paved for the pack-minded weak.  That is not to say it requires great effort.  It does require some discipline to learn the skill of letting go.

The simple minded on both extremes of the scientology ‘war’ will no doubt deal with this as denialists do with reason.  It will likely be categorized with a label convenient to stopping thought or contemplation, like ‘a call to apathy’, or ‘lack of compassion’ or ‘an apology for the enemy.’  For those perhaps capable of looking beyond the most immediate emotional impulse, and appreciating nuance and paradox, I leave you with a passage from the Tao Te Ching.

Nothing in the world is as soft and yielding as water.

Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible, nothing can surpass it.

The soft overcomes the hard; the gentle overcomes the rigid.

Everyone knows this is true, but few can put it into practice.

Therefore the Master remains serene in the midst of sorrow.

Evil cannot enter his heart.

Because he has given up helping, he is people’s greatest help. 

True words seem paradoxical.

77 responses to “Good vs. Evil

  1. The passage from Tao Te Ching is a perfect example of “power versus force.”

    • “The way out of the matrix is not paved for the pack-minded weak.”

      Write that one down. Remember it. It’s good!

  2. Well said Marty. Happy Easter to you and all your family & friends.

  3. In a word – astute.

    And an awesome Tao Te Ching quote. I was especially struck by this part of it:

    “Because he [the Master] has given up helping, he is people’s greatest help.”

  4. This is equally applicable to the struggles going on in one’s own mind and life – to sacrifice or blossom. What lies at the root of resistance?

    CoS, and some indies also, see speaking one’s mind and sharing one’s truth as an attack. If you just choose yourself and share your truth, others are bound to resist that. Do you say such people are also caught in this web? How? When there are two roads, we can always take the third.

  5. CrashingUpwards

    Hi Marty. I very much embrace “letting go” as a way forward for handling addiction, hate, disappointment and most of what ails us. Letting go is not giving up. Its growing up. Rising above the false self of ego and pride. Nice article. Thanks. Happy Easter.

  6. knatherthomas

    Thank you for the calm. Love the Tao quote.

  7. So true. To be truly free one is in a place of no time, no thing, no body… in this state we are exterior to problems, people or things. No ridges, no negative evaluations, ….. just being. A place of love, empathy, a free flowing energy … peace. Here is the place of true freedom, the place we all ‘really’ wanted when we started this whole journey.
    Taking sides, as you said, equates to being stuck. …. no fun for me …. thanks for the great post.

  8. Words of wisdom. I do wish the new Indies would apply that to what we call the Free Zone. We aren’t all squirrels, and mostly good people. Only a bit of a culture difference because we got out earlier that the rest of you did and had similar but different experiences. I would love to see some unity, because the Annual Free Zone Convention is coming up in June in Reno and it would be great to have a good turnout. Speakers are always wanted, to, you can contact reyrrobles@gmail.com for that.

  9. What if imagining the “Scientology War” as a dualism was a use of dualistic thinking?

    What if “both sides” of the “Scientology War” were not two sides at all, but as many “sides” as there are people involved in it?

    Just because you can imagine a position in the middle of two extremes does not make that middle position more true than your imagined extreme positions.

    The proper use of the mental construct of a spectrum, with “extremes” on each side, was to organize the frequencies of light from ultra-violet to infra-red (or gamma rays to radio waves) in text books. And that use of a spectrum was actually high frequency to low frequency, and never “right extreme to left extreme”.

    Even the mental constructs of “low frequency” to “high frequency” are not an accurate or complete perception of the true nature of light, but only came about because of the machines we use to measure it. There is nothing actually “extreme” about the nature of ultra-violet light, for instance. It is only the use of the mental construct of a spectrum that makes it so.

    People often use the mental construct of a spectrum to organize the world in their minds without knowing it. The use of a “right extreme to left extreme” spectrum to organize political ideas, from “Communist extreme” on the Left to “Fascist extreme” on the right, was a catastrophic use of this mental construct which has crippled critical understanding of the differences in political views.

    The mental construct you use to organize your understanding of the world changes the world that you see. Hubbard’s use of scales, from high to low, and theta to MEST, for instance, was a manipulative trap he used on Scientologists to color the world that they saw, and felt.

