Monthly Archives: January 2013

How To Study Scientology

The circumstances I was afforded in my training in Scientology technology were auspicious.

I summarized them in an earlier post,   Training Outside the Walls.                     .

There is more context to the story that I believe sheds light on the thoughts behind recent posts here that have apparently created consternation, strife, chaos, and even declared enemies.

First, before engaging in my Scientology training, I had had the opportunity to work directly for L. Ron Hubbard during the last six years of his life.  I witnessed the ultimate result of unvarying adherence to much of the policy and technology he had issued.  It was not pretty.  Really a tragedy on the order of the example LRH used in the Policy Letter The Responsibilities of Leaders, the story of Simon Bolivar. Incidentally,  it looks as though I’ll be able to share that in the detail and context it deserves sometime late this Spring.

By the time I arrived on the ship for tech training – after fifteen years of Sea Org service –  I had not had much technical training.   I had blown the Sea Org and in my mind had forsaken Scientology forever more.  The only reason I returned was the promise of doing tech training.  Obviously I had zero faith in anybody in the hierarchy of Scientology since I had overtly committed the most treasonable act imaginable in that culture against its supreme leader by blowing.  I had nothing to lose.  I blew once and if the deal was reneged on I would blow again (that is ultimately what happened in 2004 in some respects).   But, I was particularly focused to fully understand and apply what it was that I had already sacrificed the best years of my adult life to protecting and defending.

As noted in the previous post cited above, I had free rein to study with no intervening arbitraries, opinion leaders, ruthless supervisors, Class VIII and XII priests’ attempts to make it otherwise be damned.   It was between LRH’s written and recorded words and me.  If it added up and worked so be it, if it didn’t so be it.

Early on in my training I read again a bulletin from LRH that helped draw me into Scientology in the first place.  It was called How To Study A Science.   It was later retitled How To Study Scientology and can found by that title in the technical bulletin volumes.   Some stable datums had struck me when I first read it and I wanted to reorient myself to them for my own intensive training:

The first thing that a student has to find out for himself, and then recognize, is that he is dealing with precision tools here in the courses.  It isn’t up to someone else to force this piece of information on him.  The whole subject of Scientology as far as the student is concerned is as good or bad in direct ratio to his knowledge of it.  It is up to a student to find out how precise these tools are.  He should, before he starts to discuss, criticize or attempt to improve the data presented to him, find out for himself whether or not the mechanics of Scientology are as stated, and whether or not it does what has been proposed for it.  He should make up his own mind about each thing that is taught in the school – the procedure, techniques, mechanics and theory.  He should ask himself these questions: Does this piece of data exist?  Is it true?  Does it work?  And will it produce the best possible result in the shortest time?  There are two ways to answer these questions to his own satisfaction: Find them in a preclear or find them in himself.  These are fundamentals, and every auditor should undertake to discover them himself, thus raising Scientology above an authoritarian category…

…A man by the name of Galen at one time dominated the field of medicine.  Another man by the name of Harvey upset Galen’s cozy position with a new theory of blood circulation.  Galen had been agreeing with the people of his day concerning the ‘tides’ of the blood. They knew nothing of heart action. They accepted everything they had been taught and did little observing of their own.  Harvey worked at the Royal Medical Academy and found by animal vivisection the actual function of the heart.

He had the good sense to keep his findings absolutely quiet for a while.  Leonardo da Vinci had somehow discovered or postulated the same thing, but he was a ‘crazy artist’ and no one would believe an artist.  Harvey was a member of the audience of a play by Shakespeare in which the playwright made the same observation, but again the feeling that artists never contribute anything to society blocked anyone but Harvey from considering the statement as anything more than fiction.

Finally, Harvey made his announcement.  Immediately dead cats, rotten fruit and pieces of wine jugs were hurled his direction.  He raised quite a commotion in medical and social circles until finally, in desperation, one doctor made the historical statement that ‘I would rather err with Galen than be right with Harvey!’…

…Any quarrel you may have with theory is something that only you can resolve.  Is the theory correct or isn’t it correct?  Only you can answer that; it cannot be answered for you…

…You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis – a very critical basis.

It was with that spirit that I studied and practiced everything from TR’s, to Metering, to every aspect of delivery of Scientology technology.    I noted contradictions while I studied.    But, that did not deter me.  I took LRH at his word – from the Axioms, to the Student Hat Course to the bulletin above to the repeated injunction that what matters are those fundamentals that create results.   Though clearly through the history of Scientology sacred cows were being constructed of an overwhelming and contradictory nature, when it came to tech study I stuck with retaining in my own mind and in practice what works to result.

I did not study under threat of eternal damnation, being given nightmares if I strayed from what priests – no matter how decorated or anointed they might be – told me was ‘standard tech’, or any other duress.   I learned to play the Scientology piano.  I cannot imagine – nor could have LRH during the heart of his Scientology discovery track – learning to play any other way.

I noticed something along the way.  The most vehement, zealous, pedantic,  holier-than-thou Keeping Scientology Working preachers (inside and outside the church) had the least natural, effortless ability to play the piano themselves.   The more strained and haughty, the less ability to competently attain results.  The more accusative, and dramatic at the righteous indignation play, the less able to deliver results.  The more ‘unreasonable’ and high-and-mighty about points One through Ten of Keeping Scientology Working the less able to move someone up the Grade Chart.

