From The Way of Chuang Tzu by Thomas Merton:
Ch’ui the draftsman
Could draw more perfect circles freehand
Than with a compass.
His fingers brought forth
Spontaneous forms from nowhere. His mind
Was meanwhile free and without concern
With what he was doing
No application was needed
His mind was perfectly simple
And knew no obstacle.
So, when the shoe fits
The foot is forgotten,
When the belt fits
The belly is forgotten,
When the heart is right
“For” and “against” are forgotten.
No drives, no compulsions,
No needs, no attractions:
Then your affairs
Are under control.
You are a free man.
Easy is right. Begin right
And you are easy.
Continue easy and you are right.
The right way to go easy
Is to forget the right way
And forget that the going is easy.
……………unless ye become children ye shall not enter…………………
I read a biography of Thomas Merton about ten years ago and thought he was fascinating. I was selling books to librarians at the time and no one wanted Merton’s biography, so I read it and kept it. You and I have good taste, but we take the road less traveled by and that makes all the difference.
…and that polar opposites are nevertheless polar.
Thomas Merton — Trappist Monk — scholar of comparative religions — friend to Suzuki Roshi, Vietnamese Zen Monk Thich Nhat Hahn and Tibetan Buddhist Monk His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
His autobiography – The Seven Storey Mountain is one of my favorite books. His untimely death at 53 is the stuff of speculation to this day.
Thanks again for pointing out “when the heart is right … for and against are forgotten”
Easier said than done of course but saying it again and again reminds us that great thinkers all agree on this …
For and against are the stuff of a locked mind. Not a mind that is vast.
Thomas Merton and the Dalai Lama were very close friends. A believer and non believer………. best friends on the same path.
Oh if the world could be that!
That was wonderful! Very intense in value and at the same time artistic in presentation. I have this book. I also like the chapter “The Useless”. Take the time to read that chapter and think of trying to utilize the valid tech by LRH within the confines of KSW.
I have no intention to create mystery, but also do not wish to derail this post. Anyone can find the book and view the chapter I noted. The summary is that what we think is real and valid is not all there is. The rest of the “unknown” or “useless” is actually very needed to truly understand the big picture.
I really enjoy where the blog has gone. Not fighting, but enlightening, opening new thoughts and viewpoints. That is the future. I am enjoying the journey. The peek from beneath the clouds, to consider new viewpoints, to learn to play the piano – so to speak – on all of what is the paradigm we view life. There are so many wonderful answers to be found and devoured. Life gets sweeter every day.
Thomas Merton was a true man of truth. His order, the Trappists were mystics that embraced all truths and practices in all religions. Yet, they are a bonified Catholic order.
Here is a trappist monk with Ken Wilbur.
Nice. Previously, I’d have said that Heads and Tails are still of the same coin, but I love the polar image.
First you must learn all the rules, so you can forget the rules and just do or be or not.
And as you go up the Bridge, if it’s not getting easier or if it’s getting harder…something’s WRONG.
It seems like the greatest truths are completely simple.
The less and less complexity, the more basic, the more understandable and the more meaningful.
It is cool to not have to have the mind of an Einstein or the brilliant theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking to understand basic truth in its simplicity.
Thanks for sharing this, Marty. Gail: I memorized that Frost poem when I sang it in chorus (a capella, it was beautiful). Still remember all the words 30+ years later.
Finally a Catholics scores a point. Bless your memory Brother Thomas.
There’s more. Father Matthew Fox has been an inspiration for integration too.
Thanks for the name, I will definitely look him up. One of my favorite philosophers was Giordano Bruno, a Dominican Friar who the Inquisition burned at the stake. He went a bit too far for the Church of his day. He was what the Inquisition would call a “squirrel”. The Catholic Church was ruthless in enforcing their own version of KSW. And despite the teachings of Jesus and the brilliance and inspiration of all the saints and philosophers who wore the Catholic mantle, the church has never lived down that black mark.
Years ago a friend of mine was on retreat in a Trappist monastery in Europe. At that time he was a disciple of Yogananda but very new on the path. He was thinking of becoming a Trappist. He sought counsel with a resident monk. My friend told him about his practice and Yogananda and showed him his meditation beads used to practice Kriya, the main practice on that path.
The monk then showed my friend his Kriya beads and told him, “don’t worry you are on the right path.” My friend was blown away.
Truth is one, paths are many. Those that know the truth see the unity in all practices because they know the goal: they experience it, it is one.
To me the key is flexibility. We can have our own path, but should be totally open to all others.There is so much going on in this universe all the time, Until we are fully enlightened we cant possibly see the truth of all viewpoints. We can only become teachable when we are willing to admit we dont know.
I am a daily reader of this blog, as it is resonating with my own ideas and experiences.
I have been in Scientology for 15 years, then out for 15 years, and I am currently studying and practicing the Buddhist path, which includes important data about life that are not covered by Scientology.
Scientology helped me and harmed me.
How to separate the wheat from the chaff?
That is not easy. I have my own considerations, for example I would place the high prices, the heavy control, KSW, etc… in the chaff basket, and the TRs or grade 4 processing in the wheat basket. But there are many other parts I am unable to assess, for example the OT levels.
