Scientology Beliefs (revised)

In plain English, here are scientology’s core religious beliefs.

  1. Scientology’s sophisticated mix of pop psychology and hypnotism are firmly believed to be the only workable ‘technology’ for curing mental issues, neurosis, psychosis, physical disease, increasing awareness and intelligence, and for creating OT’s (operating thetans, L. Ron Hubbard’s version of Nietzsche’s superman or Aleister Crowley’s magician).Note:  Scientology is at first presented in secular, scientific terms promising and then false reporting 100% workability.  In fact scientology never achieved even the scientifically recognized 20 to 30 percent placebo effect in terms of long-term satisfaction.  In order to explain away that discrepancy the less-than-placebo percentage who stick with it are led to adopt the remaining listed beliefs.  The ‘technology’ evolved being carefully designed and administered so as to lead scientologists to wholeheartedly accept and live according to these beliefs.

2.  Planet Earth is a prison. The vast majority of human beings – and billions of             invisible other beings – are its inmates.

3.  Xenu is the name of scientology’s Satan who established Earth as                                  a prison and transported billions of beings to serve as its inmates.

4.  Our continued imprisonment is assured by ‘psychs.’ ‘Psychs’ are                                    defined as psychiatrists, psychologists, psycho-therapists, priests,                                ministers, and anyone else practicing in the field of the mind and                                  spirit.  Psychs were sent here from a planet called ‘Farsec.’  They are a                        special breed of being created and invested with the sole purpose of                            keeping humankind mentally imprisoned.

5.  Ron Hubbard is the first to discover the above ‘truths’, and the only                             one to have devised a means of escaping the prison planet.

6.  Navigation through the only hole in the wall consists of closely                                        emulating Hubbard and behaving as he did when he lived.

7.  Enemies, including psychs as well as anyone expressing any doubt or                           reservation about these beliefs, must be destroyed by any means                                  necessary by scientologists. Such means include lying, suing, cheating,                        harassing, intimidating, blackmailing, smearing and by physical                                      violence.

8. When a scientologist has expended all of his best efforts in the vain                             pursuit of these beliefs he is expected to ‘discard’ his body so that he                           may continue to pursue them without such a physical ‘impediment’.

Whether the ultimate belief, number 8 above, constitutes suicide is a wholly subjective question of religious belief.

1,016 responses to “Scientology Beliefs (revised)

  1. Where does #8 come from?

    • Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior, Amazon Books 2012

      • Marty, the vast majority of what you write fascinates me.

        In the very near future it seems there will be nothing confidential at all regarding anything that constitutes the Church of Scientology’s disseminatable religious beliefs. A church and it’s congregation with such religious beliefs, if they mean not to harm anyone then they should never make a gesture as though they mean to harm anyone. Misunderstood? Hardly. In the end the Church of Scientology gets what is deserves. Making believe they are trying to set Mankind free while making a joke out of us. Look who the laugh is really on! 🙂

        • I must say Marty, I am glad you are continuing to have realizations about LRH and scientology. I was once very critical of you…BUT, what I read now shows me you see what is what and what is not. Keep at it mate!

        • Marty, I LOVE this article. It is so great to see so many people waking up to the facts about Hubbard and “the tech” – which is exactly what you say it is!

          You have NO idea how happy you have made me today! The number of Indys who are koolaiders still is sometimes frightening. However, I do see changes in this as people waking up and see the sham for what it is and the dangers in it; and who admit that he “had” us all.

          • “The number of Indys who are koolaiders still is sometimes frightening. ”

            This scares me. Because I know how discounting your fellow man, can lead to justifiable crimes against them.

          • Marty did not in any way shape or form, discount another human being by laying this truth on the table.

            You did.

        • I don’t want revenge. I just would like the motherly pleasure of her children phoning every now and then. Thank you Marty for always saying what’s on your mind.

          • Oracle: I did not read Starship’s comment that way at all. He/She’s simply stating what to many of us is the obvious: LRH was a fraud, the “tech” is a scam. I agree, you don’t. That discounts neither one of us. In fact, it would seem to me that you exercise as much judgment on Starship as he/she does on indies.
            Whether one hold’s Starship’s view or not, we are all capable of justifying many “justifiable crimes,” as the term implies.

            • I agree, Todd. There are multiple factual points where Ron was dishonest and/or fraudulent. There are zero objective, scientific validations of the results of Dianetics or Scientology. There is not a single proven clear or OT as originally defined by Ron, not one after six decades of opportunity.

              Pointing this brutal truth out does not demean others. Rather it provides a necessary wake up call to our fellow human beings.

              That’s not to say that Scientology cannot lead to many realizations and insights. I think it can and does. Unfortunately, it also leads to delusion and the totalitarian stifling of free thought.

              Where Scientology ultimately sinks itself is that it makes both religious and scientific claims. Scientific claims are falsifiable in any number of ways. Religious claims are not.

              Most religions keep themselves off the hook by limiting their ultimate claims to an unfalsifiable afterlife. Their current life claims are typically very subjective and debatable. They often include claims like being a better person, being happier, feeling in touch with God, and so on.

              While Scientology also claims betterment of one’s internal state, and makes claims of a better afterlife or afterlives, it unfortunately also makes a slew of easily falsifiable current life claims.

              These include, but are not limited to things like: increased IQ, freedom from psychosomatic disease, better eyesight, better health overall, immunity from lung cancer caused by smoking, becoming radiation proof, drug treatment programs with 70 to 80% effectiveness, the ability to the exteriorise from one’s body at will and do so with full perceptics, past life recall, ability to change the world through postulates, super powers, perfect recall, longer lifespans, greater wealth, greater creativity, the ability to control MEST both objectively and subjectively as well as the ability to control life and thought. And so many more implicit and explicit claims, most or all of which could be verified through objective research if they were real.

              While there are nuggets along the road, Scientology’s promised gold mine never quite materializes. The bridge becomes a circle, a hamster wheel. Escherlike, the lizard of the organization circles back on its own tail (and tale), and begins to cannibalize itself. The lack of the ultimate results is hidden behind unfalsifiable gnosticism. The attention of the faithful is misdirected to supposed enemies and false causes as to why the results are never achieved. The hopes of the faithful slowly turn to self betrayal in stubborn persistence of belief.

              • I’m not disagreeing , but I feel many if not most of the “objective” claims have not been systematically tested. I’m not sure they ever could be, because of “operator interference” type of factors, as well as theindividual differences, person to person. IQ is measurable, reaction time and speed of perception, those kind of things could be measured, but the studies themselves would be enormously time-consuming for everyone involved. Given the lack of standardization of scientology methods, how would anyone study it at all?

                • The degree of objectivity depends on how wide is the context and that all inconsistencies within that context have been satisfactorily resolved.

                • It seems to me that anybody whose claims have a “scientific” nature finds themselves saddled with the burden of proof before they even deserve serious consideration by others (such as peer studies). LRH tried to do that once (the “first clear”)–with devastatingly telling results. That was the end of that, although not the end of his “scientific” claims.
                  “Science” is also a bit of an Achilles heel to the “church.” By definition, science is not only verifiable but also repeatable. To use a simple example, if I drop an apple the result has to be the same as you dropping one. Otherwise, gravity is not really a scientific principle but strictly a matter of “personal experience”–an experience that only one or some (not all) may share. In that way, “science” (if it could be demonstrated in the “tech”) undermines the “church” monopoly on effecting and experiencing the alleged “wins” through its “tech.”

                  • Todd: “It seems to me that anybody whose claims have a “scientific” nature finds themselves saddled with the burden of proof before they even deserve serious consideration by others…”

                    The first line of proof is that there are no flagrant and rather obvious inconsistencies. This level of proof is rather easy to attain and to qualify for peer review. It seems that LRH couldn’t even get past this initial level.

                    This shows his failure to mass hypnotize wogs. He then had to put together a gradient of hypnotism. He called this system of gradients a “Scientology Org.”


                • I agree — good points.

                  Let me pose this as a challenge (to the church). Let’s take IQ claims. Ron said IQ definitely goes up with hours of auditing. There are standardized, non-Scientology tests to measure IQ. A comprehensive test can take several hours and cost some money to administer. And the church reportedly has billions of dollars at its disposal.

                  The church has made a claim about to IQ through its “scripture” and therefore the onus is on the church to prove its claim (that is just how burden of proof works). It has the resources and the self interest to prove its claim. The church could easily set up a program where a standard IQ test is given by external experts before auditing and then at one or more points in time as auditing progressed.

                  Without getting into supernatural powers, metaphysical knowledge, past life recall, testing IQ improvement would be a pretty straightforward and standard way of validating or falsifying this particular claim.

                  If the church and its believers are positive that the words of Hubbard are infallible scripture, why would it hesitate to do such testing? It has plenty of money to fund such a project. And every self interest in doing so. In fact, if the claims proved to be true that would spur worldwide positive interest in the church and its teachings. So not performing such research could be argued to be an overt of omission.

                  As I reflect on this it strikes me that Miscavige’s focus on MEST acquisition could be taken as the signal that he himself does not believe in the ultimate claims of Scientology — or even some of the more pedestrian claims. Therefore he would rather buy impressive buildings than perform research that would pull the rug out from under his own feet.

      • Sign me up. Maybe I’ve been too harsh. Sounds good to me. Ha ha ha!

        Thank you so so so much Marty. If I say I am proud of you it sounds a bit condescending. But I am. You are who I’ve thought you were.

        Namaste and Thank thank thank yooooouu 🙂

        • Me too!!! Well said Marty. And yes, #8 is a very unfortunate possibility that we must all be aware of and take whatever steps we can to handle. Thanks for sayin.

      • The recent photos (taken days after the HCO documentary shown at Sundance) show a happy Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman.

        What Mark said about them made no effect on them. Have a look:

        • Now Joe, I have a personal relationship with both Tom and Nicole, just like you do. I also know them very intimately and can read their minds, just like you can.

          Tom is smiling because no one had asked him any embarassing questions about the HBO film.

          Nicole is smiling because her ex is finally getting his comeuppance without her having to say one single solitary negative word about it.

          Or maybe they are both smiling because that’s what actors do when someone is photographing them.

          Mark: I think #9 should be that scientologists believe they are morally obligated to twist the truth or blatently lie with conviction, regardless of the circumstances, to make themselves and their cult RIGHT!

          • LDW, great response!

          • LDW: to make themselves and their cult RIGHT!

            It is surely that what you said .. but this is a SerFac .. something which should be handled with scientology .. if not, the cult run to be suppressive

            LRH wanted to get the SerFac of the case .. so the way to clearing ..

        • “No effect”message again.

          • Jenny did it better than Joe.

              • Sorry that ment to be a comment to another comment. But since I am here



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

    • It comes from the belief that accompanied the explanation of Hubbard’s death.