As a result I firmly believe that people ought to be trained by having their reason appealed to and their wisdom shining.  That is simple to do, given you are working with someone of a reasonably high intelligence quotient and an above average world-centric motivation.   I believe that  the necessity to appeal to fear, to frighten them into compliance with rules and regulations only arises if they don’t come in with the above two qualities.  If they don’t come into it with those qualities they are usually found to not be there on their own full self-determinism.   By that reason alone they don’t qualify to audit, case supervise and train others in the first place.

I wouldn’t let those trained under threat or fear audit the earthworms in my back yard.  Those trained by appeal to fear that they would wind up a charred ember floating in space with every man,  woman and child on the planet if they failed to understand and failed to walk around with a fixed, dedicated glare.  Those trained by fear of continuing education outside of Scientology even after demonstrating complete understanding and ability with the subject of Scientology.  Those trained only after they have demonstrated an unalterable conviction that what they were studying was the ‘only’ thing that had any worth (and therefore violated hundreds of references by the author of what it is they are studying – such as the wonderful LAW that the only way to truly understand the worth of anything is by comparison to data of comparable magnitude), and the firm, religious belief that they must rid themselves of even the possibility of entering a thought to the process that was not already written and provided to them from a single source.  Those that agree to organize their life so that their minds cannot be potentially polluted by the entrance of a datum contrary to what they have been given to study.  Those methods do not result in understanding (by Scientology definition or any other) and they certainly do not result in ability to apply competently.  They result in slaves attempting to remember so as to avoid punishment.

It is no different than Pavlovian training.   It is purely stimulus-response.

Or as L. Ron Hubbard noted in How To Study A Science:

Authoritarianism is little more than a form of hypnotism.  Learning is forced under some sort of threat of punishment.

Those who have learned – and enforce Scientology – by such means are not in the business of freeing people mentally and spiritually.  They have their own issues.

Or as L. Ron Hubbard noted in How To Study A Science:

Data is your data only so long as you have evaluated it.  It is your data by authority or it is your data.  If it is your data by authority, somebody forced it upon you, and at best it is little more than a light aberration.

I can already hear the outraged chorus, “this is heresy !  It is squirrel!   It is an attack upon L. Ron Hubbard because surely you are referring to the Policy Letter Keeping Scientology Working.”

I got news for you.  If you were industrious you could find dozens  of references by L. Ron Hubbard to support my view.  I have studied them myself.

“Then cite them!”, I am sure I will hear (and have), by the not-quite-bright who don’t dig L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology and never did, but who are the first to scream ‘bloody murder’ to anyone expressing views such that I have expressed here.   My response is, why?   So we can play the ‘divine who is really with Ron game’?   It is a game that has no end.  Because fact of the matter is, if you look you’ll find my references and you’ll find some supporting your view that Pavlovian training must be followed with unvarying adherence.  But, just as importantly, what does  quoting Ron have to do with obtaining a result on a preclear?

It is as if Scientology has degenerated into precisely what LRH criticized psychoanalysis  of becoming (again from How To Study a Science):

…All these years in which psychoanalysis has taught its tenets to each generation of doctors, the authoritarian method was used, as can be verified by reading a few of the books on the subject.  Within them is found, interminably, ‘Freud said…’  The truly important thing is not that ‘Freud said’ a thing, but ‘Is the data valuable?  If it is valuable, how valuable is it?’  You might say that a datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated…

Whoever wants to play the stone, paper and scissors game with L. Ron Hubbard references in the comments section, by my guest.  I can’t play myself.  I have to get back to auditing and training folks  – appealing to their reason with the result of their wisdom shining.

Mission Statement

This began as my promised response to Tom Martiniano’s Op Ed that was posted on this blog on January 22.  It expanded into a mission statement of sorts given intervening events.

Before I take up particulars of the Op Ed, I want to establish a foundation.

First, I believe that L Ron Hubbard developed a workable spiritual-based psychotherapy that when applied as prescribed – according to its axioms and fundamental laws – routinely produces a well and happy, self-determined, unrepressed being.   Since leaving the church of Scientology I have applied that exact path to three individuals – from knowing little to nothing of Hubbard or Scientology to the state of Clear (quite in addition to hundreds of hours of auditing at all levels of the Bridge).  Doing so outside structured, policy-controlled Scientology is far less complicated.  There is little need for listing and nulling, extensive correction lists and the like because there is none of the sundry evaluation (under the justification of ‘ethics’, ‘pts/sp handling’, ‘justice’, or other organizational concerns) that inevitably enters when the process is complicated by later policies, and even tech, that stray from and contradict the laws and axioms which make auditing, and the Bridge, work.  I have objective and subjective reality on the workability of Hubbard’s technology.

