Defending the detrimental makes you an accomplice

No beating around the bush here.

Read Anette’s post on her blog, then consider this:

Lives are ruined in the Church of Scientology. Every day.

The root cause of the harm done in the church lies within Scientology itself. No matter how you want to twist and justify what’s going on in the church, there is no way that the church could end up doing this much harm while it has in its possession the ultimate tool to do everything right. There simply has to be one or more root causes within the teachings of Scientology itself to make this cult evolve as it has. And the root cause(s) is not “misapplication”, “lost Scientology knowledge or tools”, “bad management”, “bad policy” or “a faulty ethics system”. There is something very wrong with the basic Scientology mentality. The mindset. The fundamental approach and principles.

Because if the fundamental principles, approach and mindset was sound and right, the decent people in Scientology would have straightened out the scene a long time ago.

So, if you are knowledgeable in Scientology, it lies within your powers to help uncover the damaging root cause(s). To convince others there are none or to defend the infallibility of Scientology makes you an accomplice to the crimes committed by the church.

And if you have gotten gains in Scientology. If you know it can do good, you harbor the motivation to uncover the reasons within Scientology that perpetrates the damage to people’s lives. Because if you want to save the good before the subject becomes dreaded beyond repair, you need to be quick on your feet to find the evil within and root it out before the good suffocates.

Let’s get to the bottom of this, let’s dig out the harmful parts to help stop the harm, save the good within and again focus completely on helping others.

933 thoughts on “Defending the detrimental makes you an accomplice

  1. Same with Christianity. Same with Islam. Same with a lot of stuff. If you look at Scientology as a test then it is up to each individual to pass it. LRH posed the question at one time: Did I do right or did I do wrong? And the condition you find yourself in at the end will be your answer.

    1. LRH: “Did I do right or did I do wrong? And the condition you find yourself in at the end will be your answer.”

      Chris: Yes, this will be the look back for us all if we care to judge ourselves in this way. However, within the framework of Scientology, this is the disingenuous hypnotic disclaimer placed in everyone’s head to introvert them away from taking a critical look at Scientology itself. It is the trickiest trick in the book, methinks.

      1. Methinks too 🙂
        Its like: “You are the only one responsible for yourself, but if you do as we say you will get supernatural powers, if you don’t you will burn in hell for endless time, and if you criticize us we will ruin you utterly”.
        Hah hah … it’s so close to mafia actually: “If you pay us the cut you will not get your shop on fire. Did I do right or did I do wrong? And the condition you find yourself in at the end will be your answer”

        1. Vinaire ““I” exemplifies the digital nature of this universe probably.”
          Probably? Are you guessing.? yes or no… Since every universe is unique….? think of that and please let us know …

      1. Are you talking about two different concept? When one is doing good I don’t believe that is introvertion.. on the opposite… one is looking at the Universe around one and not thinking of ones failure!
        But again looking no matter what still is the MEST and inside or outside= these are just considerations same as I am doing good, I am doing bad.
        Don’t look for failure within the church since failure EXIST in each individual in their own track and the failure is their accumulated counter-postulates which held them back… So lets get off the blame wagon… and move up to take responsibility for self because that alone counts and the rest is crap.. just passing the buck.

    2. One of the striking, clanking, startling life changing realisations for me when I got off OTVII and out of the CofS in 2008 was that for all that was promised in ‘the game where everyone wins’ it just didn’t work out well for anybody. The wreckage of lives was like a horror story. So Dan…..we did wrong…..and with the best intentions in the world.

    3. I don’t think it is the same with Christianity or with Islam. I think this is just a way of dispersing your attention away from Scientology and what it was set up and maintained to do to people.

      For instance, lots of people murder people. But because lots of people murder people, this doesn’t mean that Joe didn’t murder Bill.

      Scientology was set up and maintained by L Ron Hubbard as a deception which exploited the spiritual vulnerabilities of people in order to take everything of value from them that they had. Yes, there have been other spiritual deceptions in history, but few like Scientology.

      Geir is right: Defending the detrimental (or trying to disperse peoples’ attention away from it) makes you an accomplice.

      Alanzo

        1. Here’s LRH’s definition from Chapter 19 of APA:

          DEFINITION:
          Responsibility is the ability and willingness to assume the status of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics.

          There is no compromise with full responsibility. It lies above 20.0 on the tone scale and is descended from in order to effect randomity but is descended from with the full knowledge of its assumptions. It means responsibility for all acts, all emotions on every dynamic and in every sphere as one’s own. It includes such “disrelated” data as the death of an individual one has never met on a highway on which one has never traveled at the hands of a stranger no matter how culpable.

          One does not send to find for whom the bell tolls without full willingness to have tolled it and to have caused the cause of its tolling

          No.

          This definition of responsibility is the source of much abuse in Scientology. It is used to make the people who have been harmed by Scientology “take responsibility” for the abuse committed against them. It is the source of the doctrine in Scientology that you “pulled it in”.

          This definition of responsibility is probably the reason Mike Rinder sustained over 50 beatings by David Miscavige, instead of just one.

          This is why Sea Org members and other staff stay in Scientology long after they have seen everything they need to see to know that Scientology does not do what it says it does.

          This definition of responsibility is not why a person is an accomplice if they defend the detrimental in Scientology. You are an accomplice because the people who have been harmed by Scientology need the detrimental things exposed and addressed, not covered over by assigning cause to effect.

          This definition of responsibility confuses and obfuscates cause with effect. People who operate on it become totally co-dependent and blind to source points and cause points in their environment, and they become stuck to every problem they encounter because they mis-assign ownership to them.

          This definition of responsibility leads to complete insanity.

          Alanzo

          1. For full context, this is what follows the excerpt you quoted:

            “There is a Scale of Responsibility between Full Responsibility and Full Other-Responsibility where the former is above 20.0 and the latter is at 0.0. Complete negation of responsibility is complete admission of being under the complete control of the environment. Assumption of Full Responsibility is a statement of control of the environment and persons within it without necessity of control.

            “There is a cycle of responsibility. One acts and seeks to negate his responsibility for such action by placing the ‘reason’ at another’s door. This works as long as one succeeds in making another accept responsibility for the action. The moment this action fails and another does not accept it, the entire action comes back at one. It is then a matter of fault and fixed (by another) blame and stirs the emotion of guilt. Before this cycle begins, there is no aberration, no matter WHAT has been done, no matter WHAT has happened to anyone. The action occurs but is no cause for discussion or justice until one seeks to shunt cause elsewhere than self. This starts the cycle and eventually comes back as fault. Full responsibility is not FAULT; it is recognition of being CAUSE.”

            1. Thanks, for the extra context, Marildi.

              Let’s apply this to the 5 year old that Geir mentioned and the pedophile priest.

              Is the 5 year old really responsible, but only apparently not responsible, for the acts committed on him by the priest?

              If we make the Priest responsible, are we really “shunting cause elsewhere”?

              And even if the 5 year old “takes full responsibility” for what the Priest did to him, and saw how he was “cause” in this situation, isn’t that just a little insane to you?

              Just slightly?

              It would be a clear case of obfuscating cause and effect, right?

              There is an assignment of responsibility here that is objectively true, without regard to Scientology ideology, don’t you think?

              Alanzo

            1. Absolutely, Dave.

              I really enjoy discussing things verbally with you! You are an extremely intelligent and highly reasoned individual.

              Especially when you agree with me.

              Alanzo

    4. “And the condition you find yourself in at the end will be your answer.”

      Yes, and if you follow the core effort of Scientology all the way out, then any condition you are IN is a bad condition. Conditions are the product, you are the creator. You shouldn’t be IN a condition.

      Scientology is about disappearing the physical universe or at least disappearing from it. That disappearing will likely be seen to be a harmful condition to whatever remains involved.

      The constant problem with Scientology is the AMBIGUITY within the thousands upon thousands of truisms and claims.

      Example:

      The purpose of Scientology is to improve conditions.

      Right. What conditions? Whose conditions? For how long? To what purpose? It is a meaningless, and ambiguous concept until you answer those questions.

      What will improve conditions for a theta being versus a composite being of MEST and theta? Is there even a good reason to improve the composite’s conditions? Wouldn’t it be better to simply disconnect the theta being from the whole shooting match, even if it means that the composite being will sicken and die? Shouldn’t death be celebrated when someone who has done all the processes of Scientology finally exits the game?

      1. Maria: The constant problem with Scientology is the AMBIGUITY within the thousands upon thousands of truisms and claims.

        Chris: Pivotal problem with Scientology. Well put.

  2. Compare Scientology (or Chriatianity) to Buddhism, and you’ll find out very quickly what is wrong at the root of Scientology.

    .

      1. I shall give you THE FALSE DATUM of Scientology that is embedded in Scientology Axiom #1, and which is expressed here in Scien tology 8-8008:

        “One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the tone-scale. One declines into a brotherhood with the universe.”

        There goes love, compassion and kindness in Scientology with the US versus THEY thinking of THETA-MEST theory. MEST does not come from theta to entrap theta. Individuality does not merge with MEST in Nirvana. That is Hubbard bullshit.

        Theta and MEST are two aspects of the same system. In Nirvana there is neither MEST nor individuality to serve as the boundary. There is simply no boundary.

        .

            1. Vin: Is individuality the absolute as Hubbard made it to be?

              SP: Where did you read that? What I understand from what you quoted, is that unlike some other spiritualities, SCN does not assert that a thetan is naturally one with ‘the’ universe, an he is certainly not ‘the’ universe’s child either.

            2. Spyros, Do you have to read Hubbard to know the truth?

              IHMO, truth depends on absence of inconsistency. Hubbard is not consistent where fundamentals are concerned. This is explained on my blog under Scientology.

              Thetan is a theoretical absolute postulated by Hubbard, and, as such, it is part of this universe. This is because all mental considerations are part of this universe.

              .

            3. Vinnie: “Thetan is a theoretical absolute postulated by Hubbard, and, as such, it is part of this universe. This is because all mental considerations are part of this universe.”

              You are obviously conflating the map and the territory. Your assumption that they are the same object of knowledge is simply an arbitrary A=A.

              Now of course you have every right to postulate and believe the map and the territory are the same thing, as long as you keep in mind it is simply one of your axioms, something assumed as true without proof.

            4. Vin,
              I didn’t say I supposed you had any misunderstanding. I did say that in your thinking you seem to make no distinction between “the map, and the territory”. A “map” is a mental or symbolic representation of some reality that exists apart from the map. Some people consider them to be 2 different objects. The “reality” may or may not also be a mental construct, but if it is, it is not the same mental construct as the map.

              By some kind of sleight of hand you seem to reduce, everything existing, first, to a “mental construct”, then you equate all mental constructs rather than differentiating between them. This is not Buddhism. I think most Buddhists differentiate many different levels and qualities of “constructs”. And Buddha never claimed that all reality was a “mental construct”, although that maybe the interpretation of some. Buddha refers to many different “worlds” or “universes”, including different Heavens, Hells, and many different kinds of beings, gods, spirits, demons, etc. At least he is quoted as doing so. But who really knows, as during his lifetime he forbade his disciples from writing down anything he said. Buddhism is all “verbal tech”, and has had 2500 years to accrue.

            5. Why would you seek to correct yourself when you are already correct? I think you’re fooling with me.

              I am not inclined towards the hard sciences like physics, but I hear that these days, some physicists are considering the existence and reality of a “multiverse”.

              You might find the correction you seek there, in modern physics.

            6. I have looked at the idea of “multiverse”. It is simply a conjecture at this point. There is no proof of it.

              Also, there is no reason why there cannot be a superset of all these multiverses called “universe”.

              .

            7. Vin: Also, there is no reason why there cannot be a superset of all these multiverses called “universe”.

              Chris: Yes, I am seeing all this talk of dimensions, etc., a study of sets. It is too bad that our mathematics is so far only the pertinent language of this set. Oh the wonders that await! That process which we refer to as wave function and which metaphorically to me looks like TV Snow may be processes simply waiting for an abstraction; however, that abstraction will need to come from an abstractor whose make up is part and parcel of a superset of this one.

              My question is “How much potential do I possess to abstract that next dimension?”

            8. That superset is the DIMENSION OF ABSTRACTION.

              .

              The whole theory of relativity is based on the premise that there is an upper limit ‘c’ to the speed of light. At this limit the relativity between space and time becomes quite evident. The Newtonian model of absolute space and absolute time no longer works as this speed is approached.

              The question that has been there in my mind for some time is ‘What makes the upper limit of the speed of light such an absolute quantity?’ The answer seems to be ‘the physicality of this universe.’

              What is ‘physicality’? How does one define it? Physicality would be defined by perception through our physical senses. These perceptions are consistent with the measurements made through the use of physical instruments, such as, those used to measure the speed of light.

              What is not physicality? The abstraction that we perceive through mind (as a sense organ) would be a departure from physicality. That is no less a perception but it is different from the perception through the physical sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. We do not seem to view mind as a sense organ, but look at it as a computer. But mind is a much generalized concept, which encompasses many different functions. One of those functions is that of a sense organ. For example, we can sense time slowing down or speeding up, or space becoming fuzzy or very bright and clear.

              Thus, we find mind to be a sense organ that perceives in the dimension of abstraction. The upper limit of that dimension is the perception through the physical sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. But mind goes beyond that. It is the mind that perceives the pattern of three underlying three cups, three plates and three spoons.

              This dimension of abstraction has been there all this time. The progress of mankind is measured in this dimension. It has long been recognized as such in the eastern philosophy of the Vedas. Now it is time to look at this dimension scientifically.

              Science recognizes the four dimensions as

              Space x
              Space y
              Space z, and
              Time
              The fifth dimension seems to be

              5. The dimension of abstraction

              The upper limit of the dimension of abstraction is physicality.

              The Fifth Dimension

              .

            9. Valkov, your map v territory in this example is a strawman and Vinaire’s Buddhism references are red herring and become an appeal to authority. He should just stick with his own viewpoint as I find that to be the most consistent. No appeals to authority needed here.

            10. Chris, it is entirely possible that I have misread Vinaire, as I do find his treatises tedious. However in the post I was responding to, it appeared to me that he was taking a reductionist approach, arguing step by step to arrive at the view that it is all “mental”. This is similar to dismissing everything by saying “there is no RWOT anyway”.

              From one viewpoint there is, from another there is not. Each view is in itself incomplete.

              As I say, I may be misreading or misunderstanding Vin’s theses; if his logic seems good, I think that may demonstrate the limitations of logic. Where does the manual say life, existence, reality and the universe are logically based or explainable by logic? They may either be based on nothing 🙂 or based on axioms.

              Either way that is the old false dichotomy expressed by “the Buddha view” vs. “the Karma view” that Zen tries to avoid. Thinking and logic cannot solve it. Direct perception perhaps can, is the theory.

              So if it is a straw man, it is because I thought that is what he really was saying/doing.

            11. Valkov: Direct perception perhaps can, is the theory.

              Chris: We are off to a good start. I don’t know how I became the Vinaire advocate. As you know, I used to write some pretty gnarly invalidations to him going back a year or two. But also, back then, I was quite a bit more in lockstep with Marildi and still a Scientology proponent . . . gradually I changed.

            12. I won’t try to justify Vinaire’s social veneer when blogging. His social relationships are his own, so I will leave that alone. But with regard to his KHTK, he has worked out a little system of looking at things which is surely based on “direct perception” or as close and getting closer as I’ve seen. Though he conjectures and speculates, he seems to be aware of doing that when he does and it doesn’t become a bother when he and I communicate.

            13. But why doesn’t KHTK improve his social skills? From what I can see, they have even deteriorated. Because this is the litmus test for me – if the creator or spokes person of a self-betterment methodology does not exude the fruits of the methodology, it seriously discredits it, at least it does for me.

            14. I’m not promoting KHTK nor practicing it as an ideology, just making a stab at explaining it and Vinaire, nothing mysterious about KHTK that I can see. I don’t know how much time he devotes to the actual practice of KHTK. On the other hand, I’ve watched him take apart complex philosophical issues much to my admiration while stating it in a condescending way. This condescension might be cultural. It might be organic. I don’t know, but like my tinnitus, I tune it out because there’s shit I’m trying to figure out and can’t waste time on Vinaire’s social faux pas. On the other hand, I have also found him to be warm and funny to me so go figure… Regarding KHTK not fixing this, I think he would need to want to spot this inconsistency in himself and do something about it. At least that would be my understanding of any self help ideology. So far, this does not seem to weigh on his conscience! hahahaha

            15. I’m not sure if Vinaire would call what he does reductionism. You’d have to ask him. Good luck with that! haha. My own looking results in a use of what might be described as both reductionism and also holism. Holism because we really can’t extrapolate a human from a hormone, and yet there the small bit is working its life away. For me, I need to zoom out to get the big picture, then zoom out more and get the bigger picture, and so it goes. In a nutshell, Vinaire uses universe to include all that is manifest — everything which is real to us. MEST objects and such of course are included. But then he also includes everything else which is real to us as well. Our thoughts are real to us, so they are included.

              Regarding the RWOT, Real World Out There, Vinaire and I seem to have worked out that for us, there is one. But it’s not like the cartoonish way it’s laid out for us in school. The most real thing I can say about what I think about that is that there are processes going on. This is a little bit like the inner workings of a TV set — processes going on, and then finally a series of pictures are projected on the inside screen of the cathode ray tube. So, we perceive, receive input from those processes. Then as you might put it, “Through sleight of hand” abstract the perception which we call our own. My own abstractions include the use of the pronoun “I” but I no longer think of it in the Thetan sense. I don’t think these models work for me anymore.

              KHTK meditates upon these abstractions. That’s as simple as I can say it. Meditates, or simply looks at one’s own abstraction. In this framework, an abstraction could be the scene one is looking at in a crowd of people at the market, or some problem the wife is giving us at home, or simply the thought or thoughts upon which one has their attention. And this is how I sort out paradoxes. Imagine sanding a piece of wood with sandpaper and then feeling with your fingers to see if all the rough bits are gone. This is the whole of his logic and looking for inconsistencies. I do not think of him as a promoter of logic as the best religion, only logic together with looking for inconsistencies as the best tool for detecting and erasing inconsistencies. Auditing in the hands of a skilled practitioner would do as much. KHTK is not so dramatic nor sexy as auditing for there is quite the buildup of false claims and promises attached to auditing.

              Now I don’t even know if I addressed your comment. His and my ideas are not original, far from it. I think his organization and various scales of relevance are brilliant and he is possessed with a dogged determination to write these things down and organize them. Way more than I.

            16. CH… hold it right there!!!! Just hold it!
              Auditing… with auditing one can achieve anything what one wants to achieve!!! But it has to be applied-used- get into session after session and daily to erase those counter postulate, those ARCB’s, those problems and most of all the O/W’s has to be coughed up! and the nattering would stop once and for all!
              There are thousand and one bloody good justifications are given, explained why it not works by 1000 and 1 persons who cant see further than their justifications.
              These wonderful critics are the complainer that scientology do not work.. lets string up LRH. DM etc . etc.. but not one is working on self and handle their ARCB’s with self.
              Auditing works and the thousands time I say it do.. Chicken shits those who complain but wont get counselling of some kind.

            17. CH…..”KHTK is not so dramatic nor sexy as auditing for there is quite the buildup of false claims and promises attached to auditing. ”
              PS; there is nothing sexy about auditing… it is hard work all the way…. even when one is auditing the item ”SEX” and what other similar considerations are with that topic. When one has session one not playing with ones sexual part and hold the cans with the other hand… That was a bad remark from you!
              Confronting is not easy…. look at all the tens of thousand of blown persons… if being in session would be pleasure-sexy;; people would beat the auditors doors down to have a session and with that a good climax!
              Hard work. and more hard work… confronting.. Please read that posting in my blog
              “”The most difficult session I had as a solo auditor””
              sexy.. my foot!

            18. it seems you have sex on your mind today! go for it..
              I never thought that… god and sex? no kid… sex and humans: yes…and birds bees etc: yes but they don’t think about it like humans do, every 20 second for man? GOD REALLY MADE A BIG JOKE WHEN HE CREATED THE MALE ANIMAL!

            19. CH…. please read it again…I have copied it out from my blog again..

              Maria. … The auditor’s code…. This was posted in Geir Isenes blog too.

              It has great importance and it should be in place at all times. That code will allow the PC to continue and not being left stuck in the incident. That code beside the Rudiments allowed me to continue and erase the bank. Here it is how it has worked for me. In the solo course at ST Hill we really had to know all the words and do the demo, than drill and drill with a partner first than under very watchful eyes of Bert Griswold.

              When I started the solo sessions that was in, the ack, too the complete communication cycle between the auditor and the PC. Worked very well. Being a PC was not easy I had in the first 10 years of soloing huge obstacles to confront and overcome. Some of the auditing questions put me into coma like state which could last for hour or two, those times I could come out for s second or two just enough to repeat the auditing question “ I repeat the question etc….” than I would sink back into that incredible un-conscious state…. This could go on and on. But the question was there to ask, the code was kept the TR’s in, the way I have learned in the solo course: what is the difference between the auditor and the PC.

              I would like to share the most difficult sessions I ever had out of the tens of thousands. The topic was HELL but I won’t repeat the auditing question which triggered off such a huge mass which lasted for three days. That concept whatever it was held me twisted, bunched up in agony nearly un-conscious.

              The session started early afternoon, yet I could not get out of it by late evening, I was exhausted hungry, felt panic since I could not see pictures but that twisted agony.

              It never happened before to have 8 hour session in one sitting, but I had to end it. Fallowing morning I went to work I was in the zombie state, all day and driving was very difficult since I was not conscious. At home back to session, same all over, occasionally I could surface enough to repeat the auditing question. Again I could not get out. This time I stopped to eat than back to unconscious state. The session was almost 11 hours long. In the morning back to work same state continued, but by being having some thoughts surfacing I realized I was in trouble and felt panic what if I can’t pull myself out? big time panic….set in…

              At home eat, than back into session, with the same auditing question. The most difficult part of the session just started, because realization has come I must look beyond the unconsciousness, I must find my way out in order to see what I was in. I must find a tread, a picture which will give me something to continue with something to fallow. It worked, very slowly; I pounded the walls of Hell at first with just a smidgen of returning energy, since my thoughts were less than whiff of smoke in the autumn evening

              But the auditing questions continued, the ack.’s were there to. The pictures started to roll and I have come out of the depth of Hell. The cognitions rolled in for days and I could not go into session for a month. Auditor’s code well learned and being kept can take any PC out of any incident. That session was 6 hours. Wins galore, Hell as=ised, the universe rejoiced…………

            20. We’re here, we’re queer, get over . . . oops. Wrong quote.

              We’re here, if we’re interested in knowing about that, we try. We audit, we study, we think, write and discuss. Each of us has our own take on that. Each of us will have our own unique experience of that. It will be self-similar, recursive, and repetitive for that’s just how, as the generations pass, I see the world. It is an interesting game to ponder these things.

            21. Chris, thanks a lot for your write-up. It clarifies some things for sure, towards a more holistic understanding, which is much needed. Vin may be good at abstracting and atomizing but that does not lead to a holistic understanding on the part of this reader. Understanding as I mean it is having a comprehension of the orientation of the viewpoint.
              He reads like some of Hubbard’s books which are little more than outlines or “Reader’s Digest”-like summations which are fleshed out in many hours of lectures.

              That said.

              I was responding to ONE rather short post by Vin, in which he appeared to be dealing in an abstract reductionism that has been characterized in philosophy as “everything is mind”.

              I get what you’re saying about the RWOT. This actually relates to my recent post to Vin about the 8 Dynamics, which is a Hubbardian construct that has been, I feel, broadly misunderstood and in fact, “reduced” from an infinity-valued calculus to an almost one-dimensional cartoon. You might read that post to get the gist of it.

              The RWOT as I “see” it indeed has “processes” ongoing in the background. These processes are driven or energized by the viewpoints each of which is engaged in creating its own version of the 8 Dynamics. This results in the co-creation of what we call the RWOT. What each of us “sees” or “perceives” as the RWOT depends on various factors, such as Vin’s famous “filters”, self- or other- imposed limitations, considerations, identifications, etc etc. Most of these can be subsumed under the rubric of “Levels of awareness”.

              So yes those processes are going on. The joke in Hubbard’s take on all this is that he perceived or inferred that the “viewpoints”, actually our deepest basic “selves”, eternal or not, (that is irrelevant and immaterial), are the sources both of the energy which drives these processes, and probably the source of the processes themselves.

              That’s pretty much the long and the short of it.

            22. Valkov, By some kind of sleight of hand you seem to reduce, everything existing, first, to a “mental construct”, then you equate all mental constructs rather than differentiating between them.

              Chris: Vinaire’s writing and logic are quite good and quite a bit better when he he just makes real life examples from his own experiences. His metaphors (we all use them, we must) are the thinnest I have seen and I mean that in a positive way. Arguing what Buddha said is a useless waste of time for the both of you. No one knows what Buddha said by now and really, what does it matter? Ultimately, each individual “life” unit has to work this out for themself. There are helpful pointers (metaphors) along the way but no help when an epiphany is needed. We just each have to do that. As far as I have seen, this seems to be the spiritual game period.

            23. Arguing about “what Buddha said” is not entirely a waste of time when Buddhist scriptures are appealed to as the “authority”, as you mentioned. When those scriptures say “Buddha said….” it is assumed that is what Buddha said. To point to Buddhism as an authority and then misrepresent what Buddha taught, I feel is worth disputing at least in passing.
              If Vin has “good ideas” of his own then let them stand on their own and appeals to Buddha should have no part in it. He comes across as a parochial sycophant of Buddhism standing up for the “home team” versus the “upstart Westerner”, not a credible source of his own wisdom.

              But then, I am a notoriously hard to pleas curmudgeon.

            24. You know there can be infinite universes in SCN…and ‘the’ universe is an agreement universe…which means it isn’t one.

            25. as absolute as you wanting it to be…or made it out to be, or believe it is, individuality what ‘”is” is a belief. It’s is intangible: how one see’s self and see’s others.

            26. SP… hehehe… right you are. if every body would erase their considerations-agreements -thoughts, than we all be communicating minus computers-telephones!