    There are no right and left extremes in the “Scientology War”, and thus there is no Middle Way which is truer by reason of being in the middle. A spectrum is only a dualistic mental construct which determines that you will see a right and a left extreme to everything where none actually exist.

    Alanzo

    • Alanzo.
      Your post reminds me of one of the definitions of intelligence.

      The ability to assign relative importances.

      This can be an infinite scale with no absolutes. Every bit of information, and every group of information, and every genre of info can be evaluated on its own merit.
      Mark

      • MarkNR wrote:

        “Every bit of information, and every group of information, and every genre of info can be evaluated on its own merit.”

        The bottom line is that you should be aware when you are using a mental construct to understand and organize the world, because that mental construct will determine what you see, and what you don’t see.

        Alanzo

        • The trick is to be able to dissolve all the mental constructs yet still have use of all the knowledge. A worthwhile goal.
          Mark

  10. Such is the paradox of loyalty. Loyalty itself is a two sided coin (not two valued logic) that can steel your discipline and keep you on a worthwhile track, or it can trap one in a descending spiral of overts and self conflict.

    Loyalty TO another terminal or group can be quite hazardous. Loyalty WITH a terminal or group implies two way communication and responsibility. Blind loyalty is obviously a bad thing as demonstrated recently by Scnts and other groups in the last few thousand years, but it is entirely possible to associate with an ind or grp. One key is by recognizing the individual parts of a terminal or the particular individuals of a group. By working in and around your 3rd dyn sectors to correct, repair and improve it’s activities, internal conflicts can be dissolved. Like water. But like water, it can be consciously directed and active.

    With knowledge and understanding, dissonance can be allowed to pass through yourself, or directed in order to improve understanding and resonance with those around you. ALLOWING and DIRECTING can be intelligently balanced. Loyalties can be chosen, improved, and discarded with intelligence while maintaining ones integrity.

    Life for yourself and with others can be happy, productive, and worthwhile.
    Mark

  11. Marty, if I were your editor and your friend, I would sit down and have a talk with you. As I can’t pretend to be either, I’m just going to lay it out as succinctly as I can.

    Look at your last two paragraphs, just before the Tao quotation. You’ve used two phrases — “the pack-minded weak” and “The simple minded on both extremes” — that make you sound arrogant. Then you’ve used a more complex phrase, “For those perhaps capable of looking beyond the most immediate emotional impulse, and appreciating nuance and paradox,” that suggests something about yourself and your worldview that I don’t think readers are likely to find attractive.

    In passing, “simpleminded” is usually written as one word, though the hyphenated form “simple-minded” is also pretty common. The comma between “impulse” and “and” should come out. You’re describing what “those” are “capable of” — i.e., looking and appreciating. There’s no structural or logical convention that supports a comma here.

    I don’t know if this is how you want to come across. I’m just telling you, as I certainly would do if I were your editor and your friend, that you’re sounding more than a bit like L. Ron Hubbard here. First you dismiss a certain group of people in derisive terms. Then you suggest that there’s another group of people — people on your own level — who might be capable of grokking your points. And in the process, you suffer a couple of trivial, all-too-human lapses that suggest maybe you could benefit from having a second reader, a fresh and sympathetic set of eyes on these things before you hit the “Publish” button.

    You’re a fine writer and a smart guy and you really should put yourself out there in written words as effectively as possible. I’ll tell you exactly what my own editor said to me once: I don’t think this is the direction you ought to be going.

    • Mark C. Rathbun

      Thanks for the advice. I don’t know why you’ve waited three years for the grammar lesson, unless you think it is degenerating here. As to the substance, it would be important were I still engaged in trying to win friends and influence people, and assuming I did not already know that ‘tech.’.

  12. I like that post as with every post on your site. I also like pretty much everything you have posted that I have read so far over last few days while catching up on the “Scientology situation”

    Some people would use that post as an excuse to not do the right thing. Or to do nothing. They won’t get it.

    For those seeking to end Scientology as a Religion and those trying to preserve it. Below are the actions that will not bring about your desired result.