Second, by his own admission L. Ron Hubbard could not have, and would not have, discovered that well taped path had it not been for centuries of free thinkers who came before him, most notably Sigmund Freud, Alfred Korzybski, Lao Tzu and Siddhartha Gautama.  I believe that Viktor Frankl’s treatment of Freud would have served Scientology’s future far better than the wholesale condemnation (read denial) that was later visited upon him and everyone ever influenced by him.  In the early fifties Frankl acknowledged Freud much as Hubbard originally did, noting that he was the first to look into the mind and show us that it could be done.  Frankl also acknowledged that Freud – like himself, Hubbard, and the rest of us – are influenced at least in some measure by the times in which we live.  Thus, he reasoned, one should not dismiss Freud wholesale because he, growing up in Victorian Vienna, was wrong that everything could be answered by one’s sexual hang ups.   By the same token he noted that it is just as shortsighted and stupid for us not to recognize Freud’s limitations.  To give credit where credit is due, he concluded that if he (Frankl) were able to see a little bit farther over the horizon than Freud it was because he was a mere midget standing on the shoulders of a giant.  If Scientology continued to acknowledge its once acknowledged legacy, there would be far less fuss (read impossibility to the world outside of the Scientology cult) about acknowledging Hubbard’s contributions and legacy.  There would also be a far deeper understanding available to students and practitioners of Scientology of that which they study and practice.  Further, I agree with Hubbard when he once freely admitted that had he not discovered the path he did, someone else ultimately would have.   I believe he limited future discovery beyond his horizons by later claiming his discoveries were not inevitable by the cultural evolution of humankind and his contributions to it, but instead were due to some mythic quality of his own cosmic character.

Third, because I have successfully understood and applied the technology of L. Ron Hubbard to intended result, over and over again, both in the church of Scientology and out while under intense attack by the same entity, I have earned the right to have my own opinions on the subject – as have others.   Hubbard himself acknowledged that right in the first lecture he delivered on the subject of how to study, Studying – Introduction, 18 June 1964.  If others do not have that same level of certainty of application and result I can understand their steadfast unwillingness to think with and discourse on the subject.   But, to attempt to dissuade those who have – and to condemn them with belittling labels and false accusations about  their alleged history – signifies a weak certainty on the subject in my opinion, and is anathema to the notion of broadening one’s horizons and is suppressive to the exercise of the one ability Scientology has always promised to deliver,  knowing how to know.   As will be made clear as we proceed, I would be very wary about putting a loved one’s spiritual destiny into the hands of such folk.

Fourth, with respect to philosophy, I believe that the understanding and level of application of Scientology I have demonstrated, over and over as above, helped to render me – and others – capable of the activity of philosophizing.   I happen to believe Hubbard had it right when he stated in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course:

I hope no man ever falls into that trap because it blocked human thought and human progress. Philosophy became completely abandoned as a subject…and even at this moment they still give a Doctor of Philosophy degree in universities which demands only this of the student: that he know what philosophers have said. Now, that is incredible. If you had a Doctor of Philosophy, you would expect that Doctor of Philosophy to be able to philosophize. The professors of those courses would just be shocked beyond shock if you dared come in and infer that the end and goal of their students should be the production of philosophy. No sir, that’s how you keep a society static.

…and

…Scientology will decline, and become useless to man, on the day when it becomes the master of thinking…

I believe that volumes of subsequent technical and policy writings of Hubbard put it into the minds of Scientologists that the above no longer held true.   To the extent one believes that he or she is precluded from philosophizing, by the writings of Scientology, Scientology has become no better than what Hubbard accused modern university education (or psychiatry and psychology for that matter) of being for the philosopher.  Continued adherence to such fears and beliefs will as Hubbard noted ‘keep a society static.’

Fifth, I believe that the primary reason Hubbard was close to a half-century before his time in discovering his workable psychotherapy was due to his starting with the presumption that beings are spirits, and not physical matter entities subject to scientific reductionism.  Today, many people are engaged in ‘integral’ forms of spirituality and psychotherapy and some acknowledge that in order to achieve success in either requires the practice of both.  In accordance with Hubbard’s above-noted prophesy, deep study in these fields has convinced me that within years Hubbard’s route will be discovered quite separate and apart from his own discoveries.   The reason it will be ‘quite separate and apart’ from Hubbard’s discoveries is that by his own firm policies the entities he created to disseminate his ideas are known for one thing above anything else. That is, that if someone attempts to practice and explore Hubbard’s ideas outside of their narrow-minded control, or criticize them in any forum, that someone is subject to being destroyed utterly if possible.  It is a difficult row to hoe getting integral philosophers and practitioners to listen to anything emanating from Hubbard due to the hazards attendant with doing so.  My mission to date has been to attempt to accelerate the ability of mankind to better its own lot by recognizing and applying some of the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard.   I have held the idea that an “Independent Scientologist” movement might contribute to that effort to raise the world’s collective understanding.   I am convinced that to the extent its members preach blind adherence to Hubbard and wholesale dismissal of the ideas of others (particularly of those upon whom L. Ron Hubbard chiefly relied upon in developing his own technology)  the Independent Scientologist movement may become more of an impediment than a facilitator.

Having established my foundation, I will specifically address Tom Martiniano’s Op Ed piece, which clearly represents the wholehearted views of a number of Independent Scientologists:

Some say that LRH is not the only technology that there is, nor is his philosophy the only one that works and that following his technology or values only is being blind or being robotic.  That’s fair and in theory is a solid viewpoint, but in practice it is fatal.

Fatalism, and the installation of fear, is the demise of any ‘technology.’  In fact, by definition, to claim and instill the idea that there is no other possible route takes one right out of the realms of ‘technology’, science, and even rationality.   It goes against the very workable technology – term used advisedly – that L. Ron Hubbard developed on how to study or learn.