So I find this blog quite helpful in order to evaluate Scientology and I had many a cognition when reading it, thus I thank Marty for the public release of his insights.
Love this! Very enlightening thought provoking.
I too am enjoying this journey with you Marty. Just being able to communicate on this level-is freeing and certainly validates my own views.
I swear, just the othe day I suddenly remembered these words…(When the shoe fits..) that I read many years ago, liked and made a note to temember. As it happened, I was thinking of you…interesting.
While more a poem and less a tech, more spoken by one exterior and less a practice how to get there, it is beautiful and wise and a tech of its own.
SA, yes, “enlightening”, so true.
You spent yourself fighting but feel whole when teaching
While you create you mature and animate.
This video expresses something I deeply agree with, and consider to be of great importance for Independent Scientology.
Thetans start as “SELF” (Big-S = pure theta), and mock up “selves” (Little-S’s = assumed specific identities) in order to play the game of creation, survival, and destruction. The reactive mind has to do entirely with all the Little-S’s that Big-S has pretended to be. Big-S is immortal and can’t be harmed, of course, but all its Little-S’s are doomed to eventual destruction because they exist within Time. As Big-S resists perceiving harm done by and to Little-S’s during their survival-oriented adventures, those Little-S’s capture attention units from Big-S, increasingly undermining Big-S’s ABILITY to confront and perceive. The Little-S’s become more and more important to Big-S over time, and the process snowballs, running faster and faster, eventually turning Big-S (thetans) into the ultimate Little-S (MEST itself).
All contemplative practices, not just Dianetics and Scientology, seek to use the remaining attention units of Big-S to confront and reverse this accumulation. They have varying degrees of success.
The problem that impinges on any would-be contemplative practitioner is balancing Little-S and Big-S. For better or worse, We Are Here, and that involves survival as human Little-S’s. As contemplative practice frees our Big-S attention units, we have the choice to use them to free more Big-S attention units, or dive more powerfully into making our current Little-S’s survive better by accumulating more MEST under their control. The mottos, “we make the able more able,” and “a person is as OT as he can cause things” must be understood in this context. If spiritual practice is seen merely as a path to greater havingness for Little-S, then it will eventually become destructive. It’s analogous to having a growing income but spending as much as you make, rather than building up strong financial reserves. Big-S has to be kept growing, regardless of what we do in our Little-S human lives.
Scientology auditing tech seems to address Little-S stuck points (charge), but the result of that is Big-S liberation. Scientology admin systems, on the other hand, exclusively serve Little-S survival. Both are needed, but actual auditing in service of Big-S liberation has to be kept senior to admin organizationally, or Little-S will run amuck. Scientology went off the rails when it began to over-emphasize “success,” first with staff (“get your stats up”) and then with public (“make more money so you can pay for your ever-more-expensive Bridge”).
High-powered Sea Org management was an intense admin activity in the service of Little-S, with the Church being the third dynamic “self,” and was engaged in mostly by staff members who had very little access to Big-S liberation by way of auditor training and processing for themselves. These staff were led down a primrose path AWAY from actual spiritual liberation, and then dramatized that personal Big-S loss by enforcing the same destructive path onto public Scientologists. This was going on long before DM, but he became its ultimate expression and then its completely over-the-top driving force.
Sociopathy (charming but ruthless lack of empathy, compassion, and conscience) is simply the condition of being nearly 100% in service of Little-S, with no meaningful awareness of Big-S left. The Sea Org encouraged this and fed off of it. The SO was supposed to be appreciated for leading mankind to true spiritual liberation at last, but instead became hated by mankind, due to morphing into something fighting to survive for itself by consuming others rather than actually helping them.
The excuse for this was “doing the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics,” but that was really a euphemism for “the end justifies the means.” Meanwhile, as Marshal McLuhan said, “the medium IS the message.” And John Lennon hit the nail on the head when he said, “life is what happens while you’re getting ready to do something else.”
If Scientology were presented to the world in the interdenominational context of Father Keating’s excellent explanation, with auditing positioned as a contemplative practice in the long tradition of mankind’s quest for Big-S spiritual liberation, and if its organizations acted credibly in accordance with that positioning, Scientology would be popular and successful today. Instead, it became too concerned with resisting attacks on its Little-S survival. The Sea Org and the Guardian’s Office WERE necessary when they were first established, but by resisting TOO hard, while forgetting the Big-S context they were created to serve, they became third dynamic engrams enforcing destruction from within that they were supposed to be preventing from without.
Wealthy actors, doctors, and business owners playing the role of professional pc’s and financial supporters will never spiritually liberate anyone. Nor will any amount of Little-S success for them or the Church or any new reform organization, even though some kind of new organization is needed. The only thing that will ever work is a return to the true PURPOSE of Scientology, which is the spiritual liberation of Theta from MEST, by way of freeing Big-S from Little-S. It’s not about Success. It’s about Enlightenment.
That doesn’t mean altering or diluting Scientology technology. It just means understanding, interpreting, and using it in a broad context that’s truly spiritual, contemplative, and anti-sociopathic in nature, with admin SERVING tech rather than trying to MANAGE it. That’s as far as “integration, evolution, and transcendence” needs to go, in my opinion.