            27. Uni- means ONE. There is only one universe that I know of. A person may imagine anything, but that imagination is a part of this universe.

              The mental universe is not separate from the physical universe. Physical and mental are two different aspects of the same universe.

              That is how is see it, Hubbard thinks differently but he has no monopoly on truth.

              .

            28. So there you are.. you just proved it that there are list 2 universes, one is yours and one still belongs to LRH who’s body has vanished by now but as a individual spiritual being very much alive among those of you who think-eat sleep LRH

            29. yes… that is one viewpoint… we use those viewpoint depends what we want to say–convey with our communication and depends where the wind blows from: what valance we want to put out.. how we want to be seen by others..

            30. correction: the viewpoints are the considerations that there is the Universe, without such belief there is no universe.. and there are many who don’t see this planet because they don’t have the consideration that it is here.. where ever that is.!

            31. right… but there are no thetans.. just view points that there are.. same goes for saying : I am the body.. or I have a body.. really? I wonder who’s idea was that in the first place in the Cosmos?

            32. In some ways I do admire Vinaire’s certainty in his viewpoint. But for the rest of us who are not that certain, arrogance is harder to muster.

            33. Perhaps he seeks to win by wearing others down by “repetitive duplication”? This would be simply contagion of aberration, wouldn’t it? Was he thus worn down himself? When faced with such tremendous “certainty”, I tend to wonder, “Valence?”

            34. OK on your considerations about “universe”, but those are still just your axioms, not necessarily anyone else’s. “Universe” has many definitions.

              Universe, definitions:

              Noun
              1. All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in…
              2..A particular sphere of activity, interest, or experience.

              To these I would add Hubbard’s, 3. A whole system of created things.

              What the word “universe” does not cover or account for, is “consciousness”

            35. V…..”To me, consciousness is part of the universe.””””
              Big Time! 1000% …Right you are.. Cool reality!
              Since consciousness is awareness and that to is built -anchored into energy… the beings base-anchor is that energy so in my reality consciousness is a doing-something.

              .

            36. OK, that appears to me to be a 100% non-answer. That’s like me asking “What is air?”, and you answering, “Air is part of the world”. So,

              What is consciousness?

            37. There is no scientific basis for consciousness that transmigrates and wanders about. There is no consciousness, which expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here and there.

              According to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered ‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’. The consciousness should not be taken as ‘spirit’ in opposition to matter. It is a wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that continues as a permanent substance through life.

              Consciousness is only a sort of awareness of the presence of an object. It does not recognize the object. It is perception that recognizes the object. When the eye comes in contact with a color, for instance blue, visual consciousness arises which simply is a awareness of the presence of a color; but it does not recognize that it is blue. There is no recognition at this stage. It is perception that recognizes that it is blue.

              Buddha explained that consciousness arises out of conditions. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions. Consciousness is named according to whatever condition through which it arises.

              * Visual consciousness arises on account of the eye and visible forms
              * Auditory consciousness arises on account of the ear and sounds.
              * Olfactory consciousness arises on account of the nose and odors.
              * Gustatory consciousness arises on account of the tongue and tastes.
              * Tactile consciousness arises on account of the body and tangible objects.
              * Mental consciousness arises on account of the mind and mind-objects (ideas and thoughts).

              The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that it cannot exist independently of them.

              ‘Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.’

              I am not presenting Buddha as authority. I am presenting Buddha because I share his reality.

              .
              CONSCIOUSNESS
              .

            38. Vinaire: There is no scientific basis for consciousness that transmigrates and wanders about. There is no consciousness, which expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here and there.

              Chris: See, as off topic as this is, if you stop your comment right there, you make your point the best. Though I think your idea has merit, the rest of your post is an off topic synopsis of some Buddhist principles and we aren’t discussing Buddhism. This is a violation of the discussion policy. I don’t mean to be mean, but we must all follow the discussion policy so that our ideas become effectively shared.

            39. Without putting attention on any participants of this discussion (per discussion policy) what inconsistency do you notice in the content being discussed?

              .

            40. V.. don’t go… you comments are welcome in my universe!. I told you that more than once.. and Buddha or no Buddha… I don’t mind you quoting at all.. your quotes is like a dash of spice and that too also enhances the flavor of this blog. Please pussy cat do stay and purr.. even if that purr sounds like Buddha..

            41. Chris: “This is a violation of the discussion policy.”

              Me: What discussion policy? You mean Geir’s informal one that goes something like “say what you want, it’s all good and I’ll let you know when I think you’re being an ass in my living room”?

              Or do you mean the one V has on HIS blog and keeps trying to ram down the throat of a blog owner of a blog site that isn’t his?

            42. Yes. 🙂

              I’ve somehow put myself in this sandwich between Vin and the readers that won’t read or take him seriously because of these rough social edges. I find myself defending his good works because I’ve seen things there that cut deeply into these philosophical concepts that we discuss; and then feeling like I’m becoming an accomplice to his social faux pas. Plus he is warm and kindly toward me. Chrishna! I make enough blunders of my own without taking on anyone else’s. I suppose I’ll figure it out.

            43. Earlier, when I was writing that I don’t think these concepts are laid out quite rightly this idea of consciousness is one of them. Now someone might take that as a cop-out (evasion) on my part. Marildi was nailing me on this very word a year ago and I didn’t have any good answer for her then and left her unsatisfied. Words contain the sum total of human understanding but if humanity doesn’t understand something, then to me it follows that there would not be a word to hold the place of that missing understanding.

            44. Anyway, in the spirit of trying, conventional orthodox consciousness is to me a conglomeration of processes. It makes no difference if we call them processes, or applications, or considerations, or programs, or macros, or all of the above. I think of consciousness as that awakeness that all life-forms enjoy. For me it seems to exist in biology and more, no matter what drivel L Ron Hubbard used to damn the biologists. I no longer believe in Static as the ultimate in consciousness or even in static at all for in the sense of this universe, it would be the ultimate in entropy — not a good thing so far as I can tell. So Vinaire is just paving a road here. He’s trying to stop bypassing every single obvious thing that there is to observe in the UNIVERSE in favor of made up ideas about things which factually are speculations. In my opinion, we’ve plenty to observe and to learn before we start running out of something to learn from and need to reach outside that set of what is.

            45. Elizabeth: SP… hehehe… right you are. if every body would erase their considerations-agreements -thoughts, than we all be communicating minus computers-telephones!

              Spyros: What do you mean by “than we all be communicating minus computers-telephones!”? Can you rephraze?

            46. No considerations=nothing to communicate to…actually no considerations regarding the existence of communication either! :p

            47. Vinaire: Spyros, Do you have to read Hubbard to know the truth?

              Spyros: I only mentioned what SCN says, not any ‘the’ truth. And again in SCN, there is no ‘the’ truth as there is no ‘the’ universe. YOU say there is ‘THE’ universe, so you assert to communicate ‘THE’ truth.

              Vinaire: IHMO, truth depends on absence of inconsistency. Hubbard is not consistent where fundamentals are concerned. This is explained on my blog under Scientology.

              Spyros: In my opinion, truth is not a product of evaluation.

              Vinaire: Thetan is a theoretical absolute postulated by Hubbard, and, as such, it is part of this universe. This is because all mental considerations are part of this universe.

              Spyros: Fine, but I hope you state this as your own opinion, not as the truth.

            48. I wonder what kind of filters you using when you are talking about the ”I”
              The same topic was brought up by you about a year back.. and guess what one year before that.. Even Marildi hap pointed that out so it seems your cycles go =takes one year to complete. Go look it up in this blog and you will find it…LOL.

            49. Vinaire: You are using “I” as a filter.

              Now, you may say this is “your” consideration.

              Spyros: I considered that you considered it, as you communicated it. If I thought that it was truth/reality then I would be somewhat forced to be considering it myself from then on, no?

              By ‘I’ and ‘you’ I meant beings with individual universes, yes. Being two beings doesn’t negate that they are two beings.

            50. You can make reality by agreeing or you can say that it is reality to make the agreement. The second seems a bit reversed/other determined to me.

        1. “Thetans are individuals.” This is true but being thetan is a condition in itself. A thetans is like a human compared to “homo novis”:D
          A thetan is a spiritual entity and as such it comes with an ego unit:) The size of the ego unit is crucial.

          1. Yes, What we call a ‘being’ or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’, according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies.

            Thus, ‘being’, ‘individual’, or, ‘I’, is only a convenient name or a label given to the combination of these five groups. They are all impermanent, all constantly changing. They are not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not equal to A. They are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing.

            One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a permanent Self, individuality, or anything that can in reality be called ‘I’. But when these five physical and mental aggregates which are interdependent are working together in combination as a physio-psychological machine, we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea of self. There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these five aggregates.

            There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you move the thought, there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view is diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’

            This is counter-intuitive, indeed.

            THE STRUCTURE OF “I”

            .

            1. Feed Vin on this one and he’ll spam the whole thread with the chanting of “I” “I” “I”… 😉

            2. Vin, your description of the Buddhist view of the “self” is accurate, but only as far as it goes. This is because the ever-changing patterns have their own “individuality”, when compared one to another. It is possible that in beginningless and endless time, a pattern may be duplicated somewhere, somewhen along the line, but for practical human purposes, each person and in fact each and every physical universe event is unique and “individual”. No two thunderstorms are exactly alike, no two waves of the ocean are exactly alike, etc. Every event has its own “individuality” and is unique, when compared to any other event no matter how apparently similar. That’s why that old Greek guy said “You can never step in the same river twice.” It is the same river, yet it is not. He was an almost exact contemporary of the Gotama Buddha.

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

            3. There is no absolute and permanent individuality. Scientology is fixated on “I” as if it is absolute and permanent.

              .

            4. Vin, who here is claiming the existence of “an absolute and permanent individuality”? No one, not even LRonHubbard, as he was the one who stated axiomatically “absolutes are unobtainable in the physical universe”.

              So who are you trying to get this point across to? Let me acknowledge that you are correct, there is NO “absolute and permanent individuality”. All existing individualities will likely endure only as long as the universe endures, and no longer. After that, who knows? Maybe someone will find a means of continuing his existence beyond the ultimate complete end of this universe. And maybe not. That is at this time unknowable, is it not?

              The metaphysics of this are interesting. When Brahma inhales everything including you, who’s to say he may not exhale YOU again in exactly the same form you have now? Then you can continue for virtually endless kalpas to cry – “There is no such thing as an absolute and permanent self!”

            5. Vinaire: Scientology is fixated on “I” as if it is absolute and permanent.

              Spyros: SCN separated the oneness of valences and the oneness with other bank agreements. But beyond that, have you read about BEING all 8 dynamics?

            6. All 8 dynamics is the universe. So, being all 8 dynamics is becoming one with the universe. That goes against what Hubbard said in Scn 8-8008.

              .

            7. Not really.

              Physical, mental and spiritual are all aspects of a single system, which I call the UNIVERSE.

              .

            8. That is one way of understanding it. It is how the typical CoS scientologist purveys it. It is disastrously wrong in my view and is a big reason things got as bad as they did in the Scientology universe, because it is that slight of hand that allows some to begin evaluating for others, assigning ‘conditions’ etc

              That view is based on the idea that there is just one RWOT, and that one must recognize and conform to it, and the next step is for someone to claim that he has a better more enlightened understanding than you, and therefore you must listen to him, etc and the whole tired old bullshit game, the “adjustment psychologies”, the priesthoods, etc.

              In fact the Dynamics are not “out there” vs. “in here”. Your 8 Dynamics are within you. There is in a sense a set of 8 Dynamics within each person. So the is not just one set of 8 Dynamics, but potentially an infinite number of sets of 8 Dynamics, one set of Dynamics for each existing person or being. Each set of Dynamics is inextricably tied to a unique viewpoint, because without the viewpoint, the Dynamics would not exist. And the Dynamics provide the viewpoints with things to view.

              For this reason, no-one can tell another with any authority how to weight his Dynamics, which ones are more important than others etc. Only the individual can and does decide those issues for himself, as he sees fit.

              So no, there are not just 8 Dynamics, there are a potentially infinite number of sets of 8 Dynamics because each living being comprises his own individual set of 8 Dynamics.

              Interacting, these sets co-create what we think of as “the universe”.

              Really, Hubbard explained all this quite clearly in some of his lectures; unfortunately, it appears to me the vast majority of ‘scientologists’ or those associated with Scientology never got the understanding of the actual concept as it was presented by Hubbard.

            9. I don’t think anybody should be telling others how to see something. He should simply be saying,

              “This is how I see it. Let me know how you see it so we can compare our notes.”

              This is what I have been trying to say through the discussion policy.

              To me, dynamic is defined as “urge toward existence” in Hubbard’s system, and it is associated with individuality. However, I do not see individuality as some permanent reality. If there is individuality, it is changing continually. Individuality is like the overall characteristic of a system of considerations. But this system is chnaging continually and so is this overall characteristic.

              So, the dynamic is a property of a system of considerations, and not that of some permanent individuality. Essentially, the dynamics (an arbitrary division of the dynamic for the sake of convenience) are a property of this universe.

              .

            10. Who the Hell brought “permanent individuality” into this discussion? You did, not I. What does it have to do with anything in general, or Hubbard’s concept of the Dynamics in particular?

              I make a post about the Dynamics as I understand them, and you respond with your non-sequitur hobby-horse of “There is no such thing as ‘permanent individuality’. ”

              Huh?

              However, everything else you say about the nature of reality in your post seems quite accurate and well thought out or observed. The “permanent individuality” thing seems entirely unnecessary to even mention, some kind of ‘held down 7’.

            11. The key point is that any individuality is already “one with the universe”, even when Hubbard postulates it as separate.

              Theta and MEST are not two separate realities that are in games condition with each other. Both are aspects of the same reality and they are never in games condition with each other. They simply follow certain physical and spiritual laws.

              .

            12. Agreed. As you say, “the map is not the territory.” And the 8 dynamics are not there at all. If someone likes to organize their thinking this way, I think that’s fine. But as to running in a model like this as something which is real, well I don’t see it that way for me.

            13. Chris,

              You apparently missed my point completely, about the 2 models of the 8 Dynamics, one of which I see as a very destructive abuse of the basic concept as presented by Hubbard.
              That is what I psoted for discussion.
              The fact that you seem to have a lot of bpc about Hubbard to the point where it seems you are unable to read any post that refers to any idea of his without automatically responding negatively it does not change my understanding of it.

              If you have a better model to offer, please do so. Datum of comparable magnitude, right?Otherwise, what? It’s easy to be a negative critic. ESMB seems like an appropriate venue for that part of your experience. There are quite a few ex-SO who post over there, who shared your type of experience and the subsequent negative feelings. Since I did not, I can’t relate, but I feel I will continue to reflect and try to understand various of Hubbard’s ideas in my own right.

              You are of course free to do otherwise.

            14. 1. 8 Dynamics is a map. 2. The lines it draws do not in fact exist nor is the model it represents accurately organized. 3. That opinion is born out of examination of this cult not BPC. And whether I have BPC about this cult or not isn’t relevant to the OP. Only the relevance and accuracy of my comments. 4. At this time and in this comment, it is your fallacious logic which shows the bias rather than mine. 5. I already stated you can think with this model if you want, I don’t care, where’s the misunderstanding in this? 6. These days for me, less of a model is a better model. 7. Scientology is a lying, destructive, cult. Only extant Church members have been in duped away from opinion that since 1954. 8. That there are few stragglers in the aftermath of its heyday in the 50’s who want to cling tightly to their fixed ideology is ok with me so long as they don’t freely spread the poison without a counter-argument available to the curious. 9. ESMB was never at any point in my own decompression from this cult a helpful place for me except statistically. I don’t know how many people have walked through the doors of Scientology churches but using the conservative “8 million worldwide members” compared to the 8,000 or so remaining hangers on, that is 0.1%. That’s a ratio of comparable magnitude and I know that to be understated as it does not consider the annual attrition of members leaving droves compared to newbies. 10. The true believer is the critic’s best ally.

            15. Chris, your points #1 and #2 were openly stated by LRH 40+ years ago. He said quite clearly that the division into 8 Dynamics was arbitrary and they did not actually exist as such.

              This seems to be a good example of how staff Scientologists, especially Sea Org, were kept ignorant of what LRH actually taught, ie ignorant of the basics of Scientology.

              By the way, I wasn’t kidding about ESMB. Of all the sites, that seems to be where you have the most ‘kindred souls’.

            16. Val, what you’re saying is not just in lectures. For example, the PL “Ethics” (part of the Esto Series) gives the procedure for exchange and conditions by dynamics. In that PL it is very clear that each person has his own 8 dynamics and that there are also THE 8 dynamics. Here’s an excerpt (WARNING: those who have buttons on LRH excerpts, read no further ;)):

              “Then have the person…say what he gives the first dynamic and what it gives him. And so on up the dynamics”

              “Now have him consider ‘his own second dynamic’. What does his second dynamic give his first dynamic? What does his second dynamic give THE second dynamic and what does it give him?

              “And so on until you have a network of these exchange. arrows each both ways.”

              You wrote: “Really, Hubbard explained all this quite clearly in some of his lectures; unfortunately, it appears to me the vast majority of ‘scientologists’ or those associated with Scientology never got the understanding of the actual concept as it was presented by Hubbard.”

              As a word clearer and then a blog reader I have have no doubt that “the vast majority of ‘scientologists’ or those associated with Scientology never got the understanding of the actual concept” – of MANY of the basic words and principles.

            17. Marildi…. you are very good…”As a word clearer and then a blog reader I have no doubt that “the vast majority of ‘scientologists’ or those associated with Scientology never got the understanding of the actual concept” – of MANY of the basic words and principles.”
              That is the cause why scientology is failing and not because something wrong with scientology. And that is the reason the “PROBLEM” can not be found and fixed… there is nothing to fix…

            18. E, you and I see both the good and the bad – and we understand the good well enough that we know it can be and should be kept separate from the bad. Those who don’t have enough understanding can see nothing or almost nothing but bad.

              The reason Marty is believed is not because of his past – maybe some people look up to him because of it, as you said, but others look down on him because of it. The actual reason he is believed is that he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to Scientology – both the tech and the history. He has high training and experience auditing and doesn’t say things that show he has basic misunderstandings.

              He also has personally witnessed what went on in management and admits where he himself became brainwashed and went off the rails. Nevertheless, he keeps the rotten stuff separate from the actual tech and continues to wholeheartedly deliver auditing. He has studied many other paths, including his whole list of recommended books and many more – and he still finds auditing to be the best he knows of. If there were something better than auditing, in terms of gains and speed of gain, I doubt highly we wouldn’t have heard about it!

            19. If you truly believed what you write, it would manifest by you practicing solo auditing, a good thing. But you cannot solo audit because Ron won’t let you and blocks you from your spiritual eternity. So is this an example of a good thing or a bad thing?

            20. Ask yourself a similar question, Chris. You’ve written many posts raving about the gains you personally got from your style of “solo” auditing – and yet you’ve decided to no longer do it. Why not? You don’t even need to find and pay an auditor, so you have no excuse whatsoever.

              I think you should at least go in session and try to handle your apparent compulsion with regard to me and your continual needling of me personally, with almost word-for-word repetitions of what you’ve said before – knowing very well that I’ve already expressed where I’m at with regard to how I practice Scientology, not how you think I should practice it. And in spite of the fact that you’ve apologized afterwards a number of times, you just can’t seem to hold off for long before you go at it again. Obviously, you’re either under some sort of compulsion or are simply trying to goad.

            21. Marildi: “Why not?” (Don’t I solo audit)

              Chris: I’ve been clear and writing about “why not” for months. It’s in those “have your say” comments which you declare as resulting from misunderstood words and by-passed charge.

              Solo auditing is Scientology. Say it’s not. I dare you. Say a person doesn’t need to solo audit to go up the most efficient Bridge to Total Freedom that mankind has come up with yet.

              The better question to this blog’s most learned and fervent promoter of the good and consistent results of the practice of the standard tech of Scientology (that’s you is “Why don’t you solo audit?” It is the most obvious 800 lb gorilla in the middle of your arguments, ever. I’ve thought about this and am wondering why you are being left alone to harp on the value of Scientology without practicing its most sacred sacrament. Seriously, this reluctance on your part to solo is deserving of its own OP and a new thread. Solo auditing is the exact right place for you on the Bridge and you are even trained to solo audit. You even own a meter. If there were any actual desire on your part to do so, any logistical objection you can come up with could be worked out. There is an answer to that question and until you answer it you are “pulling in” my TR3. It is an irresistible magnet which must break you!~ 🙂 But seriously, why won’t you solo audit?

            22. I am also curious about this. The heart, the core of Scientology is the auditing. There seems to be no valid reason to defend Scientology while at the same time not doing all one can to avail oneself of the core of that which one defends. So, Marildi, why not just go solo?

            23. Marildi: The reason Marty is believed is not because of his past – maybe some people look up to him because of it, as you said, but others look down on him because of it. The actual reason he is believed is that he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to Scientology – both the tech and the history. He has high training and experience auditing and doesn’t say things that show he has basic misunderstandings.

              Chris: Your comment is not correct. It’s worse than that. It is crapola. Marty is believed to the degree that he confirms bias. The moment he resigned from Scientology, out came the torches and pitchforks. He may have seen this coming and pre-emptively moved from his home on the water to his defensive compound because he may have more reason to be afraid of Independent Scientologists than of orthodox COS OSA, who have become cartoonish buffoons. He knows what to expect from OSA, having been chinese schooled on LRH GO policies. He has a feel for how far they are willing to go to destroy him legally, financially, etc.,. But a rogue Indie? One of those might just take it upon himself to fuck him up. There’s your religion of goodness.

            24. There are a lot more intelligent comments and acceptance of the whole spectrum of viewpoints on Marty’s blog than on this one. And you are probably the biggest reason I spend less and less time here. Maybe that’s your actual intention – because it’s quite obvious that the tack you’ve insisted on taking – repetitiously, to use Geir’s word – is not accomplishing what you claim you’re trying to achieve.

            25. Marildi: There are a lot more intelligent comments and acceptance of the whole spectrum of viewpoints on Marty’s blog than on this one.

              Chris: Not really. Marty carefully screens his blog according to standard Scientology PR technology invented by L Ron Hubbard. Marty allows confirmation bias only on his blog and now that he’s withdrawing from Scientology, he will find that he was treated kindly by OSA compared to what the Indies are dishing out to him. The very thing that I am beginning to respect about him and make me rethink my previous opinions about his sincerity may be the very thing which causes his adherents to turn on and crucify him.

            26. Marildi: If there were something better than auditing, in terms of gains and speed of gain, I doubt highly we wouldn’t have heard about it!

              Chris: Sticking your fingers in your ears isn’t the same as not having heard about it.

            27. Amazing. It seems you can’t hold back from reacting to almost every sentence I post! As I’ve said, you appear to be obsessed. Seriously, you should get out your meter.

            28. Marildi: “Amazing. It seems you can’t hold back from reacting to almost every sentence I post!”

              Chris: I am simply discussing your written statements. Because of those statements, I am also questioning your sincere devotion to the religion that you harp on for its smooth and efficient workability. I think the evasion and knee-jerk reactions are your own.

            29. Marildi. my dear, right you are again… pointing out that he is also disliked -hated-spat for his activities… the hate part make me smile…. got to be there some envy for who hates him. But hate envy admiration are all meaningless.. he is doing well and that is all. after all he to operates in the present time and not twenty years back like many of the haters… God, I love a good drama…hehehe.. the haters now have a new horse, named: hate and they ride over their self created field of the past experience and they nurture- groom their ARCB’s so lovingly! and that thing just get bigger and bigger all the time! 🙂
              Have a lovely day!

            30. Thanks, Eliz. I fully agree – some people are acting in present time and others only think they are while they continue to insist that anyone who sees the good in Scientology “must” be operating in the past. In your beautifully poetic words:

              “The haters now have a new horse, named: hate. And they ride over their self-created field of past experience and they nurture – groom their ARCB’s so lovingly! And that thing just gets bigger and bigger all the time!”

              Damn, that was well said. You have a lovely day too!

            31. If one’s attention is stuck in MEST present time, does it contain past/persistence/time?

              + Quiz: How did LRH call a person stuck in MEST universe PT? 😛

            32. Answer: neurotic. 😛

              Anyway, neither E. nor I are talking about being “stuck” in MEST present time. It’s just a matter of having too much attention on the past and not enough on the present – and especially not enough on the future. Let’s not get into word games, you little devil you. 😛

              You may remember my comments saying that our attention should be on what can be done with the good in Scn and with improving it. 😉 😛

            33. *I mean how can there be a ‘time continuum’ without a past to continue ‘from’? 😛

            34. Marildi… we have here a glorious garden… I would love to make a nice cup of coffee or tea for you and sit in the shade and share the flow of the universe as it passes by!

            35. Marildi: “As a word clearer and then a blog reader I have have no doubt that “the vast majority of ‘scientologists’ or those associated with Scientology never got the understanding of the actual concept” – of MANY of the basic words and principles.”

              Chris: This is disingenuous: To fault millions for turning away from this destructive religion, while holding yourself up as an expert, while not even practicing the tenets of your religion by solo auditing. Until you audit, you are just pretending, and a namby pamby panty waist dilettante at that. Did I misunderstand those words, too?

            36. Wow, that’s one of the most Straw Man arguments I’ve seen anybody have the gall to make. For one thing, I never said I was an expert, but I do know enough Scn to be able to spot basic misunderstandings – including the ones I’ve seen of yours.

              Ironically, it was you who called yourself an expert in a recent comment. I just had to roll my eyes and leave it at that. But you’re really on a jag today and I see in the comment above you even had to get in for the second time in just minutes your repetitious attempts to nullify. Btw, that’s the lowest method of handling others – nullification – which I guess you know since you’re a Scn expert. Anyway, I’m going back to ignoring you. The time and energy spent on posters like you isn’t worth it. I’ll say it again, I need to move on up a little higher.

            37. Marildi: “Wow, that’s one of the most Straw Man arguments I’ve seen anybody have the gall to make. For one thing, I never said I was an expert, but I do know enough Scn to be able to spot basic misunderstandings – including the ones I’ve seen of yours.”