Once an injunction is laid down that it is ‘fatal’ or even detrimental to look outside the parameters of what another has said – be it a wise man, Hubbard or God herself – you have stripped a person of self-determinism and freedom to think.  To think with, attempt to integrate ideas with evolving thought and technology, and foremost to discourse philosophically in terms evolving thinkers are developing are means by which humankind advances.

Hubbard himself once noted that if something is done in the pursuit of understanding it contains no liability (paraphrased as I don’t feel constrained to have to do lengthy searches to find quotations in order to think and discourse).   That axiom has served me well, and hopefully will continue to do so.

Realize that ANY attempt to write against L Ron Hubbard is an attempt to destroy that which frees mankind from their traps.

First, one ought to define what constitutes ‘against’.   It implies – and literally means according to at least some of the more hard core supporters of Tom’s position – contrary to any idea of Hubbard.   I contend that if you use this as a standard, you have instituted the process of ‘thought-stopping’ and have rendered yourself a less bright, intelligent and enlightened being than you were before you adopted that standard.  You are certainly free to do so – but once you have, you have left the realm of the pursuit of truth and entered the ranks of  fundamentalist religionists.   We have seen as much in recent days on this blog.   I asked people to consider where one draws the line on literal compliance to L. Ron Hubbard’s policy writings, and in return I am treated as an enemy.   When you go there, there is absolutely no difference between what you have done with your own thought process than what a fundamentalist Christian or radical Muslim has done with his or hers.  The only possible counter argument to this is that L. Ron Hubbard is different than Jesus Christ, God of the Old Testament, and Allah.   In fact, that is precisely what Tom’s piece promotes.  Such an argument will be about as effective in the world as those that the fundamentalist Christian and Muslim advance to one another.   Such absolutist thinking ultimately leads to persuasion by force and violence.  The best chance for forwarding that position – as destructive as it is – would be by zealous support of the church of Scientology and its supreme leader David Miscavige.

Is Scientology the only route out?  Yes.  It is the only applied philosophy that has the OT sections (which were removed from the bridge by David Miscavige).

Here is the demarcation point where Scientology bumps  into the glass ceiling limitations imposed by firmly held religious belief.  But I can’t address this fully in a forum with such a limited attention span as this.  I foreshadowed some of it in my book What Is Wrong With Scientology?   I invited discourse on it.  Those most violently in disagreement with it chose not to discourse, but instead to run a quiet, back channels ‘he’s not with Ron’ campaign.  This topic will be explored in far more detail in books coming out later this year.  In the meantime, look at the logic of the above statement.  It is precisely the same logic repressive clerics and politicians used to suppress the truth that the earth rotated around the sun for centuries.  The ‘logic’ went that if the earth were not portrayed as the center of the universe, holy scripture would be invalidated.  The ‘only route out’ became continuing ignorance (anyone trained on Grade IV technology knows what that statement constitutes).  Incidentally, the parenthetical comment about David Miscavige is about as anti-KSW as they come – L. Ron Hubbard never issued, nor prescribed any OT Level above OT VIII.   The group agreement interpretation of what Tom has evidently accepted as the L. Ron Hubbard real OT Levels may well afford some case gain of some sort to followers, but to pass them off as the L. Ron Hubbard OT Levels above VIII is specious.  It is rather peculiar for a guy condemning people who don’t march lock step to every word of Hubbard to be adopting and preaching such arbitraries.  It is like a kettle accusing the pot of being black.

Yes, you can read the Tao or read Buddha and so forth, but you would have to sort out a lot of wheat from a lot of chaff to get to Nirvana.  

This is a straw dog argument contention.  I have never suggested, nor even hinted, that anyone should read  the Tao or the Buddha in order to reach ‘Nirvana.’    I do contend, however, that remaining beholden, lock step, to the writings of Scientology – exclusive of any study outside of it – condemns an individual to ultimate misery, not only for himself but those he or she is intimately connected to.  That is partly because he or she will be denied the one lesson both Lao Tzu and Siddhartha Gautama taught that by omission puts a glass ceiling on Scientology.  That lesson can be summed up in two words, though it takes a lot more than mere recital of them to learn it – Let Go.

The  Scientologist hallmarks of arrogance, aloofness, meddlesomeness, pedanticism and strained intensity are not an accident.  They are inbred by scripture.  Ironically, the technology that perhaps better than any other can make the Way of Lao Tzu and the Buddha practically attainable winds up making that attainment impossible, by the implanted spiritual mechanism of ‘clinging’, ‘holding on’, or ‘mocking up’, in short, the inability to ‘let go.’  Lao Tzu and the Buddha and the Dali Lama, for that matter, have important things to say that beautifully complement Scientology.  But, one could never see that if he or she vowed to follow the next bit of advice.

Should someone follow L Ron Hubbard blindly?  I would say so because it would be better than stumbling around blindly for the rest of your existence.

Be my guest.   That is your religious right.  I fought for your ability to exercise it for the past thirty-five years.  And I’ll likely go on doing so till this vessel returns to the clay.

But, do not attempt to pass it off as anything other than religious belief.

And do not expect that such think and practice will popularize the ideas of L. Ron Hubbard and lead to more broad scale study of them.   The world is evolving.   Doomsday threats, fear tactics, and commands do not gain much traction in this day and age.   At least  not in the direction of educating, enlightening and alleviating the problems people face.