    1. Take sides

    2. Keep you attention on the problem

    3. Know your enemy

    4. Oppose your enemy

    5. Promote yourself

    6. Repeat 2-6.

    I also think it is OK to do 1-5 but just don’t get stuck by adding too much of any of 2-6 without being able to transcend. And of course be able to re-evaluate 1.

    https://the0andthe1.wordpress.com/

  13. Indeed takes a lot of discipline and practice; it hasn’t been easy for me and many others, but as long as we don’t see this as a ‘war’ then one should not be fighting against, nor resisting the enemy. That places you in an enslaved position and a pre-determined behavior.

    It’s better the concept of let it flow while experiencing the ‘now’ in life.

    • Marty has demonstrated that the ‘can’t have, must have’ towards Scn and anti Scn can be dissolved.
      Mark

  14. I very much agree with this. It was my own mental resistance to the idea of Scn claims being grossly exaggerated that led me to suspect my reasons for believing them. Its something I automatically scan for in others; I guess most of us do.

  15. one of those who see

    The true path. I had a similar thought to Richard Grant. However, you have come under attack from both sides of “the war”, and I have not. Therefore I want to say this is the most humble way. First, there are no words strong enough to appropriately validate you in that in spite of all you have been through and are still experiencing you can embrace the wisdom you write about. I am on a similar path. Reading the words of Lao Tsu, Buddha, listening & reading Eckhart Tolle and presently reading sri ramana maharshi. Maybe the negative descriptions should be dropped and only the teaching be communicated. such as this. “Choosing a side and then obsessively resisting against another side causes one mental and spiritual dissonance. One doesn’t get relief from one’s dissonant self by changing sides and carrying on with resisting. Agreeing to resist and then resisting is the trap.”
    by dropping the derogatory descriptions, you will become even more transparent and light. There will no longer be a target there.
    Thank you. I hope you know how much you are loved by so many.

  16. I tend to agree with Richard. I view the burgeoning community of ex’es as individuals who are each somewhere on the spectrum of recovery from Scientology.

    You have succeeded in de-constructing it much more rapidly than me. I have taken nearly a quarter century to arrive at my current understanding, which continues to evolve, thanks in part to your thoughtful posts.

    I would just add that several years ago, I came to the realization that my actions on behalf of Scientology were akin to those of a Nazi, and that, quite honestly, remains my view today, as hard and as painful as it is to admit and confess my complicity with evil.

    That we may redeem ourselves through words and deeds is this lifes’ saving grace.

  17. Mark, would it be fair to say that the Zen monk / punk-rock bass player / author Brad Warner is making the same point as you are here?

    http://hardcorezen.info/memories-pizza/3469

  18. Another great post mate. Your last one about the Vortex of Hate inspired my latest story so i hope you don’t sue me for plaguerism, lol. http://www.answerstofreedom.com/you-attract-what-you-put-out/#more-2581 If only the other high profile ex scientologists used their knowledge like you do to educate rather than riducule and fight scientology only….

  19. Michael Fairman

    I would think apt illustrations of what you describe would be the Nazi/Jewish, Arab-Muslim/Jewish dynamics. Actions, attitudes and behavior on all sides unfortunately make your points.

  20. Margot Diaz Learned

    Thank you Marty for once again cutting through the nonsense. The documentary stirred up some things for me and I was feeling that moving on was not enough, I needed to contribute to “the fight.” But you made me remember when I was working undercover on squirrels for the GO back in 77-78 and I realized that we didn’t have to DO anything. They would just fall off on their own. Too bad I couldn’t carry that thought forward at the time, but here we are, so many years later, and “The Church” will hoist with their own petard and we do not have to involve ourselves in any hate vortexes!

    That said, I did sign the petition to take away their tax-exempt status because I believe that they really should not have it. I also would like to help any others who are out and feel they need to talk to someone and I find myself wanting to sort out what I know works from what doesn’t and follow the thread to where these ideas came from, which sounds like you have done quite a lot. It’s an ex-auditor thing for me. I didn’t want to take the time, but now I find that it is important to me and will only increase my understanding.

    I really liked your interview on Vice. Thanks again.

  21. How ironic that it would have been Corporate Scientology’s most loyal foot-soldier, Dennis Clarke, who in e-mail exchanges before the 2004 election, taught us all the folly of choosing sides in politics and its entrapment structure as a GPM (Goals-Problem-Mass – in Scientology, the structure of oppositional forces discernible in the mind). For me this was like a free session off the Clearing Course/OT II materials, and I went free that moment from a life-long obsession with politics, wherein I had wandered onto both extremist ends, at one time or another.