Politics is competition for dominance among Little-S’s. Several political factions have come into being in the Independent Scientology community, each with its own leaders, whose PR image (Little-S) its members consider must be maintained. Various details define and separate the factions. For example, some factions attack the Church as their only activity, while others avoid saying anything negative at all. Each faction has its own blogs and Facebook groups, and most police their memberships, culling out or preventing entry by individuals who don’t seem to support that faction’s Little-S closely enough.
With all due respect for the good intentions of everyone trying to do the right thing as well as he or she can see it, this political competition is all obsession with Little-S victory, and is a distraction from what’s really important — Big-S spiritual liberation for everyone.
Ironically, but understandably, these internal political conflicts have mostly emanated from former Sea Org members, who were forced to endure decades of crushing indoctrination into a “Little-S uber alles (German for above all)” viewpoint. While granting beingness fully and without condescension to the fact that decompression from such a life takes time (or a lot of auditing quickly), sooner or later we must rise above politics and focus on Big-S in the here and now, not just at the end of whatever war we believe we are forced to fight.
Chuang Tzu knew what he was talking about.
Well at least I’m at the part of knowing I don’t know all the rules and learning them. There are many states below ‘First’.
Nice post gretchen 🙂
Great post Marty, thank you. Life is getting so simple.
“Easy is right. Begin right And you are easy.” This is a truth.
I’ll humbly suggest that LRH didn’t follow this path. Yesterday, Les and you had a brief discourse concerning Creative Processing which prompted me to do a google because I don’t have clean reference materials at hand. I was actually blown away with the result. I’ll offer two related web sites that make my original point. They are:
John Galusha was an incredible research auditor. As I recall he taught the Philadelphia Course in Phoenix circa 1953.
As valuable as the ‘bridge’ is and laid out, didn’t it stray off course for creating a better world through ‘better’ human beings and conditions? Is this the origination of the cult, i.e., better marketing?
There is also a video with Phil Spickler (that I don’t have to hand) where he makes the point that the ‘Bridge’ isn’t important, or however he described it.
The point is that the ‘bridge’ is evaluative. The original research pointed out other-wise for the benefit of the client. Creative Processing, its techniques and skills, was dropped.
Me thinks this may be where things went wonky. I’m not done but here’s my gut check.
Nice quote to put out there. If I recall, Michelangelo could also draw a perfect circle freehand (and used that as a signature drawn in the dirt when he visited people if they weren’t home). I think he also had “freeze frame” memory / vision. He could see an instantaneous slice of a set of complex motions and capture them in art.
Sort of like a combo of Tone 40 and being fully in the present moment!
This got me thinking:
“No drives, no compulsions,
No needs, no attractions:
Then your affairs
Are under control.
You are a free man.”
I’ve been reading a book by Guy P. Harrison “50 popular beliefs that people think are true” (Prometheus Books, 2012). In one chapter on religions versus cults, he quotes the advice of a Jonestown survivor, Deborah Layton, as follows:
“Layton warns against belonging to a group or organization that discourages questions or forbids dissent. Other signs of danger she cites include being told that if you leave the group you can never come back or that you must separate from family members who do not joint. ‘I think the most dangers [groups] tell you that their way is the only way,’ she said. ‘I know that a lot of mainstream organizations fit this description, but it is dangerous for so many of them to be willing to just cut out so many people. To say, for example, that if you are not ‘born again,’ you will burn in hell. I also think that it is very dangerous when the only enlightened person is the leader of the organization and to question him or her is forbidden. That is a huge warning sign. Dissent is imperative.’ (pp. 298-299)
So how do the above — both quotes, the one Marty gave and the one from Harrison — reflect on Scientology?
The quote Marty gave also reminds me of Νίκος Καζαντζάκης (Nikos Kazantzakis) and what he concluded:
“I hope nothing,
“I fear nothing,
“I am free.”
Very consonant with:
“No drives, no compulsions,
No needs, no attractions:
Then your affairs
Are under control.
You are a free man.”
Brian, Just Love This! “Truth is one, paths are many. Those that know the truth see the unity in all practices because they know the goal: they experience it, it is one.”
This quote seems to reflect the path I am on. Wow. Thanks for posting.
I also want to say. This is the freedom we were lacking in Scientology.
Very Cool poem.
After Vietnam I camped on a beach on Catalina Island and
did nothing except watch the sun come up and set. Had similar realizations
and went into Avalon and bought a fishing pole.
Good post Marty
Ooh, I like yours too. More familiar to most people.
It is an understandable impulse for people to want to toss the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t happen to agree that that is a very wise course of action.
It’s great that you’re now getting into Buddhism. 🙂
I’ve been into it for many years now and I’m hard pressed to find any teachings more profound or compassionate.
However I’m also enjoying my study of LRH’s teachings as there’s always more to learn.
As per the post’s topic, Thomas Merton was a Christian monk for his entire life, but he was very much interested in learning about Eastern religion. His most profound spiritual experience occurred in the presence of giant stone Buddhas.
Anyhow I think the point is that sometimes you have to break out of the box, and that spiritual experience can transcend all other considerations.
By the way, I’ve visited your site before and I think you’ve made some fair general observations.
What would you say that Buddhism has that Scientology doesn’t?
I understand the “self reliance” factor and I’m currently looking at which techniques and methods can legitimately (according to LRH) be self-applied within Scn – so far, seemingly a lot more than is often suggested.