              Chris: Well, if I wrote that you wrote that people blow from Scientology because of misunderstood words and we agree on that, then I don’t see the Straw man argument in that.

            38. Marildi: “I never said I was an expert, . . . ”

              Chris: No, you do not hold yourself out as an expert; However, I do consider you to be an expert on Scientology. It is my belief that if polled, the bloggers here who are familiar with your writings would (possibly unanimously?) agree with me. If ever a person was deserving of an honorary PhD in the subject of Scientology, I feel that you do and I write that with respect and admiration for a genuine accomplishment.

            39. Marildi: Btw, that’s the lowest method of handling others – nullification – which I guess you know since you’re a Scn expert.

              Chris: Now this is a straw man.

            40. Marildi: “I’ll say it again, I need to move on up a little higher.”

              Chris: Does Marty have misunderstood words at this time and at this place for saying he is no longer a Scientologist? And if and when Marty leaves the fold forever, how will that affect your opinion of him? Will that be still yet a little higher? Or not?

          2. It is surprising that nobody has responded to the falsehood in Scientology 8-8008 that was pointed out. Instead I have become a target of criticism.

            This tells me that Scientology is simply capitalizing on fixation that already existed in the society.

            .

            1. Vin: This tells me that Scientology is simply capitalizing on fixation that already existed in the society.

              Chris: Yes, all religion employs “get on the bandwagon” logic.

            2. Sorry it took so long, Vin, but here is some of my take on 8-8008 and the ‘falsehood’ you refer to.

              Vin, here’s my take on the excerpt from 8-8008 you posted, and in reference to the concept of individuality.

              I can only guess which particular concept of “nirvana” LRH was referring to in 8-8008, but the most widespread popularizer and Western interpreter of Eastern philosophy of those times, the 1940s and 1950s, was Alan Watts. He was still popular in the 1960s when I came across him, but I never saw him as much more than
              but a glib and possibly shallow popularizer of Eastern ideas. He has some good Zen-ish quotes, and some real junk in his legacy. I do not believe he was actually a regular or deep practitioner of Eastern methods, but rather a promoter-guru. In other words, he talked the talk, but did not necessarily walk the walk, kinda like the more recent Deepak Chopra, who at least has the virtue of being himself from India so speaks from a more direct personal knowledge of what he is talking about.

              In any case, Watts was definitely a promoter of ideas such as “one with the universe”. A close reading of his work shows a basically materialistic orientation. I believe this is what LRH was, correctly, objectingto – a massive A=A=A or conflation between spirit, consciousness, and matter.

              This still does not resolve the issue of “individuality”, existence of, but I have already posted about this.
              Individuality is a fact in the context of the existing universe. This says nothing about the existence of a “permanent and eternal self”. I recently posted a quote of Dalai Lama on the subject, from a little book of interviews titled “The Buddha Nature: Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism”. The discussions are well worth reading closely and more than once, because Dalai analyzes the distinctions in some pretty subtle ways.

              The fact is, and this is my take on it, not anyone else’s, is that Buddha himself never said there was no such thing. As with many other topics, what he really said is that there was no OBSERVABLE permanent and eternal self. He thought it was just another one of those things one did not need to know, in order to escape from suffering.

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

              http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1501668.Alan_Wilson_Watts

              The word “nirvana” is used throughout India since early times and has somewhat differing meanings depending on the religious tradition it is used by – Hindu, Jain, Buddhist etc.

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

              The word literally means “blown out” (as in a candle) and refers, in the Buddhist context, to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished.

              This says nothing about the ‘extinguishing’ of all mind, or individuality. It is only about the extinguishing of suffering, nothing more. And that is all Buddha ever claimed to teach.

            3. Thanks ole buddy. Vin ought to read Marty’s latest book, Marty really shows much of LRH’s ultimate responsibility for the mess and lays to rest the apologetic notions that “he didn’t know what was going on”.

            4. And it is interesting to observe how many “hard core” scientologists that seem to wake up from a daze after Marty utter such. It’s like “oh, Marty is saying it, then it must be true”. Never mind that facts abound on the Net that has shown it for a couple of decades by now.

            5. True enough. . . Funny to see that. Even more funny to me to see how such a very short time ago I was marching in lockstep with with this very same ideology. Funny to me to see how quickly my own viewpoints race into the past once I let them go. I won’t try to usurp any glory from the early critics who pave the way for this renaissance, but not they can be heard singing this Barbarba Mandrell song — just substitute the word a “Critic” in place of the word “Country.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN50ZU6jVwM

            6. I don’t know any “hard-core scientologists” who have significantly changed their positions, as i have no comm lines to any such people (can you name even one?) but I think a hard copy book provides mass to go with the significances involved. More to the point, books are always “more real” than Internet postings. Except to those who feel the “why of course everything published on the Internet is true!”. And those of the “post-literate” generations are not likely to realize the difference in reality of hard-copy books vs.Internet’s virtual medium.

              One who publishes a book is putting his money where his mouth is. When you publish a book, it’s pretty hard to later claim “I didn’t say that”.

              Sure information is all over the Internet, just look at ESMB, and so are the contrary claims, which eventually make the Internet seem like a bunch of “he said she said”.

              I think that is why your video interviews are drawing so much interest, they are the next-best-thing to having it down in black-and-white print.

              As for the credibility of Marty’s book and why I think it will have significant influence beyond the reasons I have posted here, there are specific examples of events he witnessed that lend that credibility. Anyone who reads the book should be able to spot those. And I looks to me like no-one else has reported those from the same viewpoint as Marty has.

              So nice try but no cigar, Geir.

            7. Geir you forgotten, Marty has been on IMPORTANT-VALUABLE- POWER brandishing PERSON so people still SEE him as the one who knows.. because of his past importance the man’s word has VALUE! and people love to group around important valuable, well known persons makes them important too be known by and to know such a jewel.

            8. Well, I think the self-congratulatory pride Old Secretary thought she smelled on this blog definitely does waft here, a perfume worn by some posters in particular. I had noticed it but decided not to comment on it, before O.S. posted that comment.

              It appears that my point to Vinnie is being derailed. I have some very specific incidents and events in mind, that Marty wrote about that he experienced and witnessed, that provided me with data I did not have before, that resolved some confusion or “don’t knows” in my mind about the events of the 1980s in particular.

              So knowing Vinnie’s very early experiences with Hubbard, I actually think some of the specific incidents Marty relates would validate what Vinnie feels about Hubbard.

              So I recommended Vin read the book. Does anyone have an objection? Come, let us jump in and muddy the water.

          3. humans have on ego… spiritual being drops that ego when drops the body. spiritual being-as thetan do not have on identity therefore no ego.
            Spiritual beings are not individuals. Humans are individuals simply because they believe that they are.

          1. Well, I don’t see how this is necessarily a “false datum” However, it does contain a couple of assumptions made by LRH. One is that this kind of implanting was done somewhere in the past, and the other is, apparently, that this implant is universal. In other words, that every single being in existence has had this done to him/her.

            I would have to call “Unknowable” on these things. They can only be considered “LRH’s speculations”. Only in that sense can it be considered a “‘FALSE DATUM”.

            I would call it an UNPROVEN DATUM. Even if every single mind you examined to date had this implant in it, that does not prove you won’t run into a whole buch of minds in the future that do not have this implant and never did.

    1. V… thank GOD that Buddhism works.. there is no murder, stealing, adultery, cheating, lying, war.. rape, drug use…..no aberration among all the billions who practice Buddhism!! It really works!!!

      1. How can you tell if somebody is practicing Buddhism or not. Just calling one a Buddhist doesn’t necessarily mean that one is practicing Buddhism. See point #10 below:

        10. Do not get hung up on name and form.

        Mindfulness is to observe and notice things for what they are. To know something, you do not have to label it, or use words to describe it. Be aware that name and form may act as built-in judgment of what is there.

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

        .

  3. The basic concepts aren’t broken down to being explained based on where the person is on the tone scale. But then, that is why find what you agree with, and work from there, no?

  4. Regarding dankoon and vinaire, Scientology is the worst as it uses the more force against the individual. And Scientology is pro-ego. This is the main difference. And that is why Scientology is basically evil. Because the reactive mind is basically the source of the ego, while Scientology states and pretends that it is against the reactive mind… It breaks down the original reactive mind just to build a new one for it’s own purposes. The fallacies of Scientology comes from the mental problems of it’s “founder”.
    Anyway, I did not wanted to be scientific:) and I don’t claim that everything is as I stated, it was just a quick thought.

          1. You better put the TORNADO into session and than you will see just what-who is lurking inside that immense power…. plus will be that you too will have that cognition and will free that being!

            1. OK… fair enough… but they are not bad beings.. as you have a meat body they have that kind of energy body… and how they feel is expressed in their own way- behavior, just imagine what kind of tornado you would be when angry?

  5. I will add that the critics who keep insisting “everything in Scientology is WRONG!” aren’t helping at all. Such “all black” views certainly does not uncover the root causes for the detrimental effects. It only makes the job harder.

        1. By reading your posts you have it all .. you are not in need.
          How to find the ”wrong-ness, how to get scientology right. That will not come from those who are blaming scientology for anything since they cant se further than their own ARCB’s
          .

    1. Yes, the polar opposite ideology is just another ideology. We should look for ourselves without substituting ideologies for our own critical thinking — the more we address life directly, the better.

      1. Darling have I look at the polar bit for my self too and it its exists because I have experience that huge difference what is negative and what is positive…what makes it so!
        if that would not exist in reality than this MEST Planet you included and the billions would not be here. All game condition only can be because that itsy-bitsy polarity! It is not ideology but fact…

    2. Hi Geir, I agree – the reason why Scientology is defended so strongly by those who are defending it is because of the good in Scientology, not because of the bad. I know that I personally saw the bad for quite a long, long time – maybe not all the bad, but certainly some of it. My hope was that it would be eradicated over time as the subject progressed. Obviously, that did not happen, and so we are where we are now.

      One of the bigger mistakes I made in Scientology was accepting that the Sea Org was okay. It was not okay – and I knew it, but did not press it. My thought was – hey, they know what they got into, and they signed the stupid billion year contract, so they deserve what they got. The problem with that is that IS Scientology, even though I never considered the SO “Scientology.”

      I am not saying it is the core of what made Scientology go off the rails, but it was a large, large symptom of it.

      KSW is also not the cause of it – KSW is another symptom.

      The pure auditing and auditor training technology is not the cause of the demise. The basic theory of Scientology is not the cause of the demise. To me, the idea the demise was three-fold:

      1. The “Us vs. them” mentality that Ron created all the way back in 1949 with The Original Thesis, and
      2. The idea that Scientology is the ONLY route and that that route is complete, and
      3. That it is INCREDIBLY URGENT that we get Scientology disseminated and delivered before the world was blown up in an atomic fireball.

      Ron created all three points above. They rang true because:

      A. Psychiatry and therapists and others did indeed criticize Dianetics. I have the Liberty magazine article from 1950 that trashes the whole movement, for example.
      B. The Cold War was real. WWIII was a real threat, and the hysteria was real. So, urgency in creating a sane world made sense, if the solution worked. Talk about a “burning platform!”
      C. The idea that Scn is the only route – well, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Science- none of these prevented WWI, WWII, Hiroshima, and the Hydrogen bomb – “Science” in particular created the way to kill us all over and over and over – so is there a way out? Now? No. Scientology at least promised one.

      So, if you have something that does work – it does help people – and you add to that the urgency of looming atomic war – and you have someone like Ron – a great speaker – fanning the flames, it is easy for people to do bad things for “good” reasons, and for people to overlook the bad for the sake of the good.

      Overlooking the bad is wrong – the result is that it kills the good. Evidence? The Church of Scientology. But the good is still there.

      1. Grasshopper: the reason why Scientology is defended so strongly by those who are defending it is because of the good in Scientology, not because of the bad

        Chris: I have a little different take on this. I think people defend through fixed ideas and in a hope to make their world more solid and substantial.

        1. my reality :::: YOU BOTH ARE RIGHT since there is no such a thing as singular reality an any given item. and because of that … that is so much fun to explore-confront the universe one can see so many different creation similar to each other but not in reality when one looks closer. and each item can produce one hell of a cognition while as-ised.
          I am off to the garden. to water the flowers and this is a good example when one creates one becomes its slave -servant who up keep maintain that creation.

      2. Hi Mark!
        Very well said! On the SO, I couldn’t agree more. Great, that you are posting here – I liked and appreciated your postings on Marty’s blog very much. – Karola

  6. Marty Rathbun has also been addressing the question of how to save the good in Scientology. Here’s part of a blog post he wrote that I thought was a good basis to operate from:

    “To the degree that Scientology – or any other mental/spiritual practice – affords a person the opportunity and ability to safely view his life and mind and communicate his observations and conclusions with no hint or possibility of evaluation, invalidation or repercussion, it is a positive methodology for assisting a person to increase awareness and ability.

    “To the degree that Scientology – or any other mental/spiritual practice – departs from that formula it is a practice potentially destructive of awareness and ability.”
    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/on-becoming-a-person/#comments

    1. Sure – but it does not address the actual root cause(s) in the basics of Scientology that allows the atrocities to be perpetrated. And until we honestly uncover those, there will be critics searching, and many in the dark in lack of understanding of said basics… and there will be rehashed carping. Until it is truthfully uncovered. No use in protesting critics. Better get to work instead.

      1. The obvious implication of that post iss that there has indeed been evaluation, invalidation and repercussion. Why can’t that be accepted as root cause? Just because critics need the cause to be more evil and insidious to be acceptable to them, or simply that they don’t understand the basics, doesn’t mean the answer needs to be revised to fit their bloodthirsty “needs” or determined ignorance, does it?

        1. Consider this: Harm is rampant in Scientology. Has been since LRH held the reign. This is not so in Buddhism despite Scientology’s touting of superior methods in every area that Buddhism covers. If it was only for what Marty wrote, there is no chance in hell that this only destroyed Scientology and left Buddhism benevolent. Nope, there is something else in the Basics of Scientology that is off. And quite so.

          1. Buddhists are not necessarily peaceful and non-violent. There are growing elements in Asia that promote force and violence, for example:

            http://buddhism.about.com/b/2013/04/30/more-background-on-buddhist-violence-in-burma-2.htm

            I will also post a link to an excellent article on Tibet which shows how the Lamas in Tibet allied for centuries with the secular rulers to keep the majority of people in an oppressive feudal serfdom for about 800 years, essentially making slaves of most of the people. This was all justified by “Buddhist scripture”. There a many parallels to the CoS, especially RTC and the Sea Org.

            I believe the problem is inherent in human nature. Buddhism, Scientology, etc are proposed as “solutions” to this problem, but they can be and have been turned to evil and oppressive ends.

            The senior consideration is the intention of the people applying the various philosophies, not something “inherent” in the philosophies themselves. They are “solutions” which themselves become “problems” due to human nature.

            1. Well, that sure puts things in perspective. Well done on your great dedication and accumulation of knowledge, Val.

            2. Marildi, Valkov has become so jaded that he can no longer differentiate between the Church of Buddhism and the Tech of True Buddhism which has never harmed anyone in its true form.

            3. There is a rather big difference between harm being rampant in Scientology and some Buddhists doing harm. In Scientology it seems systemic.

            4. Doing harm is the nature of Scientology. The problem lies with Ron. For example what he says about psychiatrists? They label people. Now look at Science of Survival. Look at the tone scale, etc. That is serious labelling. And you as a Scientologist can label anyone 1.1. or PTS. And you can get away with it. Now, that is harmful. Someone makes a mistake. Wow, he’s a PTS. Really scientific evaluation. Does any Scientologist knows what is PTS? It is like Clear. Nobody saw any Clear:D
              And I does not say that everything is wrong in the subject. It can’t be wrong as it is a collection of good things from elsewhere although sometimes altered, squirreled:). But the original part of it, processing (not all original, but ok) contains great stuff.
              However it is very hard to separate the good from the bad in my opinion.

          2. OK, we’ve covered Harm in Scientology. Let’s admit there has been harm done by Scientology. Was Help also “rampant” in Scientology since LRH held the reins?

            In all fairness, I don’t think you can look at one without looking at the other. And how rampant is rampant?

            1. I am not interested in any agreement on it being harm or help in Scientology. I am interested in getting to the exact root causes of why Scientology a) does harm, b) does not deliver on its main promises, c) does not deliver what I seek, d) traps a person from realizing his spiritual goals… in order to liberate the good and productive tool therein – so as to end up with a set of tools that can benefit the seeker.

              That sums up the totality of my rationale in this area.

            2. Well, I have my own problems, so I am only marginally interested in yours. Although if I knew the answers to your questions, I wouldn’t hesitate to respond as helpfully as I could.

              Especially this question: “I am interested in getting to the exact root causes of why Scientology a) does harm,……”

              This is a good question, but if you think it is Scientology exclusively that does harm, and that the propensity to do harm is somehow unique to Scientology, I think you are seriously off the track.

              I think you would be better off asking “Why do human beings do harm to each other?” Systems are created and designed by human beings.

              If you try to look at Scientology in isolation, with no datums of comparable magnitude, I think you will get nowhere fast because it would be like being fixated on one tree and there by not seeing the fact that it is part of a forest.

              Scientology has many common elements with other harmful systems, religious and political. I see them all as “political” in the sense that they are involved with control of the many by the few, with some imagined benefit to the few trying to do the controlling. The “religious” part is just a cloaking device in most cases.

              It also has common elements with beneficial or non-harmful systems. Christianity has been there, done that. It has in its history been through extremely harmful phases, doing tremendous amounts of harm, shedding much blood etc over the centuries.

              Why does Christianity do harm? Is it “built into” Christianity to do harm? Answer that, and you will be able to answer your own question about Scientology and harm. You may say “I’m not interested in whether or not Christianity does harm or how it does harm, I’m only interested in Scientology” etc, but I think then you will be off on a fool’s errand wearing blinders, or looking through a microscope at the bark of one tree, forgetting it is just one example of a pattern of human behavior.

              It is a principle of the study of psychology, that one doesn’t start out by asking “Why?”, but starts out by asking What?, then asking How?, then finally possibly being able to ask and answer Why?

              Of course you probably think you can do it some other way, and perhaps you can, in accordance with your own worldview. But you may find that your answers are idiosyncratic to yourself, like Vin’s answers are idiosyncratic to his own understanding and may not seem very relevant or even understandable to others.

              In any case, good luck on your quest. Maybe there is a great book waiting to be written on the subject.

              Namaste. May the wind be always at your back etc.

              It’s late here,must hit the hay.

            3. Valkov: In all fairness, I don’t think you can look at one without looking at the other.

              Chris: Other examples of those who helped are Mussolini and Hitler who also helped by raising those countries up out of economic depression and making the trains run on time. But it this how they are remembered? Hubbard’s insatiable lust for money and power without altruism is how he will be remembered. Even Bill Gates, a capitalist, will give his fortune away to help others, but Valkov, you don’t come across as a defender of capitalism, but in fairness and according to your argument, why not? L. Ron Hubbard is being remembered for cracking eggs, not for making omelettes.

            4. Valkov: Was Help also “rampant” in Scientology since LRH held the reins?

              Chris: You argue that Scientology helps but by ignoring the empirical evidence of all those who came and went, and this numbers in the millions of people. To argue that Scientology helps, is to ignore that Scientology has caused more BPC in the world than it relieved, ever, and this is indisputable. There has never been more help available from the ideology of Scientology than any other ideology helps since its inception, if that. With Hubbard at the reins, its most brilliantly energetic and destructively evil programs were run against apostates like Paulette Cooper and the government.

    2. M to you for posting it and MR for writing it… ” To the degree that Scientology – or any other mental/spiritual practice – affords a person the opportunity and ability to safely view his life and mind and communicate his observations and conclusions with no hint or possibility of evaluation, invalidation or repercussion, it is a positive methodology for assisting a person to increase awareness and ability.”
      +10 and cheers for me for understanding it and practise that understanding.”

        1. Marty’s path seems more of a genuine spiritual path to me than it used to and my own disgust and previous anger with him personally for the ways in which he perpetuated the criminal cult of Scientology has diminished. If he is for real, if his writings are a genuine journal of his path, then I can now honestly wish him well. That would not have been true a short time ago.

        1. Watch it, M.

          Fact is – Marty has been consistently trailing behind this blog for about 6 months for one or two years now, maybe longer.

          1. Hello Geir. First time poster here. Linked over from Marty’s blog. Let me ask, whose pride and ego needs stroking the most? Yours, Marty’s, LRH’s.? Mine? Can most of the evil in scientology be traced to LRH’s ego, his false self. His need to be bigger, smarter, greater than all others. Did that infuse scientology with the end justifies the means mentality that ultimately crushed or discarded the individual? And now I see comments here on which blog seems to have broken new philosophic ground first and distanced itself from scientology first. More pride. Isnt pride and ego and its defense and promotion behind most of whats wrong. I find that is the case with most upsets in ones life. So if your looking for the root causes of what took scn off the rails, look at LRH bank, lower nature, pride, ego or whatever else one wishes to call it. I suspect you know that.

            1. Chill, it was a slight comment, if even. No need to be worked up about it.

              And then; Welcome!

              As for Hubbard and his grandiozeness – obviously he is source. He created the mess. Etc. But that does not explain what exactly it is that makes people perpetrate harm. What exactly is is that hooks people to the cult and start behaving like robots. Now that is the question I had been searching for until Brendan broke that bubble for me. It is the repetitive duplication, the insidious repeating of copying what LRH proclaims as truth. It is the belief that one has to copy. This is even covered in the NOTs material as an issue that should be handled. Well, it is an issue and it should be handled – but not on OT5-7… it should be removed as a mechanism from the subject altogether.

            2. “Repetitive duplication” doesn’t get a big read from me, either.

              But I think this would:

              “In Scientology …

              …have you ever been CURIOUS about duplication?

              …have you ever DESIRED duplication?

              …has duplication ever been ENFORCED?

              …has duplication ever been INHIBITED?”

              As I recall, there are a few other button sometimes added to the basic CDEI; but I don’t recall at the moment which.

              (This would be a partial instance of, “Using Scientology to run out Scientology.” 🙂 )

              G.

            3. Gary.. interestingly scientology what connection one had just blows with solo auditing when one runs group -group agreements, belonging to one, forced to belong, agreed to belong in order not to be alone, etc..etc.. Group belonging into one made up by lots of consideration. because this planet is one large group of meat bodies.. the fun part that in reality we all do each others.. we are not strangers.. but we pretend most of the time in order to have what.. experience? Why I am writing here I am going to give a call!

            4. Repetitive duplication doesn’t get a big read on my meter. But perhaps its important. I think aberration is contagious is a better culprit. Its the false self, the pride and ego in each of us that was appealed to, equally along with the higher calling of the philosophy which justified it. We were hustled.

            5. That is an inherent characteristic of Man, and not descriptive of what makes Scientology into a cult or why it sets it apart from other, more benevolent practices. It is on par with “the problem is Hubbard’s ego”, “the problem is selfishness”, “the problem is misapplication of tech” or “the problem is out-ethics, MUs, …”. None of these are actions directed that explains the forming of an insidious cult. Repetitive duplication is.

            6. I think we give different weight to these issues. That’s ok. Best wishes.

            7. I don’t think that is it. I think the issues that lies Behind the cult is not the issue(s) that Creates the cult.

            8. OLD S….. it seems it is you who have a hang up about PRIDE. interesting item… before one used that word should have a session on that since pride is a weighty consideration: that means it is made out of condensed considerations- and lots of agreements. Pride what its represent is most of the time indicate somebodies ”havingness” a solid item but pride can be taken as in intangible: knowledge etc…. Even a smart remark can be on object of pride-havingness for some one..
              Here in this blog we do post because we are at home and here we can hang out
              and talk to each other, make friend or enemies…With our communication what we say, we all describe who we are and where we are at. in simple way to say how big a bowl of shit we seat in…. baby….. if you want to continue commenting get ready for a wonderful ride.. but you also will be invalidated.. evaluated same way as you have done in your comment above.
              will you stay? 🙂
              Attila the Hun!

            9. Elizabeth, as tempting as it is to take a seat in your big bowl of shit, as you put it, I think I would rather stand and maybee see a little clearer the direction I wish to go. In case there was a mis-duplication on language, the word Pride as I use it refers to the false nature, false identities, of a person, which they protect and propel. Its what masks the being. Am I hung up on it, absolutely. If one is not observing and peeling back those layers of your false self whenever you can, one does not progress. The saying is that the unexamined life is not worth living. Perhaps that is what you mean by sitting in the big bowl of shit. I suspect it is. Good luck.

            10. Yes its smells very good around the oriental lilies are opening! great comment.. thank you… I do admit I am a bit last in the universe… and I do need guidance and I feel that your wonderful way of speaking English and your knowledge of just how it is around here in and out of the bowl of shit will help me a great deal to understand better… once again thank you!
              PS: You must be sitting on barbs since pain is very obvious in your space it just pouring out into the universe.. yes and the sharpness-style of writing too indicate that you were well trained in marty’s blog.
              I take it that you and I will not be friends? 🙂 because of that I feel my life is in total ruin!

        2. You mean because I noticed that his blog posts closely follow the subject material and evolution of this blog? I am open to being deluded, but this example is not one. Marty reads us.

            1. Just because you have such a huge ego… ‘as the old secretary said you have.” you let me write here because I pay you daily compliments…!!!
              just between you and I and the lamp post I have wondered why you have not erased some of my comments over these 2 years. I must have written thousands of them….that indicates that you do have good tolerance level. [ I read some of my writing. and I want to erase them..
              You see, one of my ex said once ; Elizabeth you are not easy to live with sometimes… that was the understatement of the year! and that made me lough because I was with me 24 hours a day and I did not like me!
              That was one of my reason for getting into scientology and continued with solo-ing. To get rid of Elizabeth-erase her.. erase everything about her what ever she was believed in- – how she talked, behaved.. etc.. and She is gone!
              Finally I have reached the nothing-what ever and now there is nothing there not to like about me or like me. Not a bad place…. and well deserved I must say..
              I have realized now people like me or not has nothing to do with me any more.. They act accordingly on their own reality… Interesting to see and understand that..
              Also strangers they tell me everything… that too is interesting..
              Having a happy time and I know you have reality on that… 🙂
              PS don’t let that ego get any bigger, than you will need to buy larger hats, or had to have them made and that could be expensive in the long run!