    • It’s not that every Scientologist has been instructed in writing to discard their body per se. It’s that all Scientologists are indoctrinated to do exactly as Ron did. And the public PR line is that once Ron got to the point where he could no longer conduct OT research because his body was a hindrance, he “discarded the body”.

      Of course, public Scientologists believe they are still about a dozen unreleased OT levels away from this being an issue.

      But the fact is, they all believe LRH just “discarded the body” because he could not move any further up the ladder of OT unless he did so and Scientologists are totally cool with this.

      So this idea of “I’m just going to get rid of my body now, because I’ve done everything I can do in Scientology with it” is absolutely something Scientologists embrace, even though none of them have had to cross that bridge (pardon the pun) yet.

      • It’s a leap in logic to say that because LRH “discarded the body” in order to do further research (according to those who made the announcement) that all scientologists are supposed to do so. I never heard a single scientologist express that idea. It would be more consistent for them to think that LRH is the only one who does research.

        This is a typical stretch that causes many critics to lose credibility.

        • Well, when I was on Flag (a long time ago) I overheard a couple of advanced Scientologists talking about ‘discarding’ their body because they were out of the ‘circle of life’. They decided to stay on a bit longer …

        • Actually, if you watch the LRH death announcement video again, you will hear Pat Broeker clearly state that anyone could now go into Flag to run the E.O.C (end of cycle) L Ron has just completed.

          This is what Pat said;
          “We also by the way have the OT level that is goint to be done (very long pause) immediately after every thetan discards his or her body. He wrote that up before he went (applause) now this…don’t take this as an invitation, because you don’t get it until youre through the OT level before it.

          But know, that, when it’s time, the tech is there so you’re not left with what to do now or even having to figure it out for yourself. It’s there we’re er that will be written up right away, coz we have that, word for word and it’ll be archived and made safe and it will be eventually available at Flag and other AO’s and people will be allowed to come into AOLA, before they discard it, read the materials, check out on them, do wordclear, demo (mumbling in crowd cause laughter)…So you know. Now you know it. Now you’re ready for when it happens.”

          • Harle Quin, quoting Broeker: “We also by the way have the OT level that is going to be done (very long pause) immediately after every thetan discards his or her body. He wrote that up before he went (applause) now this…don’t take this as an invitation, because you don’t get it until youre through the OT level before it.”

            The above statement only says there’s an OT level “to be done…immediately after the thetan discards his or her body.” There isn’t anything in that statement that suggests suicide, as it doesn’t indicate in any way that the thetan “discards” (or “drops”) the body IN ORDER TO DO THE OT LEVEL.

            In fact, Broeker then says “don’t take this as an invitation, because you don’t get it until you’re through the OT level before it – which, to me, simply means that when you die – which eventually everyone will do – if you’ve done OT levels up to the particular OT level that is (supposedly) to be done after you die, then you would be ready to do that one.

            Not that it really matters what those speakers stated, as their words aren’t based on anything Hubbard ever wrote, and they are known to be liars.

            • I inadvertently left out the closing quotation marks in the second to last paragraph. It should read:

              In fact, Broeker then says “don’t take this as an invitation, because you don’t get it until you’re through the OT level before it ” – which, to me, simply means that when you die (which eventually everyone will do, obviously) if you’ve done OT levels up to the particular OT level that is (supposedly) to be done after you die, then you would be ready to do that one.

            • Pull your head out Miraldi. You do yourself no favors displaying cognitive dissonance.

              • Cooper, do you have any disagreement about the substance of my comment? I mean did you see any illogic in what I wrote, or are you criticizing it simply because I didn’t interpret Broeker’s remarks the way you would like to? Seriously, be specific as to what you are referring to that you would then conclude I have some cognitive dissonance about.

                • Actually, the illogic lies in Broeker’s statement. As such, the dictum applies that it is impossible to hold logical discourse about it. Put another way, regardless of where you stand on the issue, cognitive dissonance is inevitable.
                  First off, there is absolutely no evidence that the OT levels that Broeker proclaimed even exist. The evidence suggests that they do NOT.
                  But more importantly, Broeker suggested that LRH conducted “research” (and left it behind) about the body-discarded state while LRH had clearly NOT (yet anyway) “discarded” his own body! How is one to reconcile this absurdity.
                  Then again, maybe it was the Vistaril that was doing the talking?

                  • Good post. Incidentally, after Hubbard had departed, Broeker produced what he alleged were Hubbard’s notes about his return. He would return at 21 years old. So, it appears that the proof of Broekers funeral pronunciamentos failed to materialize.

                  • Bob Cray: “Actually, the illogic lies in Broeker’s statement.”

                    Right. That’s basically what I meant when I wrote: “Not that it really matters what those speakers stated, as their words aren’t based on anything Hubbard ever wrote, and they [the speakers] are known to be liars.”

        • The announcement from Scientology leadership that LRH “discarded the body” in order to do further research, did set up an “Ideal scene” for scientologists how certain things should be viewed. It may differ from scientologist to scientologist how they absorbed this view in their psyche. It shall certainly depend on a scientologist’s state of indoctrination.

          I am continually amazed to find how scientologists are indoctrinated by the Theta-MEST theory.


          • The whole of scientology’s genesis narrative is predicated on the theta-MEST theory (see for e.g. The Factors). How is it amazing to find people who make their decisions or view the world based on it? It wasn’t too long ago that Christendom made many intersocial decisions based on the concept of Original Sin. The theta-MEST theory, if I am correct, is a fundamental pillar of the concept of one’s own godhood (source of and thus cause over MEST). Until one no longer needs to be god, one will look to confirm that one is, indeed, godlike.

          • In many regards, theta-MEST theory harks back to Cartesian duality (in Western thought). As science learns more and more about the nature of consciousness, such a duality seems less and less likely to capture the incredible nature of existence and consciousness.

            Scientologists in general are taught that dying is a causative act. You don’t die. You _drop_ your body. This is seen as not being a big deal. After all, you are an immortal being. And any grief felt by your survivors it is simply a secondary that can be handled as part of their own case. Therefore, dropping your body is not an overt against your first dynamic or other dynamics if you make an EOC decision for ethical reasons.

            Of course such details are never discussed or debated within Scientology because of the lack of free speech, the stifling of analytical reasoning, the absence of critical thought, and prohibitions against verbal tech.

            In a way, Scientology’s view of causatively dropping one’s body reminds me of the old MASH theme song: “Suicide is painless. It brings on many changes. And I can take or leave it if I please.”

        • It’s worse Marildi. On a Scientologist’s death bed it is whispered into their ears to find a hospital, pick up a body and buy more Scientology.

          That is so perverse to actually reg a dying person to buy more Scientology.

          One word……… YUK! SUPER DUPER MEGA YUK!!

          • HAHAHAHAHA!

            Brian, I saw that in the mid eighties. What was so funny to me, is that the entire package of Scientology reminded me of Ron’s ARSCLYCUS, space opera story .

            All down to leaving a piece of themselves (PC Folders) to come back for more.

            And yes the word around then was to come back to complete Ron’s Bridge to Heaven, as it was so fucking long and expensive, that obviously one needed several lifetimes to accomplished it.

            The Sea Org 1 Billion year contract and other Ron’s artifices all built up to a massive implant.

            Some people posting here have audited/studied themselves into a permanent trance, and are so confused and overwhelmed by the hypnosis, that they cannot spot SOURCE in their entrapment.

            No, no Ron-TheMasterThereon, got all of us, by a very clever use of Religion, Magic and Hypnosis.

            We were young then, uneducated, mostly agnostic or secularly inclined.
            Most of us came for the “Therapy”, and felt for the “exact science”, and every religious artifice thrown upon us to the point of total overwhelm.

            Live and learn!

        • “It would be more consistent for them to think that LRH is the only one who does research.”


          • The only one to discover truth
            The only one to know how the mind “really” works
            The only one to know how to free others
            The only one to go through the Wall of Fire
            The only one to discover OT 3 druggie BTs
            The only one to actually know personally that jesus was a pedophile
            The only one to say that God as omnipresence is being trapped as the MEST universe.
            The only one to say that Life is not a Unified Field of Consciousness but we are eternal separate beings that create our own laws.
            The only one to know that psyches are special evil beings from the whole track.
            The only religion except for Satanism to declare on tape that He was the Prince of Darkness, on original OT8 that he was Lucifer, and his son, Nibs, said “dad’ told him, Nibs, that he, Ron, was the Beast 666.
            The only present western religion who created an army of mindless minions to cause violence against critics.
            The only man to declare that all religion comes from the Marcabs and all religion and all other therapies but his, Ron’s, are meant to imprison your mind.
            The only hope
            The only way
            The only road out
            The only one true savior
            The only one to say that heaven is an implant station
            The only one to state that the spiritual light within is an electronic implant

            And yes, Oracle, the only one who has the magic, the genius, the wisdom, the insight, the greatness to do research

            • And the only “savior” that I know of that says he will lead you to “truth” and then is proved to be an inveterate, compulsive, confirmed, pathological liar.

              And the only “wiseman” I know of that, even though it has been proven that he is a liar, he still is looked up to by those who have fallen under his spell.

              Truly, it is only beginning to be revealed who and what this man was and is.

            • Not here for blood shed Brian. I do like to exchange ideas. The fact that Miraldi is fully knowing that Scientologists feel wholly dependent upon someone to lead, suggests that she could see the hypnotic value in that.

            • Brian, do you see yourself as being obsessed about Hubbard? And if not, what would obsession be like?

              • Good question and an honest one. The answer is no, not at all. Actually I haven’t really thought much about him since I left in 82. I think more about the people that have been harmed in his name after getting interested just recently.

                I stumbled on some blogs for fun just a few years ago and was quite curious about how things have developed.

                I have found, Marildi that I get various responses from people. I have been thanked very deeply and touched by people who have said that my thoughts have helped them.

                I have also been cursed and condemned by people as well. I take both responses as they come and understand them to be those people’s experience. What anyone thinks of me is their own business, not mine.

                My intention that has been stated before is twofold:

                1) Revisiting the 11 years of my development from the age of 18 to when I left the church. The revisiting allows me to go though my own mental files and discard any old unless thought forms that may be lingering. Things that I once thought were true, receded into my subconscious and became part of my energetic self so to speak: wrong knowledge

                2) The second purpose is to be an iconoclast to the false deceptive image that Ron causatively and deceptively perpetrated on our citizens.
                Specifically his third partying other paths, causing his students to only rely on him for guidance and trapping them in a prison of belief.
                Part of this second intention came about when the Indies were complaining about DM as the reason things are in a mess.
                With all my heart, I strongly disagree with this sentiment.

                I realized early on that people were having a hard time seeing Ron’s causative link to Scientology’s present condition. I knew that Scientologist’s have been conditioned to never be critical of Ron by way of threats to their family, jobs and continued being on the bridge.