Also what I’ve found is that Scientology seems to “collapse” topics relating to different forms of Buddhism into a singular whole – and in my estimation this is partly why sometimes you get some Buddhists and other observers saying “well, it’s not really all that similar”. But in the end I think it mostly comes down to view, attitude, and conduct.
The biggest difference that I’ve seen so far (compared to *any* form of Buddhism) is related to explicit teachings on other forms of life, e.g. rebirth in various realms such as ghost, animal, titan, deva, and so on. But I understand that it’s implied up to a point.
Relating to this I find there to be a differing attitude in how to treat beings in the animal and insect realms. For example, there are times I’ve heard Ron kind of ridicule people who are disinclined to step on a cockroach, saying that if you worry too much about it, you’re “too unbalanced on the 5th”. I think he’s exaggerating a little but it’s not the ideal example. In Buddhism, it really wouldn’t be acceptable to exert effort in taking a life just because it enters the same space as you.
So if that sort of example is upheld, Scientology is at least as far from Buddhism as Buddhism is from Jainism – it’s that critical. But I also understand that there are important teachings related to the 5th Dynamic, the Granting of Beingness, as well as the view of insects and animals as being Thetans.
Are there any other related references? What do Scientologists generally do in this regard?
The reason Scientology failed is because Ron himself never attained the things he sold to us as attainable.
He promoted states of being he did not understand himself. That is a kind of con.
And denigrated any other wisdom schools.
To him, this priest was dramatizing R6. To him this priest’s wisdom and life style was bank.
This is a man of wisdom. A tolerent and decent human being open to all wisdom school.
My pleasure 🙂
Curiuos, it took me some time to sort out the good from the crap. You’ll get there. It is actually a fun task as it makes you come to grips with your own knowing. Then the Scientology truths cease being Scientology truths and just become truths that belong soley to you now free of ‘charge’ (pun intended)
And the crap end up being a valuable experience in which to help others to avoid a same thing.
I am now grateful for all my Scientology experiences good and bad. Because all experience and circumstance is a laboratory for the soul, revealing fresh new perspectives and knowledge.
Wonderfull argumented reply to the video. Could be a mainpost in itself. Adaptation of rolls to play versus the bigger person/spirit you can be. People obsessed with little S’s as you say are in the end reduced to mere function or to “MEST” if you will. The politician who becomes a power addict like Jeff Stone, Larl rove. the fat cat banker who becones a money addict like the Goldman Sach golden boys. Or a hybride of both like Don Rumpsfeld driving aspartaam through the FDA too soon because of his stock in the beverage industry or Dick Cheney with his Hali burton who made millions of the war.
Great eye for what was going on in the Sea Org morphing into a canibalistic and parasitic organization praying on public and on it’s own people not to mention the IAS. By the way: get your money back from that racketeering scam !!
“Phoenix circa 1953”
Well I think that became mutual and wasn’t so in the beginning. Remember that it started with a Psychology School ran by Hubbard that was taxed to death.
“To him, this priest was dramatizing R6. To him this priest’s wisdom and life style was bank.”
Well they never met. Easy for you to say
There is a movement within the Catholic church that adheres more to the mysticism of it and feels a connection with Buddism.
It is easy for me to say because it is in writing by Ron himself. If it ain’t in writing it ain’t true.
Since Brian ignored it and only reacted to your allusion to him, thanks for sharing your wisdom.
“The thetan builds a machine to punish itself and forgets about it”
-L Ron Hubbard.
What implies the Thetan can alsoo built machines to lift itself up
Learning to drive a car follows that principle too.
I red the Wikipedia page. I am impressed. It seems his free thinking spirit got him expelled and it seems he is now a member of the episcopal church. But hey who needs labels. He is just plainly a great guy.
This Hubbard is different than the Hubbard after 1965/1966
From the Scientology lecture “The Hope of Man”, L Ron Hubbard talks about Gautama Siddhartha Buddha.
Thank you for answering.
You ask : What would you say that Buddhism has that Scientology doesn’t?
It seems that a whole book would be necessary to compare both, so just a few examples:
– Buddhism offers techniques and practices to handle the death event, in order to help achieving a good transition from this lifetime to the following one. For example that is important when dying to avoid negative emotions. Daily meditation should help mastering one’s emotions when dying, when at that point the e-meter would not help.
– Buddhist ethics puts emphasis on right thoughts and right speech, when Scientology ethics deals almost only about what is done or not done. As a consequence I am careful spotting negative thoughts I might have, in order to correct them if needed. I did not have this daily practice in Scientology. Bad thoughts are preceding overts, thus by cultivating right thoughts we are less prone committing overts.
– Buddhism and Scientology are talking about emotions, but they are classified and used differently. Scientology is classifying emotions in terms of energy, the theta/entheta ratio, when Buddhism is dealing about positive and negative emotions. Positive emotions are defined as emotions that bring happiness and do not create suffering, when negative emotions destroy happiness and cause pain. Love and compassion are at the top of the Buddhist scale, when they are not plotted on the scn tone scale. Another example is jealousy, that is one of the five main negative emotions in Buddhism and that is not plotted on the scn tone scale. And indeed I inspected my life, self-analysis style, and found that several of the main catastrophes of this lifetime were triggered by jealousy. Quite a cognition and a release!