    I also began to perceive justice as never before. I began to unconsciously recognize the folly of Hubbard’s “ethics” system, long before I would admit its disastrous product to myself. At least I was able to mitigate it administratively for a while (when Flag External Security Chief, Kathy True told me – also in 2004 – “we don’t break up families” – I took her literally at her word, from that moment on).

    This made it that much easier to walk away from the “love-hate” and “us-vs.-them” that had dominated Scientology Inc’s thought-control and propaganda since 1965, honed to an advanced state of hatred and paranoia by its Chairman of the Board of the quasi-religious Corporation.

    Losing my family – not by my own choice – was painful. But losing that kind of cult-think is to gain awareness of a priceless freedom.

    Scott Gordon
    former DSA CCDallas; DSA Costa Rica

  22. Great article Marty. Some time back you
    wrote about the ability of “letting go” and
    the power this can give you. Thanks!

  23. Thank you Marty for doing what you do. I am grateful and most appreciative.

    I read your post last night then this morning I read my Course of Miracles lesson for the day. I used to be surprised by how often something I read of yours in one moment then something I read in the crs in the next would have so many parallels, now though, I have come to expect it. Following is an excerpt from today’s lesson.

    “Although you are one Self, you experience yourself as two; as both good and evil, loving and hating, mind and body. This sense of being split into opposites induces feelings of acute and constant conflict, and leads to frantic attempts to reconcile the contradictory aspects of this self-perception. You have sought many such solutions, and none of them has worked. The opposites you see in you will never be compatible. But one exists.

    “Problems that have no meaning cannot be resolved within the framework they are set. Two selves in conflict could not be resolved, and good and evil have no meeting place. The self you made can never be your Self, nor can your Self be split in two, and still be what It is and must forever be. A mind and body cannot both exist. Make no attempt to reconcile the two, for one denies the other can be real. If you are physical, your mind is gone from your self-concept, for it has no place in which it could be really part of you. If you are spirit, then the body must be meaningless to your reality.”

    http://acimi.com/acim-lessonoftheday?l=96

  24. Personally, I find that even when habitual thoughts have been eliminated, habits of thinking can and do remain far longer and have far deeper roots. It seems that it is human nature, and so, it is important to relate to such an insight first and foremost as a mirror, for self-scrutiny, and only secondarily as a lense, for scrutiny of others.

    Knowing oneself by virtue of “not being like them” is a very common pitfall — but it is always an illusion, in my experience. And yes, it is easy to take that mindset with you while leaving behind identification with a certain group or movement or way of being. Self-awareness is a humbling experience — too often it is distorted into a process of confirming for oneself exactly how one is better, smarter, more powerful, or more enlightened than others.

    Self-skepticism is a very useful ally on the path, IMO.

    • Excellent point, CV.

      Alanzo

    • C.V.
      Perhaps ‘Human Nature’ is actually habits of thinking. Just maybe they, too, can be discovered and resolved. Just maybe.

      Well, a man’s got to have a dream.
      Mark

      • Mark, I have reflected on this idea for while now, because you touched on an idea that was my lodestar in my twenties and thirties. Transcending the limits of human nature. Trying to be more than human, or more fine and awake and in tune with … rightfulness .. than what is considered “human nature”. I rode that horse for a time and it took me far, but it eventually tired and broke down, because it could not be sustained by a real life as a whole person, and I was left to find my way under my own power. After all of that, this is what occurs to me: There are those, mostly Mystics/shamans, trippers, and quantum physicists, who would say that reality itself is just a habit of thought, and perception and all the knowledge it produces — all we see and hear and know –simply an element of human nature, much more so than it could ever be an inherent quality of material reality.

        I don’t resist such ideas, but at some point, I think you have to choose whether you are willing to participate in life or not. If you choose to live, fully, then your human nature and your innate habits of thought are not things to be overcome per se, they are your guides on the path and the curriculum you are here to use to learn. Being incarnate means accepting the limits of human nature and human perception — that is not something to fix or to repent or to figure out how to redeem or escape in some way. Instead, it is something to embrace, cultivate, and use as the medium for all that we would be, and know, and become. That’s just my take on it, at 45 years old. I still have so much to learn, thankfully…

        Thanks for your reply, it was excellent food for thought!