                I then decided that I wanted to be a willing piñata and push as many buttons as I could, using reason and critical thinking, to help Indies be comfortable with criticism.

                So regarding step two, there is still much work to be done. I believe you and many others have no idea what a spell you have been under. Many people still think that only Ron knew the truth and there is no other path available for them. That is one thing I would love to address. Study others, learn from other wisemen and women. Ron was a dark soul. He was a confirmed liar and has harmed many people by third partying other spiritual paths.

                That is the essence of my constant criticism. To make it ok for those now out, to allow themselves to rehabilitate their own sovereign discriminating intelligence. And that starts with seeing L Ron Hubbard as he is, not the marketed lies of make believe he worked so hard to convince us of.

                So my question Marildi is: why does it bother you that I do?

                • Okay, thanks.

                  JMO, but you would probably be more successful if you were less heavy-handed in the way you go about it. Have the kind of light touch you do when you talk about spiritual things. That’s so much more appealing and doesn’t push people away – even if they have completely different views. You have the advantage of being an artist – why not express your views more “artfully” and less forcefully? Aesthetics is far more powerful than force. And I think you’d enjoy it more yourself.

                  • Why does it bother me? For one thing, some of your data is off – and I think that’s because you are in too much of a fervor, to be at your best.

                    As for what you are right about, it’s still offensive to have someone keep rubbing everybody’s nose in something unnecessarily. The blogs you frequent have virtually no one who hasn’t heard – multiple times – the things you have to say. And heard them from you alone multiple times!

                    No matter how right you are, it doesn’t work to try to shove the message down people’s throats. It also becomes an overkill of more negativity than necessary. Not just unpleasant, it defeats the purpose. I say, go back to your artist roots, Brian! 😉

                    • Thank you for sharing your view Marildi 🙂

                    • Marildi, do you believe in the Xenu story?

                    • Oh! That is nasty! 😉

                    • It is only a question Vinay. And not meant for harm or otherwise. Anyone can ask me anything about any of my beliefs. I have nothing to hide.

                    • I think Hubbard’s beliefs need to be evaluated against Gnostic beiefs. Some thiongs he said make a lot more sense when looked at from a Gnostic viewpoint.

                    • From the link provided by Valkov:

                      “All religious traditions acknowledge that the world is imperfect. Where they differ is in the explanations which they offer to account for this imperfection and in what they suggest might be done about it. Gnostics have their own — perhaps quite startling — view of these matters: they hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner.”

                      World is flawed only from a human-centric viewpoint and not otherwise. That is what Buddhism tells us. Nirvana is extinguishing that human-centric viewpoint. Do plants and animals suffer? I don’t know. But from our human-centric viewpoint they suffer. When we give up this human-centric viewpoint, we can bear any suffering with equanimity.

                      The world is what it is. Blaming it, or blaming its supposed “creator” doesn’t resolve anything.

                    • That is so true, Val. And that article you link makes the case so well. Thanks.

                  • A man is measured by his own deeds Val. It seems Hubbard apologists are simply clambering and racking their brains to find justification in Hubbard.

                    The insanity of space alien auditing and equating it with shamanic demon possession.

                    Oh Hubbard is a Gnostic

                    Hubbard was being attacked by the CIA and that’s way he’s on the defensive.

                    His own deeds are so immoral, that he himself, his own legacy, is not enough to fish him out of ill repute, so apologists try to piggy back him on some valid benign human history.

                    L Ron Hubbard had mental problems.

                    There was a person on a vid here on this blog. He was an old timer. He said Ron did not experience people. He said that Ron “confronted” people.

                    The only real metaphysical connection I see Hubbard having is Crowley and black magic.

                    Gnostic is from Sankrit Jnana: knowldege. All these words have the same root. They mean to know. Know what?

                    The Gnostics wanted to know God. The Jnanis, yogis, want to know God.

                    Hubbard thought he was God. He does not fall into any real tradition or lineage except magic and wanting powers.

                • So my question Marildi is: why does it bother you that I do?

                  Hahaha… that is skillfully turning the table. That is a fantastic Marildi-style question. But Marildi may be capable of wriggling out of it.

                • Brian, You are one spot on dude! Keep swingin and never let the bastards get you down. There will be many that just want to chip away and make less of your observations.
                  Be that as it may, your comments align with my thoughts on the subject and I appreciate your commentary.

              • Marildi,

                Do you see yourself as being obsessed about Hubbard?

                And if not, it is your religious devotion to Scientology scriptures, and Ron-Deus messianic command over you, maybe and indication that you have been had?

                Knock, knock. Is there any brain left not been thoroughly washed?

                • Conan, no I”m not obsessed with Hubbard. My focus isn’t really on the man himself but on his works. You need to differentiate between the two, even if it doesn’t suit your purposes not to.

                  How about you? Do you see yourself as one of the most vitriolic and malicious posters on any of the blogs?

                  I can’t help but wonder what spiritual teaching you could possibly be “devoted to.” I sure hope you don’t claim to be a Buddhist or a Christian. Or almost anything else I can think of.

                  • I meant “You need to differentiate between the two, even if it doesn’t suit your purposes to do so.”

                    • Ok MIraldi, good points.

                      Two questions:

                      1) Do you give Xenu, the OT3 materials, credibility that you would audit this material?

                      2) Why do you need to associate Ron with other paths to find credibility?

                      It would seem his own deeds and legacy are now obviously impotent to support his own credibility.

                      His believers who say they are not believers but “dispassionate observers of truth” reveal the bulldog attachment we humans have to delusions and imaginings.

                      The mind games, to hold in place the deceptive image of Ron, are obvious, sad and instructive.

                      L Ron Hubbard worked hard to make less of other spiritual paths and put himself on the “only way pedestal”.

                      Now his apologists are in denial of his contempt for other paths and using them “Gnostics, Shamans etc to support him.

                      Denial and wishful thinking are certainly good friends.

                  • It is impossible to fully separate Scientology from Ron.

                    You can separate the inventor of the combustion engine from the motor.
                    That is because he made a physical product which is separate from him.
                    You can drive around in a car and the inventor’s mindset personally is meaningless and has no effect on the driver.

                    L Ron Hubbard created a religious philosophy and practice. Philosophy deals with thoughts, value systems cosmologies and world views.
                    These things are read, studied, word cleared, demoed and checked out for proficiency.

                    They become part of you. You are imprinted by his psychological profile. That imprint becomes behavior. That behavior is called being a Scientologist: someone who has opened up their mind to study, agree with and become someone whoa has some Ron traits. Because the traits he thought were useful became HCOB which became your mind.

                    That argument of, L Ron Hubbard is dead and left us with the tech is an attempt to separate out the unethical life and criminal revelations of Hubbard from those who are still under his spell and practicing his philosophy.

                    Who wants to have a spiritual teacher that lies, puts kids in chain lockers etc etc. It’s too embarrassing to those who call themselves a Scientologist.

                    So………..let’s separate us from him by saying Scientology and Ron are different.

                    What kind of spiritual aspirant wants to distance themselves from their teacher by coming up with such rubbish.

                    I am more than proud of my teacher. His life is a star high goal I seek to emulate, not run away from and create mind games to distant myself from his immorality.

                    Scientology is L Ron Hubbard. It’s his mind that becomes yours.

                    • All the good stuff he came up with was “borrowed” anyway, right? So it should be fine. Right?.

                    • I don’t want to emulate anyone. I simply want to live my own life.

                    • Marildi, I can borrow a hammer from a neighbor to build a nice cabinet, or I can use it to kill someone.

                      Yes he borrowed, we all do.

                      Sir Issac Newton had the humility to say,”if I saw further than most it’s because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” That is a powerfully mumble statement from a great man.

                      L Ron Hubbard stole from others. He never announced his sources because he thought so low of himself and craved to be seen as one of his Sci Fi heroes. He was an egotist.

                      He constantly berated other teachers and approaches, with great talent for narcissism. And claimed authorship of other’s works. He was not a great man.

                      He was an intellectual coward who did not have the courage, intelligence and wisdom to bring a debate to the real world. If in fact he had something to offer.

                      Instead he sought destruction of critics and hid like scared pathetic rat.

                      Looking up to Hubbard is a strange mindset. The more I find out about him the more I know what the prison of belief means.

                      Do you know the person? Do you not look?

                      L Ron Hubbard is like a big fat man selling weight loss products and his devotees don’t see the cognitive dissonance in this.

                      Pop psychologist and charlatan are the labels that work for me.

                    • Brian: “I can borrow a hammer from a neighbor to build a nice cabinet, or I can use it to kill someone”

                      The point is that even if the hammer had been used to “kill someone”, why would we need to destroy – or even not use – the “nice cabinet” ?

                    • Marildi: “The point is that even if the hammer had been used to “kill someone”, why would we need to destroy – or even not use – the “nice cabinet” ?”

                      The furor over “blood diamonds” comes to my mind.

                    • I do agree with you Marildi. Spiritual counseling, I believe, will only increase in popularity as we grow as a culture.

                      I believe, that the process was started, to some degree, with Ron.

                      So yes, there is validity in looking within for answers, in finding basic starting points of associated chains of events to neutralize mental and physical pain. To use reason as our god to extract truth from suffering.

                      This even extends into past life therapy.

                      But it won’t be called Scientology anymore. It will be called something else.

                      No one owns these processes. Einstein did not invent the theory of relativity. He discovered a verity that existed since always.

                      The problem, with this present evolution of a spiritual therapy called Scientology, is that L Ron Hubbard imprinted his dark side into these writings that distort truth.

                      I will trust no Scientologist or Indie who does not acknowledge the dark and dangerous heritage of knowledge that L Ron Hubbard infected Scientology with.

                      “He was just a man,” He said he was only human”, “he was not perfect”, does not cut the mustard. Some of his writings and behavior can rightly be called evil.

                      The OT levels must be exposed as part of that madness.

                      Use the hammer by all means. But make sure the metal hammer part is secured to the handle. If it flies off people get hurt.

                      Look at L Ron Hubbard and his religion with the cold hard look of a wise dispassionate observer.

                      Do not let emotional attachment to who you think he, Ron, is/was.

                      If a person still has this magical attachment to Hubbard and thinks he’s a true wiseman, what is to stop the next madman from recreating a paramilitary dog kennel of “willing hounds” to set the planet free by the “only one true technology.”

                    • Brian: “I will trust no Scientologist or Indie who does not acknowledge the dark and dangerous heritage of knowledge that L Ron Hubbard infected Scientology with.”

                      But don’t you see, Brian – you are unwittingly demanding the same thing you are against – authoritarian rule.

                      Who would be the one to be given the authority to say what “needs to be acknowledged”. That would mean everybody else being required to see things the way the “authority” sees them – the very thing we are all protesting about the CoS.