– Buddhism includes techniques that could be called “emotion processing”, when in Scientology I don’t know processes that are working directly with emotions: the tone level of the preclear is more used as an indicator, not as a direct food for a process.
You present the line “If it ain’t in writing it ain’t true.” as though it is actually a truth in itself. It was never presented as a truth. It was presented as an operating principle or a “policy” if you will. It was only adopted by Ron to prevent people from saying “Ron said…..” when it was not written anywhere. He said if was important, or the case, he would have committed it to writing.
There is actually almost NO truth in the statement at all, even in that limited case.
LRH would NOT have said Father Keating was dramatizing R6 in the video above. On the contrary, he would have said that Father Keating had succeeded in substantially rising ABOVE R6 dramatization — at least in what he said in the video.
Every religion on the face of the earth has R6 elements, especially at the mass public level. Likewise, they all have inner, esoteric, mystical elites devoted to rising above R6 to one degree or another. That’s what has always attracted intelligent, aware, true spiritual seekers.
LRH’s denigration of other religions had mainly to do with their outer levels, while he distilled and applied what was workable rather than booby-trapped in their inner, elite, anti-R6 practices.
LRH would have applauded Father Keating’s video, as I did.
Yes you are right Marty, sorry Cat Daddy.
“- Buddhism and Scientology are talking about emotions, but they are classified and used differently. Scientology is classifying emotions in terms of energy, the theta/entheta ratio, when Buddhism is dealing about positive and negative emotions.”
“Spinoza regards joy and sadness as the two basic emotions, and he suggests that all other emotional states are variations of these, combined with ideas of particular objects that cause them. For example, love is a feeling of joy – and hatred a feeling of sadness – joined with an idea of its cause. Spinoza emphasises that such feelings may well have more to do with the imagination than with reality: the person I love may in fact weaken my essence – especially if this love is anxious or obsessive – even though I mistakenly believe that he or she enhances my life.”
Hi Cat Daddy,
Thank you so much for that video. I’d never heard that lecture before – looks like it’s an early one too (1952?). I appreciate the link. 🙂
I have noticed from around 1954 all the way up to at least around 1961 that he spoke favourably in lectures of Buddhism as a whole despite some qualms here and there.
But also of interest, even though Hubbard had initially created his strongest statement connecting himself to Buddhism in around ’55-’56, he only directed it to be published (with specially commissioned calligraphy and artwork – maybe one of the more lavish early book productions?) in *1973*.
One could argue that it was perhaps a cynical move to forge a connection; however it was only intended for advanced OT practitioners to read, and only issued in limited numbers.
I know a lot is said about LRH having changed after a certain point, but I have never come across anything whereby he’s changed his position dramatically regarding Buddhism.
Perhaps the difference is that he stopped speaking so openly in favour of other religions and started emphasing Scn being “the only hope”. Personally I believe he was shoring up support as strongly as he could so that Scn wouldn’t dissipate into syncretism (he was doing this from an early stage), but I don’t think he ever intended to entirely negate the feelings and positions he held in 1954.
I wonder what else there is post 1973?
Hi again Curiosus,
Have you studied much Mahayana Buddhism?
Often, in that form, more emphasis is placed on intention rather than the strict expression of right speech, and so on. For example, there is more room to say something strong in a particular circumstance, if it’s done compassionately, for the purpose of getting something across.
Of course it’s almost important to keep in mind “right speech”, but it doesn’t always necessarily fit the expectation of being pleasant!
There are also a lot of different techniques and attitudes towards dealing with thoughts and emotions – the main point being that, in the end, they’re resolved one way or another.
While I have noticed that it’s not easy to do some kind of immediate 1:1 between the two religions, I have been finding more and more that Scn has means to address the same fundamental problems. And if it’s possible to get into a state of “beingness” then it’s definitely possible to overcome occlusions.
I do agree that a daily practice can work wonders. 🙂
It’s curious that Scn doesn’t seem to emphasise that (perhaps aside from regular study?) I have seen references throughout LRH’s work that he did intend it as a potential path for people, such as in the “Six Steps to Better Beingness”.
I wonder if it’s a good idea for individuals to “take the reins” a bit more after a certain stage, particularly in this climate?
Cat Daddy —
Thank you so much for finding this clip and posting it.
It was THIS tape I heard again back in 1998, sitting in my nearly empty apartment in Houston Texas. I had lost nearly all my material possessions.
I was not allowed on the Flag Land Base or the Ship in spite of being an OT VIII and years of dedicated service and money and was still reeling from a serious mental breakdown.
BUT I had money on account at ASHO and bought ALL the cassette lectures available (at that time called the OT Hatting Series), as well as all the single “new people” cassettes of which I think this was one.
While listening to this tape — I said — well, Christianity doesn’t really appeal to me nor does the Muslim faith and I don’t know anything about buddhism — so I think I will try that.
I went out to Half Priced Books the next day and bought three books on buddhism. Two by the Dalai Lama – “My Land and My People: The Original Autobiography of the Dalai Lama of Tibet” (this is heart wrenching), the other was “A Flash of Lightning in the Dark of Night: A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life” and a book by Walpola Rahula “What the Buddha Taught”
Except for the autobiography – the two other books were completely over my head but they planted the seed for me of buddhism. After a few fits and starts with other philosophies and groups, I became a meditating practicing buddhist in 2005.