  25. What Marty says here is true as I have observed it. Getting stuck in “the enemy game” with an obsessive “I’m right, you’re wrong, I will win, you will lose, I will live, you will die, etc etc etc” is the oldest game in the world and it is continually played out on our planet every single day on every continent. It is an ultimately useless game as it destroys all who play it. Ultimately everybody loses, even when they “win.”

  26. Mark C wrote:

    “Resisting against that which you once resisted for appeals to the denialist mind looking for return to the seeming comfortably numb stasis of two-valued thought. It is the lazy, short-sighted condition experienced by those practicing denialism.”

    I hope you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but this point of yours seems awfully close to the assertion Hubbard made about the “Goals-Problems-Mass”. Where the warring participants who are being for and against an item were robotic members of a bank dominated mob, unconsciously dramatizing some long gone memories in their “reactive minds”.

    So any kind of debate or conflict could be discredited and made disinteresting to the Scientologist, and people whose positions you disagreed with could be dismissed without a second thought as aberrated and low-toned people just dramatizing their “cases”. Nothing to see here, just people dramatizing. Move along….

    Am I close to the point you are making?

    I can tell you that, for me personally, the “Scientology War” began when I realized all the things that I had been lied to about Scientology and L Ron Hubbard in order to make me into a Scientologist and get me to work for them for free, and to pay huge sums of money, etc.

    For me personally, it was important to expose the information people needed on the internet, because the media had been shuddered into silence by the people working with David Miscavige at the Int base.

    I thought this was a valuable activity, and not just a dramatization of my GPM case because we could create a situation where people could no longer be lied to and de-frauded by Scientology, and the criminality and abuses in Scientology could finally be exposed and prosecuted.

    Was I just dramatizing my “GPM” case there? Being for something and then being against it for no good reason?

    Was the Scientology that I was FOR when I was a defrauded Scientologist, really the same Scientology I was AGAINST once I found out the truth about it?

    Alanzo

    • Mark C. Rathbun

      I wrote what I wrote and now you’ve written more than I originally wrote attempting to interpret it. My earnest advice is to learn to let go.

    • Alanzo.
      You are asking the right questions.
      Mark

    • Alonzo – dare I use this word? … judgement.

      There is a difference between being against something, exposing an injustice, standing up for what is right, etc ….. and … being obsessively stuck in opposing something to the point of building up masses and then residing as a being in a band of anger and hate and then even begin to act out the attributes that one was initially opposing … and so on and so on.

      Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, MLK, Lincoln, are great historical examples of men who DID in fact oppose injustice and for decades WITHOUT getting stuck in the above phenomona.

      You know, Ron wasn’t wrong about EVERYTHING. (an acknowledgment still works wonders, even when you can’t speak the language as I[m discovering on my current trip to Spain).

      • Joe wrote:

        “being obsessively stuck in opposing something to the point of building up masses and then residing as a being in a band of anger and hate and then even begin to act out the attributes that one was initially opposing … and so on and so on.

        No one actually exists who fits this description in the “Scientology War”, as Marty describes it.

        As long as the criminality and abuse in Scientology remains ready to harm others, you are going to see very responsible and good-hearted people speaking out against it. That is not an “obsession”, nor is it motivated by “hate”.

        This is a mis-characterization of people and their motivations and their inner feelings, and it began as a way to discredit them and to distract from what they have to say.

        This mis-characterization and slander of good people should be examined and set aside. When you speak out against Scientology, Joe, are you “obsessed”? Are you filled with “hate” as your motivation for speaking out?

        When you speak out against Scientology, why do feel you are different from others who speak out – the people you mis-characterize and degrade in this way?

        Alanzo

        • Alanzo – you misread my post.

          I was not characterizing YOU or any other specific individual who speaks out against the CoS as doing it obsessively or in a self derstructive way. Nor did I intend to degrade any person’s efforts to spread truth and right wrongs.

          I was merely pointing out the line that is often crossed, resulting in the phenomena that Marty was writing about.

          Of course, it is an admirable act to stand against injustice and abuse.

          • Joe wrote:

            “Alanzo – you misread my post.