                      If you are in favor of freedom of thought, and I trust you are, then I think you should allow others just that – freedom.

                    • A hypnotized person cannot be handled, just by allowing freedom of thought. He cannot be handled by “authority” either as Hubbard tried. “Authority” simply ends up hypnotizing the person more.

                      So, how do you handle a hypnotized person?

                    • Free investigation, free scrutinizing, free inquiry into the nature of Ron’s claims/clams, is the opposite of authoritarianism.

                      To equate critical analysis with authoritarianism is to be still affected by Ron.

                      CRITICISM = ATTACK

                      The OT 3 level claims need this scrutiny.

                      The uncovering of lies is not mind control.

                      That is still Ron talking.

                    • Nothing was said about free inquiry or critical analysis – rather, it was your insistence about what “needs to be acknowledged”. That puts your own personal view as a limitation to free thought.

                      I don’t think this is too much of a nuance to be understood, is it?

                    • In my view there is either harmonious and consistent thought, or there is thought that contains inconsistencies.

                      “Free thought” probably means freedom to express one’s thought. That freedom very much exists on Marty’s blog. “Free thought” does not exist in Scientology because of KSW.

                    • Marlidi, I have asked you this simple benign question at least 5 times in our discussions over the years.

                      You have characteristically never ever replied. I am freely inquiring into your view on this. It is just a question.

                      1) Do you believe in Xenu?

                    • Why do you think Marildi will answer you this time? Any questioning from you that puts her on defensive is a suppression of her “free thought.”

                    • Brian, I neither believe nor disbelieve in Xenu. In general, I do my best to avoid having “beliefs”.

                      What makes the most sense to me, up to now, is that Hubbard apparently considered scientology to be a gnostic faith – which could explain the reason for all his “myths”. Per gnosticism, myths can embody basic truths. That could explain why some of the OT levels work for many people, regardless of whether or not they are literally true.

                      Hubbard may also have considered himself to be what is called in gnosticism a “Messenger of Light”, whose purpose was to bring knowledge and freedom to others. I talked to an old-timer one time, back in the early ’80’s, who knew Ron personally and told me that Ron was very excited when he realized what he was here to do.

                      Be that as it may, it’s also possible that Hubbard was a false Messenger whose purpose was to deceive and entrap people by giving them some truths – along with untruths, with the actual aim of enslaving them.

                      Whichever of the two purposes it was, it seems to me, based on my own study and experience, that he did reveal a lot of truth. And benefiting from the truths, along with sifting out any untruths, is what I consider to be important.

                    • Brian, Marildi, I will give you my detailed observations shortly. My mother is having a bit of distress tonight.

            • Brian, man after my own heart. You’ve said it so well. Have copied and pasted for further reference when needed, if that’s OK with you.

        • I know of several “OT’s” in the LA area who expressed the idea for suicide or “dropping the Bod” after LRH died.

          • Okay, but “several” in the LA area is a small minority. You could find several of almost anything in almost any group. I’m pretty sure that if there were anything close to a majority who had this idea, the subject would have come up many times on many sites. But it hasn’t.

      • It’s not that every Scientologist has been instructed in writing to discard their body per se . . .

        Well . . . when teaching making shit up about “Identity Versus Individuality” in SCIENTOLOGY 8-8008, L Ron Hubbard, had this to say about what an hindrance the body is when it comes to operating as a spiritual being . . .

        . . . The most common confusion on the part of a preclear is between himself as an identified object and his beingness. One’s beingness depends upon the amount of space which he can create or command, not upon his identification or any label. Identity as we know it in the MEST universe is much the same as identification, which is the lowest form of thought. When one is an object and is himself an effect, he believes that his ability to be cause is dependent upon his having a specific and finite identity. This is an aberration; as his beingness increases his individuality increases, and he quickly rises above the level of necessity for identity for he is himself self-sufficient with his own identity.

        The first question a preclear undergoing theta clearing asks himself is quite often: “How will I establish my identity if I have no body?” There are many remedies for this. The worst method of having an identity is having a body. As his individuality increases and his beingness expands — these two being almost synonymous — he is less and less concerned with this problem; that he is concerned with the problem tells the auditor where he is on the tone-scale . . .

        . . . so speaketh Mainkind’s Greatest Friend.

        (As and aside, that first paragraph is kinda interesting when one considers just how tightly some people cling to the label “Scientologist” after escaping the cult.)

        Another aspect to bear in mind on Scientology’s disregard for the human body is that ubiquitous unofficial axiom “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of Dynamics”. This statement is bizarre when one considers that, assuming there is the slightest validity to “the dynamics”, each dynamic, starting with the second, is dependent for its survival on the one immediately below it. The first dynamic is the self operating in MEST world via the body. Providing that is surviving well, there develops an ability to put the second dynamic in place and, the healthier the second dynamic the more likely to survive is the third . . . and so on. That’s just logical, right? Well, in practise, Scientology demands that if a particular action will provide the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics, it is always the first – and pivotal – dynamic, the body, and then the second – family – which are sacrificed.

        Remember also that, as masters of the universe, Scientologists are “not their bodies”, Far from it. They are mighty spiritual beings dealing not with just one life time, but with millions and millions of life times stretching across the entirety of eternity. A billion year contract – yeah, sure, where do I sign?. This sense of such vast scale, most often implanted by auditors leading people down the garden path whole-track often results in an abnormally cavalier attitude about the physical matters of personal health and death.

        Its been a while now since I first saw the video where David Miscavige and the rest of his capos announce the death of L Ron Hubbard to a hall full of Scientologists. Do you know what they did upon receiving the news that L Ron Hubbard had dropped his body? They rose as one to their feet in a prolonged celebratory ovation of cheering and clapping. Quite, quite bizarre.

        • Cepuscule, I recommend this, for a more three dimensional understanding:

          Also the concept of existentialist philosophy in general, and the thought of Ken Wilbur, as in “The Intergral Vision” or “A Brief History of Everything”.. Not all of existence can be understood by “objectivizing” everything. The objective is just the sound of one hand clapping. The other hand is the subjective side of things.

          • Subjectivity comes from having a viewpoint. When there is no viewpoint there is no subjectivity.

            In mindfulness, ultimately, there is no viewpoint and no subjectivity or objectivity. There is simply seeing things as they are.

            • Vin, yes, but that is kinda like saying “When there is no hand there is no grasping”. Deep?

              • I would say that the larger is the context in which one observes the lesser is the subjectivity.

                Hence when one observes in the context of the universe, as do the scientists, the observation is more objective.

                It is like observing in the context of the cosmos rather than in the context of earth.

                It is like observing in the context of a universe having both spiritual and physical characteristics, than in the context of just the spiritual universe or the physical universe.

          • Cepuscule, I recommend this, for a more three dimensional understanding . . .

            Thank you, although your suggestion seems to have very little to do with what is being discussed here. Nikolai Berdyaev was an ardent Christian and his philosophical musings stand in direct opposition to what flimsy fragments of a philosophy the Lucifer-infused L Ron Hubbard was able to cobble together.

            I do understand that, rather than the body of his work, you were referring specifically to Berdyaev’s subjective/objective premise. I am not surprised to see it being raised because that subjective vs objective question is something of a constant theme in Scientology discussions when efforts are being made to defend the subject. The most common use of it that I have seen is in an effort to exclude anyone who has not personally undergone some form of Scientology processing. The idea being promoted is that without having experienced Scientology processing, a person is wholly unqualified to discuss it. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, if such logic were to be valid, then there would be no male obstetricians. A more prosaic view highlights the abundantly apparent truth that your average wog understands more about Scientology then any Scientologist. Which is kinda ironic; for all L Ron Hubbards millions of words, the sum total of wog understanding of Scientology can be expressed in just one word: AVOID.

            In this specific raising of the subjective vs objective question, it would appear that the defense of Scientology is being shifted into the philosophical, rather than scientific, context. That’s quite understandable because anyone who believes that L Ron Hubbard had anything useful to say about “the modern science of mental health” has an elephantine “MU” on the second and third words in that description. Science also requires that anything it states as fact can be objectively measured, something Scientology has never been able to do. Instead, it perpetually seeks to confuse anecdotal “success stories” with independently verifiable data. L Ron Hubbard also proved a third context for the defense of his fraud by drawing the cloak of religion over his operation. I’ve already addressed that aspect further down-thread so won’t labour the point here except to point out how tricksy it is to pin Scientologists and their enablers down. After all, depending on the argument being made, Scientology is an “applied philosophy”, and/or an “exact science” and/or a “religion”, Shimmer Wax, comes to mind.

            So, here I am, after presenting a number of objective facts, being encouraged to read-up on Berdyaev’s subjective/objective premise in order to develop a “three dimensional understanding”. But, why would I want to limit my understanding of Scientology to just three dimensions and, even if I did, a three dimensional understanding of what, exactly? The lethality of Scientology, the fundamental flaws of L Ron Hubbard’s “eight dynamics” which were being addressed in that exchange, or Scientology itself and, if so, what use is the subjective/objective question in dealing with either or both of those? None, as far as I can see. I understand that for people locked into the Scientology prison of belief their subjective experiences trump objective reality every time. The very nature of Scientology processing starting with the entry level TRs was carefully designed by L Ron Hubbard to ensure that very thing in order to encourage innocents to “clear”” their “banks” as quickly as possible. In Scientology’s case,

            Oddly enough, Berdyaev would agree with me and point to his concept of “Original Sin” whereby anthropocentrism and the confining of one’s thoughts to oneself leads to to self-imprisonment. L Ron Hubbard knew that too which is why Scientology is so solipsistic. I further agree with Berdyaev that the gaining of knowledge must rely in many respects on the seeker of knowledge making what is known a deep part of their being. Newton, for example, didn’t discover gravity at the moment when, as myth has it, an apple fell on his head. Rather, Newton spent years and years learning up on extant – and objectively verifiable – knowledge, imbuing his very soul with what was objectively true so, when the apple dropped, it provided the lens through which the wider picture could be perceived. Inspiration, intuition, creativity, magic – call it what you will – but it didn’t happen with out a long and difficult runway cluttered up with all manner of subjective permutations.

            Where Berdyaev and I part ways is in his assertion that all knowledge is subjective when it originates. That’s like saying gravity didn’t exist until Newton discovered it and, at the moment when he did, gravity was his alone. That’s just silly. Its like saying “what’s true for you is what you have observed to be true”. It’s the doorway into the prison of belief where inhabitants are held captive in chains forged in the smelter of their own subjectivity. And that, my friend, is the labyrinth of the mind where time really is kept by the clapping of one hand. It is the obnosing of objective reality which sets us free and into the world where time is measured by three, or more, hands.

        • Crepuscule, what’s the problem with this statement you disagree with in 8-8008:

          “The worst method of having an identity is having a body.”