And have only gone forward with my practice and look back thanks to Marty and others who have helped me integrate my 20 years of scientology.
And you Cat Daddy have brought me full circle. I can still see myself sitting on the floor of my apartment, listening to this tape.
Lots of water has gone under and over the bridge of my life since then and all of it apparently has brought me to this point at this moment at this time.
eric google christianity R6. It was Ron’s view.
OK Warren, we have different understandings then. It is my view Ron was pretty dismissive and condescending regarding Christianity. It is important , in my view, to know what Ron thought of Christ, Christianity and Priests.
I know what his views were. He was hostile.
This is an important topic in my view as a Trappist monk has taken center stage in Marty’s blog.
If you have read the upper levels, than all things Christian were part of an implant and these priests follow R6. To not see this is to be in denial or maybe ashamed of such a doctrine of condescension towards these great men.
I am not trying to be right, I am attempting being clear on Ron’s written words.
Thomas Merton was a man who was open to other spiritual faiths and practices even though he was a Trappist monk. I think the point is, he was open to spiritual concepts and conclusions among other faiths even though this was in opposition to the extant dogma that his faith-based system demanded. I was raised in a strict Roman Catholic family and that gives me some perspective.
Idenics, the subject about which I posted, might fall into the same genre or perceived fault, i.e., it’s unorthodox.
I ordered the book today (20 bucks or so) and, to my utter surprise, had about an hour conversation with Mike Goldstein.
Marty, there’s no baby and no bath water. I’m sorry if that was inferred in my initial post.
Since my involvement with the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology, I’ve always held the understanding that “Looking” is senior to thinking or feeling.
I’m sure you’re not suggesting ‘Not Looking’.
Then why are you suggesting that I am not suggesting it? Your post inferred the wisdom of tossing out the concept of the Bridge. My comment was directed at that inference.
Aren’t we all on a spiritual journey, wittingly or perhaps even unfortunately unwittingly. Is the Bridge the beginning or the end?
Aren’t we on the same path?
The bridge is not perhaps the “Holy Grail”. Maybe it has been an instrument to help us collectively and individually make a better world and universe.
Looking about at the current scene, we’re not there yet. We’ve got some work to do and LRH didn’t provide all the answers.
How all this angst emanates from this post is beyond me.
Brian, read the original 1st century GNOSTIC Christians, or Meister Eckhart from the 1200’s, and after you penetrate the terminology you’ll find what seems like Zen Buddhism, without any of the R6 trappings of Christianity that we’re familiar with and Ron denigrated. Christianity was originally a legitimate liberation path, that then got taken over and altered to add R6 and transform it into a population control operation. Little-S took over from Big-S. The Gnostics were slaughtered and Eckhart was excommunicated. It’s an old story. DM is just the latest on the chain.
I saw a Gnostic viewpoint in Father Keating, that transcended R6 Christianity, despite his remaining in that tradition Little-S-wise.
You are right, but it wasn’t always so, And personnaly part of OT3 was a collosal joke he played on his followers. I suspect it was to “rock your socks of”and break open your mind to shatter conventual thinking and open it to new ideas. It’s not easy to have a mindblowing proposition in the acid staine sixties.
All these religions we have present themselves as the one way. But some practicioners differ in that regard like this priest.
– L. RON HUBBARD, “The Hope of Man,” 1955
“And you Cat Daddy have brought me full circle. I can still see myself sitting on the floor of my apartment, listening to this tape.’
Be curious, keep what works and discard what holds you back.
You will like these two links for simularities . I love similarities between practices.
And “Dramatization”translates roughly as behavioral reenactment.
A really interesting view. Thanks.
When I looked at the Bridge site, they mentioned the date 1952 in the blurb. But yes, I see now that it’s culled from the Spirit of Man lectures (which I haven’t heard yet).
I have to remember to look more carefully!
Collect the old material sometimes you notice differences and ommisions in the new material.
Yes, I’ve noticed quite a bit of that. Ideally I’m trying to reference both old and new resources. I’m not entirely anti the new material (it’s well presented and sometimes even contains new information) but they really shouldn’t have deleted stuff outright. I’m generally in favour of a warts-and-all approach; if it’s potentially offensive material then it could’ve been footnoted in the books and/or transcripts.
In the case of the individual Classic lectures, they all seem to be taken from other, larger congresses and courses. Does anybody know whether any of these are worth getting on their own?
OT 3 was far from a conscious attempt by Ron to help transcend.
Evidence 1) Sarge told you Marty, Ron wanted him to make him an emeter that electrocuted him, Ron, so he could kill all his BTs and also commit suicide.
Evidence 2) Sarge told you Marty that he was sending him all around the ranch trying to find BTs.
He lived these things. They were not some pedagogic device by a wise man to help.
For the life of me, I cannot see the reasoned correlation you guys are making.
I can only see your reasoning as an attempt at not seeing something that may be painful to see.
The OT 3 theory developed by Ron, culminated……….for him, in wanting to commit suicide.
That is not spiritual teacher material. There are other words that accurately describe this.