            2. Elizabeth: I have realized now people like me or not has nothing to do with me any more.. They act accordingly on their own reality… Interesting to see and understand that..

              Chris: Manners notwithstanding, this comment of yours is a helpful piece of self-help advice.

            3. Geir, I’m not understanding the colon:word:colon thingy. Explain?

              About Elizabeth’s remark, I think she just meant her reputation precedes her. Knowing how he censors, I have no interest in any opinions expressed there since they are cooked. Here one is free to express pretty much anything and can see it go up. This is supremely important for my own morale blogging. Thank you for making that happen.

            4. Elizabeth, Sure Marey reads us. His blog has generally mirrored this one for a long time now… Now that everyone here has quit being a Scientologist (except Marildi) Marty has announced he quit being a Scientologist too.

              Yeah, you are spitting in the wind if you think he will post your comments, hahaha. But now that he’s coming on out, maybe? I tried about 4 comments a couple years ago and he never published one of mine and anyway, his blog is quite boring to me as are his OPs as we have already covered them here.

              I’m interested in a few of the people here, but not so much to discuss Scientology since it has been receding in the rear-view mirror of my iteration for quite a while now. Looking ahead for the next adventures, like tomorrow morning! hahaha

        1. Unless he is following me, I don’t predict our paths will ever cross. He is going a way and I am going my way. I used to read his blog and see a grand manipulator but then I saw a little change and then seems more and now quite a bit more. It doesn’t matter my opinion of him, but from here I began giving him the benefit of the doubt (in my own world of evaluation!) and no longer wish him to drink acid and die but wish him to continue his path of self discovery and success. We all seem to be fighting a hard battle.

          1. He is where he needs to be, we all are 🙂
            Spitting into the wind… those day are over… you see I have erased that compulsion.
            LRH made that list just for me. Spitting in the wind is its title, I can mail a copy for you. very affective and since you have that thingy [thing]. , by changing the words around ;Pissing in the wind… it would work on that item toooooo 🙂 Just think what great win-cognition you will have, for sure it will change your life! you will be admitted to Heaven!

  7. It is not enough to point out and even isolate what is good in Scientology. That doesn’t cut it. What is needed is the finding of the root cause(s) of harm, admitting them, hang them out in full view and then move on with what is positive. Until this is done, we will continue to have two camps of pros and cons bickering endlessly over Scientology.

  8. Okay, Geir, here’s one of Marty’s more in-depth analyses of what is at the root of what went wrong in Scientology. First he quotes from Abraham H. Maslow’s book *Religion, Values, and Peak Experiences*:

    “When all that could be called ‘religious’ (naturalistically as well as supernaturalistically) was cut away from science, from knowledge, from further discovery, from the possibility of skeptical investigation, from confirming and discomfirming, and, therefore, from the possibility of purifying and improving, such a dichotomized religion was doomed. It tended to claim that the founding revelation was complete, perfect, final, and eternal. It had the truth, the whole truth, and had nothing more to learn, thereby being pushed into the position that has destroyed so many churches, of resisting change, of being only conservative, of being anti-intellectual and anti-scientific, of making piety and obedience exclusive of skeptical intellectuality — in effect, of contradicting naturalistic truth.”

    And here are Marty’s comments on the above:

    “Such a split-off religion generates split-off and partial definition of all necessary concepts. For example, faith, which has perfectly respectable naturalistic meanings, as for example in Fromm’s writings, tends in the hands of an anti-intellectual church to degenerate into blind belief, sometimes even ‘belief in what you know ain’t so.’ It tends to become unquestioning obedience and last-ditch loyalty no matter what. It tends to produce sheep rather than men.” http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/dichotomized-religion-sheep-production/

    Btw, I found Maslow’s book that was quoted here; http://www.scribd.com/doc/142187640/Abraham-H-Maslow-Religions-Values-and-Peak-Experiences

  9. I think one point of it HAS to do with the “ethics”-system, as it was/is practiced in the CoS. When I think at “ethics” re Scn, I get the creeps . When I think at “ethics” otherwise, I’m totally fine. It has something to do with, that when you are not toeing the line (not thinking in the ”right” way), you are getting sorted out – literally. This leads to though-conformity and thus thought-control. I can spot points were I went further and further into the (mental) mess, when I was acting against my basic convictions to align, to not have to leave the group and my friends (that by the way, was my real “out-ethics”, acting against my convictions). That was very contrary to my character (not to be confused with not being able to be a team player – that’s different). But one major point that was attracting me to Scn was (the presenting) of being non-conform.

    What comes to my mind again and again are the many contradictions. They are enough to drive one into apathy or keep one mentally occupied trying to sort them out and make some sense of them. How can one think straight, with these many contradictions? I couldn’t! This leads to cognitive dissonance with its phenomena. And when you try to handle theses (the contradictions), you have to look for YOUR MU’s (till you find them or till you are “sorted-out”). But that won’t handle it.
    The contradictions are implanted into the subject and one of the major problems, IMO.

    1. Why scientology has the problem why not the individuals has the problem? who made scientology a problem if not the individual persons?
      How can a thing have a problem on its own?

      1. Elizabeth,

        Sure, the individuals have the problems with the subject (or don’t have it) and how they use it; me, because of acting contrary to my convictions and not drawing the consequences. After 13 years then, I did. But it meant also to leave people who were dear to me, and the possibility to go up the Bridge (that it was possible outside, I didn’t know at the time).

        LRH’s even said to do so (* – I love this), and I was reading it being an “ethics particle” under detention for 15 months. I thought he was right. But he also said that sb who is leaving the SO is a DB, didn’t he? So hypothetically I had a choice to transform from a member of the “elite of the planet“ into a “DB” in a very short time, with my the decision that: I would be much better off outside that door – and that’s were I belong then.:)

        * LRH: “If you just mercilessly search out of your life, in the actions and the common actions of your life, all the maybes on a decision level, and if you suddenly assert your decisions where you have withheld decisions, I can guarantee you that your life will smooth out pretty well. If you do that in a big office, for instance, where’s there’s a big staff, it may very well be that by asserting your decisions they fire you straight out the door. That’s where you belong, then. You’re a lot better off outside that door. If this environment has smothered your power of decision, you don’t belong in it. Most of the indecision which you will meet in life is strictly based around choice of environment and the ability to exert decision in that environment.”

        On your question “How can a thing have a problem on its own”. Interesting. For example when a cloud hits a mountain and then cannot go further and has to rain – does “it“ have a problem? (“ a problem is postulate-counter-postulate, force-counter-force. It’s one thing against another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. …” – Tech dicct.”
        Of course if you proceed from the assumption that sb postulated or created the mountain and the behavior of clouds, the problem of “the thing” is the problem of the creator(s).

        Karola

  10. Misinterpretations of Ethics and Responsibility. According to Scientology,you are responsible for everything that happens to you. You “pull things in”, you deserve it. If a stranger hit you in the head with a bottle while you’re walking in the park. Your fault. It just dosen’t add up. It must be shades of grey here. Tell a victim of a child molester that he or she “pulled it in” because he or she had bad karma. I don’t accept that. There are things in this universe that is beyond one’s area of control. There are some uncertainties. If not, then we wouldn’t have a game either.

    1. Anette,

      IF you accept the premise that we are god-like spiritual beings who have chosen to limit ourselves, repeatedly over time, until we now manifest as humans, it follows, directly that, nothing — nothing whatever — happens to us which we didn’t, at some level of knowingness, allow to happen.

      But, on the strictly human ‘level,’ whether or not the above is true, it is rarely (if ever) helpful to consider ourselves victims. When we do, we nearly invariable diminish ourselves. Similarly, we make others ‘smaller’ when we suggest (or agree) that they are victims. “You poor thing!” Is rarely a helpful comment to the purported, ‘victim.’

      And when we raise the ‘victim’ flag ourselves, we’re basically crying, “Look at me, LOOK at me! Aren’t I pitiful? Look how ‘they’ ruined my life; shame on them! (Alms for the wretched?)” I do feel compassion for those who proclaim themselves victims — because, all unknowingly, they are digging their grave.

      Responsibility is not equivalent to fault. With good reason, I think, “Shame, Blame, and Regret,” were deprecated in Scientology (I speak here of theoretical Scientology — that advocated in the books) and any attempt to assign ‘fault’ is an attempt to push, “Shame, Blame, or Regret.” I’m fully aware that some Scientologists, who should know better, have wielded, “Shame, Blame, and Regret,” as though they were mighty swords and have thrust and cut with full intent to damage. 😦

      I think the point here, is that the only life we control is our own. It’s not so much that we don’t have the ‘right’ to control another’s life, although we don’t, as that, no matter what we do, ultimately, the other person will rightly have the final say.

      If we act _as though_ we are always fully responsible for what happens to us, by addressing the person we most readily control, ourselves, we stand the best chance of creating changes that lead to a positive future.

      I suppose the advice I would give to a ‘victim’ (if not so bluntly) would be, “Get over it! Learn what you can from it; make the changes in your life that seem best, and get on with creating a great life!”

      G.

      G.

      1. Well said, Gary.

        Hey, you haven’t commented for a long time. Try to do so more often. I always enjoy your comments. 🙂

        1. Thanks, Marildi,

          My off-hand response to another’s comment (before I even began to address the opening post) seems to have stirred the pot a bit. 😦

          Some have clearly seen my comment as an ‘attack’ on Anette. I regret that. 🙂 Were it possible to examine all my posts on the internet, or all my personal emails, or even all my (post Scientology) face to face interactions it would be hard to find even one instance that was an ‘attack.’ As a libertarian, I don’t attack physically; as an (ever so) ex-Scientologist, I don’t attack verbally — it’s just not helpful.

          As to commenting generally, I only post when I feel that I have something useful to say — that has not already been said.

          Re. the OP? The ‘fatal flaw?’ There are likely several. Probably one was setting up Scientology (“The science of knowing how to know.”) as a religion. That one bugged me from the beginning. I managed to justify it to myself as a pragmatic necessity; held my nose even so.

          G.

          1. Gary, it was clear to me that there was no intention on your part to criticize Anette as there was nothing in her comment that was personal to herself. Besides that, anyone familiar with even a limited number of your posts would know that wouldn’t be at all like you.

            I agree with what you’re saying about Scientology being set up as a religion. It was a double-edged sword, as it turned out. Back when it was instituted, I think the intention was to protect Scientology from efforts to either wipe it out or take it over and may in fact have saved its demise – temporarily. Unfortunately, however, it set Scn up to be a belief system and to the degree that it did so, the goals of personal freedom in the basic principles were lost. So what you’ve expressed as the fatal flaw seems valid to me.

            1. p.s. Gary. Another factor besides Scn being made into a religion, and thus being set up as a belief system that inhibits actual free thought, is the fact that Scientology produces such incredibly fantastic gains that it (1) brings about a mindset that keeps one from continuing to search and think for oneself and (2) makes Scientologists, as true believers, vulnerable to the whims of a corrupt management .

              In other words, as the old saying goes – the bigger they are the harder they fall. And the tech of Scientology is truly “big”. This is the gist of Marty’ Rathbun’s blog post today: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/why-bother/

              Ironic, isn’t it? Scientology went down the tubes basically because it was so supremely workable! Nevertheless, there are people who don’t fixate on the negative and can see that the good can be sifted out and the pitfalls avoided. I am one of those and I would guess you are too.

            2. Marildi “Scientology went down the tubes basically because it was so supremely workable!”

              Not quite what Marty wrote, was it?

            3. Isn’t that basically what he is saying here:

              “L. Ron Hubbard developed a number of unique, aggressive methods for tackling problems of the human psyche. Used intelligently there is nothing that compares to their direct, predictable effectiveness in intensifying present awareness.

              “…[Ken] Wilber speaks of people attaining ecstatic, exalted altered states in their particular discipline that they consider to be so miraculous as to be without compare. They are convinced that they have found the only way, which results in a sort of tunnel vision and puts a figurative ceiling on their own continued growth and development.

              “…As intensively and effectively as Scientology can focus an individual’s attention and concentration, it just as intensively and effectively conditions those new found abilities onto worshiping and defending to the death the construct that made them possible.”

            4. Marildi, THAT is your slyest red herring in a while. You had me going for a minute. On the other hand, you had me going because of that little shift, you know what I mean. Congrats. Good job. Love you.

            5. Marildi,

              (Replying also here to your followup.)

              The religious thing was certainly a ‘flaw’ for me; but, like I said, I doubt there is a _single_ fatal flaw.

              Perhaps another was Ron’s setting himself up as a charismatic leader. His desire to be seen as such is demonstrated by his seeming unhappiness with others who became strong ‘opinion leaders’ within Scientology. From various reports, if anyone seemed to be approaching his level of — fame/regard/respect — the dude/dudettes head would roll. This pretty much eliminated culling, by peer review, of the truly bad ideas. (This trait seems to have been taken to the next higher level by the current head of the church. 😦 )

              As you (and Marty in your link) note: occasional touches of ecstasy may have contributed to the unquestioning fanaticism. At one time, Ron himself railed against this, he called it, “going up the pole.”

              Short of this, it was hard for me to keep in mind that someone who seemed so often ‘right’ could also, sometimes, be dead wrong! I, and doubtless many others, worked real hard to ‘justify’ something that seemed wrong. I mean, really, “how often is Ron wrong???” So, most likely, if something he says _seems_ wrong, at first, I’m probably not quite understanding what he truly meant. For example.

              Before I even walked in the door of any Scientology organization, I read, front to back, the (I think it was called) “Basic Staff Handbook.” While reading, I got the various ethics conditions. Ok, Ok, Ok…woah! Grey rags tied around the arm??? “What the hell is some kind of degradation ceremony doing in Scientology orgs?”

              Well, even that early in the game, I was _motivated_ to make Ron right. After sufficient twisting and contorting, I could — just — see how this ethics stuff could all be a fun ‘agreed upon’ game. I could also clearly see how it could be turned vile in the wrong hands — that being, the hands of anyone who didn’t see, as clearly as I did, what Ron (obviously) intended.

              Of course, in the Sea Org, it was explicitly demanded that one ‘get’ “Command Intention.” Eventually, that became a trifle difficult. 😦

              Still, there remain those things that Hubbard/LRH/Ron did get right. Quite a lot of ‘things.’ Some of those things I have used, consistently, ever since. Some of those things I have taught others (non-Scientologists) and seen them apply the principles to their benefit. If I had the chance to do it all again — or not, I’d do it again. I could not in good conscience deprive myself of the tools and wealth of understanding that I got from Scientology. It has enriched my life immeasurably.

              However, the shortest way to a ‘sad-effect’ I know is to consider what I hoped Scientology to be and contrast that with what it became.

              G.

            6. Thanks, Gary. One thing I have to disagree with is that on Marty’s post he was talking about “occasional touches of ecstasy”. I believe he was referring to the regularly occurring releases that pcs get – which they often find to be quite a relief and pretty miraculous. I would say this is commonplace in auditing and that this was Marty’s point about why Scientologists easily become overly zealous and closed-minded.

              However, as for the rest of your post, I had pretty much the same experiences as you – and came to exactly the same conclusions you did, which was so well put and bears repeating:

              “Still, there remain those things that Hubbard/LRH/Ron did get right. Quite a lot of ‘things.’ Some of those things I have used, consistently, ever since. Some of those things I have taught others (non-Scientologists) and seen them apply the principles to their benefit. If I had the chance to do it all again — or not, I’d do it again. I could not in good conscience deprive myself of the tools and wealth of understanding that I got from Scientology. It has enriched my life immeasurably.

              “However, the shortest way to a ‘sad-effect’ I know is to consider what I hoped Scientology to be and contrast that with what it became.”

              You and your sane viewpoint did my heart good today! 🙂

      2. Gary.. thanks, great comment and I love you for writing it.
        yes no matter what happens to us we have created that.. example I was badly beaten this life.. yes that made me the victim till in session I have found the postulate, I had a head on collision.[ You can read that in my blog just how severe that was] I was driven into yet again in session I found the postulate which caused that incident….
        As I have inspected my track and the interaction with others over the many life times.. nothing but nothing has happened unless I have agreed to it or postulated it.. It seems even being a VICTIM I HAVE BEEN A CAUSE… Now knowing that has restored my reality on just how much power I have….Garybaby… this kid here is operating with power!

          1. I read your article, Geir, and am in full agreement — so much so that, were I a better writer, I might have written those words myself.

            As for the 5-year old? She needs comforting and protection for now; much later she might find some auditing helpful — or a direction to your, “what-can-you-control” post.

            G.

          2. In this case, I would string up the “father” who did this, and make a safe environment for the child. The child is only guilty of being human on this planet, and that can be addressed (if she decides to) when she is older, and really, outside the context of being raped. This is the cruelty of rote and unthinking acceptance of data.

        1. Elizabeth,

          I envy your experiential certainty! I have had to adopt it as, “a workable truth.” And you have hit the crux of it: if we assign causation of our various calamities to another, to that extent, we assign away our ‘power.’ This is unhelpful to do, even from a ‘meat body’ perspective.

          Certainly, many situations are — co-created. “I did this, Marla did that, Joe this other thing.” But! Willingness to take responsibility for my part in the joint creation is hugely important — to me. Certainly, I never want to be, “an agent of blame.”

          G.

          1. Gary .. thanks for the comm.
            that certainty yes has come after many-many thousand of hours of looking-confronting the crap I have created and believed in.
            To erase is taking responsibility and that has to be done what I done to others on every level, To me O/W’s finding those were the rewards, because they were so well hidden, suppressed yet finding those and understanding them really made me understand the self what that self is and the power it has.

          2. Garry.. PS.. when I read your comment I never read or seen “attack” I just seen what you written -plain fantastic view points.
            In my reality any one who read more into your comment WAS THEIR CONCIDERATION waken by their stimulation from their own bank.
            Love these stuff, so many view points one is funnier than the other.. great day in Paradise!

      3. Gary, You must be in a lot of pain to have puked out all that ruminated Scientology nonsense. Maybe instead of deriding another’s life story, you just stick your own neck out and tell your own story. We’ll listen and let you know how you’ve measured up to being an OT. LOL!

        1. Hi Chris,

          There was no intent in my recent post to deride anyone. Geir started me (thinking/ruminating) about the OP issue, then, reading the comments, Anette’s conflation of Responsibility and Fault ‘pressed’ my, “Someone is ‘wrong’ on the internet,” button.

          I was nearly finished with my comment before I clicked on Anette’s pic and read part of her blog. My first impression was, “Oh shit! I’m responding to Geir’s girlfriend and she might feel like the whole ‘victim’ thing was pointed at her.” After reading more of her posts, it seemed at least possible that she was, in fact, doing her best to, “get over it.”

          As for my own ‘story?’ Well, much of it has already been posted over the last thirty years, starting with Homer’s newsgroup. Never did do a ‘my story’ on exscn. Compared with the stories of others, mine seriously lacks — drama.

          Short version: it begins in 1968 at Luke AFB, Phoenix, Az. with a library hardback of DMSMH. No joy getting fellow airmen to ‘try it’ with me. Rediscovered again, in 1969, at the base exchange in Germany. Paperback with response cards! Yeah!!!

          Ordered (and read) most of what are now considered ‘basic books’ before I sought & received my first auditing at (let me think) 7-8 Rue de Londres, Paris, France. Got me a whole 5 hr intensive. Wow! (Dis ain’t like DMSMH)

          Was referred to George Eggar’s and Blanka Anakin’s franchise in Frankfurt. Signed up for the H.S.D.C. My four year enlistment in the USAF ended in 1970 and I had to return to the States just before beginning student auditing. 😦

          Towards the end of the year, I went to L.A. (with a friend) intending to join the Auditor’s Corp. Rejected; wasn’t a certified auditor. 😦 Joined CC instead. Got mucho backlogged FSM commissions paid. Yevonne was the C.O.; I helped lay the rag floor.

          (Short, Gary, come on!)

          All CC ‘staff’ had to join Sea Org. Ok. Highlight: Promoted to Dir of Clearing, then Public Sec. Heber Jentzsch was my Deputy Pub. Sec for a time. (Where’s Heber???) SS I & II, SO SS I & II, OEC, AB. Blew when I heard sec checks were coming in. Rejoined early 1980’s. Was Deputy Qual Sec for a time (again at CC.) Routed out. Total time in S.O.: about 3 years. Somewhere in there, held various posts at ASHO including Medical Officer, Letter Reg Typist, Dir of Personnel and (demoted myself to) Recruiter.

          Hate Rice & Beans to this day. 🙂

          G.

          1. Thanks Gary! Thawed my icy cold heart with that story. So you have been around a bit. A good guy trying to do a good thing and help the Old Man clear the planet. Nothing wrong with that. Your warm and sane response to my cold shoulder and lack of knee-jerk shows good character and calm spirit.

            Do you feel that you were able to identify and attain personal goals through the use of Scientology? Say a little bit about that if you don’t mind.

            1. Chris,

              Thanks and a quick correction: I was never much sold on the “Clear the Planet” thing. Seemed like a (fairly lame), “Big League Sales,” gimmick to me.

              My initial attraction, ala DMSMH, was to the perfect memory and super-reliable computation that seemed to be — attainable. I already had a very good memory and decent computation and had devoured books in many disparate fields. Yet it was very real to me that, as good as it was, my ability to recall what I wanted, when I wanted, could stand improvement. Sadly, as with most, my memory has become less vivid, less reliable, less facile with age. So — no big win on that score. 😦

              When I discovered in Germany that ‘Ron’ had gone on to, “Build a better Bridge,” his own damn self, I was thrilled!

              As a long time SF fan, I was particularly enchanted by the OT levels — which seemed to hold out the possibility of becoming not just a superior human being, but, well, way more. 🙂 Telepathy, Telekinesis! Etc.

              I subscribed to and read cover to cover the “Advance” mags and paid particular attention to the OT success stories. Seemed like others had ‘received’ similar abilities to those I coveted — if, perhaps, they could exercise them only intermittently. But just to KNOW that one was a spiritual being running a body? That would be so cool!

              It was on silly ol’ ARC S/W that I was slammed with the certainty that I was a spiritual being, and yeah, running a body. It was an unanticipated result from totally non-leading questions like, “Recall a time when you felt great!” With a follow-up question asking you to note some specific sensory modality in that ‘picture.’ Kinda interesting, kinda boring too for a couple of days, then WHAM! WTF?

              “That’s it.” Sent to attest the next day. NO PROBLEM. Of course, that ‘running a body’ bit was somewhat awkward — rather tentative and kinda weak for a week. 🙂

              Later I had student auditing on Grade 0. That was lots of fun, particularly visualizing comm flows and connections. Then my auditor had to move on to Grade 1 auditing so I was — incomplete on that for a time. Later yet, during some metered action, I read as overrun on Grade 0. Auditor immediately did a Date/Locate.

              Now that was the first time I’d had a Date/Locate run on me and I was just a little dubious that it would be effective. It was.

              No sooner had the auditor stated the date (and perhaps time) than I was FLOODED with certainty that comm was never going to be an issue for me again. Nor has it, 3+ decades later.

              Perhaps even more valuable was just the information about how people worked, gleaned from books, tapes in the qual library listened to during QM posts, and bulletins, P/Ls and such that appeared in my in-basket or were encountered while reading through the Qual Library.

              So, in summation, none of my long-term personal goals were actually attained. The processing goals, grade chart goals, were uniformly attained — in spades! And — in time. 🙂

              I lost confidence that the — magical — results that I had expected from the OT levels were actually available. (Despite plenty evidence that others had found those levels worthwhile — for them.) That, along with my growing awareness of the non-scientological, out ARC practices of the management of the church in the late 1980’s I began to, ever so quietly, drift away.

              If I’ve failed to address what peaked your interest, Chris, feel free to let me know.

              G.

            2. That was great Gary. Well told. You understated the drama in your experience, though, or else you never wrote your name truly in blood on the billion year contract? No matter. We all tried to do good things for good reasons and we can’t be faulted for that part of it — ever.

        2. Ch…. I believe one day after a new different cog [ about responsibility] will come your way you will silently apologize to Gary for the above comment you made.

      4. Gary –

        L Ron Hubbard taught Scientologists this view of responsibility so that LRH’s victims would be shuddered into silence by other Scientologists. Your use of this abusive definition of responsibility is actually quite disgusting, although I suspect you are only trying to help others with Scientology.

        It would be good for you to question and test this teaching by L Ron Hubbard. A good way to do that is to apply Logic 8 to it by comparing another, similar teaching on responsibility to Hubbard’s.

        Aristotle has an extremely enlightened teaching on Ethics and responsibility that is really good for an excellent exercise in Logic 8.

        Here it is. Listen and see:

        http://archive.org/details/nicomachean_ethics_ge_librivox

        Until then, stop blaming the victim for the things that others do to them. It, at the least, shows you can’t spot source.

        Please?

        Alanzo

        1. Alanzo,

          I believe I’ve ‘crossed swords’ with you once or twice before. 🙂 Elsewhere.

          If you reread my post without preconceptions, you’ll see that I entirely disavowed the whole, “shame, blame, & regret,” bit. The whole point, Alanzo, was that ‘blame’ (or shame, or regret) is rarely helpful — including (but not limited to) blaming others for one’s, “terrible condition.”

          G.

          1. Gary wrote –

            If you reread my post without preconceptions, you’ll see that I entirely disavowed the whole, “shame, blame, & regret,” bit. The whole point, Alanzo, was that ‘blame’ (or shame, or regret) is rarely helpful — including (but not limited to) blaming others for one’s, “terrible condition.”

            Hubbard liked to use semantics to emphasize a BIG DIFFERENCE and make this BIG DRAMATIC POINT where there was none.

            Assuming responsibility, and assigning responsibility, are no different in actuality than assuming blame, and assigning blame. It’s just a different word, with a slightly different meaning.

            The slight difference in meaning does not create a difference in real life.

            If you assign responsibility, you are also blaming. Hubbard said one was “high-toned” and the other “low-toned” and a bunch of other obfuscating claptrap. You are just playing Hubbard’s semantic game.