          Is it that you consider there are even worse methods of having an identity? Or do you consider it valid to have the body be your identity? Or… ?

          I didn’t get what the objection was exactly.

          • Marildi: “Crepuscule, what’s the problem with this statement you disagree with in 8-8008: “The worst method of having an identity is having a body.””

            That is not the worst method. The worst method is what Hubbard actually used. It may be expressed as follows:

            “The worst method of having an identity is fixing attention on self.”

            Hubbard did that by promising OT abilities.

            • If by “self” you mean “thetan/soul”, Hubbard wasn’t the only one by far who considered the “self” as central to truth. Here’s a woman named Dolores Cannon, who came up with basically the same fundamentals as Hubbard – and she did so through extensive, years-long experience in working with others.

    • The really new news in Hubbard’s history are Marty’s book, chapter 24 “Meanwhile Back at the Ranch”, and in Lawrence Wright’s “Going Clear…” final 3 pages.

      Both books are just hugely unappreciated new history that still hasn’t been caught on by media yet.

      I’d hoped the final thoughts of Hubbard as relayed by Sarge Steven Pfauth would get more attention.

      There’s time that they still are absorbed and fit into Hubbard’s full story!

      • I agree Chuck. The final years to man’s only hope, the man who sold total freedom, created OT 3 and NOTs, the man who demonized psyches and electro shock therapy was howling at BTs, and wanting to be electrocuted.

        It seems he could not wait for karma to catch up with him. He was wanting to do it to himself.

        His state of mind at the end was not the result of being an”old man.”

        His depraved life and the lies and deception, the violence cause against critics brought him into his own self styled darkness.

        • And dare I say, the result of paying no homage to any spiritual reality, no benevolent transcendence, whereby comes the do’s and don’ts, Dharma, from those sages that have merged into that Great Light of Spirit and seen their very self in all selves.

          It is this state where it becomes impossible to harm others as they are our own very self. Our brothers and sisters in this great life. The very source of love itself is our unity with all life.

          Tat Twam Asi-Thou Art That

    • I watched a couple of videos that feature you, Mr. Rathbun, e.g. Truth Rundown, media interviews and depositions.

      This said, during those few past years, you appeared more and more bitter and unhappy impression.

      In the beginning you were surrounded by hundreds of Independents but most left you for reasons that are just whispered.

      Was dropping Scientology such a good idea? You seemed a lot happier when you still were applying some of it.

    • They still all love each other. Tom gets kissed by gal friends.

      Nicole revealed to Australian Women’s Weekly that she was proud of her and Tom’s kids Bella and Connor. “I am proud of the people that they have become,” she said. “They are generous, kind and hard-working, and these are traits that I love to see in my children.”

      John Travolta returns to the Oscars as presenter.

      Nobody really believes HBO documentary.

  2. Roger From Switzerland Thought

    Got no words to counter your points….as it’s true what you say..I never looked at i this way…Ok

  3. you surely have misunderstoods about tech! When tech is correctly applied, like I do, people are winning, and having co-audited NOTs, i know with certainty that what Ron found is correct!

    • One has to be careful about what it means to be winning in Scientology.

      A person who is happily hypnotized into a wonderland feels that he is winning.

      In my opinion, a winning state would consist of living closer to reality than to some wonderland. The “wonderland” effect is produced by drugs also. Hubbard lived in the wonderland of drugs but he wanted to transition to the wonderland of self-hypnotism.

      • Winning means that the heavy bulge in your wallet is getting lighter.

      • While Lron may have been on drugs during his Naval Hospital stay in 45, he was mostly out of the ‘psych drugs’ by 1950. His instructions to auditors made it plain that light and heavy hypnotism were the real products of ‘auditing’.

        • He was certainly chock full of ‘psych’ drugs (vistaril, notably), when he died in his tatty trailer in the80s, hallucinating ad screaming about stuff crawling on him, but thanks for playing!

          • He had already had several strokes by the time he died.

            • But that’s Unpossible once you’re Clear!

              And it has nothing to do with his Vistaril, and paying someone to make an emeter that would get rid of all his BTs (in other words, kill himself by electroshock) etc. Besides, he denied even epileptics their treatments…

              Hubbard’s ‘method’ leads to both houses- that of the mad and the poor, and the fact is that the world would have been, and still would be,a better place had he tried out his electro-shock machine before he write ‘Dianetics’ (or for that matter, before he was shelling Mexico, masturbating in Satanic Rituals and sleeping with this friends’ wives.

    • Effects of good tech can be easily measured by the rationality and reality of the person. “Good feelings” alone are not sufficient. You can observe plenty of good feelings felt by a person on drugs or on crazed sex binge.

      • Dianetics was originally based on valid therapies – early Freudian regression therapy and Korzybski’s General Semantics. However, when mind control is surreptitiously entered in along with the valid therapeutic ideas it is especially insidious because both mind control and valid therapy involve an emotional shift. It can be hard while undergoing the experience to tell the one from the other, but one is to heal for the person’s benefit, the other is to dominate for the benefit of the controller (first Hubbard, then Miscavige). Real therapist don’t try to use “transference” to exploit, CofS was built on it.

        • The valid part of Dianetic therapy was “looking at the the trauma for what it was, without filters.” The purest form of Dianetics appeared in 1969 as R3R. It was my first experience with auditing. It was quite successful but not without some difficulty.

          The earliest form of Dianetics in early 1950 was not that clean. It was corrupted by “continual auditor speculation” to guess at the engram and then run it as soon as one hit upon it. Read the auditing demos of that period from R&D volumes. Hubbard is continually speculating on what the engram was, and then questioning the pc based on his speculation.

          This approach could only get the low hanging fruits, and beyond that it did not work because “occlusion” set in. The occlusion built up because Hubbard was not allowing the mind to “un-stack” itself. When there was nothing stacked up the engram simply appeared all by itself and could be run out. But Hubbard was always in extreme rush and did not have patrience for mind to unstack itself. The simplistic idea of chains had only limited value. The data in the mind is indexed in so many complex ways, that it is best to let the mind unstack itself in the order determined by it. That was the idea underlying the ‘file clerk” but Hubbard used the ‘file clerk” along with his continual speculations.

          Luckily, in my first auditing in 1969, the auditor let my “file clerk” have a free hand after instructing me to maintain TR0 during the sessions. Once I got the hang of it, many deep engrams appeared and were run out one after another during the latter period of 25 hours. What happened, surprised me a great deal, and there was immediate and perceptible benefit from it.

          So, undue influence in auditing was there even in the early 1950s due to Hubbard’s ineptitude. It somehow worked intermittently when right factors happen to came together.

          Mind-control came in with a flawed Theta-MEST theory that Hubbard treated like a “fourteen pound diamond.” He enforced that theory in all different ways possible. That gave him a way to make a person feel better by boosting his thetanic ego.

    • I think the post is addressing BELIEFS.

      be·lief acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
      “his belief in the value of hard work”
      something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
      opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion a religious conviction.
      “Christian beliefs”
      synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More

      2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

      I do not think believing is the same as knowing.

      : to have (information of some kind) in your mind

      : to understand (something) : to have a clear and complete idea of (something)

      : to have learned (something, as a skill or a language)

      a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern
      b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
      2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
      b : to have a practical understanding of

      What people believe and what they know, there can be a very wide space in between.

      I think it makes sense that Marty would know what the beliefs are.

      I would say myself, the culture that bubbled up around the conversations in that group, made #7 a reality. It was not that way when I first got involved. It has not been my experience. On the other hand, it is my personal view that I have been exploring magic. And this has been a very offensive idea to most people. That is not a personal belief for me. It is a personal understanding. I can see how it can be defined as pop psychology too. “Pop” in the meaning that it “challenges tradition”. That is what pop means in this context.


      the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.
      synonyms: study of the mind, science of the mind
      “a degree in psychology”
      the mental characteristics or attitude of a person or group.
      plural noun: psychologies
      “the psychology of Americans in the 1920s”
      synonyms: mindset, mind, mental processes, thought processes, way of thinking, cast of mind, mentality, persona, psyche, (mental) attitude(s), makeup, character; informalwhat makes someone tick
      “the psychology of the motorist”
      the mental and emotional factors governing a situation or activity.
      “the psychology of interpersonal relationships”

      According to these definitions, it is pop psychology also if one would not see it as magic.

      New Definition: Hypnosis

      Hypnosis typically involves an introduction to the procedure during which the subject is told that suggestions for imaginative experiences will be presented. The hypnotic induction is an extended initial suggestion for using one’s imagination, and may contain further elaborations of the introduction. A hypnotic procedure is used to encourage and evaluate responses to suggestions. When using hypnosis, one person (the subject) is guided by another (the hypnotist) to respond to suggestions for changes in subjective experience, alterations in perception,[19][20] sensation,[21] emotion, thought or behavior.

      “Move to the beginning of the incident…” This is a command. There are auditing COMMANDS. You are commanding the P.C. in the session.

      verb (used with object)
      to direct with specific authority or prerogative; order:
      The captain commanded his men to attack.
      to require authoritatively; demand:
      She commanded silence.
      to have or exercise authority or control over; be master of; have at one’s bidding or disposal:
      The Pharaoh commanded 10,000 slaves.
      to deserve and receive (respect, sympathy, attention, etc.):
      He commands much respect for his attitude.
      to dominate by reason of location; overlook:
      The hill commands the sea.
      to have authority over and responsibility for (a military or naval unit or installation); be in charge of.

      The auditor gives COMMANDS the P.C. follows. That would not be possible with out a certain degree of surrender.

      Unless you have the viewpoint that you are having a CONVERSATION. In which case you might say, “No, I don’t want to.” Or YOU could change the conversation at any time and direct it to where you would like the conversation to be.

      If you are following commands, you are being other determined. I can see how this is a form of hypnotism. And there has been much praise for hypnotic therapy. I benefited from it myself on Dianetics.

      You go out in the world and you see people following commands all over the place.

      “Sign on the dotted line” “Move to the front of the line” “Step out of your car please and put your hands behind your back.” “File your taxes.” “Drive at the speed limit.” “Take a seat.” “Take a number”. “Eat your breakfast” “Put on your seat belt” “Pay the rent on the first” “Repeat the auditing command” etc etc.

      When you are following orders or commands, you are in a state of hypnosis.

      When using hypnosis, one person (the subject) is guided by another (the hypnotist) .

      I am not put off about it. Whether people are exploring Scientology or not, they are out there following commands from other people.

      I think the point is, for me, is being aware of it. It’s a condition.

      • And commanding, is about forces. Conditions and forces.

        Crowley: “Magick is the SCIENCE of understanding oneself and one’s conditions. It is the Art of applying that understanding in action.”

        Hubbard must have thought conditions were pretty bad to create his own para military. To bring soldiers into the mix. I do not think these kinds of forces and commanders are wanted and needed in the Scientology community at large. The purpose of a soldier is to bypass.