I do not wish to unsettle the beliefs that people hold if they wish to remain in the static comfort  of their Scientology beliefs.  Those beliefs are just as valid, and protected constitutionally, as more traditional, accepted faiths.   You may find some level of solace in the validation of those beliefs on this blog.   But, the theme of this forum is just as its title says, Moving On Up A Little Higher.  So along with the validation will always come  questioning and exploring and the attempts to broaden horizons and transcend.  So, if you wish to remain in the static comfort of your belief system, I suggest you not visit here.  It could be unsettling for you.

I have been accused by at least one ‘Independent Scientologist’ as not being ‘with Ron’ for espousing such views as I have here.   I beg to differ.  Attempting to command compliance with Ron’s ideas by blind faith, or anything resembling that methodology – whether Ron commanded such a course of action in moments of distemper or supreme, transcendent wisdom – is about the greatest disservice one could do to the propagation of his workable ideas.

I still believe Scientologists (of whatever stripe) have to make these choices: integrate or disintegrate, evolve or dissolve, transcend or descend.  Blame, irrespective of how you dress it up and dish it, won’t make those crossroads disappear.   Blame will take you nowhere but to victimhood.

Keeping Scientology Working

I  noticed there were several contributors recently commenting that Keeping Scientology Working (L. Ron Hubbard Policy letter of 7 Feb 65) ought to be adhered to to the letter.  Some commented that they agreed that as far as ‘technology’ was concerned Keeping Scientology Working was supreme and unalterable, but that they didn’t necessarily agree with applying it to Administration (Admin) policy.

Well consider this from Policy Letter Keeping Admin Working (Policy Letter of 10 July 1986 I):

Therefore, to keep Scientology working, all of Scientology, one must insist on standard tech and admin.  The principles of unvarying adherence to precise technology, constant alertness to tech alter-is and insistence that every Scientologist abide by these rules apply just as severely to the third dynamic technology of standard administration – POLICY.  

Now consider this from Policy Letter Admin Degrades (10 July 1986 II) :

The following actions or omissions are classified as HIGH CRIMES:

…2. Adding comments to the Org Exec Course or other administrative checksheets or instructions, policies or directives labeling any material ‘background’ or ‘not used now’ or ‘old’ or ‘it doesn’t need to be followed exactly,” or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using and applying the standard administrative data in which he is being trained.

Having established that Keeping Scientology Working extends to administrative policy too, please read the following Suppressive Acts from HCO Policy Letter of 23 Dec 1965 RB:

Violation of any of the eleven points listed below which are Admin Degrades:… (which includes the passage above from the Policy Letter Admin Degrades)

Seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or ‘to save the organization from the higher offices of Scientology.’

Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations.

Public statements against Scientology or Scientologists but not to Committees of Evidence duly convened.

Holding, using, copying, printing or publishing confidential materials of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the author of the materials or his authorized licensee.

Using the trademarks and service marks of Dianetics and Scientology without express permission or license from the owner of the marks or its authorized licensee.

A) Do you agree that these policies should be followed with unvarying adherence?

B) If not, where and how do you draw the line on unvarying adherence with Scientology tech and policy?

Luis and Rocio Garcia vs. The Machine

From the author of a Letter From Garcia, please see a Lawsuit from the Garcias.  Updates forthcoming.

ABC Action News Tampa

CBS News Tampa

NBC US News

NBC News Tampa

ABC World News

see also: Rocio’s story

L. Ron Hubbard by Tom Martiniano

Blogger note: Op Ed means ‘opposite of the editorial page’, where views are published whether they align with or collide with the editorial positions of a publication.  While it doesn’t technically mean the opinions stated are opposite of that of the publication in question, the page is often filled with such opposing views.  The essay below submitted by Tom Martiniano clearly is challenging the views I have been expressing on this blog for 4 years and in my book What Is Wrong With Scientology?   and probably is best characterized as an Op Ed. I happen to know it represents the views of at least a handful of others who are not so bold as Tom to express their positions despite my continuing invitations that they do so.  It is my hope that some of those folk muster the courage to pipe up here.   Tom and I have something in common – beyond Scientology – that makes me appreciate him and his views.  We have both been on the wrong end of a gun on more than one occasion and lived to express our views.  Nonetheless, I will likely soon post clarifying precisely where I part company with his viewpoints (attempting to succinctly sum up what I have been attempting to do here for 4 years).   In the meantime, I would love to hear your views. 

L Ron Hubbard

For four years now I have been an “Independent Scientologist”, a title borne of the blog “Moving up a Little Higher”, owned and penned almost every day by Marty Rathbun.

We’ve had a lot of talk about Scientology, L Ron Hubbard, seen peoples viewpoints on what happened to Scientology, who’s to blame and so forth.  I have also watched as people sit in judgment of L Ron Hubbard, second guess him and his actions, criticize the man and his products.

The name L Ron Hubbard has taken tremendous bashings over the last several years, especially recently and it is mainly and solely due to the actions of David Miscaviage and others like him who push LRH and Scientology over the abyss with their irresponsible and unpardonable actions with the body of technology that was entrusted to them to care for “Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only when there are “no results” or “bad results” KSW #1.

I want to say a few things about the man, the author, the Science Fiction Writer, the founder of the most controversial Church ever or whatever anyone wants to call him.  I am not going to be open minded and say “well, he has a viewpoint and he is right in some of the things he says”.  I think LRH deserves a standing ovation for all of his accomplishments in this lifetime.