            You are making a distinction where there is no difference.

            If I am wrong, please tell me the exact difference between the assignment of responsibility and the assignment of blame. We’ll take the 5 year old and the pedophile priest scenario.

            What is the exact difference between assigning responsibility to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him, and assigning blame to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him?

            Alanzo

            1. Alanzo: “What is the exact difference between assigning responsibility to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him, and assigning blame to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him?”

              There isn’t difference simply because responsibility cannot be assigned. It can only be assumed by the person themselves on their own determinism. The mere action of trying to *assign* responsibility immediately moves it into some nuance of blame.

              This is yet another amazing example of Hubbard’s magic switcheroos. He very carefully defined ethics as different from justice, and responsibility as different from blame. then wrote book, bulletins and gave lectures on how they were different, establishing agreement amongst the audience that this is how it really is (which it is).

              And what did he then immediately do both times?

              Conflated them and made them the same! Started assigning responsibility for mistakes and created the post of Ethics Officer, and their first orders from him were to start assigning conditions. Both times in direct contradiction to his carefully established agreement prior, bu that didn;t matter as the sheep were already suckered.

              Now I see what Geir is getting at – the robotism caused by incessant “duplication” is what set the audience up to be suckered like this.

            2. Alan: The mere action of trying to *assign* responsibility immediately moves it into some nuance of blame. This is yet another amazing example of Hubbard’s magic switcheroos.

              Chris: Alan and Alanzo, the tocayo tag team.

            3. Thank you splog.

              Now, if you can muster the energy and stand the exhaustion; Could you please explain this to Marildi? Tip: Finding any LRH reference that supports your point makes for an enormous difference in that effort.

            4. Alanzo,

              (I think I saw someone refer to you as, “Allen.” Does your ‘handle’ mean, “Allen from Anzo?”)

              I haven’t seen but a small portion of what you’ve written, nor do I recall in any detail, that of yours which I’ve read. The overall impression is that you’ve long been a staunch critic of Scientology: the tech, the policy, and the heavy handed implementation of either. I agree; that needs to be done. Perhaps to my shame, I have had neither the courage required nor interest in, “standing up to the church!” That’s clearly one area where we differ.

              Another area, perhaps, is that nothing seriously ‘bad’ happened to me while public, staff, or sea org member. (Nor did I do anything ‘bad’ to public or fellow staff. 🙂 ) As disillusionment increased, I just quietly disengaged and took with me the ‘wins’ I’d had in auditing and the valuable information I had learned. I don’t recall ever feeling angry at Scientology; I was more sad if, anything, that Scientology had not lived up, in practice, to my high expectations.

              That said, I’ll offer my take on some of your points.

              Alanzo: “Assuming responsibility, and assigning responsibility, are no different in actuality than assuming blame, and assigning blame. It’s just a different word, with a slightly different meaning.”

              From my perspective, responsibility can never be ‘assigned.’ It can be offered, by one who has already accepted that responsibility, and it can be accepted; but it can never be assigned. Similarly, while responsibility can offered, even if accepted that responsibility is only shared. never is it ‘given away.’ Responsibility can also be withdrawn, relinquished or abandoned.

              (One of ‘things’ about LRH that truly ‘bugged me,’ even in the day, was his pretence that ‘screw ups’ by juniors were not also his own. He showed feet of clay!)

              And that brings us to blame. (Which, by the way, Ron spent far too much time trying to avoid.) People who have responsibility are, and should be, careful about assigning it/sharing it. On the other hand, nearly everyone is not only willing but absolutely eager to share blame or ‘assign it’ to others. 🙂

              I suspect, am nearly convinced, that the only reason one points the finger of blame is to deflect attention from oneself. (Perhaps, even, to deflect one’s own attention from oneself!)

              Alanzo: “What is the exact difference between assigning responsibility to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him, and assigning blame to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him?”

              Why would anyone sane do this? Are you expecting me to be an apologist for craziness? Clearly, anyone attempting to ‘assign responsibility’ (which can’t be done!) to a 5 year old is nuts! Ditto re. the blame.

              G.

            5. Gary –

              I’m “Allen” from Illinois, not ANZO. And Splog is yet another “Alan” that is also different from “Alanzo”.

              I think you’ve gotten us mixed up a little in your reply. Which is easy to do.

              I can see why you would not want to defend the insane. My point is that LRH’s definition of full responsibility leads to this insanity because a Scientologist is taught to assume cause over all efforts and counter efforts on all dynamics.

              This results in a person blinding himself to the cause of others in his life, and therefore you get situations where Mike Rinder sustains 50 beatings from David Miscavige, and no one ever calls the police. Because Mike had to “take responsibility” for David Miscavige beating him. This blindness to David Miscavige’s cause led him to not blame Miscavige for beating him. Mike never pointed a finger at David Miscavige, with tears in his eyes, and screamed “It is YOUR FAULT that you beat me and NOT MINE!”

              That would have been assigning correct blame. And assigning the correct blame would have led to an immediate improvement of the condition by Mike calling the police after the very first beating and telling them that he has been a VICTIM of assault and battery.

              The beatings would have stopped right there. David Miscavige would have been disgraced and sent to jail. And the Church would probably be slightly less abusive to its members today.

              You have to assign correct cause, or correct blame, for ALL factors in a situation in order to be fully responsible for it. This obviously, includes your own correct blame.

              LRH’s definition makes people blind to other causes outside themselves – especially when it comes to Church abuse. I believe LRH did this on purpose, in order to silence people who he had abused.

              He labeled them “victims” and made that label mean that they were “effect”, “weak” and “sniveling pussies” and told everyone to look down on them for “being a victim”.

              There IS such a thing as a victim that does not have all these derogatory labels. And it is very possible to be a victim as part of taking full responsibility for a situation. LRH’s definition keeps that from happening.

              His definition leads to very bad effects. It is either crazy or evil, or both.

              I personally know of 2 victims of child molestation in the Church who were blamed for “pulling in” the acts of the Scientologist pedophiles who sexually abused them.

              LRH’s definition of full responsibility from APA is why this happened to them in Scientology.

              Alanzo

            6. Alanzo,

              I think I may have ‘spotted’ the source of any disagreement we may have. Feel free to let me know if I’m in error. 🙂

              All people who ‘follow’ Christ have their own, personal, conception of Christianity and their own idea of what it means to ‘act’ as a Christian — how they ‘should’ live their lives, even when they fail to do so.

              Similarly, all people who consider themselves to be scientists, operate from their own fund of knowledge and their idea of how a scientist ‘should’ act — whether they live up to that ideal or not.

              Scientology (capital S) has brought scientology (small s) into disrepute. So much so that, when I share with another particular bits of ‘workable truth’ that I think they might find useful, I often neglect to mention if I happened to learn that, ‘workable truth,’ first while studying scientology. 😦

              Scientology (capital S) includes the organization(s) set up by or for Ron/LRH/Hubbard to develop and promulgate scientology and, ever so incidentally, ensure that Ron would never again be strapped for cash. Similarly, Scientologists are those scientologists who are acting for that organization or are, at least somewhat, adhering to its guidelines, rules, policies, and procedures.

              In the early days, Ron defined scientology as: the science of knowing how to know. Well, that sounded profound; it was surely good ‘PR’; but I could never truly get what it meant. Ron clearly admired science and scientists; perhaps he wanted to garner some of the public’s admiration for scientists; and, PERHAPS, with a little stretch of the imagination, he could be considered a theoretical scientist. Experimental science, though, is often just incredibly tedious and, like me, I suspect Ron had little tolerance for tedium. 🙂

              However, he also defined scientology more broadly as a collection of workable truths: all of those truths, so long as they worked, discovered by anyone, anywhere, at anytime. He explicitly noted that said definition encompassed all of the ‘workable truths’ of science. I liked that one and could embrace it! Without reservation.

              Did I say, “broad?” By that definition, everyone, everywhere is a scientologist — whether they know it or not! Without exception, everyone has their own collection of ‘workable truths.’ As they live their lives, they add to that collection; on occasion they drop some ‘truths’ that have proved unworkable.

              And this is perhaps where Scientology truly screwed the pooch: by defining itself as a religion, Ron became, ipso facto, the high priest. Ron’s every word (whether well considered or light opinion) became dogma. “Workable truths,” became enforced knowledge (ARC break, anyone?) and couldn’t be discarded when they stopped ‘working.’ (Isn’t it ironic, that K.S.W., “Keeping Scientology Working,” by its insistence on dogma, came to ensure that Scientology would not keep working?)

              As the high priest, Ron couldn’t be corrected by his peers because — there were none!

              So. I formed my foundation as a scientologist, through reading those books Ron was willing to present as the ‘public face’ of scientology, well before I ever darkened the door of a Church of Scientology. I already had a nice pile of, ‘workable truths,’ and more were added after. Some have since been discarded, some were found only occasionally useful, others form the core of the way I live my life.

              But here’s the point: all those ‘truths’ are true as I, Gary York, have come to understand them. And those ‘truths,’ as I ‘read’ them, may or may not be the way Ron intended them to be understood or as you interpret them. (On occasion, ‘failure to duplicate’ may be a good thing. 🙂 )

              So, here’s the point: even had we a million years to dispute, it would be impossible to convince me that ‘scientology’ is bad. Should you persuade me that every ‘workable truth’ in my current collection was, in fact, unworkable, that would only mean that I needed to update what I considered workable. By your persuasion, scientology has not been disproved, only that particular collection of ‘truths’ I had, momentarily, held.

              On the other hand, over the years, as my knowledge increased and — ever so reluctantly — my opinion of Scientology has diminished. So much has it diminished, so tarnished has become its name, that I no longer hold hope that it can ever be reformed.

              I think Geir’s point, in the OP, was to try to try to pinpoint specific things in Scientology, which would inevitably cause any similar organization to fail. At the moment, I can only advise such a successor organization, to:
              1. Have no dogma.
              2. Take nothing ‘on faith.’
              3. Trust but verify. 🙂
              4. Neither demand nor expect perfection. (Absolutes, etc.)
              5. Be kind.
              6. Never promise what you can’t deliver. 🙂
              7. Don’t do unto others what you would rather others not do unto you. (I call this one the “Golder Rule.”)

              G.

            7. TO Gary…..”the science of knowing how to know. Well, that sounded profound; it was surely good ‘PR’ but I could never truly get what it meant.”
              Different knowledge comes from the form of cognitions.
              In my reality in sessions the self to finds out ,one discovers what is beyond the knowledge one have had when one erase that old thoughts-considerations-agreements-ideas and that cog is the new reality.
              By having continual session one really can see the application of the auditing tech is: “the science of knowing how to know.”
              But again the above is my reality I have arrived to having sessions. [tons in fact]

            8. All right, Gary.

              Well I’ve shown how this one part of Scientology – LRH’s definition of Responsibility from the Advanced Procedures and Axioms -when examined closely, is unworkable, crazy, evil, or all three.

              You had tried to apply this part of Scientology to another poster here, and I called this “tool” you were using disgusting.

              So at least I’ve been able to explain to you why I said that.

              Alanzo

    2. Anette, it is true, that you are fully responsible for everything that happened to you. The funny part of it is that on the level where you are fully responsible exists no responsibility or irresponsibility. That is on a plateau which is uncomprehensible for us from this state where we are now. So it is totally stupid (from Ron or Scientologists) to make such statements:D We are not alone in this world. Obvious. There are interconnections. So from this plateau where we are now there are many causes which collide and make the reality we are in. Of course there is karma but karmas are interconnected.
      There is not even a definition for Ethics in Scientology. It is both defined for morals and personal matter but finally you get justice, so it is reduced to morals.

    3. A victim would say “I pulled it in”. That’s a scientologist.

      A non victim would call the police to handle the man with the bottle or get the child molester in jail.

      1. Exactly. That’s why we have police and justice.

        In Scientology the child will be assigned a Liability Condition for accepting such bad PR. SICK!!!

        Scientologists are far off thinking Scientology Ethics and Justice is above the law of a country.

        1. Anette: In Scientology the child will be assigned a Liability Condition for accepting such bad PR. SICK!!!

          Chris: Anette is understating this. For reals, no exageration, I was there and this was done to my child.

            1. A parent is supposed to put things, good constructive things there for the child to build on. It begins with hopefully enough sprinkling of DNA that they have a chance and then teach them. The years my daughter had none of that in the SO cannot be gotten back and the lack of incidents to draw on leave me wondering and guilty. My daughter has a fair measure of success in her life by outward appearances and standards… Only I know what she never got and this sometimes sort of drives me crazy.

            2. One thing is to expose oneself to crazy insanity, shit and sufferings, another thing is to have caused (directlt or indirectly) another to be exposed. I totally get that. You are forgiven. ❤

            3. Thank you for that Anette. I fantasize about my daughter one day bringing up the subject and saying that to me in a knowing way. But that is my thing and I don’t bother her with it. If it comes up, I’m ready.

              My problems with that part of my life have become such vague maunderings that I am able to brush them away with the back of my hand when they pop up inconveniently. The thing is, I want the scars. I don’t want to forget the experience and leave myself open to repeat those types of mistakes. So I keep them and wear them on the inside and filter what’s occurring on the outside. My wife knows, but only on Geir’s blog and now on yours have I felt like letting them out for others to see.

            4. On my nightstand I have a Norwegian book titled: “The grip of a Psychopath. How to free yourself of destructive people.”

              That book helped me tremendously to understand what prevented me from just leaving. Sometimes I read a story or two to help me remember the manipulative mechanisms that were used to trap me. To prevent myself from being duped again.

  11. Let’s try this; the root cause is

    Certainty

    So much of Scientology is devoted to certainty, to gettingit all, to the EP being perfect, etc on and on, and it enters in early on the bridge.

    With so much focus on certainty, people stop looking closer at what they concluded in the past. Because they are CERTAIN they know. This easily becomes not looking at all, at anything.

    Similar to the opening statement in the study tapes – the initial barrier to study is thinking you know it all already – so the barrier to fixing Scn is that the people in it no longer know how to look.

    Kind of an odd position for a subject to be in when it claims to deliver “Knowing how to Know”

    Alan

    1. Interesting.

      How about this one: The stress on Duplication. In study, in auditing, in the materials. To duplicate and then to agree (as understanding equals reality equals agreement). This breaks down critical thinking and free will.

        1. Ch.. Duplication… what is and how it works is unique to scientology. because of that it is very difficult for some to understand.. Duplication-confrontation is the basic-basic to understanding. The fear of duplication is very strongly in-bed-ad since duplication causes the mess vanish and that mess is a vital having- ness-anchor for the being.
          To be able to duplicate means one is willing to let go and ready for the change-new.
          Confronting-Duplication.. is the only element what is needed for as-issing.

          1. Yes, you are right, but this is just a bit off from what they were discussing studying and accepting the Tech as Truth that needed to be duplicated, understood, and made a part of oneself. You are referring to auditing processes and this other was about studying.

            1. I’ll quote the book:

              “We call this triangle the ARC triangle. The precision definitions of
              these three items are as follows:
              1. COMMUNICATION is the interchange of ideas or particles
              between two points. More precisely, the definition of Communication is:
              Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention and Attention and a duplication
              at Effect of what emanates from Cause.
              2. REALITY is the degree of agreement reached by two ends of a
              communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved
              between Cause and Effect. That which is real is real simply because it is
              agreed upon, and for no other reason.
              3. AFFINITY is the relative distance and similarity of the two ends
              of a communication line. Affinity has in it a mass connotation. The word
              itself implies that the greatest affinity there could be would be the
              occupation of the same space, and this, by experiment, has become
              demonstrated. Where things do not occupy the same space their
              affinity is delineated by the relative distance and the degree of
              duplication.”

            2. Then tell me your understanding of this part: “it is the degree of duplication achieved
              between Cause and Effect.”

    2. Really agree that certainty is an important, pivotal problem. In looking back, certainty has been peddled in ways that are neither important nor true. Certainty is the easiest thing in the world to have, uncertainty opens the door to learning and understanding.

      1. Yup. I just jotted down my first thoughts on the matterand I’d really like to work this one further. But, it’s 2:45 am here and I need to get to work tomorrow at a sane time

        I can pick it up again in about 18 hours 🙂

  12. A note on responsibility:

    If one adopts the view that an individual is fully responsible for the condition he is in, then would it not also follow that whenever you hurt another, it is not your fault or wrongdoing, it is theirs?

        1. you take responsibility of what you cause…that what you experience in the NOW, since you have no idea what I have experience in the NOW you cant take responsibility for my reality how I see in that fraction of the moment.
          If you can put ”free will” into that fraction of experience than you are in the MEST universe thinking the MEST way..and have past and future too.
          There are no concepts existing in the NOW.

    1. My understanding is that it’s not a matter of fault – it’s a matter of each person having full responsibility for their own condition. Since you’re talking about LRH’s views on responsibility, here is what he has to say about it:

      “There is a Scale of Responsibility between Full Responsibility and Full Other-Responsibility where the former is above 20.0 and the latter is at 0.0. Complete negation of responsibility is complete admission of being under the complete control of the environment. Assumption of Full Responsibility is a statement of control of the environment and persons within it without necessity of control.

      “There is a cycle of responsibility. One acts and seeks to negate his responsibility for such action by placing the ‘reason’ at another’s door. This works as long as one succeeds in making another accept responsibility for the action. The moment this action fails and another does not accept it, the entire action comes back at one. It is then a matter of fault and fixed (by another) blame and stirs the emotion of guilt. Before this cycle begins, there is no aberration, no matter WHAT has been done, no matter WHAT has happened to anyone. The action occurs but is no cause for discussion or justice until one seeks to shunt cause elsewhere than self. This starts the cycle and eventually comes back as fault. Full responsibility is not FAULT; it is recognition of being CAUSE.” (from the book Advanced Procedure and Axioms)

    2. Geir wrote:

      A note on responsibility:

      If one adopts the view that an individual is fully responsible for the condition he is in, then would it not also follow that whenever you hurt another, it is not your fault or wrongdoing, it is theirs?

      The logical conclusion of Hubbard’s insane teachings on responsibility, in one clean, concise statement.

      Nice, Geir.

      Alanzo

      1. Geir: “If one adopts the view that an individual is fully responsible for the condition he is in, then would it not also follow that whenever you hurt another, it is not your fault or wrongdoing, it is theirs?”

        Alanzo: “The logical conclusion of Hubbard’s insane teachings on responsibility, in one clean, concise statement.”

        Me: I don’t disagree with either of you fellows – I think you make perfect sense – but I must add this:

        I never bought into that kind of thinking, to me responsibility always made sense – if I let something bad happen to me then I’m responsible for me and I must fix whatever shit I happen to be in. But the other guy is also responsible for what he did too.

        Just because A takes responsibility for X doesn’t mean that B can then take less 🙂

        Anyway, that’s how I always saw it, but I do behave differently with most things….

        So my question is: how many other folks reading this thought the same way?

        1. slog ”I never bought into that kind of thinking, to me responsibility always made sense – if I let something bad happen to me then I’m responsible for me and I must fix whatever shit I happen to be in. But the other guy is also responsible for what he did too.”
          Yes.. we only can take responsibility for the self… sooner or later that other person will do the same and that will happen.

        2. Al: “So my question is: how many other folks reading this thought the same way?”

          Chris: I did, er, do. I also didgeridoo. (that didn’t make any sense – just read the first part.)

    3. I’ll have a go at clarifying this. The concept of, “Full Responsibility,” is truly applicable only from the viewpoint of spiritual being with mega-knowingness who enters games, for fun, with full knowledge of the potential consequences, and who (again, knowingly) restricts his viewpoints, knowledge, and ability (repeatedly, over time) as ‘necessary’ to play his/her/its chosen games. From this thetanish viewpoint, nothing happens to him that he did not first agree to allow to happen. Nothing! (For even thetanish communication to occur, per the comm formula, the thetans must take turns at being cause and effect. If we repudiate all ‘effect’ we also repudiate all comm.)

      On the other hand, from the humanish (meat-body) perspective, the responsibility issue is more pragmatic (as you suggested with your link to the article): where is my time and energy best spent? We all pursue our various goals, known and unknown, and muddle our way toward some (usually ill defined) ‘ideal scene.’ Most often, attempting to assign blame to another, trying to shame another, or wringing our hands regretting our own actions is — a waste of time and effort. Time and effort that we could spend more directly in pursuit of what we want.

      When we find that our actions have led to a — situation — that we deplore, it’s useful to consider what decisions or actions of ours were — unwise — and do what we can to help ensure that we do not create similar, deplorable situations in the future. And then — get on with pursuing our goals having learned something worthwhile.

      Sometimes, sure, when we attempt to make another accept responsibility, when we try to make them feel shame, accept blame, or regret their actions, sometimes, on occasion, it’s helpful for them or us. But a significant return on the effort expended that way is far from guaranteed. Certainly, it’s not something _I_ would bet on. 🙂

      A recent (choice) cog:

      Everyone makes many choices, every day — even the ‘bad guys.’ Everyone — even those ‘bad guys,’ makes the best choice they can — every single time. Yes, even the psychotic and despicably evil dudes. Every choice they make they see as the very best choice available to them at the time. (Now that’s a compassion generator!)

      We concentrate, as a society, more on punishment, prevention, control, justice (or revenge) and spend little time at all on reformation — helping people have a better model of the world, a larger ‘toolbox’ of potential actions, finding better ways to get what they want or even help finding better things to want. That is, in Scientological parlance, shouldn’t we spend more of our time creating a better world?

      G.

      1. Gary………..:I’ll have a go at clarifying this. The concept of, “Full Responsibility,” is truly applicable only from the viewpoint of spiritual being with mega-knowingness who enters games, for fun, with full knowledge of the potential consequences, and who (again, knowingly) restricts his viewpoints, knowledge, and ability (repeatedly, over time) as ‘necessary’ to play his/her/its chosen games. From this thetanish viewpoint, nothing happens to him that he did not first agree to allow to happen. Nothing! (For even thetanish communication to occur, per the comm formula, the thetans must take turns at being cause and effect. If we repudiate all ‘effect’ we also repudiate all comm.)
        Hi there again.. when the spiritual being is in the game condition. that being never on effect. One always cause at all time even if one ””’PLAYS THE SO CALLED LOOSING SIDE””” The spiritual being outside of the MEST universe= thinking IS: the winner at all times since it is that being has created that game. So there is the power one has at all times and not given away by saying-thinking that I am the looser the victim.

        1. Elizabeth,

          I suspect that we are in agreement here, largely at least. The difficulty may lie in the multiple uses of the word, “effect.” In particular, we should probably distinguish “willing effect” from “unwilling effect.”

          The view from the top is that there is no such thing as an ‘unwilling effect.’ From outside the universe, any universe, nothing happens that you, yourself, do not either create or allow. For another spiritual being to even impinge upon whatever sensory modality you use, you have to allow that being to impinge. (Yes, “cause/distance/effect,” only literally applies where ‘distance’ in some form can exist.) All this is ‘willing effect.’

          As we ‘descend’ into universes and games with goals, purposes, and barriers, some of the barriers we seem to create are to our own knowingness. This must be so because, to thetanish ‘gods,’ there can be NO barriers. So, to play any game in any universe we MUST restrict, to some degree, our ability to know and (likely) our ability to create/do.

          Somewhere along the line, after successive iteration of games, somewhere, perhaps on the so-called ‘downward spiral,’ we begin to consider that some (allowed) effects are undesirable. Perhaps we are playing a picture game where the goal is to create the most admired picture. Well, the rules. We have to allow that others can see our picture (else they can’t admire it) and, to induce others to play our game, we have to allow others to make their pictures manifest to us — in other words, create an effect on us. There may be many other niggling details needed, like some way to express and measure the degree of admiration; but so far, so good.

          Now we’re having some fun playing this game; but someone comes along and adds an unexpected element: uninvited co-creation. In other words, they start messing with our picture! HOW DID THEY DO THAT??? Perhaps they used a rule, unknowingly, that we had agreed to forget making. 🙂 The gall! At best, now, we’ll have to share the admiration; at worst, maybe they entirely degraded our picture so it garners no admiration at all. 😦

          Of course, as humanoids, we have a collection of ‘unwilling effects’ bigger than a mountain. Sounds like you, Elizabeth, have climbed that mountain and planted your flag!

          G.

          1. Gary, I went over,!!!!
            Please read it. its from my blog.
            Crossing-Over.

            I can’t recall, have no idea of the topic this session was about, but the end cognition transported me to the outer edge of the solidity: from the MEST Universe into the Spiritual Universe.

            Suddenly I have found myself bodiless of course beside an old boulder which was bathed in light. I noticed the pale gray shades, the shadows and everything about this boulder was so incredible vivid and so very alive, living, existing.

            I could see the smallest dents and every molecule of the boulder, inside and outside to the tiniest detail and seen ancients moss covering, lovingly draped itself over the boulder: lovers holding each other in embrace for eons.

            My attention was on the stone and I realized that represented had a significance, great meaning which was: life itself as I have known that till now and the boulders solidity represented the physical universe and from out of that universe, the MEST, I just have walked out.

            Looking back into the distance where I have emerged from was darkness and that darkness was lifeless and held no life, it was void of life-force and it had a name: death.

            My attention was drawn away from the ‘’past’ and I become aware of void, void which had no beginning and no end, and was empty, totally empty since I seen nothing and sensed nothing as I experienced that vacuum.

            My attention turned was pulled toward on energy to my right and there was shimmering mist, mist which contained all the colours of crushed diamond dust which I call life-force, creative energy and that energy was dipped -infused in the mystery of opaque which was the future itself, the yet to be..

            And I was pulled by this incredible phenomenon: I was mesmerized: this mist was so incredibly alive, it rolled, moved within in its own boundaries I have realized there was someone within in but I did not know who was that entity and I felt tremendous affinity emanated from the mist: It was drawing me, to melt into, to become one.

            But I also I realized that I needed to step into that void and experience and truly understand its meaning and that was my next step; My cognition was: the void I have created have become what is by as-ising the MEST Universe. By understanding that I turned my attention away from the mist and I moved forward the void and as I did, I felt no fear since I have left fear far behind me in the dark, in the past.