        Hubbard’s legacy has been destroyed by his own soldiers.

        “…never violate the second law of magic, “Do not be hoist by your own petard.” “Do not be an effect to your own cause.”

        He has been totally bypassed.

        Dealing in the MEST (Matter, Energy, Space, Time) universe you can shilly-shally around and monkey around a little bit if you want to, shift possessions around — don’t take them very seriously.

        – L Ron Hubbard, 7 November 1952

        The past twenty years you have commander Miscavige stating that the people can not be cleared or audited or helped with out ships and buildings. And they have made a certain number of people believe it.

        That ethnic cleansing must occur so people can be enlightened.

        The soldiers have flipped the subject around 180 degrees. The soldiers deal in force.

        When you have people that are suggestible, and dependent, and their days are spent following commands, all the while you remove their CHOICES or ability or freedom to choose, you are dealing in slavery and hypnotism. Those soldiers can not CHOOSE what to eat, where to sleep,when they can walk, where they can walk, what time they eat, what time they sleep,what to wear, who they can love,who they can marry or even who they talk to or live with. And if they make a choice for them self, they are flattened with more force.

        That is complete hypnotism.

        • Oracle says,”Hubbard’s legacy has been destroyed by his own soldiers.”

          Hubbard’s legacy was and is destroyed by the instruction to be violent against critics. And the instruction to be violent is in writing.

          Written by him.

          And studied, word cleared, demoed and check out for proficiency by his soldiers.

          Hubbard destroyed his own legacy by his own immoral narcissistic evil behavior. His unwitting naive minions were his students who learned how to be soldiers which committed acts in his name, which created his legacy.

          Hubbard is cause, source and author of his life. His legacy is the legacy of selfish power hungry tyrants. Ron was no victim. He was well aware of what he was doing.

          Just google “Altitude Instruction, L Ron Hubbard.”

          • Hey, I have always said Hubbard was street wise. Look at the sec checks he wrote. He was a warlock. I never implied he was a victim. I believe he beat his wives, swindled people, conned people, the whole nine years. It doesn’t upset me because I never put him on a pedestal. Who thought he was a “holy man”?
            I never expected anything more.

            • What is a Warlock in your opinion? And why is a warlock a worthy teacher of life?

              • synonyms: sorcerer, wizard, magus, magician, enchanter,magus.

                I would have any idea why a warlock is a worthy teacher of life. I have never said anything like that. Such a person could a good command of magic. Teaching what one knows about it is not a good idea. But I feel I learned some things about magic from Hubbard.

                • What sort of things about magic? And what is magic from your view?

                  And please understand, I am only asking questions. They are not attacks. Just questions 😉

            • As a man, I didn’t put him on a pedestal. As a magician, he was a magus opus. He broke a lot of spells. He cast a lot of spells too. I don’t see eye to eye on some of the things he had to say about magic and magicians. But I did figure out the first law of magic myself. And,it’s interesting because the first law magic means you can not share it. What the first law is. The first law of magic is, “Never tell”. If you hold something back from the other person, you put them into “not know” when you know. I think Hubbard’s obsession with with holds stems from this. He was obsessed in knowing that NOTHING was being with held from him.

              Contrary to his notions, with holds are NOT always preceded by overts.

              Do you share your hand at the poker table? If you did,there wouldn’t be a game.

              Hubbard does give it up that inability to with hold can be a weakening point.

              What makes magic potent is purpose. You only become entangled with anti magic when your own purposes align with it.

              • Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.

              • But Hubbard empowered the Church with with holds. He taught to hold back. The “confidential materials”. Not talking about your case or sessions to anyone but your auditor. Not talking about your track. Keeping confidential records. Sharing secrets. The entire time getting people to give up any with holds, giving them more and more relative to the Church.

                David Miscavige’s hat was to safeguard the secrets. He failed. And the more his secrets fall out onto the street, the less power he has.

      • If you don’t think Scientologists are highly suggestible people, just look at how Commander David Miscavige labels beggars “registrars” and people believe they are. They are not registering anybody for anything. The ones that are beggars. They are begging. They do not call themselves beggars, they call themselves registrars, and they do not register anyone for anything. And nobody is allowed to point it out or speak of it. Even if they could notice it.

        • There is no “beggars” full hat or check sheet or post, because Hubbard did not mock up beggars. He mocked up soldiers, David altered them into beggars.

          There is not one policy letter or reference by Hubbard on “Golden Age of tech”. Not one.

          These fanatics and “loyalists”, have been hypnotized. They follow commands and it doesn’t matter much who is giving them.

        • From a master hypnotist:

          “People keep saying, ‘How’d you get power?’ ” Miscavige said. “Nobody gives you power. I’ll tell you what power is. Power in my estimation is if people will listen to you. That’s it.”

        • Hence, you have a prison of belief.

        • The purpose of a soldier is to bypass. The purpose of an auditor is to bypass also. You get the same purpose with two different identities, and people can have some “mental issues” with that. It can be very easy to flip an auditor into a soldier.

          • But a soldier into a beggar? Sure,you bypass the guy and spend his money for him.

            • Why do you think the Church is so terrified of reporters? They build a following and people ASSUME they are relaying facts. Once they add innuendo, half truths, untruths,part truths, attitudes, words that excite, labels, start witch hunts, they have a hypnotized following. Media is hypnotic. As well as enlightening. This is why the Church is obsessed with controlling everything written about it, and publishes enough false information its self to qualify as mass marketing fraud.

          • The true suppressive in today’s Scientology, is the person who refuses to be bypassed / hypnotized.

            And those are the people that have been helped by Scientology. Whether they know it or not.

            • The extraordinary is always found in the ordinary and simple ways of everyday people. Even with Scientology and it’s ceremonies. The ordinary and simple people, have given it whatever magic it has had. Be they suggestible or not. Anyone that has benefited from Scientology, has done so because of WHO THEY ARE. Not because of who L. Hubbard was. And I have no purpose to discount people’s gains, or losses. But to teach people that they are what they are, because of what Hubbard was, is hypnotism in it’s self.

      • The domination of one will over another.

        • Exactly. A lot of people do not want to be cause. And they do not want others to be cause. In fact, it is even considered evil or satanic. You have to have a purpose to “be obedient” before you can be hypnotized. O.K.? The therapy of Dianetics and Scientology can bring a person out of hypnotic state, but then you have culture enforcing total obedience and sec checking everyone to death out of FEAR of THEM! Anyway, we are not the only people to be having these kinds of conversations. The church of Scientology is not the first institution to claim the only way to salvation. And people do not have to explore Scientology to wake the f^*k up and think for themselves. personally have no urge to destroy Hubbard’s books or thoughts and I am not threatened by them. I also realize these ideas are not born from me and they are not mine. Some align with mine,and some have caused me to see things I did not see before, just like when I read any book by another human being. People do generally get very afraid of others who are willing to think for themselves, not just in the culture Scientology has become.

        • It is far more rational to look at “I” as a process with a structure.


      • The whole perception about HYPNOSIS changes, when one perceives SELF to be just a structure, and SELF-DETERMINISM to just be a mode of that structure. It is a fun thing to explore. One then realizes the real meaning of interiorization into “I”.


    • Rogers100, you have every right to practice whatever method of self-betterment you choose to. And others have a right to say that you are practicing a form of pop-psychology and hypnotism.

      But if you ARE practicing a form of pop-psychology and hypnotism, then OF COURSE you would be convinced of your own rightness.

      So round and round we go.

      • You seem either offended that Rogers100 experienced wins through scientology tech, or envious.

      • Well, what’s wrong with pop psychology and hypnotism? Every time you sit down in theater to watch a movie you are indulging in hypnotism.

        I can see the rightness in that. I can get hypnotized by a good book.

        Marty didn’t imply pop psychology was a bad thing,neither hypnotism. I didn’t take it a negative way. No need for me to get suddenly stuffy, after dabbling in the occult for decades. Hell, bring out the Ouija board!

        Hypnotism, pop psychology, cults, magic, secret societies, religions, rituals, ceremony, spirits, parallel universes, magic spells, the super natural… we have most of us been knee deep in it. So, it can get a little murky in places. So what?

        • It doesn’t actually get funky until you realize there is a para military organization on top of this wanting to control your conversations with other spirits. I think the work Hubbard did up through OT2 was pretty simple and straight forward. There is something to having lingering spiritual connections. For sure. I think a person should be turned loose to work these things out for them self. It’s hard promise to someone that you can hold their hand all the way into the supernatural. That they can be in command with those forces and conditions. Especially with a paramilitary group of soldiers on top of you in the environment. These are forces and condition in themselves that are not easy to manage. If you took the Sea Org out of the picture, and the ethics officers, Scientology wouldn’t really be a strange thing to explore. Most grown ups don’t want baby sitters and cops crawling all over them while they are straddled in parallel universes. The whole Scientology universe has a cross purpose/identity conflict/out of valence issue. Hubbard changed the purpose,from clearing the planet to getting ethics in on the planet. When he changed the purpose the whole dynamic shifted from spiritual to political. To me, it’s the Sea Organization that makes it all strange and weird. Not the Hubbard writings. Then Miscavige turning it into a religion?
          That kicked in a whole new chapter of case and fanatics. This is why it feels creepy. It’s multivalent. It’s not clear anymore as a group. It’s Identity. Cross purposes. The soldiers got restless. They waited and waited and waited for the enemy to attack. Nobody paid any attention to them. For morale they began to stalk the perceived enemies. “Kill the psychs” blah blah. Then they had some”squirrels” to go after from time to time. The last ten years have been the glory of the Sea Org. Battle after battle. No fight? They turned on each other. Now they are famous mostly for domestic terrorism and domestic abuse. Piracy looting and pillaging.
          The closet hippies got left behind in the dust and put back on objectives to keep them busy while the wars are going on. They even have a “war chest”. The purpose is domination, not liberation. You see,that changing of purpose just flipped the whole thing around 180 degrees. And yes, Hubbard did that. The place has cleared out because most people seeking to grow spiritually, do not want to be dominated and neither do they want to dominate others. They want a hippie kind of harmony. ARC, understanding, a world of peace, pleasure, calm, laughter, love, education, joy,musicality. The aesthetics of the supernatural. Not soldiers stomping all over dead bodies. You can not dominate and liberate at the same time. Hubbard locked the whole activity into a GPM. He sabotaged it. And he did it on purpose. This is what I find interesting.

          • If you read KSW and a lot of other things he wrote around that time and after, it’s pretty clear he did not have a lot of arc for his peers. I think he probably got sick of the hippies and dependents. The needy. Don’t think he had any close friends. I think he wanted to help up to a point. Then he got sick of the Scientologists himself. He pawned them off onto David Miscavige. Who has also abused them and also seems to hate them.