            I was not characterizing YOU or any other specific individual who speaks out against the CoS as doing it obsessively or in a self derstructive way. Nor did I intend to degrade any person’s efforts to spread truth and right wrongs.”

            Well this is part of the problem, Joe.

            Not one single person can be pointed to as an example of this phenomena of “obsessive denialist hate” that supposedly motivates peoples’ behavior in the “Scientology War”.

            It is simply a dismissive generalization that is a straw man. It does not exist in fact.

            If so, please provide specific examples. I’ll bet you $10 that, upon inspection, this stereotype that Marty occasionally runs on critics of Scientology will evaporate.

            Alanzo

            • Alanzo, frankly I don’t have the interest in playing the game of making specific people wrong on this issue or in pointing out specific people who manifest the phenomena of the subject of this blog entry. I regret that you are taking this whole issue as a personal charge against your own activities in regard to your criticisms of Scientology as no one on this blog has made that charge to my knowledge.

              But so that my comments are not taking as just a generalization, I can only suggest that you read a few days of the comments on Tony Ortega’s blog and you will see what I am talking about. I do check his blog every day or two as I find it very interesting and informative. About a year and a half ago or so, I made a comment after Claire Headley’s talk on the upper idocs. I just wanted to correct an impression she had made about the “yelling at ashtray drill” and what it was intended to address. Just the fact that I was granting the drill some worh and purpose brought a shitstorm of comments down on me as some sort of plant or troll. I was accused of “defending’the insanity”, being an OSA operative and you would have thought I was Miscavige’s valet or some such. Then someone posted that I was an actual “critic” and so immediately I got some sort of “legitimacy” or bona fides and the attacks ended. But I then understood the mind set of the general tenor of the posters …. attack … attack … ridicule …. etc etc etc As much intolerance to another viewpoint as they were accusing the CoS of. I got it, no big deal, don’t have time to read all those comments anyway.

              If this phenomona is not real to you on this issue or you simply disagree with it as some sort of misdirected accusation, then OK. I understand. I have no problem with you having a different viewpoint on this. In my own universe, I’m not even sure I’m completely right about this, it’s just my own take on what I’ve observed.

              • Joe –

                I know exactly what you are talking about when you cite the comments section of Tony’s blog. I, too, have been accused of being a SCIENTOLOGIST! over there more than once for doing exactly as you did.

                Not kidding.

                But their motivation is not hate. That is such an ignorant and alienated way to see the intention behind the responses of the many different individuals who behaved this way to you.

                Each one responded to you for their own reasons, and those reasons had much more to do with your own than any description I have seen in Marty’s posts about it – if that is who Marty was talking about. (He never says)

                The one thing that all human beings have in common are the feelings of disgust and disrespect for those who disagree with them on religious, moral, and political matters. Disgust and disrespect are the common feelings among both democrats and republicans for each other, for instance.

                Human beings have disgust and disrespect for those who they disagree with, and respect and admiration for those who they agree with. And this is no matter the religious, moral, or political stance. All humans feel those feelings for others on matters with whom they agree and disagree.

                All kinds of degrading attributes are assigned to those with whom we simply disagree.

                I think that you and Marty, and believe it or not – ME – agree that not everything in Scientology is bad or destructive. But that does not make the people we disagree with on this filled with denialist hate and stuck in a GPM.

                Saying that is only a way to degrade others and the views with which we disagree. It will never bring about greater understanding on anyone’s part.

                I’m no Gandhi, as you know, but I did read this book once which opened my eyes to this.

                It’s called “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt, It’s on the subject of moral psychology, and it really kicked my ass.

                http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/home.html

                As commenters on Scientology, and staunch critics of the subject like Marty is, this book goes right up our skirts.

                That’s what I think, anyway.

                I’ve gone on and on again on Marty’s blog, and I appreciate his patience with me, and his tolerance of my criticism of his views.

                Alanzo

                • Alanzo: “The one thing that all human beings have in common are the feelings of disgust and disrespect for those who disagree with them on religious, moral, and political matters.”

                  Al, “disgust” and “disrespect” may in fact be forms of hate, although perhaps milder. More to the point, though, I don’t think it’s true that all human beings have those feelings towards those who disagree with them on religious, moral and political matters.