L Ron Hubbard is the best friend that a person could ever want.  There have been hundreds of philosophers over the millennia who have introduced technology and doctrines for living and they all have been helpful to one degree or another.  But LRH has developed technology throughout the space of thirty short years that covers every aspect of life.  Some say that LRH is not the only technology that there is, nor is his philosophy there only one that works and that following his technology or values only is being blind or being robotic.  That’s fair and in theory it is a solid viewpoint, but in practice it is fatal.

LRH even said in one of the PDC tapes that he doubts that there is any original thought in this universe.  He’d be the first one to tell you that most of what he developed is from research into the world at large where he learned such things as the basic purpose of mankind’s existence is the urge to survive and from there he developed the entire body of the triumphant Dianetics, the world’s first successful foray into the real structure of the mind.  Successful technology has been lying around the planet for eons, all developed by aboriginal tribal witchdoctors, psychologists, clans or civilizations, waiting for someone to come along and codify it and put it to good use.  LRH found all of this knowledge and brought forth only the technology that was time tested and proven to be a high-rate-of-success application which made people better.   LRH was like a kid in a candy store finding and testing workable technology.  He would travel to far ends of the earth, find technology, research it for workability and in some cases adjust it so that it would work in most cases and then make it easy to us to use.  He even developed technology for us to be able to duplicate written material.  How’s that for a first-ever?  This is a lot of work for one man.

When you apply something that is so utterly simple and so remarkably effective as the “Contact Assist”, or “Touch Assist” or even the powerful “Locational Assist” realize a lot of time and development went into it and L Ron Hubbard worked a lot of late nights in order to bring this technology to you in an easily understandable form to make your life that much better.  And just as an aside here, we used the locational assist in New Orleans and Mississippi after hurricane Katrina on people who never heard of L Ron Hubbard and had people tell us that it saved their lives. We had thousands of such wins from folks in the Gulf area from the lowly locational assist. It worked like magic.

You see, LRH cared about you. He cared about all of us much more than we actually understood.  He didn’t invent Study Tech to make money. He made it so we could read and duplicate. That’s love.

Is his tech and philosophy the only tech out there? No, not by any means. Is the way it is codified and presented to lay men the only usable tech out there? Yes.  LRH introduced us to “The Wall of Fire” and then taped the route through it for all of us to see.  All we had to do was walk the taped line.

But this is way too simple and a lot of people have to add their own viewpoints to the chalked path and wreck the path. LRH Says in HCOPL 14 February 1965 SAFEGUARDING TECHNOLOGY

“It has taken me a third of a century in this lifetime to tape this route out.

“It has been proven that efforts by man to find different routes came to nothing. It is also a clear fact that that the route called Scientology does lead out of the labyrinth. Therefore it is a workable system, a route that can be travelled.”

“Scientology is a workable system. It has the route taped. The search is done. Now the route only needs to be walked.”

Independent Scientologists are Scientologists that are independent from the Church of Scientology.  The Church is errant and has been turning good, workable Scientology technology into unworkable technology to free people and turned it into workable technology to entrap.

There have been a lot of recent books, writings and talk about L Ron Hubbard and the end result of all of this talk and writings, rantings and foam of the mouth is an attempt to make LRH less of a successful philosopher.  Most Scientologists are taking the bashing right alongside of LRH and feel the pain.

Realize that ANY attempt to write against L Ron Hubbard is an attempt to destroy that which frees mankind from their traps.

Is Scientology the only route out? Yes. It is the only applied philosophy that has the OT Sections (which were removed from the bridge by David Miscaviage).

Should someone follow L Ron Hubbard blindly? I would say so because to me it would be better than stumbling around blindly for the rest of your existence.  LRH is the smartest person I have ever met. He is also the most caring person I have ever met. He cares about us more than any other person on this planet, even more than Tom Cruise does (joke).  The tech volumes, the miles and miles of taped recordings, the green volumes were written by LRH for YOU to use.

Yes, you can read the Tao or read Buddha and so forth, but you would have to sort a lot of wheat from a lot of chaff to get to Nirvana.  LRH already sifted and worked it all out for us to use.

This posting is written for Scientologists, those who sat down and did TR-0 and had their lives changed for the absolute better, or those who experienced going exterior for the first time, or those who went whole-track on a touch assist and the other hundreds of ways one could have a major stable win applying the fantastic tech by LRH.

Get back on the taped route and find your way out of this mess. Find a good Indy auditor and go up the bridge.  LRH said to build orgs. Then by God build orgs. LRH said to manage orgs, then we manage and we fix management and what went wrong with it the first time. Do it the way LRH says to do it and it will be right. Just because it went wrong the first time was not LRH’s fault. It is right out of KSW #1 “What Did You Really Do?”  We screwed it up. So we set it right, not cancel it because we screwed it. It’s exactly the same thing as saying “Well, I tried process X and it didn’t work, so toss it out.” Come one, wake up. KSW was at the start of every course and checksheet you ever did and that is because LRH ordered it. He saw this coming.

So come on. Let’s get this show back on the road.

 

Tom Martiniano

 

‘Going Clear’ Muddies the Water

To true-believer Scientologists, Lawrence Wright’s book Going Clear will be an extreme test of faith.   To independent-minded Scientologists the book will be a test of how well they understand Scientology and correspondingly how well they differentiate the technology of Scientology from personage of its original author.