            • David calls the Scientologists the blind leading the blind. Refers to Hubbard an overt product maker. David has the OTs back on objectives. Both of these men seemed fed up with the Scientologists.

              • Pehaps better than leading them down the upper OT E.O.C route.

                • Marty, I’m curious how many people you know of or heard of who had the idea that the “OT E.O.C. route” was the route to be taken? Or even how many know about such a route?

                  • Mark C. Rathbun

                    Everyone who still had/has their faculties to listen and think intact:

                    • That was a fantastic dog and pony show!

                    • Thanks, Marty, for the opportunity to listen to this video.

                      In the first few minutes of the video, there’s already a contradiction. It’s said that Hubbard dropped the body to continue his OT research. Not long after, it’s said that Hubbard had completed all the upper level research he’d set out to complete!

                      Of course, we know now that not even OT 8 was complete; and there is no OT 9 and 10 or any other level above that.

                      Of course, I couldn’t listen to much of the video it because it is such a lot of baloney as to be offensive. I did notice the DM had the good grace to blink when he told such an outrages lie.

                      Bullshit baffles brains.

                  • Marildi, a hypnotized person is not aware that he or she is hypnotized.

                    • I don’t think this is necessarily true.

                    • Let me put it slightly differently. I hypnotized person is not aware of what he is hypnotized about.

                    • Yes, this is closert o the way it is. A person who has been hypnotized and implanted rationalizes his “belief” or irrational actions. Hubbard actually explained this quite well, when he talked about a person’s apparently hardwired sense that his computing ability is perfect, therefore he does not make mistakes in computation.

                    • The only way hypnotization can be detected by a hypnotized person is by becoming aware of inconsistencies. These inconsistencies are like little flags sticking out that tell one that something is not right.

                      That awareness of inconsistencies is what results in a person leaving the Church. The awareness of inconsistencies is just the starting point of handling one’s hypnotization. There is a long way to go still.

                • We did nothing wrong and everything right. We explored. I am not a leader or a follower. There are places where I still belong., Because I can care about the people in front of me. I am a fool. And my foolish identity transcends every universe. I’m a fool and not complaining.

            • It’s all very funny when I think of it like that. Very funny.

          • What I find interesting is that the Americans are more accepting of all this bullshit of Scientology and Sea Organization than the Europeans.

            Scientologists hace hacked the American Legal system.

      • The “denial” with Scientologists is pretty strong. You get your average guy who is going to stick it out. This can be for different reasons. Mine was curiosity. But in comes the person and struggles for 15 years at an expense of 300K to go home and talk to spirits in his living room. (Solonots)

        In the house next door you have a group of “wogs” with a Ouija Board and they are just doing it. You find people talking to angels,Gods, all sorts of communication going back between people and spirits. And it is a non issue and they have no C/S. I was talking to spirits and animals when I was very young. I just got desperate for company and extended myself. I don’t know why Scientologists think it is so dangerous or unusual, and why they remain secretive about it. They actually pretend that they are not doing it. And if you “let it out of bag” you have endangered everyone’s security. It’s like,they are embarrassed about the “tech”.

        You go to Japan, those people for the most part feel their ancestors in their homes and honor them, even if they have been dead for hundreds of years.

        Why would anyone that has explored Scientology be offended to admit pop psychology or hypnotism? There is an entire section in SOS called “hypnotic level”. Hubbard pointed it out to people. Scientologists I have noticed, generally have a problem admitting what they are doing and thinking. And if they get busted, or get board, they say they were “brainwashed”. They do not want to admit they were hypnotized, they do not want to admit they took a walk on the wild side and dabbled in the occult. Closet Hippies.

    • “…he was mostly out of the ‘psych drugs’ by 1950.”

      Zemoo, he never stopped taking drugs. He had every colour and shape and he was audited over drugs. L. Ron was drugged up when he conjured up OT 3!

      He was a boozer, too.

      Sorry to burst your bubble.

    • Rogers, Ron concocted a form of dream therapy. What is running and reading on the meter are concepts. Concepts that are archetypes which trigger associations in the subconscious, which is real.

      If you spent years and years paying, hoping for and believing in OT 3, if you arrived there and Ron told you that a gigantic cauliflower once ate the universe and shit out the earth and all it’s inhabitance, and that is the cause of suffering, you would find it reading on the meter.

      If he told you that the source of all pain and suffering came from this, your subconscious mind would bring up real concepts and experiences of pain: real emotional and mental pain.

      The very act of confronting subconscious pain can resolve that pain.

      The pain is real, the cauliflower is not. The cauliflower is the restimulating symbol of that pain. Ron’s Sci Fi Symbols of his case.

      In dream therapy you can run real pain. But after it’s resolution you know it was a dream you were mocking up. You know you created it.

      But in Ron’s dream therapy you are left with a twisted cosmology with the source of your suffering being an external make believe cause: the whole implant OT3 thing.

      You are then left with a non duplication of reality: A Scientologist

      • Many Indys, ex-Scientolists cannot confron the truth of it.

        I suppose it’s understandable perhaps in that that they’re still under hypnosis, still implanted. Another reason is often the fear of discarding a stable datum that’s been part of a lot of one’s life for so long.

        Problem is that the will out, either in the now or in the future. I’d rather have it now.

        David Miscavige is not the Why. It’s so much better for everyone to look at this than not. Look, don’t listen. Don’t listen to the blustering idiot. Look past him.

        • “Problem is that the will out, either in the now or in the future. I’d rather have it now.”
          Should have been: “Problem is that the truth will out, either in the now or in the future. I’d rather have it now.”

  4. ‘Scientology ‘technology’ consists of a sophisticated mix of pop psychology and hypnotism’

    This one sounds like a core belief of Marty Rathbun

    • I suggest you learn some new words and revisit the conversation.

      • I suggest you make more sense

        • Not impossible, even against the backdrop of your fixed ideas and protest reads.

          • And ser facs.

          • He’s simply saying that it’s not a belief of scientologists themselves that scientology is pop psychology and hypnotism, and that this is Marty’s own assessment of it.

            • Scientologists do not describe it as magic either, even though Hubbard said it was over and over and over.

              That doesn’t mean it isn’t.

            • Not sure why Marty’s assessment of what it is, considering his in depth exploratory, should not be a valid one either.

              The mere fact that it is taboo to describe it in your own words is pretty telling.

              party line – definition of party line
              One or more of the policies or principles of a political party to which loyal members are expected to adhere.

              • Agreed. but neither aotc or myself said anything about whether Marty’s assessment was valid or not – just that it was his own and not the belief of scientologists as regards point #7.

                • No one ever asks them what they believe. About what it is. They are told what to believe.

                  • I differentiate the CoS from core scientology.

                    It’s interesting that LRH pointed out that a workable tech which frees people could be used for evil – simply because it IS workable, due to being based on valid principles. By the same token, what is now being used as an evil tech that imprisons people can still be used to free them. This is the principle those in the independent field are operating on, and by many reports people really are achieving more freedom.

                    • I agree the CofS is it’s own entity. Some people have even personified Scientology as if it were some large being.”Scientology believes…” “Scientology thinks..” “Scientology kills….” etc etc.

                      It is like saying “mathematics destroys moral..” “mathematics kills students..” “Math can’t be good, look at that mathematician”.

                      I have never myself viewed the green volumes as Scientology. They are all called ORGANIZATIONAL policy letters. Not, CHURCH policy letters. They are simple policies like any business would have. McDonald’s, Burger King, IHOP, you should see the policies and manuals that come with opening up one of those franchises.

                      I have no issues with Scientologists, Freezoners, Independents. I do not have ethnic cleansing goals. I do not agree they should be harmed attacked and suppressed bullied and fair gamed. I am not a threat to them and I don’t think they have a lot of threats against them. They do not have the enemies they imagine they have. The enemies they do have are dedicated fully to attacking them in the open.

                      I do have issues with people using the umbrella of “religion” to violate the ten commandments, the golden rule. I do have problems with witch hunts and bullying. I do have problems with a police force and terrorist organization operating under the umbrella of religion. And I think that is what the Sea Organization has become and perhaps, has always been.

                      Scientologists would be better off with out this appendage. The Sea Organization has burdened every Scientologist world wide. It is a suppressor group. It’s purpose is a police purpose. I do not think reform is possible as it has become a culture. I do not think it is a good idea at all. It is a taxing organization. The materials are free to everyone now.

                      No, I do not need to attack Scientologists every where or the subject matter of Hubbard’s research and writings because of one terrorist organization.

                      Time and time again the Sea Organization has proved themselves a threat to Scientologists and Scientology groups. Everything they touch turns to sand.

                    • “No, I do not need to attack Scientologists everywhere or the subject matter of Hubbard’s research and writings because of one terrorist organization.”

                      TO, that’s a large viewpoint, succinctly stated.

                    • “The psychs” didn’t shut down the mission network. It was David Miscavige.

                      “The psychs” didn’t cancel the certificates of every auditor on the planet, it was David Miscavige.

                      “The psychs” didn’t institute”the hole” ethics technology, it was David Miscavige.

                      “The psychs” didn’t bring law suits into and upon the Church.It was David Miscavige.

                      “The psychs” didn’t insist on ethnic cleansing of Scientologists through abortion and declares. It was David Miscavige.

                      Their enemy in the Scientology group is David Miscavige. And the staff that bully harm attack and suppress their fellow man. That is their big enemy. It is within. It isn’t out here and it isn’t Marty.

                      It is a high crime to have an ARCXen field. Look at what the Sea Organization has done!

                      This IS the Sea Organization doing it’s thing:

                      I ask you, who the hell on the planet wants and needs this?

                    • Anyway, the comm ev of David Miscavige has become a public affair, and the U.S.Government has been called in to mediate in the various law suits. David Miscavige has already been bypassed. It’s going to snowball from here.

                      My own purposes at mediation in all of this conflict, have been realized. Justice. David Miscavige is swimming in justice arenas.

                      As far as exploring the supernatural, it can not be escaped. At the end of everyone’s life, they will have the opportunity to explore the supernatural on their own terms. If they don’t do while they are alive, they will do it when they are dead. Killing off ideas about the supernatural,doesn’t delete the future for anyone. My own exploration of Scientology andall of supernatural, has not been about my past, or even today. It has been about where I will standing a thousand years from now.

                    • Joe Pendleton

                      Marildi, I agree with you on differentiating the CoS from core Scientology, if what you mean by core Scientology is the Axioms, Tone Scale, much of the work in the basic books and most of auditing procedures and processes on the lower levels. I personalIy do not view those things as pop psychology or hypnotism. In 35 years as an audiror, CS and Course Supe, I participated in countless wins and cognitions on all four flows. And I think I have kept my gains after being out for almost 9 years now. I still apply my wins and cogs in every day life.