                  Marty himself, In a recent interview about the *Going Clear* documentary, expressed his views about LRH, Scientology and Miscavige, and on every one of those subjects there was no sign of disgust. And in fact, he expressed respect where respect was due.

                  Even when it came to Hubbard and Miscavige, I got that he had an understanding of the why for their tragic downfalls – and there was no sign of hostility in his bearing.

                  As for the practice of scientology tech, he was more than fair-minded about both the benefits and inherent pitfalls. With respect to the pitfalls, he even granted that if scientology were ever to be “viable”, scientologists would need to “integrate, evolve and transcend” (reiterating what he has said on this blog).

                  As for the church itself, the criticism he expressed wasn’t any sort of mocking of the beliefs (like some critics relish doing), which he said could be taken as allegory and parable, and he pointed out that this country allows religious freedom no matter how strange it may seem to others (paraphrasing him). Per my understanding, Marty’s only real problem with the church as a religion is its deplorable tactics with regard to the rights of others – the members, the press, etc. – to criticize or express dissent.

                  That’s my take, but here’s the link for you to make your own interpretations: http://www.vice.com/video/talking-to-marty-rathbun-former-senior-executive-of-the-church-of-scientology-665

                  • Actually, the fact that Marty did not express hostility, even in spite of all he has personally been subjected to, makes your point that there doesn’t have to be hostility or any form of hatred in criticism.

  27. Well, I thought it was interesting that this very morning we’ve been disconnected by someone I had thought was a friend. He just couldn’t tolerate being associated with anyone who didn’t hate L Ron Hubbard as much as he hated L Ron Hubbard.

    You know Jim Jones was very much in favor of racial integration. I absolutely HATE Jim Jones and everything he stood for, therefore I am obliged to preach segregation.

    In my mind, no small part of the freedom to walk the middle path is the freedom from hate and the freedom from adulation.

  28. There is nothing wrong with taking sides. Not taking a side is taking a side. There is nothing wrong with not taking a side.

    The problem lies in attachment and hate, in arrogance and disrespect with regard to our taking sides.

    Standing up for a principle is integrity. Standing up for one’s point of view when other’s are trashing you can be courage.

    It is all in the attitude. If we argue with respect and intelligence than knowledge is gained.

    If we argue with ego and self righteousness than only war remains.

    Sides can’t be avoided. The whole cosmos is built on duality.

    It’s hate, arrogance and ego that muddies up the waters.

    Resolution of conflict demands that a conflict exists first. The conflict as a resolution, based on intelligent dialog, then becomes insight and more right knowledge.

    • But with true believers, those who believe in the absolute rightness of their group, sides are the ramparts in which to launch attacks and war: demonization

      To the wise, sides are an inevitable opportunity for growth as a result of a synthesis of ideas through dialog.

      To the ignorant, sides are are the enemy.

    • Oracle, I love this women! Thanks for posting/

      • I am very fortunate, that during my childhood, I had my older brother to take care of. If I had only myself to think about, neither of us would have survived. I think a lot of us pulled though this in that way. Thinking and caring for other people is not a bad thing at all. I have taken a lot of criticism for caring about other people. When you attack someone for caring, you may be attacking a foundation they need to face another day. A little mercy here is not such a very bad thing to ask of people. For some people, it is the only thing keeping them going. It is not easy for some of us, to have no mercy towards another human being. If we were capable of going that way, we would not be here today.

      • You know, about a year and a half ago, the day before Thanksgiving, we found a small dog hiding under a trash can in a bad rain storm. We bought him in. He was a very “bad” dog. Very bad. After six months I even tried to find a new home for him. He terrorized my family. A few people wanted to take him, and I just thought I should not give up. He bit my other dogs, chased my kids. I mean, he was impossible. I held out a few months longer, that dog turned into the most loving creatures we have.And I have a pack of dogs. Now, he is giving the other dogs pedicures. I just went to the fridge and who was up in the middle of the night waiting for me? He was.

        Everybody is doing the very best they can. Mercy is a potent force.

        Scientologists are hard ladies to please. The Ex Scientologists are impossible to please. Just from my post as a muse. To please everyone is an unattainable goal. That is true for all of us.