This is so because the majority of the book is little more than a compendium of greatest shots by L. Ron Hubbard’s many erstwhile enemies.   There is no balance, but for the occasional gratuitous, condescending nods to L. Ron Hubbard’s power of imagination.

Having read a number of Wright’s previous works, I anticipated much more from the Pulitzer prize winning author.   I never wrote a review of Janet Reitman’s  Inside Scientology because I considered it a rather dry, overly academic history of Scientology.  While it was more comprehensive and balanced than any previous outsider look at the subject, I found it to be rather turgid, impersonal and careful.  It, like all books by outsiders who haven’t experienced that which they write about, lacked the vital subjective component that truth requires.  Note, some level of subjective experience is essence in covering a subject (religion/philosophy/spirituality) that is  by academic and scientific standards wholly subjective. Having seen how Wright made the entire Middle East vs. Western culture divide personal, and understandable in his The Looming Tower – from both the Middle Eastern and Western perspective – I believed he might do the same for the sorely misunderstood subjects of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology.

Instead Wright spent 2/3rd of his book regurgitating what several before him had already done: indicted, convicted and sentenced L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology to death.  It was sad to see a gifted author  with an advance allowing him two years to investigate squander it by essentially cutting and pasting from a twenty-seven year old biography penned by British Author Russell Miller (Bare-Faced Messiah).    About the only thing Wright added was to make it more salacious and one-sided by sprinkling it with the death bed accusations of a former Hubbard wife (which incidentally conflicted with her earlier shrill, divorce-court accounts given to Miller) and giving it a far less charitable and objective slant than even Miller – who did little to mask his hatred for Scientology – did in 1986.

The rest of the book is a disjointed account of the post-Hubbard years in Scientology, the bulk of which had been reported long ago on this blog and extensively by other media outlets.

Despite having a formidable team of researchers and fact checkers, next to no critical examination of credibility of sources was done.  If someone had something lurid to say about L. Ron Hubbard, regardless of how improbable, it was stated as authoritative fact.  By way of example, had the Wright team took me up on my pre-publication offer to review their facts ahead of time, they would not have published these inventions that I personally know to be manufactured or grossly inaccurate:

–          Tom Cruise was being audited by Marty Rathbun at the Gold base in 2002.

–          Marty Rathbun (or anyone for that matter) was serving as Nicole Kidman’s ethics officer in 2002.

–          Marty Rathbun was auditing Penelope Cruz.

–          There was no ‘convincing evidence proving the facts were wrong or the reporter was biased’ presented in the Scientology vs. Time magazine case.

–          Church funds were used to purchase assault rifles and explosive devices for the perimeter of international headquarters.

–          A campaign was run to blackmail attorney Charles O’Reilly.

–          O’Reilly’s house was bugged and his office was infiltrated.

–          Most Sea Org members at the Int Base did not know their own geographical location.

–          Miscavige attempted to get damning taped admissions from Mary Sue Hubbard so her husband could turn her in to the justice department.

–          L. Ron Hubbard demanded a divorce from Mary Sue Hubbard and she refused.

This is a partial list containing only items that Wright was either informed were false or reasonably should have known were false.   Granted, the verifiable allegations condemning Hubbard and Scientology in the book are legion.  And I recognize that the list of inaccuracies doesn’t put a dent on Wright’s conviction of both the founder and Scientology.  But, they highlight the velocity of the rush to judgment Wright was apparently engaged in.

Ultimately, Wright is guilty of what journalists  and critics have accused Hubbard and the church of Scientology of, not without justification, for decades.  To wit, rather than tackling the issues taken with the subject, Scientology policy calls for attacking the credibility of the one raising the issue.  Thus, we see over 400 pages of a book promising to answer the question ‘what makes Scientology so appealing to so many?’, never even attempting to explain what Scientology is and does.   Instead, Wright takes one esoteric teaching that Scientology asserts could not possibly be understood by someone not well-steeped in Scientology practice, and pretends that is all there is to a subject consisting of some 50 million other words.  With that straw dog firmly in place, Wright proceeds to burn hundreds of pages reciting the accusations of avowed enemies of L. Ron Hubbard.

By way of comparison, by the time one reads The Looming Tower (The book that Wright won the Pulitzer prize for) and Going Clear, there is little chance the reader will fear Osama Bin Laden more than he will fear L. Ron Hubbard.  While the former is journalism at its highest attainment, giving the reader an understanding of a figure made nearly impossible to understand by popular media culture, the latter can be characterized, at best in my opinion, as piling on.

While the church of Scientology can be partially credited with the result by its easily discreditable insistence on portraying L. Ron Hubbard as God, Wright had access to dozens of Scientologists unaffiliated with the church who gave far more measured, rational and credible accounts of what Scientology is capable of achieving in de-radicalized hands.

Wright chose to simply ignore the latter and shoot the sluggish, fat fish the former  placed in a barrel before him.   Good work if you can get it.   But, do not delude yourself that Going Clear is any insightful, definitive, and least of all, balanced look at either L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology.

Now that the big guns have issued, I can settle down to attempting to deliver something more along that line.

Transcend

 

The following is the third piece of advice I shared with Scientologists in What Is Wrong With Scientology?    I would love to hear what Independent Scientologists have to say about this.

Transcend or Descend

At the January, 1986 L. Ron Hubbard funeral event we touched on in Chapter 12, Pat Broeker announced that OT 9 and OT 10 were fully written up by Hubbard and ready for release.  That was a blatant lie.