The betrayal of trust is too painful. So you have to make up alternative realities to justify these things.
That is my reality on it. And I am not alone.
Yes, you are one of many who laser beam onto two lines in a 326 page book, two moments in a 74-year life, and cling violently to them in vindication of victimhood. If you learn to let go you’ll be more poised to find happiness, in my view.
I have made my view known. Your interpretation and motive of my view is your right to make.
But letting go is not part of it. Discovery, understanding is. OT 3 was the penultimate cosmology on understanding the cause of suffering in Scientology. Costing thousands. We all believed it would free from overwhelm.
What does it say about a theory that, created by a man, that culminates in him wanting ti commit suicide.
Those two lines that seem so small should have been, and may yet to be, a chapter or a book.
The magnitude of those two lines is like having ten elephants in the room, sitting on our heads and someone saying, “what elephants?”
Those two lines are worthy of attention. Because Ron, wanted to kill himself because of it. As a teacher and influencer of many people, how does that play out?
Those two lines are ten elephants in the room. IMO of course. Letting go of elephants sitting on one’s head is not the problem. The weight of the elephants is the problem. Those on whose heads the elephants are on are not holding on. They are screaming “elephants get off my head.”
It is not a fault of mine, a non ability to let go, a dwelling on the negative.
I am questioning a doctrine which culminated in a human being wanting to kill himself.
It is possible, that it is you Marty that needs to let go. It is posiible IMO
Thanks Marty for all you do for the benefit of all Exes.
I got about two paras into your comm. My answer to you is the chapter on the subject in What Is Wrong With Scientology. If you want to go literalist and reductionist and judgmentalist you might find some takers on an independent Scientology forum of some sort. I am trying to get input on my own take, not try, convict and sentence dead men.
Thanks Marty for allowing my posts. This is your home. I respect you for allowing me to stir the pot of ideas.
I hope in some small way I have contributed towards your goals for this blog.
First of all, we don’t know that Sarge’s report is accurate. Annie Broeker was also there, and her report was different. Secondly, even if the electrocution meter story is true, that’s not someone wanting to kill HIMSELF, or his BT’s (which can’t die any more than he can), but rather his BODY, which was 74 years old, never well taken care of, and pretty banged-up to boot. Thetans vs body is a BIG difference. Finally, OT 3 is definitely NOT the “penultimate cosmology” in Scientology, or the only “cause of suffering.”
I partially agree with you.
There is a lot of fuss made over OTIII.
I can understand this in terms of being brought to audit (let alone accept) something that one has no reality on.
But in terms of actual cosmology – what’s the big surprise? Hubbard gave quite possibly the most technically important detail on incidents during the Milestone One lectures (March ’52); that’s the event at the origin, the first separation from Theta into MEST.
He also spoke of another major incident where beings disabled our psychic powers by targeting our pineal glands. And afterwards, in History of Man, he gave accounts of similar things that happened to us perhaps many times over.
So that’s our suffering and our diminishing of abilities. And it’s all at least 15 years before OTIII.
As for Hubbard and the high voltage stuff – to me it’s a little unclear as to really what he wanted to accomplish for certain. But at least, to his perception, he was being bothered by quite possibly rather difficult thetans – and felt that he needed to do something drastic. Whether he intended to give them a shock somehow, I don’t know.
But someone with high level perception is likely to be dealing with spirits around them all the time, so again that’s no surprise. If he really intended to disembody himself, well that’s very sad, and difficult for others to deal with. But in this particular scenario, we just don’t know the higher reality of it.
Pestering old men or women in the end of ther cycle on earth like Pat and David is more disturbing. I see is as confirmation of third party and enturbulation. Sadly done to the person who warned people on that.
That reminds me: David miscavige please come to he Netherlands. we have taken the liscence of your Narconon away here and closed the facility. By the way to all others. Do you know if “mindtuning” is a new branche of the church ?
Cat Daddy, critical analysis is not pestering. It is freedom of thought to look at anything.
It was a hi crime in Scientology to be critical of Ron or Scientology. Punishable by loosing family and friends.
Critical analysis is not third party. That take is the effect of agreeing to anything critical of Ron is bad.
This is not true in the real world.
Bryan Thomas Lambert, the problem with your “critical analysis” is that you haven’t actually made any ANALYSIS, only CRITICISM. And it’s quite obvious that you don’t understand the subject you’re criticizing.
I was refering to Pat and Davids pestering,
The thread between my long essay above and this comment has been fairly substantial. But almost none of the comments by others have had anything to do with what I originally said. I certainly didn’t think that the ideas I expressed would be above everyone’s heads, or uninteresting to them. But it kind of seems that way based on the comments that were made, which have been mostly just regurgitations of familiar old natter about LRH and OT3. Did no one but me view Father Keating’s video? Does no one else have any interest in esoteric contemplative practice as opposed to religious dogma and ritual, or in the use of increased awareness and ability for the pursuit of spiritual enlightenment as opposed to material success? It seems that a change has occurred in this blog’s readership, and not for the better.
I am going to respect Marty’s preference at this juncture Warren and Cat Daddy and go no further in regarding confidential materials and my critical analysis.
We will leave it that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I am ok with that. I need to prove nothing. I am just sharing ideas. Ideas that were normally not allowed, or should I say ideas that ended in a SP declare.