            In that moment as I let go stepping into the void that step taken by me again had a significance: regaining trust in self and the same moment I have given up the last uncertainties.

            As I flowed in to the void unafraid and as I experienced acknowledged that great void that empty state in totality where I was nothing nobody yet aware in the fullest sense, the mist moved in surrounded me folded me up in its invisible arms and I have heard music, a most beautiful music, it was a waltz to which the soul can only ascend.

            As the music and brilliant yet opaque formless mist held me we dance over and we filled that void with life-force, we swirled, flowed and floated in space of our own endlessness creation.

            To the total harmony of the universe which was the music as we continued our dance as we flowed: happiness, the joy infused the universe than slowly the mist dissipated I existed I was that void yet not empty.

            As the music melted away and so were the surrounding significances and suddenly over the starless translucent dark blue velvet space an intense brilliant shimmering rainbow appeared and held the universe suspended.

            I knew I was home.

            PS: when I reconnected to the body: tears were rolling down a sobs heaved the chest, and I have realized, had a cognition about what is my role, my future in the universe, the yet to come..

            1. Elizabeth,

              Wow. Spent several hours today reading your blog. Again, WOW!

              What you wrote above resonates strongly with my ‘ep’ experience on ARC S/W though it is not identical — just somewhat similar. Yours has far more imagery and sensation than mine. Will attempt to continue this off-line if you like.

              G.

          2. Gary.. endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com we can also talk since talk is cheap… 🙂
            here is the reason for that email title.. also from the blog.

            The cognitions are like pearls..
            Each one is being born out of pain and sufferings,
            They arise out of mystery, secrets and the deep darkness: the long forgotten
            Yet how beautiful they are!
            They vary in their importance before they evaporate
            But they remain yours for eternity in form of invisible knowledge.
            The basic cognitions are the rarest of al pearls, since only few exist
            But their value is the exchange which buys your freedom out from the MEST Universe.
            I wish for you string of pearls containing: happiness, wisdom and knowledge.

    4. It is both – but not as some Scientologists have pushed it. First, this idea is not a root cause, but another symptom. That said:

      1. The person who pulls the trigger is the one who caused the event, and who is ultimately responsible.
      2. The person who is shot MAY have done something to precipitate it. The ONLY value this datum has is to help the person get over the mental pain of having been shot. NOT to blame them or call them a DB or push them into the mud.

      1. Each person has some area of responsibility in the incident and probably the web of responsibilities goes even further. The best would be to all envolved understand and recognise his responsibility concerning the incident. Therefore it has no real value to take only one person’s responsibility or make him responsible for more than he actually is. Or what responsibility he can take at that moment safely. Unless he is the one who pulled the trigger. Than sane “justice” should get into the picture. Maybe in the form of more education or possibility for making up the damage than in the form of penalty.

      2. Gary, this logic pings and pongs back and forth like table tennis. This is not yours or anyone’s fault, it’s the damn ambiguity of the entire subject. (See Maria’s post.) I think the ambiguity is intentional.

  13. Well, if I’m an accomplice because I am connected to all you sorts, then allright, I TAKE THE GREATEST PLEASURE IN IT AND SCREW THE REST WHO CAN’T HAVE IT!

  14. Yes, there is a gross error committed by LRH himself and it was done very early on the scientology time track. I will explain it in this way:
    An automobile technician can do a tune up in your car that gets you very happy but do not make you a better person. A scientology auditor can do a superb tune up on your mind and spiritual energetic flows that gets you very happy but do not make a better person of you. The pre-clear and pre-ot levels are a superb tune up but are not needed to make a better person ( of course these could be an aid as there is happines there to be enjoyed ). So, the better person that seeks Scientology ( OT ) is not created with long and expensive tune ups ( which tend to enslave you ). It is created with a lot shorter way using the absent words in the scientology dictionary : decency, honorability, respect, etc. you can add more I am sure.

    1. Rafael; “A scientology auditor can do a superb tune up on your mind and spiritual energetic flows that gets you very happy but do not make a better person of you. ”
      really? A happy person act-do differently than a negatively minded person.
      I wonder where did you get that idea you are writing about.
      Even a child when not happy will throw things and cry’s have a fit and a happy child will lough and being peaceful.

      1. Dear Elizabeth Hamre, happiness is a very tricky word. I mean, every emotional level enjoys and is ” happy ” doing different and often opposite activities, so the pleasure you get from something is not always the guiding tool to make a better person ( OT ).

        1. yes there are “humans” who kill and feel great happiness.. but when one erases the abberrated concepts than the OT’s happiness is only on the level of creation-beauty and when one is on that level that being is a better person since will take responsibility for that creation. and will not create anything which harm others. never, they cant because that is not in their nature.
          PS: are you well and your family too and your brother? Do say hello from me please!

          1. I recently had a cog about the dynamics –that they are my impulses, not stuff written in books. ‘Naturally’, in life, I want the greatest good.

            1. Thank you, Spyros!

              Never quite agreed with, “the greatest good for the greatest number,” philosophy (Utilitarianism?) and so Ron’s redefinition, “the greatest good for the greatest number — of dynamics,” always seemed a little — dubious too.

              If I follow you correctly, the ‘dubosity’ vanishes. 🙂 MY dynamics — not ‘everyone’s.’

              Thanks again!
              G.

            2. Yes, it is completely yours…or better you 🙂 That’s why it’s silly to ‘put (force) ethics’ :p

            3. Spyros and Gary,

              LRH absolutely wrote that each individual has his own dynamics. One reference is the tech of “Exchange by Dynamics” as described in HCOPL 4 Apr 72 ETHICS. Here’s an excerpt:

              “That means he has to clear up the definitions of dynamics with care, and then have the person draw a big chart (of his own) and say what he gives the 1st Dynamic and what it gives him. Then what he gives the second dynamic and what it gives him. And so on up the dynamics.

              “Now, have him consider “his own second dynamic”. What does his second dynamic give his first dynamic? What does his second dynamic give the second dynamic and what does it give him?

              “And so on until you have a network of these exchange arrows, each both ways.

              “Somewhere along the way, if your TRs are good and you have his attention and he is willing to talk to you he will have quite a cognition!”

            4. marildi,

              Holding the Chaplin’s hat from above, I had occasion to ask troubled couples to do, Conditions and Exchange by Dynamics,” to good result. Thankfully, this is one area where the sup line, “What do your materials state?” may have prevented a, “contagion of aberration.” 🙂
              G.

            5. Yes, I have been saying that all along, about the Dynamics. It is quite clearly explained that way by LRH in lecture. No-one has yet picked upon it when I have brought it up, except a couple of people on Marty’s blog did validate it as the original LRH presentation of the concept of the Dynamics.

              The fact is it is not explained or explicated in books to any great extent. I think LRH may have assumed people would know.

              I think it is a perfect example of how the CoS does NOT, has NOT, strictly applied and followed the LRH tech and the “core philosophy” as you put it, at all. They have squirreled this concept to be able to dominate and make everyone wrong, pure and simple. Typical human black and white 2 dimensional thinking.

              Is it MUs? I no longer think so. It is intent on a reactive level.

            6. Right, Val. For me too it was always clear that each individual had their own dynamics, but I would have to search the books to see if LRH made it clear in any of those. You may very well be right that he didn’t. That HCO PL, however, was the only place I’ve come across the idea of “THE dynamics” – and it also clearly states as well that one has one’s “OWN dynamics”

              Yes, it IS the perfect example of how the CoS squirrels. MU’s are no doubt there for many, IMO, but I would have to agree with you that intent is primary – absolutely. As for it being on a reactive level, however, I wonder about that with respect to the dictator himself – and the whole say-so is strictly coming from him. I knew that a decade ago when I was at Flag. Btw, I expect I’ll probably find something out on this point in Marty’s latest book (I’m about halfway through).

            7. It’s a great book. I’ve read through it once, now starting to re-read selected chapters and sections. There’s an awful lot of meaty detail and observations for me to absorb. I am not a fast reader.

            8. It’s a stupendous piece of writing! Both style and substance. I’m just to the part where the young Marty will be going on a mission and DM is the mission ops (operator), and this is where I expect to be getting some insight into him. I just saw your comment about his background on the other thread. Very interesting.

            9. Marildi….. Elizabeth…”Path is how one see’s it, what one experiencing while one walks on that self created Path…. there is no other Path in the Universe ….even when you see others walking on their very own path and what you see is still only yours experience and belief since you will never know what is their experience while walking..””
              Dear M.. That goes for all Dynamics .. and that is logical… since one can only experience what one has created for self.

              Example: two people: young persons walking down on the street. holding hand their fingers intertwined and their bodies leaning into each other, and once in the while they stop and kiss.
              I am walking behind them: I see them and what ever I feel would be the stimulation from that picture. and of course partially I would pick up-experience their energy.
              I believe I don’t have to continue.. you will get it..
              There is only one Universe .. Cosmos… the one we all creates-experiences in the NOW.. and that goes for those young persons too.

            10. “I believe I don’t have to continue.. you will get it..”

              Right, no need to continue, I get it. 😉

              And what you say about there being only one Universe, the one we all create in the NOW, is also what is said by many other great minds – in philosophy and in physics.

            11. Valkov: Is it MUs? I no longer think so. It is intent on a reactive level.

              Chris: People study Scientology and get it, then later their reactivity kicks in and makes them react poorly to it?

    2. I would agree only to the degree that you are not “made a better person” but are allowed to be more “You.” If done correctly. But this is a specious argument. If I find my ultimate soul-mate who has given me a reason to no longer drink or whore around (for example), did she make me a better person? Or just remind me to be more myself?

      Reminds be of a Bill Cosby joke about drugs:

      “Why do you take cocaine? What do you get out of it?”
      “Well, it enhances my personality.”
      “What if you are an asshole?”

      Like that.

  15. There is a great amount of good in Scientology.
    The two routes on the Bridge are Course Study and Auditing. These work.
    The organization also has sales and management to support the Bridge. These fail.

    The excesses of sales and management disrupt progress on the bridge. Sales at any cost promote criminal activities. Management by weekly statistic promote criminal activities.

    Scientology was supposed to grow by providing good results. The Organization is instead growing by scams and lies.

    It all looks simple enough to me. Promoting the Sales Guys over the Course-room Supervisor results in failure.

      1. Thank You for the Welcome. Also, Thank You for the blog. It is uplifting to read how others address the confusion of Scientology.

        Gosh, I do prefer my simple point of view.

        LRH was correct when he was correct, and wrong when he was wrong.
        The Tech is correct when it is correct, and wrong when it is wrong.

        Studying Scientology includes understanding L Ron Hubbard.
        Mr Hubbard was a very able writer and speaker. He communicated his concepts skillfully, making his communication accessible to many people. He produced an astounding amount of this communication.
        LRH sought to empower and improve everyone. His goals were noble. He succeeded to a remarkable degree.

        LRH was also a silly and self-centered man. He indulged himself as an Oppressive Dictator. He harmed those around him. He did not restrain himself from paranoid fantasy. He acted as a Suppressive Person, imagining himself surrounded by enemies.

        Sometimes I consider the tradition of a ship’s Captain. There is a long tradition of the Captain of a ship acting as a wild and oppressive dictator. If the Captain perceives problems on the ship, then the Captain terrorizes the crew. The crew fears the Captain. Mr Hubbard served in the United States Navy. I have met more than one sailor who resorts to this management style when confronting problems. They are in the valance of the Captain they served.

        The Admin Tech is correct when it is correct.

        When a Scientologist is coerced into crushing dept, in order to finance a chandelier, this is an act of malice. This is an example of wrong.

        My simple conceit is that I am capable of perceiving the difference. Well, not counting all those instances when I goofed.

        1. Hi there!!!!
          “LRH was correct when he was correct, and wrong when he was wrong.
          The Tech is correct when it is correct, and wrong when it is wrong.”
          And who will decide what is right and what is wrong, since each individuals response is different? hehehe…since I really cant see how you see that black cat of yours and you haven’t the faintest idea how I see mine!
          But the auditing command do work and they work on all condition. the only little problem is there with the commands they don’t work by them self and knowing them.. They need to be applied to bring results… And miracles of miracles if every one would have lots of auditing… erasing those confusing differences [implanted material] than we all would see the same.. agree on the same.. and that agreement would not happen out of wanting to belong into the same group, or want to be liked than one agrees but the agreement would be the: out of free will.
          Long speech… well hell, I love some times standing on the soap box and hearing my self throwing thought out into the universe!
          and you should here the cheering going up when I finally get off! hehehe.. some even bring out the invisible champagne to celebrate the silence!! rats….

    1. ThanksForTheBlog: “Scientology was supposed to grow by providing good results. The Organization is instead growing by scams and lies.”

      Chris: A thorough study of Scientology history shows it has ever been this way. But you will also find that there is no growth there, not since decades, except for in the church’s PR bulletins.

  16. The core “evil” is Repetitive Obedience with an increasing intolerance for free action and choice in the materials application. That is all. That is the core evil.

    “Give me that hand.”

    “Thank you.”

    “Give me that hand.”

    “Thank you.”

    *** OR ***

    “Start …. FLUNK! You smiled … Start.”

    In “A Beginner’s Guide to L. Ron Hubbard” Hardeep pointed this out. “If there is any claim of Scientology about brainwashing this is it. Repeat … repeat … repeat …”

    Yes Hardeep. Why? Because …

    If you control what someone DOES, you eventually control how they think. Look at prisoners who over time cannot function in society because they have been institutionalized. They are forced into a living mold of repetitive acts that SHAPE the person into something they were not before.

    If you want freedom, control your repetitive acts.

      1. Geir,

        Just had one of those, sometimes spurious, flashes of insight re. the OP: “…uncover the damaging root cause(s).”

        [Might be expressed as, “What doomed Scientology?” or “Why would someone accept (or deny seeing) the bad to get the good?”]

        You seem to have hit on ‘duplication / repetitive question’ as THE ‘why.’ Harper seems to f/n on that ‘why’ as well. I’d like to indicate (my insight here) that this ‘why’ may be a personal ‘why’ and not universally applicable. Certainly, it doesn’t ‘indicate’ strongly for me.

        But, if each of us, as perhaps we must, is doing a personal ‘why finding’ to attempt to answer the OP, each of us may, if we’re lucky, discover our own personal, ‘why.’ And that’s good! The difficulty may arise if we try to push our own ‘why’ on someone else. Bound to create some upset! (May be why this topic has garnered so many comments and no little acrimony.)

        Then too, if we’re ‘listing,’ coming up with the wrong _personal_’why’ may itself be a trifle lively.

        G.

    1. Well, as someone who has done TRs, objectives, CCH’s etc., I disagree with your assessment. There is a big difference between allowing yourself to be controlled temporarily and being subjugated to external control. CCH’s and TRs do not do subjugate you to external control. Joining the SO and agreeing to be controlled, or agreeing that in order to free people you must follow the rules EXACTLY – and having people more than willing tell you to do stupid things – that is what is wrong.

      Someone sitting across from you just asking you to “Give me your hand.” is not CCH1. CCH1 is doing this with the intention of getting someone through the button of control, and doing it so that it is truly flat. Big difference.

      1. Perhaps. But I do think Harper has a real point. My first reaction when Brendan indicated the same the other day was that of a rejection. But now that I analyzed it, it does make sense. Much of basic Scientology stresses duplication. From two different angles; Auditing/TRs of drilling the notion of letting another control you repetitively and in training the repetitive drilling of concepts, accentuated by GAT where you even do the patter drills until it sticks to your mind whether you want it or not. No real stress is put on questioning Scientology. A whole lot of stress is put on duplicating it.

        1. Ok – but it is not the duplication that is at fault – why not see what is there rather than mix it up with what you think should be there?
          At some point “we” decided that it was a “given” that Scientology worked. Initially, we maybe analyzed it, and when we did, we found that it made sense, or “worked” in one way or another. When enough of these analyzed data gets confirmed, then we are asked to suspend disbelief – to accept that because the stuff you already know is true, so is the rest – take it on faith. Now it was never said this way, but it was asked – and asked in forms like KSW and “Safeguarding Technology.”
          From that point on it becomes duplication without inspection – which is the culprit in my estimation.

      2. ”’Joining the SO and agreeing to be controlled, or agreeing that in order to free people you must follow the rules EXACTLY – and having people more than willing tell you to do stupid things – that is what is wrong.’
        ‘hehehe 🙂 there seems to be on echo of my reality…. going into agreement than not liking it because not achieved the set out postulate than felling stupid but don’t want to look it one goes into being a victim ….. collects lot of agreement on that from those who were in the same situation.. and what have we than? on agreed upon consideration …..solidly built ugggggggggh.!

        1. Yes, so the problem is with personal integrity. Failure to uphold your own reality. Failure to tell your senior to “shove it”, failure to correct the incorrect.

          Letting another hold one’s “spiritual eternity” in their hands.

  17. If no law has been broken you have no one to blame except yourself!
    If a law has been broken the offender is always responsible for it, never the victim.
    As vi all knows charges has been made against the church, ultimately against David Miscavige over the World. in example; Laura DeCrescenzo has been victimized by the church and hold the church responsible for it by putting the church to justice!

  18. One root cause is this:

    From the viewpoint of a physical being (a composite consisting of integrated, myriad cooperating life units — as in a human body in a vast interdependent galactic environment or universe), the core effort of Scientology is ultimately suicide, or at least an an effort to exit & end the game and all of its alluring sensations, which have no other purpose but to entrance a theta being to total extinction and unknowing enslavement and oblivion.

    Therefore life is fair game on the way out.

    1. i.e. just to clarify — life (the composite) is fair game to a theta being that has awoken and discovered that being depdendent on life (the composite) is debilitating no matter how beautiful and wonderful it may seem, for it is little better than a series of lovely illusions. Illusions are fair game, and all is fair in live and war. Fair game that is.

      It is summed up in LRH’s slogan for the price of freedom: “Constant vigilance and constant willingness to fight back is the price of freedom.

        1. “Two rules for happy living: 1. Be able to experience anything. 2. Cause only those things which others can experience easily.”

          1. M… the second one is not easy to do since it’s takes some guessing what’s make the other person happy. that is almost impossible to guess that.. outside of the usual thing.. money house car. food etc.. but truly happy… no..

    2. Brendan noted that duplication may be a culprit. Again, we have this ambiguity problem. Duplication as a process is intended to make a perfect copy that will result in an as-isness (i.e. disappearance) of whatever is being duplicated. This is not the same as duplication of training material, which has a different meaning — this time the meaning is absorption of the materials and integration as a behavior/skill.

      1. Maria: This is not the same as duplication of training material, which has a different meaning — this time the meaning is absorption of the materials and integration as a behavior/skill.

        Chris: And when you know before going to course that place has the truth and you will know it if only you can learn it sets up powerful indoctrination and motivation to duplicate every jot and tittle.

    3. Wow. I just noticed that I have two gravatars now! I must have improved my conditions because there is now two of me!!! LOL!!!

  19. The basic problems that I see are:

    1. Hubbard needed finance to survive. This led to his structuring the organization in a very screwed up fashion compared to other extant religions.

    2. Hubbard set himself up as “Source”. Now, some will claim that he gave credit in his books to those before him, but a single page listing a few people’s names is far from giving credit for what ideas came from what sources. He also failed to give credit to many of his source (Crowley for one). He also failed to give credit to those that were working WITH him for the things they contributed. KSW #1 was the defining moment of his failure to give credit, in fact disclaiming others valuable contributions to the subject which were not minor or insignificant.

    3. The idea that Scn had the ONLY workable route out and that he’d discovered it and the job was completed. The job was not complete. Certainly not in 1965 when he chiseled in stone KSW #1. It isn’t complete today. Now Elizabeth has managed to carry on using the basics and probably would argue that we have all the tools we need to achieve spiritual freedom. That may be true, and if it is true then a huge portion of Scn can be thrown into the trash as just so much added inapplicable data – a huge amount.

    4. The idea that everything Hubbard wrote was gospel. This is a real thought stopper. And while he encouraged people to look and find out for themselves, he never allowed that to be practiced. Verbal tech, find your word, etc.

    5. If he found that anyone around him might be as or more powerful/capable a being than himself he took actions to destroy them. Examples: Alan Walter, John McMaster, and many others.

    6. Introduction of a flawed Justice system. Used as a means to destroy perceived enemies.

    That’s a start…

  20. The root cause of Scientology lies in the fixation on “I” from which Scientology came.

    In Scientology one worships individuality. In other words, Scientology builds up the ego. That focus on “I” stays with the person even after he/she leaves Scientology This is hard to spot.

    The solution is to just be normal.

    .

            1. But I am curious. Why are you hung up on this single point of the “I”. Looking back on your comments during the past year on my blog, a lot of your comments centers around this one point. Why?

            2. You can because it is your assumption. Just look at what is causing you to have that assumption.

              I just notice what is there. If there is too much focus on “I” then there is too much focus on “I”. Quite simple. I don’t figure-figure on it.

              .

            3. Trying to turn the attention away from your own issues as usual. You see, I don’t find anyone else on my blog posting anything repetitively about the concept of “I”. It is only you that does that. It’s a statistical fact. Maybe you should try applying some powers of looking at your own considerations regarding this and see if you can sort this hang-up out for yourself?

            4. But it is your attention that is fixated on me. Why is that? You refuse to look at where I pointed to in LRH’s works.

              .

            5. “I” exemplifies the digital nature of this universe probably. it is unneccesarily given more significance.

              .

    1. This is for sure one of the disastrous points of Scientology. Scientology builds up the I, the ego. Look around and you can clearly see. But it is hard to understand when you did not “duplicate”;) what is ego or what is getting rid of ego.
      You should take some more attention on it Geir.

      1. Scientology builds up the “I”. ??????
        Your mother was the first who thought you that word and it was she who made it important… And “I” is not in use outside scientology..???? Please think that over! You have swallowed that crap V.. was writing?

  21. When you understand the nature of the universe (our understanding is limited of course) you must recognize that the I is an illusory thing.
    But this is stressed all over in Scientology. Even in the assumtion that you are utterly and fully responsible for everything what happened to you.
    So where do you get when you make an illusion so strong?

    1. Your consistent attempts at invalidations are at least… consistent.

      You need to seriously look at your hang-ups Vinaire. I think it is obvious to just about every other reader here but you.

      I have a question out of curiosity: I never tried Idenics, but you have. How does Idenics compare to other related methodologies in unraveling stuff of the mind?

        1. M… I just read it… it is good but to get to the so called other side one can audit conditions any condition which all can be audited-as ised.
          On the long run it will not make any difference- what- who- and why one puts one, gets one into session. It boils down to a VERY SIMPLE FACT: IF ONE KNOWS ABOUT SOMETHING and NO MATTER WHAT IS THAT. that item DO BELONGS TO THAT PERSON simply BECAUSE ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT! that means having IT.
          The problem is the scientologist are looking for sort cut which will never be found.
          It takes to get out of the reactive situation: diligent work…. will power, huge one and to want it.. want it more than anything else one ever wanted. in ones existence.

    2. V.. I would love to put you in session and make you cough up ALL YOUR OVERTS what you have done to GROUPS… You natter and natter..
      It seems because you have not achieved your goal becoming the one who is by consideration [only] top of the heap. You done well in your life but in scientology, now you just run it to the ground to make your-self feel better that you really did not fail.. since you did not want to belong into the scientologist group with the bunch of loser’s. Yet you comment all the time and show unhappy state .. it is hanging out there. big time!

    3. and that is what you doing.. looking down at us from that mighty elevated state where ever you believe you are at. where even ”I” don’t exist. 🙂 digested please.

  22. 1) peaching the ‘only hope for man’, the only way
    2) agreeing it is the only way
    3) apply the greatest good for the greatest number to protect the ‘only way’
    4) disconnecting from one’s conscience by attacking enemies to protect the only way
    5) agreeing to ‘open Mindedness’ being bad (basic basic on seeing critical thinking as anti the ‘only way’
    6) teaching ‘what is true for you is true’ then crushing you for expressing that state creating intense cognitive dissonance.
    7) making it a crime to be critical of Ron or any clear or Ots
    8) relying on needle reactions as gospel truth (how many Mozart’s did you meet in Scientology thus sanctioning delusional mindsets
    9) having the goal be about becoming a super powered big being/EGO who can control MEST and people.
    10) the denigration of most all other wisdom schools
    11) and most importantly, Ron getting caught in his own subconscious and unconscious mind and weaving incredible tales through his creative genius and devising auditing proceedures (space opera) that rely soley on needle reactions and charge blowing as undisputable truth. And making any disputes with his findings your evil intentions, with disconnection and a golden rod like a knife at your throat, losing family, friends, jobs, money and life for daring to demonstrate the freedom promised then crushed like a bug.

    These are the formula for self induced madness.

    1. Scientology’s particularly dangerous form of ‘only way’ needs close inspection. I believe it is at the heart of a lot of the madness

      My investigations have revealed, to me, that the concept of ‘only way’ ‘only hope for man’ and ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ to protect the ‘only way’ is a basic basic on getting a person of conscience to see one’s innate conscience as a barrier to serving the greater good.

      If a building is burning and you know for a fact that there is only one way out of the building, any other people promoting other doorways to freedom are in fact going to kill people.

      Therefore, any action done to suppress these people who are sending people to their death is decent, ethical and the right thing to do.

      Now bring that into a religion and you have human beings causing harm to individuals to protect the majority from experiencing ‘ an agonizing future of tortured forever becoming a solid piece of mest’

      Scientology’sversion of eternal damnation and OT level dogma.

      Family members disconnect from mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children because one personal family member is nothing to saving millions and millions of mothers, children etc.

      Greatest good to save the only way is a concept that has killed and tortured human beings politically and religiously and is at the core of GO/OSHA. It will cause perfectly honest good people to act like monsters thus numbing one’s innate conscience.

      It is a most dangerous ideology and one I am personally at war against.

      It is a foundational core belief in all cults: we have the one true answer to save mankind and anyone against us is against mindkind. Therefore harming our enemies is saving all mankind.