    • I love the Hepburns in general:

  29. Hi Mark. Just finished watching the documentary on HBO. Towards the end you said in your interview that “you constantly die deaths”, and that when you are confronted with who you once were, you are in fact ashamed (don’t quote me on those but I think that’s the gist).

    I just felt the need to tell you that you do not have to live in that shame anymore. When you are confronted with your past choices, remember that you are forgiven. You aren’t forgiven because you’ve reached a certain level of thought, or because you’ve die those deaths. You are forgiven because Jesus died that one death, and because he rose again. You are dearly loved, and my prayer for you is that you would live in the freedom of his love. That his love would be so great that it would silence all of those lies from the accuser, and you would no longer be burdened by the shame.

    • christianscientology

      Hi LFit

      Your post particularly caught my attention. From what you write you are obviously a Christian, have you also been involved with Scientology?

      It is true that we are forgiven, however to experience that forgiveness it is necessary to enter into a personal relationship with God, for without that personal relationship one would see no value in the concept of being forgiven by God.

      I agree God’s love is so great that it silences all the lies from the accuser, but it is my experience that for the majority of both Scientologists and ex-Scientologists they are not open to receiving God’s love through the Lord Jesus Christ.

      I would be glad to communicate with you some more. My e-mail address is pip_threlfall@yahoo.co.uk

      Yours sincerely
      Pip

  30. Decency, even the Devil keeps his contract.

  31. http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2014/03/shelly-miscavige-scientology-queen-de-throned

    GONE GIRL? David Miscavige, in September 1998, in Los Angeles. Inset, his wife, Shelly, who some former Scientologists believe is in exile., Large photograph © Robin Donina Serne/Tampa Bay Times/ Zuma Press; inset courtesy of Renata and Claudio Lugli.

  32. Sir, I just watched the HBO special on Scientology and I must say, I am impressed with your intelligence and bravery in coming out and getting away from those dangerous lunatics.
    Scientology is a fraud, a con and an abuser of humans and should be shut down before they have their ‘Jonestown’ moment.

  33. Unicef seems to be the flipcoin to Scientology.

  34. Hi Marty, I became aware of you and this site through the movie Going Clear. I then read L.W.’s book and I’ve just purchased your biography Memoirs. I have no personal knowledge with Scientology, but I’ve had my experiences with abuse and manipulation. I’ve also been part of religious/spiritual groups with members who saw themselves as superior and created they own nomenclature. I see that when you mix those two you get quite a cocktail.

    I love your post, particularly the last sentence and the Tao Te Ching quote. I borrowed some lines to use on a post on my own blog. I honour you for allowing grace into your life after all your challenging experiences. In my book that is a sign of grandness.

    Tori

  35. This is fascinating. I do not necessarily expect a response, although your insight would be incredibly useful for me and others:

    Are you aware of the Cathars (Catharism) and Neopythagorianism? It is now widely known that Hubbard was influenced by Thelema, OTO and other secret societies and esoteric philosophies — even if his work was presented in a distinctly ‘scientific’ manner. To what extent do you think that Scientology, in terms of its philosophic inclinations, has any relation to the Cathars or the Neopythagorians?

  36. Thanks Marty.

    This seemed to echo the many new thoughts I’ve been experiencing while reading “How to See Yourself As You Really Are” by the Dalai Lama.

    Interesting, in my point of view, to deconstruct past opinions and attitudes, yours or not of Scientology, Catholicism, politics, etc., in the attempt to find yourself after falling in with a line(s) of thought, true or not, and never examining yourself to see if that is truly who you are and what you really think. Hmmm, sorry that seems to read as a bit of circular logic, but I’m right in the middle of it (the book) and am experiencing major change simply by reading it.

    “Nothing in the world is as soft and yielding as water.

    Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible, nothing can surpass it.

    The soft overcomes the hard; the gentle overcomes the rigid.

    Everyone knows this is true, but few can put it into practice.”

    I will continue reading and perhaps take up the practice recommended here, and in the book. I’m weary of the burdens of anger and rancor and am seeking to give them up.

    After all, practice moves us closer to perfect🙂

  37. Amazing commentary today. I had not read that passage from the Tao te Ching in 20 years, but seeing it again, set up with perfect context, made my day. Your blog has been changing my perspective on so many areas of life. Thank you for sharing your work.

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