Twenty years later, David Miscavige told a collection of elite Scientology contributors that L. Ron Hubbard had written up OT 9, OT 10, OT 11, OT 12, OT 13, OT 14 and OT 15.  That was a whopping lie.  The last OT level L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote up was OT 8.  Then he died.

Pat Broeker used the threat of never turning over the alleged OT 9 and OT 10 in an effort to get Miscavige to allow him to exercise control in Scientology Inc. I was a part of three separate forcible search-and-seizures Miscavige directed in order to get at the alleged OT 9 and 10 at Broeker hideouts.  Each time we came up empty-handed, and finally concluded there were no such things.  This was validated by the senior technical officer of Scientology since L Ron Hubbard’s death, one Ray Mithoff. Mithoff audited Hubbard during his final week of life. Mithoff acknowledged in my presence that Hubbard had nothing intelligible to say about any levels that might exist above OT 8, let alone gave any indication that anything had been written up about them.

These horrendous big lies, growing in magnitude as years rolled by, are the continuing creation of the religious con played out through the ages, so well described in Paine’s Age of Reason.

For those who have honestly accomplished OT 8, it makes perfect sense.  After all, at OT 8 Hubbard seeks to guide an individual toward a state or condition of no longer having the slightest attention devoted to past identities, any aspect of the past, introversion or regression.  At that level, there wouldn’t be even a remote desire for or inclination toward introspective processes or practices of any kind.

A number of people who had completed OT 8 have come to me, hoping that I could give some inside scoop on where Hubbard said it went from there.  My response is usually along the lines of: “Please do not invalidate yourself and Hubbard so.  Do you think he was cruel enough to build the Bridge to a place where, when you’ve reached the apex, you are so ill-equipped to move on that you must cling to the guard rail , waiting for some priest to prescribe your every step?  Do you feel so vulnerable and weak that you cannot step out on your own and begin to walk your own walk toward higher plateaus?”

I sometimes share the following account of a Zen Buddhist practitioner’s colloquy with Zen master Xuedou:

Someone asked Xuedou, “As it is said, ‘the road beyond is not transmitted by any of the sages.’ Where did you get it?” Xuedou said, “I thought you were a Zen practitioner.”

Some express disbelief that Hubbard would not have published something that explicitly let the world know that OT 8 was the end.  First, this is not surprising to me.  Hubbard was perpetually exploring and prolifically publishing the results of his findings, throughout his life.  I would have expected him to be exploring to the end, and if he died before he found anything worthy of publication during his elderly ventures, then the last thing he published would be the last thing he found worthy of publication.  Second, if one thinks that OT 8 is the end simply because it is the ultimate attainment on the Scientology Bridge, then from the very beginning one wasn’t pursuing the same ends Hubbard was.

To feel or act as if one needed to be the recipient of more knowledge or more effect, then one would have fallen into the trap Hubbard himself warned that formal education had created to sabotage the entire field of philosophy:

I hope no man ever falls into that trap because it blocked human thought and human progress. Philosophy became completely abandoned as a subject…and even at this moment they still give a Doctor of Philosophy degree in universities which demands only this of the student: that he know what philosophers have said. Now, that is incredible. If you had a Doctor of Philosophy, you would expect that Doctor of Philosophy to be able to philosophize. The professors of those courses would just be shocked beyond shock if you dared come in and infer that the end and goal of their students should be the production of philosophy. No sir, that’s how you keep a society static.

I have seen subjectively and objectively that this is precisely the product produced by corporate Scientology.  They create people who have devoted their entire adult lives to studying and auditing to achieve the ability of ‘knowing how to know’ (the very definition of Scientology), only to wind up feeling lost, abandoned, and powerless to do anything except to slavishly kowtow to a fascist regime, in hopes it will dispense the next carrot of wisdom.

And so the corporate Scientologist never learns to walk the walk. Instead, he learns to stand compliantly in leg shackles and talk the Scientology Inc. talk.

One who has reached the top in Scientology has two choices: transcend or descend.  One can descend down into the mire that corporate Scientology has become.  That entails adopting the sickly ‘victim’ jacket, since the hallmark of a corporate Scientologist is the certainty that until certain people, ideas and even fields of study are exterminated, Scientology can never achieve its aims.  It means covertly being a victim while asserting with great energy that you are quite the opposite, the totally-certain superhero who is part of the elite group with the only answer, and thus possess carte blanche with which to forward that group by any means necessary.  It includes behaving in a compliant, other-determined fashion, so as to avoid getting into trouble and tarnishing one’s image and status.  Because in Miscavige’s world, image and status have become everything.

Or one can choose to transcend.  Transcend with your developed insight and ability to observe and think for yourself.  Maybe even use what you know to help others ascend and transcend.  For me, that has included using Scientology to help others remove those jackets that keep them weighted to serious, painful lives.  Each auditing session I deliver – at whatever level of the Bridge – not only results in cognitions (enlightenments) for the preclear, it also results in cognitions on my part. I continue to study and find and use many other writings, from various sources, that might work more directly to move a particular individual on up a little higher from where he or she might stand.  That study also brings about a greater appreciation of what is right and workable and recognition of what is wrong and unworkable about Scientology.   But I am not saying that is your calling, purpose, or path to greater heights.  Only you can determine what that is.