      This is true insanity. And the core reason for Scientology’s uncanny capacity for self destruction. IMO

      1. the only destruction one has by believing all that crap one reads and not examining first if its workable,, just how that crap effects the self.. the life one has.. and by not doing that than one sure has lots of self created ARCB’s, Problems !!
        Why being mad at the organization.. why not blame that self for going into something like a dumb critter of a human since animals have much better sense than doing such.
        Where is taking responsibility for ones action?
        Had to be some good there… could not be all bad… that is impassible if it was all bad.. tremendous learning experience.. good fellow ship.. knowing one has great abilities confronting the daily chores-problems , see and experience different realities.. oh there are so many side to everything…

        1. Because being a student is a vulnerable place to be. Students acknowlege that there is something to learn. They find a teacher and learn from him or her. Trust is established and the student is imprinted by the teacher willingly. So yes in that reagard it is the agreement of the student.

          Yet, if a parent abuses a child do you blame the child? In the mid east if a women is raped she can go to jail.

          In the ultimate sense we are all responsible for our experiences in my opinion.

          But it takes two to tango. There is the abuser and the abusee. I believe this forum is not about how people pulled in being in an abusive organization.

          I believe it is about isolating doctrines inherent in Scientology/Ron that create an enviromnent for abuse.

          And baby, they are numerous.

      2. Brian: “Scientology’s particularly dangerous form of ‘only way’ needs close inspection.”

        Me: I just had a light bulb moment.

        “Scn is the only way”

        and THAT, is the ultimate eval and inval, for a case and in life.

        Much of what Hubbard wrote is not worth the ink, but there are a few gems in the middle. Points 1 & 2 of the Auditor’s Code are such gems, it’s hard to imagine any therapy working at all with eval and inval in it. I think they are more important than anything else in auditing, so when Hubbard blatantly violates that….

        The sad part is it took me so long to spot it.

        Alan

        1. Great Alan! We are in an era in western culture where appreciation of ‘the other’ is taking center stage. For our world to survive we must be able to see the values and truths in those outside our group. And even learn from them.
          We are in the beginnings of an open source society whereby the value and success of us as a society is more and more depending on the shared genius of the collective. Scientology was a closed system where only Ron was the genius. An only way.

          Think of it…. No wonder some people have a horrible time adjusting to leaving the church. If they agreed that it was the only hope for man, than the only view left for them is no hope. Hopeless. It is cruel and evil to treat human minds with such rubbish.

          Open source is the opposite of only way. We all share in the victory of genius.

          1. Brian: “Open source is the opposite of only way. We all share in the victory of genius.”

            You da man!

            I live, eat, sleep and breath open source (internet geek). Here’s something to ponder:

            The internet is the most amazing machine we humans have ever built. As a technology it almost defies description. As amazing as the technology is, it pales into insignificance when compared to the result –

            – it is the most powerful communication device ever developed, all the mest is gone from the comm line, and potentially any human on the planet can communicate directly to any other human almost instantly at almost zero cost.

            And the kicker: all the technologies that make the internet work are open source, the folk that built the internet invented the term! All those tools given freely to the world for the world to use them as they see fit. And it didn’t happen by accident, the builders knew exactly what they were doing when they did it. Hows that for a gift to the world?

            1. Slog, I was just at a symposium in Toronto called Ideacityonline.com. There I met some of the brightest futurists on the planet. They are changing the world. AMAZING!!
              It was there I understood that we are entering the open source society. Jobs kicked it off my making the iPhone open source.
              Even look at the festival culture that is happening all over the world. The concerts are about the collective experience of dancing and not focused on celebrity performers.
              I believe in the younger generation. They will have open source awareness as normal. Surviving for the whole as natural.

              Also what I have observed is there are the acceptence of eastern practices like meditation as the new norm for spirituality.

              There is no one charasmatic teacher or ism. It is because meditation is open source. The Vedic culture is open source. No one belief, you are allowed your own commentary, in charge of your own practice etc.

              The Yoga accessary Market in America is in the billions per year. The revolution will not be televised.

        2. Splog: Me: I just had a light bulb moment. “Scn is the only way”

          Chris: It comes up over and over again. In so many ways and from so many angles, doesn’t it? Let’s continue.

          1. Chris: It comes up over and over again. In so many ways and from so many angles, doesn’t it? Let’s continue.

            Me: It’s like a bloody infinite Russian doll!

  23. One more thought: Ron said if you destroy theta lines you get a what? An explosion. How many family members and dissidence have had their theta lines attacked.

    Scientology is imploading under the weight of doctrines that harm human beings. Some call it karma

      1. Yes Elizabeth I agree, some do call it it moving on. But the very fact you are here is eveidence that you have not.

        These issues are important for discussion. There are still beautiful people stuck in this mind numbing crap.

        If any of my thoughts can help just one person think freely again, I am happy to not move on just yet.

        But that is my experience.

        Got to go eat lunch…. I’ll check back later

        Have a good day Elizabeth!

        1. hehehe I am here for very different reason not because I am stuck in scientology… since I am not one any more!
          please do read one post of mine.
          ”To walk the walk of the Solo Auditor: the Path of Enlightenment, The self-discovery.” after reading you can tell me where I am stuck… not before.

  24. And actually Elizabeth I did move on. I haven’t had anything to do with Scientology or Scientologists since 1982, when I quit and then was kicked out lol.

    It is because of the new found freedom and wide spread criticism of Scientology making it safe to not have goons destroying your life that “I CAME BACK :-)” to share my experience.

    The internet is the game changer. Criminals masquerading behind the mask of religion in this dangerous cult are squarly in the bulls eye of justice and public opinion.

    Thank God, it is about time.

    1. that is fantastic… than tell your gains, since you must have learned a lot and had the opportunity to apply those new experience and through them … because of them created a new better experience for self.
      I come back 3 years ago will be next month after cutting out in 82. since than I am here and in few other blogs beside mine and yelling top of my longs and telling people “” yes auditing works” but its need to be used in order to have results.. Yes and are those who call on me and ask how I have done it. So my Dear Brian lets here about the good life you are having. and the hell with the past, since we only create in the fraction of NOW. 🙂

      1. I am successful in my field, I love my life. I live by spiritual principles and practices. I know the purpose of life, all challenges are opportunities, I live to meditate and meditate to live.

        Regarding the past, that is not why I am here. My posts are about the present. And more specifically my posts are my thoughts and ideas are regarding my self inquiry and observations about Scientology cult mentality, now.

        I have deduced my findings down to two simple judgements I am making. And these two should be blazoned across the sky for all to see and be be warned of.

        Dangerous groups have these two essential characteristics:

        1) the only way
        2) justified harming of others to protect the only way

        My judgements have nothing to do with the benevolent uses of auditing. It judges the narcissistic tendencies of self appointed messiahs that can distort the conscience of naive students with the sporadic carrot of truth and spiritual experiences that cause the students to incorrectly extrapolate that all the rest of the bridge and it’s standard techs are as benevolent as their first exteriorization and first flashes of “a hah!” moments in session.

        In others,” if this cleared up my life, then everything Ron says must be true.

        SLAM!!!!! Goes the spring loaded trap on the mouse with the cheese in smelling reach.

        1. Brian,,, that is wonderful that you are doing well and I don’t give a fig about scientology.. LRH. SO. not my trip… since I believe every being is on the right path in order to learn.. no matter how pain full is that learning experience… you see one never can learn if one is happy all the time and just floats like “goja fosh a levegoben.” bird shit in the air.

          1. I hope that the good in Scientology will survive. There is a lot of good also. But it is not the good parts that need the fixing.

            Thank you Elizabeth for the dialogue.

            1. Brian the good is out there. each cognition echoes through the Universe.
              If others would have solo audited just half as much as I have than on this what I write here would be agreement. Simply because they too would see and understand what I have experience while explored the many faceted Universe.

            2. Brian: “I hope that the good in Scientology will survive. There is a lot of good also. But it is not the good parts that need the fixing.”

              + 1

              That’s my viewpoint too. And thanks for all the other intelligent posts you wrote on this thread.

  25. To Marty, Geir,

    2 wonderful posts. Written by 2 very dedicated former Scientologists, who
    went all the (orthodox) way through for many years, until finally came the
    other side, gaining and actually practicing the ability:to kick it all to pieces,
    throw it all to hell, and now look at it all again with new eyes: as Masters,
    not students any more. Seeing what they are seeing, and knowing what they
    are knowing. Any chance that was part of the plan? The plan without which
    you 2 could not have risen to whereyou are now? Am I going too far? Too fantastic? May be.

    Has it ever occurred to you that all this bad, negative blended with the good
    and positive, installed in the system by Ron, that you consider a series of mistakes – that
    this was part of the grand plan to really get beings free? Sounds crazy? May be it is.
    But consider: For you, Marty, Geir, or anybody, being dedicated scientologists
    for many years, having to compromise your reality countless times in order to
    survive and continue with your wins and ‘eternity’, – to finally notice,see, overcome
    incredible inner struggles to admit what you saw and get back your integrity,
    and shout it loudly, come what may, this was and had to be an awesome OT task to accomplish.
    A task which marks the death of the student and the birth of a Master, of a Free Being.
    Independent thinker, and creator of thought.

    And not being for sale any more. Is that not the ultimate test of an OT? To see truth
    where it is so difficult or impossible to see it? When it is so well hidden by heavy indoctrination,
    when it is extremely risky to go for it, when it seems there is an ultimate price to pay for it?
    I know you both went through the above, each in his own way. You described those in derail.
    I know I did too. And it was Hard and soul shaking. Could anybody be real OT or real Being,
    or real anything, by just having always knowledge given to him on a silver plate without finally
    getting him to go find the most difficult parts of it himself? No more Ron, Jesus,
    Lao Tzu, Guatama, Gurdjieff…around to hold his hand.

    You 2 and quite a few others, have cut loose, only AFTER you went through the orthodox way.
    Now, you have come up one more step, you can cut loose the teacher’s cord, and become
    teachers yourselves. Marty, Geir, how would you have gotten to where you are today, Free
    thinking Beings, if you did not have to confront this amazingly difficult situation, risky, heavy,
    where devoted, believing beings, accepting everything Ron said for years and years, having to
    confront the observation that your own sacred teacher and his system, are not only not perfect,
    but also strewed with negative elements? And risking losing everything, by confronting and stating.
    You had to go through huge integrity, observation, honesty, and yes: Strength tests, to be able to
    survive and go higher.

    It is well known that the greatest teachers, while indoctrinating heavily for long periods, than
    KNOWINGLY made the right situation for the prodigy student, to kick their teacher’s asses, tell
    them, SHOUT at them, that however great they are, they are also wrong and he, the student can do
    better now, and then GOES ON AND DOES BETTER!!! this happens in anymasterful teachings
    in any subject.

    It is more than likely that great teachers, including Ron, have planned this, if they were worth anything.
    THEY HAD TO PLAN SUCH TOOL, SUCH DEVICE. Is that not much more probable than
    assuming these clever teachers, were so stupid as not to see this coming? You really believe Ron
    would say one day: “You have to follow anything I say blindly or you are a criminal and be declared”,
    and the next day say:

    Those things I tell you are true are not true because I tell you they are
    true. And if anything I tell you, or have ever told
    you, is discovered to differ from the individual observation (be it a good
    observation), then it isn’t true! It doesn’t matter
    whether I said it was true or not. Do you understand?”

    Sorry, I don’t buy it. Too easy. I think I buy the next one as more likely what Ron really intended:

    If you will just stay with me on this line, up to the first milestone in Scientology, and bring yourself
    up to a high level of ability and apply yourself to that, you will be free – free from me and from
    Scientology too!

    This existence IS quite a trap. Ron’s Tech gets you out of many traps, in a big way. You both know,
    experienced and stated it. But that is not enough, because HE was there guiding all the time.
    That is the Tech. But to get us to become real trap destroyers and detectors, he, YES HE, set up
    the ultimate trap, in the most unexpected way and against all odds and left us to get out of this one
    without help, and most importantly: ALONE, guided by nothing but ourselves. The ULTIMATE OT level.
    Or better to stay humble: the NEXT OT level.
    Isn’t that more likely, than thinking this guy was so dumb not to have seen the dichotomies and
    contradictions he was setting? So dumb not to have seen how truth, freedom, kindness, theta, were
    mixed with ruthlessness, fanaticism, making the whole world wrong?

    Life is a game. I think Ron (and others) got that one right. Ron stated clearly that he did not intend
    to dismantle this game. Getting everything and everybody good and positive and sacred and eliminating
    all bad and negative would have ended the game. No dichotomies – no game. He stated his intention
    was just to get beings to play better game. That’s all. And here we are, playing a great game..!
    Look at these blogs! God… full of brilliant posts, countless ideas, original thinkers, so many of them,
    some sheep, some wolves, many rebels, but mostly beautiful beings. It has been similar with all great
    religions: new system/way put forth, very enlightening yet containing contradictions and seeds for both
    positive and negative. And some beings use these tools and transcend and others fall deeper into the trap,
    and have to go to the back of the line and start all over again….

    Good luck to all,

    with love,

    Hemi

      1. Hemi, this is an incredibly wise post, IMHO. Deserving of being framed and put up on the wall.

        You gave the Milestone One quote that is so applicable, and LRH also said something pretty close to “Some day you will have to run out Scientology”.

        Thanks for going to the trouble of writing all you did and expressing it so well. I would say you are one of the amazing people that Scientology produced!

    1. Hemi: “Has it ever occurred to you that all this bad, negative blended with the good and positive, installed in the system by Ron, that you consider a series of mistakes – that this was part of the grand plan to really get beings free?”

      Me: I doubt it very much, that is an extremely high risk route and will probably backfire. There are too many ways for it to go wrong and too few for it to go right, so relying on it playing out that way would appear to be the mark of a madman. One in a million odds only come true 9 times out of 10 on the Discworld, everywhere else they happen one time in a million.

      I don’t think your teacher analogy holds true; getting the student to dig deep and reach higher is one thing, creating a cult that destroys people’s lives is a very different thing altogether. I don’t know what Hubbard was really up to, but it sure wasn’t Tough Love.

      Alan

    2. (Sorry, I must have pressed the reply button below your post by mistake. To be sure you get my acknowledgement, here it is again.)

      Hemi, this is an incredibly wise post, IMHO. Deserving of being framed and put up on the wall.

      You gave the Milestone One quote that is so applicable, and LRH also said something pretty close to “Some day you will have to run out Scientology”.

      Thanks for going to the trouble of writing all you did and expressing it so well. I would say you are one of the amazing people that Scientology produced!

    3. Hemi, my vote for the laurel wreath of victory goes to those souls who worked their way out by their own integrity and boot straps.

      Of course it could only be speculation that Ron planned this cruel scenario whereby families are emotionally tortured through disconnect and then rise from the ashes to realize their independence.

      It is human nature to learn from experience. I would pin the medal on that and not on Ron’s intended creation of chaos as a mouse maze to test and develop strategies to find the cheeze.

      That is just my opinion.

    4. Sorry, Hemi, but I have to give your hypothesis and emphatic NO!!!

      If you really look at all the documentation of the man’s life you will see that this was not Hubbard’s intention in any way shape or form. Beings have been implanted, trapped and deceived for trillenia. Did it help them? Make them smarter? Not particularly. Trapping while promising to free is a very very old game in this universe.

      Hubbard was a complex being, as we all are. I see that multiple objectives were at work in his life. He had a mega-ego, a desire for fortune and fame. He saw a way to achieve that via creating a religion. At the same time he was looking for answers, doing research with the help of others that also were looking for answers. Many things were discovered along the way, but also woven into the fabric was the trap. It didn’t have to have gone the way it did.

      He could have said look, I’m getting old, others will have to continue this work. I’ve given you the tools, you’ve just begun to handle your own case so keep going.

      Instead he created the world’s most insidious cult. Sucked millions into private coffers and left a 25 years old sociopath in charge.

      Hubbard’s problem was he never let anyone really get in and straighten his case out. A failure to apply the tech to himself – ah the irony of that.

      One can certainly look upon it as a test. But if you consulted many thousands that now spew hate for the man & subject who were once hopeful followers – no, not a good result at all. A very big fat FAIL in that dept.

      Good to look on the bright side of things, but available data does not support your position IMO.

    5. Hemi.. “” wonderful post… thank you! and you are right…. the true beginning starts when one is alone and dare to use what one learned while walked up to the top of the Bridge than that was OTVII.

      After leaving the fold comes the real struggle when one is alone no C/S to guide one, no other support and the group to is gone and one has nothing but ARCB’s the pang of emptiness- feeling of being let down -alone. miserable, and in these state one dares to pick up the E-meter and starts to continue with solo auditing because one had wins doing that and problems… ARCB’s were erased so why not take up solo again and continue where one left off while inside ST Hill in the safety of the group.!!
      and trusting self with what have one learned one reaches for that knowledge-tools that is when one becomes free of scientology..
      What a trip -adventure one enters into: returning the power to self knowing yes I can and no matter what comes one can wade through it because one has learned the tech of the solo auditor and the meaning of confronting!
      interesting the battle had more than one side not only confronting the Universe and winning by taking a chunk out of the MEST in daily session but when after 30 years returning from the battle field of self discovery and coming back to look for others to tell the story the great adventure…. only one person would listen and publish the wins and the great CL 6- 8-12 auditors never even bothered to ack. her article the written journey of a solo auditor who has done nothing more but putting aside her life as a human and dedicated her time- her days-years -decades to solo auditing because she knew by than was positive that the tech works and auditing works.
      Her dreams which were so small at the beginning soon crumbled as those considerations which held them in place were as-ised and wider vistas new realities have taken place.. than those vanished to.. Ha… the thrill of the adventure never ended for her…..
      The realities the knowledge, the power were gained on this great adventure and their magnitude goes far beyond the understanding of the human reality.
      Yes. perhaps LRH has for seen the outcome… but again we will never know…

      PS: YES I have attained my goal. I have erased the MEST Universe, yes I have returned and on my way here- home I have passed the first light which was the beginning of the Universe!

  26. I love all the above comments. I’ll chime in on my theory. The number one basic problem with SCN is that it is all about finding out what is wrong with you and fixing it. This can drive you nuts. A better approach is acceptance.
    The number two basic problem with SCN is that the idea of God is “left up to the individual” but really one ends up feeling that since one is Cause, then one must be God. Or since LRH is Source, LRH must be God. The existence of God can’t really be proven but I can say that since I have left SCN and embraced the idea of God again, I feel a lot better.
    The number three problem with SCN is that number one and number two create a co-dependency on SCN. In order to play the game of achieving “self-determinism” one is required to turn your power over to the Church.
    That said, I still use some of what I learned in Scientology in every day life. It wasn’t all bad. But it was a trap.

    1. So now you have turned your power over to god? and now you depend on god…..
      oh.. well.. there are many paths… and we all have to learn for our self. since no one can do that for us! not even god….best to you!

    2. overall10: The number one basic problem with SCN is that it is all about finding out what is wrong with you and fixing it.

      Spyros: Yes, that’s the more Churchie approach. Some confusion between SCN and psychiatry.

      overall10: The number two basic problem with SCN is that the idea of God is “left up to the individual” but really one ends up feeling that since one is Cause, then one must be God. Or since LRH is Source, LRH must be God.

      Spyros: …with a little twist –that God is reffered to as ‘infinity’, so then it isn’t ‘one’. So, no’one’ is God, nor LRH. LRH was only reffered to as source of SCN, and not source as a God being. The ‘one God being’ was described as an implant.

  27. Offend and defend: Both counter-creations –making ridges. One can just comm and the other can understand it. If no extras get involved, problems can be resolved.

    1. One says “SCN this and that” and the other thinks…”Ohh he must be SP”…that’s an additive and doesn’t resolve anything. Another says “SCN this and that” and the other thinks “Ohhh he must be brainwashed”…that doesn’t solve stuff either + they both inhibit clear communication + generate complexities.

      It can be very simple. Each comms his universe=things get as-ised. You comm ‘reality’? You demand from the other universe to agree. Reality=agreement.

      1. I mean for a SCNist it is silly to reject a comm because it is not ‘reality’, and it’s equally silly to impose a comm because it is ‘reality. If it was REALITY, you would AGREE, dude!

        1. In the COS they have some agreements, to some degree, with each other, and they go around talking about “facts” (‘reality’) and “facts” and “get your facts straight” and “Scientology: It works!”. They tell you that you have given your agreement to something which previously didn’t exist for you. So you don’t know what you have agreed with, lol. OK, it is not only the COS. It’s all who preach ‘reality’ that talk like that.

          1. You know, “what is true, is what is true for you. But if you don’t become a Scientologist, you’re going to spend the rest of your eternity shaking alone in the dark” says the Div 6 Prientation film. That’s more contradictory than Christinity where the unconditionaly loving God will burn you forever unless you be a good boy. Yes! Religion got us out of barbarism gh h h h h h. Thank God, I used to be a barbarian untill I met religion.

  28. In many lectures and written articles LRH sets himself up as a god. Consider KSW, “we will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank….” He is above us mortals. He also used other manipulative techniques to silence dissent. Again from KSW, “The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation.” And “, “The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront good or bad and seek to make it wrong.” Who wants to hbe stupid ? Anyway, I believe that many (most?) Scientologists bought into this and abdicated responsibility for their own actions, and instead operated from LRH’s viewpoint. Of course this can result in all sorts of evil, including going along with child abuse, murder, abortioins, beatings, cheating and lying. It was easier to buy in because of the gains. I believe that lRH created this, but each of us has our own individual reasons for losing integrity.

    1. Yup. The abdication of responsibility is real.

      But this is an intriguing angle; On one hand Hubbard set himself up as The True Source of The Only Workable Technology Int The Universe and made sure that was drilled into his followers through repetitive duplication. On top of that he devised policies to ensure you didn’t have to think for yourself – you just have to follow policies, the auditing procedures, the orders from seniors, the C/S, etc. And on the other hand he preached that you are responsible and cause over All Dynamics. These are two extreme viewpoints at each end of the spectrum:

      1. Preach ultimate freedom and responsibility.
      2. Deprive responsibility by removing freedom of thought and action.

      I find this fascinating.

      And then: Welcome!

  29. Great post! The root cause according to my opinion is the INTENTION and ”communication”/action in the church, that we are always right, and you MUST listen (not we) and OBEY (whatever) we demand. This is a GROSS violation of respect and understanding of human relations and will never ever work no matter how precious tech you have in order to help your fellow man. I believe a thorough understanding of self- and pan determinism would do wonder if they want to truly accomplish this task.

    So, whatever the purpose is with SO and tools like KSW, the effect of each have become highly detrimental for the members when lacking the above understanding!

    1. Nice 🙂 Yes, I think that the root cause is that the root purpose is missing (what you said about self/pan determinism plus some other basic stuff)

    2. I agree. When I first started studying Scn, I thought it was covered by the creed — which clearly stated that we believe that the souls of man have the rights of man and it is a crime to destroy the life or sanity of another.

      The creed is barely given lip service — even by LRH, for rights are continually violated, disrespected and so on if you have stepped beyond the “safe” zone of being a Scientologist and entered the zone of fair game and no rights to any kind of justice, fairness or respect.

      1. 1.1 groups are there to make you agree at first, by projecting a false image of itself, and gradualy make you agree with things you would otherwise disagree and control you in that fashion.

        FAIR game has nothing to do with suppression. For me, fair would be to kick a suppressor’s ass if you really had to, not to use violence or otherwise force and threats of force to control others.

        1. The root purpose was to help people or help them help themselves. And in the beginning that’s what you’re told. But then you get to know all the reasons why that cannot happen.The books say ‘read it and do it’, but in the org no, you have to do the course, the TRs, check your ‘ethics’, donate to the IAS, join staff, pay your freeloader, disconnect from your husband (who no longer wants to be a member), and…well why audit any? Better raise a fortune to get audited by pro staff up the Bridge to Total Freedom. Then, halfway, wait for all orgs to become Saint Hill size, while you donate some more money, protest against psychiatry, and install ‘net nanny’ so you wont visit entheta websites on the internet! But you got friends who will love you unconditionaly, unless you decide to no longer be a Scientologist –Tone 40! 😀

  30. Marildi, The 800 lb gorilla in the middle of your argument is that while ceaselessly praising L Ron Hubbard and his Bridge to Total Freedom, you do not partake in the sacrament of solo-auditing. This is the outpoint, the inconsistency in your arguments like no other. You have yet to relay personal reasons showing how auditing has immeasurably improved your personal freedom and abilities. Which parts of the Tech. What is the root cause of this? It might be bad manners of me to point this out, but it is relatively true, isn’t it? You grill the rest of us ceaselessly, demanding reasons why we find the Tech to be inconsistent, and being given them, you deride the explanations as delusions of misunderstood word phenomena. I’ve tried to rewrite this to be the least snide possible. If I failed, well there it is anyway and to be sure, at this point in these discussions, I believe that your addressing this, sharing this particular reality with us all would be cathartic. Isn’t it time? I think it is just for me to ask, and please, save the energy of calling me a 1.1 SOB, because I already know that shit.

  31. I’m aware that I’m late in this discussion. Nevertheless I’d like to put down a few thoughts.
    Geir wrote: “It is not enough to point out and even isolate what is good in Scientology. That doesn’t cut it. What is needed is the finding of the root cause(s) of harm, admitting them, hang them out in full view and then move on with what is positive.”
    Meanwhile, quite a few intelligent people knowing Scientology quite well have searched for the answer. Have they succeeded in identifying the WHY?
    Do we know now what the root cause(s) are so that we can hang them out?

    I think the (many) causes of harm are deeply woven into the Scientology philosophy, technologies and policies, now fully being integrated in its culture. And so it lives also in ex-Church-member’s views, values and behaviors.

    I think that the causes cannot only be found in LRH’ scriptures and philosophy but also in the way beings react being confronted with Scientology.

    LRH has presented himself as a leader who knows the way and can guide us successfully up the bridge if we agree to blindly follow him.
    But on our part we have agreed. Haven’t we been happy being able to lean back and be guided, not having to question everything what is expected from us?
    Once we had accepted that we want to take auditing and follow LRH, once we had decided to trust him, we became total effect. We had lost control because we had agreed to give up control.
    Voluntarily we had handed ourselves over to LRH, to the Church and to DM’s way of directing us. And we were defending LRH and the Church (the way we were going now) against attacks from outside. We had to defend our guide and did not want to hear from others that he did not know the way. We had our gains in Auditing and training and the Churches’ propaganda even made us more certain that everything was positive.
    We thought that obeying instead of revolting sometimes had been our free will decision. The truth is that we had been conditioned, did not have a free will anymore.