The “I am going to respect Marty” comment above, should have gone here. To get the sequence of communication correct.
You continue to make a very poor case for Scientology with your apparently irrepressible judgementalism, such as this gem: ‘It seems that a change has occurred in this blog’s readership, and not for the better.’
Intellectual snobbery is a sad state. But an opportunity for growth if the person can see how they have become enamored with their intellect. Not enough attention was apparently made to Warrens original points and the intellectual riff raff that now populates this blog is absolutely abhorrent. Important minds cannot be expected to be patient with lesser lights. Good Lord, Warren, how DO you manage.
The fact that I felt a need to respond has allowed me to see and spot again my own false identity still alive and kicking and being challenged. Thanks for that.
LRH said that Scientology is “the science of certainty.” Certainty has levels that line up with the emotional tone scale. When a person has the FALSE certainty of chronic fixed ideas (1.5), he can’t change his mind, even in the face of evidence that he is wrong. Below that is “open minded” (1.1), in which one can’t escape from UNCERTAINTY, and therefore keeps considering one idea after another endlessly, without ever being able to settle on anything as being true, or anyone as having found truth.
High on the tone scale (3.5 and up), people can observe and evaluate data and recognize (a) when a problem has NOT yet been solved, and (b) when a problem HAS been solved. They can flexibly differentiate between the two. That results in their having VALID CERTAINTY, and the willingness to communicate about it, which is totally different from having fixed ideas.
I like ideas, and I like communicating about them. For that reason I’ve been a reader of your blog almost since you started it. Unfortunately, on average, the number of comments to your articles has declined substantially compared to 1-2 years ago, and most of the names I saw commenting back then no longer appear. I still find your articles to touch on interesting issues, though, so from time to time I have something to say, hopefully in a manner that’s interesting and useful to others. I was disappointed that there was less on-point response to my comment-essay above than I’d expected.
Are you trying to say that LRH would call this forum 1.1? I think your analysis is inverted on the commentary here. I would suggest this fixation on ‘certainty’ if clung to sufficiently hard will prevent folks from seeing the true nature of the universe. Which is their, and your, prerogative.
Warren I could have been the biggest Natterer. I did View Father Keatings Video. I acknowlegde you and your contribution.
I wish to have many communications with you and conversations on this Blog, I come from WWP. I want Hubbard to have his place in history and repair a crooked line but not without scrutiny. Today i will not do any obvious bashing of hubbard because enough people will help me out with that. Warren Matson you are an OKAY guy.
“Does no one else have any interest in esoteric contemplative practice as opposed to religious dogma and ritual, or in the use of increased awareness and ability for the pursuit of spiritual enlightenment as opposed to material success? It seems that a change has occurred in this blog’s readership, and not for the better.”
my answer is yes
WARREN MARSTON I am pleased to meet you. My email is email@example.com if you want to talk
Cat Daddy, AnonKat, kittyKatSpanker, Niels
I will back you up, I do not have your exact view but Petrus was Jealous of Mary of magdelene because she got more teachings from him the he (God i hope that is not an euphanism)
No need to throw around the tone scale I love communicating with you Warren.
MODERATOR REJECT. 1.1. IN KEEPING WITH MY POLICY OF NOT CONTINUING TO GIVE PLATFORMS TO THOSE WHO INSIST ON ENTRAPPING OTHERS WITH IMPLANTS, YOUR POST DID NOT MAKE THE GRADE.
I was just re-reading your comment here, and I think that you might have a point to a degree.
I don’t necessarily think it was intended as a joke, per se; but I do think he went very specifically for the most over the top material that he could possibly find.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he was following “leads” from other religious mythologies. But if he did do this, he knew how massive the material was going to end up being, in the case that he did find something which coincided.
From other research I’ve done, it’s clear the he took his scholarship seriously from an earlier stage (e.g. picking up old narratives surrounding the Vedas etc). There are times he looked surprisingly deeply (and others perhaps not so much).
Again I don’t think he meant such a huge reveal to be the number one panacea to all our ills (OTIII seems to have a number of themes that could be addressed separately).
Regarding religions claiming to be the only way, for the most part I’ve found this too – even in Buddhism (where other paths are accepted to a point but do not necessarily bring about total realisation). In fact if you talk to a number of dedicated Buddhists, they would not sound all that far different from many Scientologists in this regard, and the reasoning is likely to be similar.
At the very least, Scientology has no basis to claim sole truth on the grounds of faith or narrative alone.
You are a smart cookie, firstname.lastname@example.org
Let’s not dwell on that
Oh – and what I had meant to say in more direct response is that I think there may well have been a certain brand of humour to it, or at least in the way he chose to relay the information. I think he’s done this before (e.g. the Heaven implants). That’s not to say he didn’t believe it had something underlying it.
I do think a lot of this was audacious partly for the purpose of “taking the lid off” our preconceptions about ordinary everyday reality, too. Zen masters did it all the time. I just don’t think we’re as used to it in western society, as we tend to see religion through a lense of Judeo-Christian culture – it all gets swept up in the old faith vs reason arguments without leaving much room for teachings based around shaking up our ordinary perceptions of reality.
That’s a good suggestion – thanks. 🙂