    If there was just ONE root cause for all the harm then at the moment I feel that LRH made us follow him (and consequentially the Church and its staffs) blindly while giving us the illusion that we had kept our free will, freedom of speech and thought. He wrote that we should investigate Scientology very critically (wow) and did not have believe anything. We were not expected to accept LRH’s truth; we had the right to have our own personal truth. (wow).

    DUPLICATION might very well be an instrument helpful for conditioning people but there are many others as well.

    I feel that in Scientology Ethics is highly polluted with suppressive harmful elements. Going through the Ethics book I easily start feeling sick.

    If you have a Fagu fish from which you know that it is extremely toxic you can put it into peaces and investigate each single part if it is poisonous. You identify and eliminate these parts and make it known to everyone.

    My proposal is that UNTIL the root causes are identified it could make sense to isolate what is good in Scientology, present it and use it. That’s much easier and will produce results one can work with. So both can be done at the same time. I don’t see why first the evil has to be found before the good can be isolated and presented.
    People are as scared from Scientology as they are from a Fagu fish. One never knows. If you’d offer a delicious cheese-cake for free many people wouldn’t eat it even if it was for free once they’d have the information that the recipe had come from LRH.
    Publishing to the world at http://www.untoxicLRH.com that the LRH cheese cake is NOT harmful for your health would be a beginning. Also the assists can be applied without concern. And the knowledge of the ARC triangle. All tested.
    One more proposal:
    There are Thousands of videos from Independents dealing with abuses of the Church. And many from critics making fun of auditing and TR’s. Today I saw one which gives an idea of basic Scientology in practice in a very refreshing manner. Geir had the link on his blog. http://www.youtube.com/embed/emKvMPGSc0s
    There should be more, presenting and explaining e.g. assists, the TRs and Auditing.

    Wonderful blog, wonderful people, very respectful with one-another. Why doesn’t this blog attract even more people?
    Stupid question. It certainly is a dangerous place for people whose stability is based on their bunch of stable data.

    1. D.V.. great post… ”He wrote that we should investigate Scientology very critically (wow) and did not have believe anything. We were not expected to accept LRH’s truth; we had the right to have our own personal truth. (wow).
      I also read while at Vancouver’s Mission from LRH that one should use what one has the need for and discard the rest.
      Yes, duplication understanding the meanings what one read is helpful.
      There was no force applied on any one to accept scientology and its teachings.. every one went in there out of their own will…. or was it restimulation?
      again thanks. Elizabeth.

  32. Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_6vDLq64gE
    In Sheep’s Clothing, by George Simon, Jr.

    Many of you have probably already looked at this stuff. I am just reading In Sheep’s Clothing and I recognize LRH as a master manipulator. Of course, one has to agree to be manipulated. The most important idea in the Liar video is that two are necessary for a lie to work. The victim has to want whatever it is the liar is selling. With LRH’s mastery, and with the workability of the tech, we desperately want it to be true, so we end up selling our integrity for a lie.

  33. One of the earlier posters pointed out that in many lectures LRH sets himself up as a God. I agree. But he also states point-blank that we are all fallen Gods. The gist of this is that some of us are “bigger” fallen Gods than others. He takes the position that this MEST universe is a pathetic version of reality, MEST bodies little better than automatons, and traps for degraded fallen Gods. Continued association will only worsen the degradation until at least one becomes an angel, or a rock. From this point of view the body game is both a very bad delusion, (think the delusory quality of the Matrix) and a trap and there is no reason to treat it well other than what is absolutely necessary so the natives don’t get onto what you are REALLY doing and wipe you out — numbers can wipe out the highest level of God you know. So sneaking and skullduggery and pretending to be a “regular joe” while getting the hell out of dodge is par for the course and the greatest good for the fallen God. And really, who gives a shit about a bunch of animated pieces of meat powered by a degraded God?

    The duplicity is built right into the core beliefs.

    Buddha observed the same problem with the concept of no-self and life the illusion — he saw that there would be those who would turn their back on everything, go live in a cave and engage in nihilism. And he was right about that. He framed the 8-fold path to ward against this very thing.

  34. Maria, this is very good succinct summary of LRH’s later views as he developed Scientology. The “State of Man”, etc.

    Have you heard the expression, “Kill them all and let God sort them out” ?

    It reputedly originated in the 12th-13th century with this man, Alamric.

    Arnaud Amaury or Arnaud Amalric (died 1225) was a Cistercian abbot who took a prominent role in the Albigensian Crusade. He is most remembered for allegedly advising a soldier, who was worrying about killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics during the sack of Cathar stronghold of Béziers, “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” (“Kill them. For the Lord knew those that are His own.”)

    My point is simply that such views of the relative value of human life vs. the life of the spirit are not unusual, may even be a relative norm on Earth. An example is the Bhagavad Gita, in which Krishna advises Arjuna how to kill with a clean conscience:

    “Faced with a fratricidal war, a despondent Arjuna turns to his charioteer Krishna for counsel on the battlefield. Krishna, through the course of the Gita, imparts to Arjuna wisdom, the path to devotion, and the doctrine of selfless action. The Gita upholds the essence and the theological tradition of the Upanishads. However, unlike the rigorous monism of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita also integrates dualism and theism.” (From Wikipedia).

    Duplicity? Each person must draw his/her own conclusions. Gandhi referred to the Gita as his “spiritual dictionary”. It appears Hubbard was right in the great tradition of the Upanishads.

    Is it time to develop a new mythology? Hubbard did say that the old ways were a “game that has gone on too long”. And that many of us were pretty damned tired of it.

    1. Valkov –

      I don’t understand why you try to bring up other instances of duplicity than LRH’s. Are you looking at LRH’s duplicity and then diving into other examples of duplicity to justify LRH’s?

      If some other religious figure in history was also duplicitous, how, exactly, does this relate to LRH’s duplicity?

      You never say. You seem to me to be justifying LRH’s duplicity by saying that someone else was duplicitous, too.

      Are you doing that? Or what?

      What exactly are you trying to show when you do this?

      Duplicity? Each person must draw his/her own conclusions.

      Yes. The conclusion I draw on LRH is duplicity. Thanks for letting me draw my own conclusions.

      Alanzo

      1. Huh? I didn’t “try” to do anything. I responded to Maria’s post.

        My question has to do with what is “duplicity”, in life, religion, literature. etc. Is there “duplicity” in all of these, in the Bible, in the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, in Plato, and in Buddhism too? They are all “ideological”. Is any ideology or mythology actually in any sense “good”, or are they all “duplicitous” in some way?

        Duplicity in the sense that Maria means?

        I suggest you read my post more than once, at least until you get the perspective from which I wrote it.

    2. Valkov: Is it time to develop a new mythology? Hubbard did say that the old ways were a “game that has gone on too long”. And that many of us were pretty damned tired of it.

      Chris: My longtime answer to this complaint is to find the art in what you do and create. I use this in my job, love making and especially when making peanut butter and jelly with butter sandwich. We think that if we were GOD then we could create whatever we wanted and then life would be fun and interesting. What we sometimes ignore is that we don’t bother to create even at the level in which we live. Why or why would we be better off creating universes? So dust the top of the refrigerator and behind the dryer. Make a bed. Empty the kitchen sink and polish it up with some cleanser. And as the waitress always tells us, …Enjoy! (If I took that way farther than you meant Valkov, I was just “stumping” to everyone.)

      1. CH… 🙂 I am going to ask Shelly next time I talk with her just what kind of artist you are! 🙂
        PS: creating is the highest -lightest energy in the universe one uses. but what is that energy is interpreted into, now that is a different story..

  35. Truth cannot be declared.

    All one may express is one’s own opinion, for truth is relative and never absolute.

    The degree of truth depends on the consistency among the considerations that one holds.

    TRUTH

    .

  36. It is the modus operandi of this universe to LIE TO SURVIVE.

    For Hubbard, the key to OT was survival. Lying was justified.

    .

    1. “For Hubbard, the key to OT was survival. Lying was justified.”

      I see this evaluation as mistaken. Survival was the key concept of Dianetics, which preceded Scientology and the goal of OT. The “key” to OT is something else entirely. It is the creation of an effect. See the Phoenix Lectures and subsequent 4th London ACC lectures, where “lying” is quite specifically defined.

      1. Hubbard has said a lot of brilliant stuff; but his behavior and the policy that he implemented has greatly diverged from it.

        .

        1. As I have said before, I feel your behavior does pretty much the same to KHTK. I would like to see some real results from KHTK application, starting with its Founder. So far I see none.

            1. Vinaire: Free Will = Unknowingness of spiritual laws.

              Chris: See? (everybody) This is what I mean by Vin’s snazzy looks at philosophy. The fact that he doesn’t seem to care a flip of how his comments come across seem brave to me. The way he promotes his ideas with endless repetition and links to his blog — I don’t understand the motivation for that so much. Fuck. There I am in the middle again… what to do? LOL

            2. If there were spiritual laws, then that would limit spiritual free will. Vin said, “unknowingness” of spiritual laws = free will. See how cute that is?

            3. When V.. is not commenting I have noticed the blog loses something… and I miss him. I am one who tease him the most but I also have affinity for him and loads of that. I wonder if he knows that?

            4. There are laws that determined LRH’s behavior, and which may determine my behavior, or anybody else’s behavior. One may believe in free will, like one may believe in free market system, but there are natural laws, like the laws of statistics, that supercede the free “whatever”.

              Intention or free will may seem to create some local fluctuations, but on a long term basis, it bows down to the laws.

              People are predictable.

              Is this post on the topic, or should I end this discussion too?

              ..

            5. so it is I who put my foot in the wrong place…. 🙂 well, not a first time and in fact that made me read his comment twice over.. and had to agree.. V…. you beautiful pussy cat… you can be brilliant!

        2. V… why that it matters how he behaved, he was not a saint, in his mind I am sure he was perfect same as you think of your self?
          He left his foot prints on this planet.

    2. V……”For Hubbard, the key to OT was survival. Lying was justified.””
      v… the man lived and he lived created his best no matter what that was, what ever that was… he simply lived his life, as you do your best to create yours.
      Even a murderer , killing dozens of people is that is they best they could do. A opera singer sings, that is their best.. people live they live. and we can sit on the sidelines and evaluate. We have nothing better to do with our life? I have..

  37. I want to thank Susie again for inspiring me make the connection:

    I learned a lot from this video. I realized why people lie. It is the same reason why some people cannot discuss without getting personal.:

    How to Spot a Liar

    .

  38. Spyros: “How can the present persist without having a past?”

    Me: Because everything is created now. Including what we like to call “the past”.

    1. +1. . . looks to me like I am doing that with my SO history toward my daughter. I think I’m ready to “get off it.” Timely comment from you. Thank you. And thank you Spyros for the timely question.

      1. Hihihi I’m glad & thank you too 🙂 Yes, I agree, past, present, future… is all created now. So I differentiate now between the ‘now’ and the ‘present TIME’.

  39. Marildi: “There are a lot more intelligent comments and acceptance of the whole spectrum of viewpoints on Marty’s blog than on this one. ”

    Me: except he carefully culls the comments he doesn’t want to have there. Like Elisabeth’s and Chris’ – and many others.

    1. I get that what he cuts is the comments that either derail the topic or are sheer entheta. He often states why he has not allowed a comment. Believe me, he posts plenty of comments that contradict his own ideas. The posts range from ultra Scn fundamentalists to harsh critics of Scn and also of him.

      1. Marildi: He often states why he has not allowed a comment. Believe me, he posts plenty of comments that contradict his own ideas.

        Chris: Yes, for entertainment. Meat thrown to the dogs. Like Judge Judy putting on idiots so they can be ridiculed. No mystery there. The main point of censorship is that you don’t know what Marty has censored and you can take that to the bank. I am only aware of it because I have been censored there. Once more, you don’t know what he censors because it is censored. Geir is brave in the extreme to allow an open forum here which is why I trust it and live here.

        1. It seems Marildi also Loved It Here – until I no longer sided with her view of the Scientology World. But I can live with that. Life is change.

  40. Marildi: “I’ve already expressed where I’m at with regard to how I practice Scientology…”

    Me: I must have missed that. Do you audit? Study?

    1. I don’t audit but I do study. That’s why I know the references pretty well and they’re pretty fresh in mind. But even more to the point of “practice” is the fact that use the principles in my life (at least I try to). I’ve also stated in comments that if logistics made it more feasible for me I would continue with Bridge auditing with no hesitation whatsoever. Btw, I’ve directly said these things in reply to Chris. That’s why his continual badgering looks just a little fishy.

      1. Darling, you must get on with the job. There are many things you could use for solo: Pilot’s self-clearing, TROM are 2 good things. You don’t really need an auditor, but if you feel you do then I’d be happy to assist.

        1. freebeeing, just to let you know, I got that yours was a sincere help flow and I appreciated it. Thanks. 🙂

      2. Marildi: But even more to the point of “practice” is the fact that use the principles in my life (at least I try to). I’ve also stated in comments that if logistics made it more feasible for me I would continue with Bridge auditing with no hesitation whatsoever.

        Chris: Then you know that “Gross Auditing Error #1 is no auditing occurring.” There is no logistical reason that you cannot solo audit. There is a reason but you won’t say.

        1. Chris, I noted that you said you are no longer soloing and said the reasons are all over this blog, but it isn’t clear to me your reasons (I have read all the posts on this blog). Are you doing KHTK now (which I would also classify as soloing)?

          1. Freebeing, The reasons why auditing used to work for me were consistent with the religious system that I subscribed to. Solo auditing from that point of view was tremendously empowering, especially when done over a prohibition of both the Standard Tech and the COS to do so. For anyone who has experienced this, they will know there is nothing like asking oneself an auditing question, watching it read on a Wheatstone Bridge like an emeter, and to simply take what comes up and run that rudiment to an understanding. Imagine my amusement at discovering that I was doing every part of that sequence as it happened. Tremendously fulfilling to undo the boogeymen, to vaporize the fear and trepidation and to know who I am in association with everything that I experience. It is not like I was told but I was never one to have hidden standards, but always grateful for anything I took from the experience of auditing. Altogether, it was a wonderfully empowering experience. I did this for most of a year and filled two manilla folders with session notes. At a point, I understood that experience fit within the context of my own creation of the metes and bounds of the box I was given rules for and told to call Scientology. I discovered that I am all that and then I saw how I was not all that and the box opened and out I came, metaphorically speaking.

          2. Freebeing, people need to follow the path of their personal predilection. Once one begins to blaze a trail, it is my opinion that they should walk that path to an ending of their own choosing. If you wonder at me encouraging Scientologists to audit, while I don’t audit, it is because I cannot conceive of being satisfied at sitting on the sidelines watching others have the fun that I longed for. Scientology is a complete belief system. It has an answer for everything, even when those answers simply turn one round in the squirrel cage. Yet in the hands of a compassionate practitioner, I see no harm in a person, already a Scientologist and heavily invested in the ideology seeing their path through to a finish. That is what I did and I’m very happy that I did it that way because it brought beautiful closure to something I gave the greater part of my adult life to. That was one of the lives that I could have and did live but it was not the only one and only the last part which I described was the necessary part.

          3. Freebeing, If you are with me when I say that truth was consistent for that frame of reference but not consistent and not true for my current frame of reference, then I believe you understand what I mean and why I no longer solo audit. If I ever happen to go back into the box of Scientology, I will certainly solo audit some more. Since that time, I have done all the basic exercises of KHTK and could see their usefulness, however, by now, I am not looking for enlightenment as I already feel enlightened. Rather, I am invigorated to play the game of life, to enjoy it, to participate, to share, to continue to learn, to live out my days, and then to dissolve quietly with the smile and satisfaction that the world continues to turn and that all is right in my universe.

            1. Chris… auditing session … when one is in session has nothing to do with scientology and DEFENETLY ONE IS NOT IN THE BOX!!!!!!!!!!!! where did you get that idea in the first place? Your reality on sessions is not what sessions are about. and you also have justifications same as you accuse Marildi having one. You should listen to your self…

            2. Hmm, well I won’t pretend that I understand you. I have to agree with Elizabeth. Seems you agree with Vin; that you’ll just dissolve into oblivion when your body dies. Perhaps you’d care to comment on the view from your current box on such matters?

            3. Freebeing: Perhaps you’d care to comment on the view from your current box on such matters?

              Chris: No worries. “Dissolve into oblivion” is not the way I would write it. I will work on another metaphor. The ball of considerations whose weighted center is the reality of this existence dissolves. You already know something about this from your own auditing… Is your experience of this like mine? I’m not sure. But for me, there is no worry or anxiety about what happens next. My reality is warm and sunny, rich with possibilities. Each of us works this out and comes up with what we come up with. But it is fun to visit about and to speculate about what is greater than great. Hubbard’s “little clinker” you call your soul has no part of it. On the other hand, his “wind that sighs for songs” is better. None of this for me is just as anyone else has laid it out.

            4. Chris… your comment about auditing well…. has been flip… auditors and who solo audits any length of time. puts in sessions every day-hours of it confronting that person will never be flip-knocking that process. not even for fun.. because they understand its meaning, what it takes to be there and what it do in a form of change of as-ising.
              Your reality on auditing sessions tells different.

            5. CH….”” Hubbard’s “little clinker” you call your soul has no part of it. On the other hand, his “wind that sighs for songs” is better.”””
              ”’ little clinker””??? very interesting ….. but not very funny..

            6. Oh goody I get to integrate a little Buddhism into the discussion.

              Chris, I sincerely hope it goes for you the way you picture it. It would be a happy outcome, one many generations of Buddhists have sought for.

              The “ball of considerations” you refer to is what Buddhists call a person’s “karma”. It dissolves at death, or not, depending on the person. There is not a one-size-fits-all outcome for everyone across the board.
              Some Tibetans in particular believe that at around the time of bodily death there is a “window of opportunity” to liberate one’s self from this ball of considerations and go free.

              These windows of opportunity happen not just at death, but can occur at various points in a person’s life, often at moments of shock. These “shocks” can be created by a good teacher, or they can occur spontaneously or randomly in the process of living. These windows occur at moments of transition.

              Sogyal Rinpoche’s book”The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying” goes into this a lot. It is a book used by staff in many hospices.

              That ball of considerations, if it is ‘heavy’ or ‘solid’ enough can obscure the fundamental consciousness of bliss which some believe is the ground of existence. That is why Buddhists strive to resolve it.

            7. Elizabeth: “are you ignoring the questions I have asked?”

              Chris: Yes, mostly because you are all over the place on this like you aren’t following the conversation. It’s Marildi’s contention that Scientology is the greatest invention of all time. It saves peoples lives and affords total spiritual freedom in the least amount of time with the least amount of trouble using the best laid path and organized in simple steps. She quotes Hubbard incessantly while not partaking of the ultimate sacrament of Scientology which is auditing. All I’m doing is addressing this one point. Marildi doesn’t feel the need to audit. No matter the smoke she is using about how we don’t like her, trying to drive her away, invalidating her, etc., there is only one question on the table which is why she won’t do what her religion tells her to do. I think it’s plain that I don’t care either way whether she does audit or not. I care that she is writing incessantly about how great Scientology is without doing it. I think this puts her in the category of accomplice to Hubbard in promoting a destructive cult. She is sitting there with an answer to this question that if she was a lurker wouldn’t come up. But she is the premier poster of comments on this blog. This puts her comments in the crosshairs. That’s just the way it is in a social forum.

            8. Your invalidation is supper good.. and now I will take Marildi’s side. I know her reason, and I understand it very well, she is where she needs to be… And how you see her where she is, that is your reality on her but that still not hers and mine.

            9. Self exploration is what familiarizes us with ourselves. Tautological, yes, and that is why I joke about a tautological universe — one that is repetitive and redundant, saying over and over to us the same or similar answers, lessons, results . . . many have done this and do this and they make it, and by make it I mean satisfy their search for truth. Not any one sect either. It’s just important to find one’s way, to soldier on so to speak. Given a good heart, inquisitiveness, and unquenchable desire to know what is true for me seems to unravel the universe. What we abstract (idea of what we see that we say to ourself) seems to be uniquely our own. Our abstraction of life seems to be what we truly own if that. We might as well abstract something pleasing rather than displeasing.

        2. A person can solo audit without necessarily even realizing it. If you are assimilating data, having cognitions and enhancing your spiritual survival with increased knowingness, then you are getting the same positive gains that you will get from auditing.

          I’m pretty sure this is what you think you do and I see no problem with this.

          If Marildi is winning and gaining at whatever she’s doing, let her be the judge of what she should do next. Solo auditing on the cans can be helpful for an individual up to the point the individual can make positive gains. After that I’d apply it only as necessary (like an out-rud that the individual couldn’t set straight by inspection). Beyond that I’d push positive gain processes until they didn’t work anymore, then whatever it took to get back to more positive gain processes. (I use the term “processes” a little loosely here as the “process” could be whatever achieved positive gain.)

          Frankly, Marildi is as adept as anyone at assimilating data and is the most pan determined person I have seen here. Bar absolutely frickin none. If you had an organization run by personalities with an equivalent amount of ARC and pan determinism, you’d have an organization that would be busting at the seams.

          That, in contrast to what we see with organizations today, would effectively show you what is wrong with and what is rightable about Scientology.

          As for how and when and where auditing should be delivered, Marty and David St. Lawrence have both said some very good things. They both have learned that it is through excellent communication with the pc that the auditor determines what needs to be run and for how long.

          None of what they have said or I have personally seen would conflict with a high-toned person forging ahead on a “shortest path” approach and that doesn’t preclude a non-formal solo approach.

          1. Gosh, 2x, what can I say but thanks. I’ve actually stated on more than one occasion almost exactly what you just wrote – that I don’t really feel I need auditing right now and that I am winning with what I am doing. That “life itself is a process”. Thank you so much for recognizing that reality. You caught me just at the point of not wanting to even respond to this line of questioning any longer because I could just imagine the additional eval from those who can’t or don’t want to accept it, for whatever reason.

            If I ever see you in person you are going to get the biggest hug. 🙂

            1. I would recommend you try getting through NOTs/Solo NOTs. It did me a world of good. Perhaps it will do something similar for you.

            2. Thanks for that, Geir. I’ve read the data on the internet about NOTs and, as I said earlier about the Bridge, should it become available to me I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. It may or may not lie on my future path. But I’m moving along finding my way. 😉

            3. If you really are serious about defending auditing, you really should find a way to try getting through NOTs.

            4. If you are a serious defender of auditing, you should try to get through NOTs specifically – it is the auditing that gave me the most – in addition to OT 8 and L11.

            5. Okay, but you’re saying the same thing in just a slightly different way. You could be coming from at least a couple of different angles.

              Btw, I’m not as heavy on promoting auditing in and of itself as you are. I place a lot of emphasis on training in conjunction with auditing – or even in itself. I could give you similar advice – if you can have it 😉 – which would be: If you’re serious about finding the flaws in the tech you should do more training. JMO.

            6. This discussion has become dispersed. The SHSBC purpose is to give a thorough auditor training. What would the purpose of training auditors be if they weren’t going to audit? This is not making any sense to me. Who is supposed to receive auditing?

            7. Marildi: which would be: If you’re serious about finding the flaws in the tech you should do more training. JMO.

              Chris: Kidding, right? 🙂

            8. Marildi: ” . . . should it become available to me I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment.”

              Chris: What would this look like? NOTs seems to be readily available.

          2. Your post is thoughtful and well organized but going soft on Marildi’s hardline defense of Standard Scientology does her no favors. It is this hardline defense of Scientology that I aim my arrows, not at Marildi. I love Marildi and respect her thorough investigation of the box of Scientology. If one is very into that box and talking that talk, then it follows that the best thing for all is for them to walk that walk.

            And my solo sessions were done model session because that was what I needed to do at that time.

            1. modeled after what…? since you don’t seem think much of auditing what your sessions were modeled after, who’s method did you use? and what class of auditor are you if I may ask if you have used the CofS’s ?

  41. It is patently unpopular and in bad form to evaluate a person’s case to their face and especially so in a public forum. My ongoing argument with Marildi is not about her case but about her politics of Scientology.

    It is my opinion that a person defending the tenets of a destructive cult should at least themselves submit to those tenets. Not to do so puts one in a similar moral position as the founder of Scientology, who also did not submit to the tenets of that cult but was an infamous fraud and fugitive from the law spending years on the lam.

    1. From what I know about Marildi from her writings I would say that she does not defend the tenets of a destructive cult. She defends what she understands to be scientology (with a small ‘s’ as opposed to the big ‘S” Co$)

      That she has yet to come to understand that she doesn’t need all those millions of words, a C/S, a meter, or someone else to unravel her mind is not a moral matter, but a matter of attachment to a fixed dogma that restricts her actions in this regard.

      I wasted 20 years waiting to get the time/money together to continue on that ‘bridge’, 20 years that could have been spent doing it on my own. Because I believed I needed to follow that ‘closely marked path’. Hubbard instilled fear in his followers – fear of their own case. This is part of the trap.

      No one can free you but you.

      1. “That she has yet to come to understand that she doesn’t need all those millions of words, a C/S, a meter, or someone else to unravel her mind is not a moral matter, but a matter of attachment to a fixed dogma that restricts her actions in this regard.”

        freebeeing, that’s not a correct representation of what I’ve said. In fact, I just commented yesterday that I don’t feel the need to get auditing or to do some splinter form of solo auditing. I thought you got that.

        As a matter of fact, I’ve stated a number of times that neither I nor others necessarily need to follow the scientology (small “s”) path. However, my whole thrust has been that it is a valid, amazingly workable route which I believe most people, if so inclined, can follow and make great gains – as I and many others have already done. And I’ve also stated that the path can be improved and that anyone is free to do so and to use it as they see fit.

        On this blog, where Scn is concerned, I mainly speak up to disagree with the false data about it – especially the idea that it in general does little or no good, only bad. I think spreading false data about it, especially wholesale criticism, is a misleading disservice and injustice on several if not all dynamics.