                      At the same time that LRH was developing/discovering what I very much value in the above, he was also a megolomaniac who was very slowly but surely going insane (by his own definitions) and establishing a Soviet syle fascistic organization bent on control of his parishioners’ minds, behavoir and their money. Some of LRH policy is wonderful, much of the Org Series for example and some of his early basic policies. But the vast majority of it is his blueprint, procedures, and insane ideas which form the basis of the above mentioned Soviet style fascist organization. There’s an amount of evil intention in it that is not pretty. But to even stay IN Scientology, one had to agree that even the crazy things Ron said were “the truth.” I still continue to have to this day (last night) “3D nightmares” about Scientology.

                      If independant groups like the Dror people in Israel can audit and train people to more happiness, without using the 80% or so of LRH policiy that stinks, lies and hurts people, I say great for them. Personally at 64, I no longer have any interest in or desire for any further Scientology training or processing. I have moved on to other studies and activities which speak to me more now.

                    • Thanks, Joe. I do mean the same as you do by “core scientology”, and I have also moved to other studies and activities. Doing so was validated by LRH himself back in 1951 in the Chart of Human Evaluation (SOS), where the highest tone level on the chart was characterized as “Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality.”

                      You probably remember the study tape “Training: Duplication” where LRH explains why it is that learning the truth about something is a road to having judgment – not only judgment in whatever subject is being studied, but judgment in general (even about women, he jokingly says in one part 🙂 ). I consider a gain in judgment to be one of the most – if not THE most – valuable things a person can take away from scientology. Here’s a quote from that 1962 study lecture:

                      “Of course it’s [judgment] most rapidly restored on such a track by teaching the person the exact truth of something. There is the truth of something, he is able to duplicate the truth of something after many travails, and this truth of something is immediately pursued by the understanding of that something he has been taught. You understand that that is a stage; he’s still dependent on you for the understanding of what’s been taught. And your next stage up is a realization, which he reached at a sudden step up the line on his own bootstraps, so to speak. He regained an ability to understand, and so then he himself could realize. That’s the route that you’re taking. That route has total self-determinism and other-determinism and, of course, therefore, pan-determinism all mixed up in it, all at one fell swoop.

                      “The person becomes pan-determined over the data. The person does not only understand why they learned the data but why the data was taught to them, and understand and REALIZE – of course, the realization includes the independent truth of the datum regardless of having been taught the datum. And with that, of course, a person has reached a high peak of the ability to judge something. A person then has judgment. There’s no other route that I know of. I mean if this is not a perfect route, all right, so it isn’t a perfect route. There is no perfect route.

                      “Perhaps there is a perfect route, but there is no perfect route to hand at the moment if this is not a perfect route.”

                      (“Training: Duplication”, 24 Jan 62)

                  • Have a look at this web site, and figure out how many false reports and how much false information, and wrong items the Organization is putting out there on a daily basis right now. This is what people are told to believe. It includes “learning to know God”.


                    • Oracle,

                      And you sound like a Holy Roller. Gaslighting as usual for LRH, your God, and invalidating people that are aware, and can see what is in front of their faces. Not everybody is in a permanent trance like you (point #7).

                      You are are also confirming point #6 of this post with your sophistry, and yes you are covertly and overtly running your implant on other people.

                      Ex-Scientologist and the public at large do not want the “item” you are obsessively pushing on everybody.

                      The subject of this post is “Scientology Beliefs”, last time I checked Hubbard is the Source and Founder of the Religion of Scientology, not DM.

                      Not committing blasphemy on Ron-God because he is death? Really Oracle how obtuse can you be?

                    • Conan, I so agree with your response to Oracle. She just goes on and on and on and on and on. Talk about someone being SO RIGHT!

                      You spoke for me and have said it so much better than I could have. Thank you!

                    • Conan, Your summary of my evil, covert plots, and anti magic sounds like I am reading a comm ev results on a declare. Gaslighting? Worshipping Hubbard as a God? All False reports. Blatant lies.

                      Wallowing in injustice is a purpose. I hope you are just get started?

                    • And, I see you even have a backup witness! To bear false witness!

                    • And um…by the way,”Conan”, don’t think I have not noticed your , ummmm trademark “methods” for spinning someone in, and recognized you. In our earlier history, your little bag of tricks had a little punch. Wrong indication, wrong item, false report mixed with a little injustice and hurled at someone. But, you played it out on me already. Next you come after me, bring a new bag of tricks. “Conan”.

                    • Oh, by the way,doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why you don’t want to post on this blog under your usual name. Your secret is safe with me!

                  • The Oracle said:

                    “The psychs” didn’t shut down the mission network. It was David Miscavige. NO, IT WAS LRH. Miscavige was the messenger.

                    “The psychs” didn’t cancel the certificates of every auditor on the planet, it was David Miscavige. LRH CANCELLED CERTIFICATES LEFT RIGHT AND CENTRE.

                    LRH also declared many, many valuable people, loyal and who contributed greatly to the “tech”. He declared people willy nilly, anyone who stood up to him or disagreed with him.

                    If he was having a bad hair day, he would declared people for things they didn’t even do. And remove certificates for the same reason.

                    • Well said.

                      Not to mention that there was never a day, not a second when it wasn’t LRH who was bringing lawsuits onto CoS. In fact, it was only after he ran Dianetics into bankruptcy and was fleeing from debtors and harmed people (already the true, long-term occupation of his life), that he was forced to form CoS (forming a religion being the way to ‘make real money’ as he had told many people)

                      Miscavige is an egregious mismanager and an unscrupulous person who has done a great deal to drive Scientology into the ground.

                      He also has a bad side.

                    • O.K.please, I didn’t go back half a century and the dead man is gone. If David Miscavige drops dead tomorrow I will probably not mention him in more current situations. Not A=Aing David Miscavige either with Hubbard.
                      Or Hubbard’s cancelling certs with David’s GAOT events and cancelling everybodies certs on the planet at one event. Dead people don’t bother me please don’t try to force items on me that are not mine. David Miscavige is a PRESENT TIME PROBLEM. He uses attack dogs (spirits to do his bidding).

                    • You don’t sound very cheery yourself.

                    • And as far as we know, Hubbard didn’t beat up people or though two of his wives reported being beaten up. However, he did punish viciously including locking up young children in the chain locker, in the dark, without ablutions. He had these people fed with slops in a bucket. They were not allowed to wash. Some people were locked in there for three and four weeks!

                      He threw people overboard with the arms and legs tied. One lady was sixty years old. At least one person had a broken shoulder or arm as a result (Masters, I think it was, but I stand to be corrected).

                      He used people. Those little girls dressed in hotpants dressed him! They carried an ashtray around for his cigarrette ash.

                      There is so much more that I could tell about his cruelty but enough for now!

                    • Listen Starship, I do not want to be bullied into hating someone I do not hate. I think this is the glue that makes Scientology a cult. People are really bullied into inheriting enemies and hating.

                      I have personal reasons for wanting David Miscavige and the Central Intelligence Agency of the Church bought to justice. You do not have any information about my recent track with these people. I do not have a problem with you, or anyone else hating L.Ron Hubbard or exposing his life or influences.

                      I have my own reasons and my own experiences and you are uninformed about these matters. I wish everyone out here could just treat one another decently and with respect and unite on one doable goal. Take on something we can be at cause over and manage. I can’t manage a dead man. I can manage to contribute to current change. So that is what I do.

                    • Oracle you said, “the dead man is gone”, meaning Ron.

                      Not true.

                      He lives on within the mental constructs of his students, defining their world views with a false make believe cosmology, that distorts their ability to see life, problems and people as they are.

                      He lives on in the introverting process of constantly looking into the mind, the past, to understand the present.

                      He lives on when a person looses his will to solve his own problems because he should not self audit, but pay others to do his own thinking.

                      He lives on every time a Scientologist hears a person say,”I love God” and then makes a judgement that person is in R6.

                      He lives on when Scientologists misread their own thoughts as alien beings.

                      He lives on when Scientologists think that every relation that cannot resolve itself is because of a third party. Thus making victimhood sacred church doctrine.

                      He lives on every time a Scientologist goes by a church or synagogue or temple and thinks it’s an R6 dramatization.

                      He lives on every time a person who needs meds for a physical or mental problem dies because of being in the Prison of Belief in Ron.

                      He lives on everytime a mother, father, child, husband, wife decides to disconnect fro their family because the Family Man is a GE and is really a bad group to be in for a thetan.

                      He lives on every time a Scientologist bursts a vein with anger and hate and violence against critics to protect mans only hope.

                      He lives on when the Greatest Good For The Greatest Number means harming people to save the planet.

                      No way Oracle. This man is not dead. Not yet. But if we do our job well, we can extricate him from the minds of those who believed that he is the only hope for man. We can help save people from a difficult situation.

                    • Well, Ron is now reduced to a filter that loyal people use to look through.

                      Sent from my iPad


                    • Well Brian, I guess everyone needs to be doing something. Whatever interests them. If this is your thing, great. I’m not a bounty hunter,a prosecutor, or a member of the thought police. We can’tall be on the same path can we?

                      For a long time I thought my purpose was to put order into chaos. Until I realized I needed chaos to fulfill my purpose.

                      I’ve got independent purposes now,so I don’t have to rely on other people.

                    • Why do people keep talking about there “I”? There is so much there to see besides.

                      Sent from my iPad


                    • And just so you know Brian, my undertakings to bring David Miscavige out into the open about his treachery, has to do magic / anti magic forces. I am learning a lot about anti magic. About illusion. About forces and conditions. This theater, is a practical for me. As an observer.

                      Beyond that, I think Marty is favor with the Gods too. And there is a force of nature about this where the human spirit proves itself worthy of all possible promise. It is all very magical. Marty doing what Marty wilt, and it becoming the whole of the law.


                    • All magic is just a manipulation of psyche.

                      Sent from my iPad


                    • Brian: ” But if we do our job well, we can extricate him (Hubbard) from the minds of those who believed that he is the only hope for man.

                      What is your “job”? Mind control, thought police, memory swipes and brain washing? Playing God? Extricating from other people’s minds?
                      Why do you have any ownership over other people’s minds? How are other minds any of your business to the degree that it is your job to program them or even decide what program they should be operating with?

                    • “What is your ‘job’? Mind control, thought police, memory swipes and brain washing? Playing God? Extricating from other people’s minds?
                      Why do you have any ownership over other people’s minds? How are other minds any of your business to the degree that it is your job to program them or even decide what program they should be operating with?”

                      Good questions!

            • The fact that the Church enforces disconnection is evidence in itself, that it believes Scientologists are highly suggestible people.

              • The fact that David Miscavige took hundreds of thousands,…millions, of dollars, donated by Scientologists to help kids off drugs, and to help the Narconon network, and misdirected it into Sea Org reserves for his own wants and needs, (fraud,embezzlement) , and nobody around him except a lawyer, pointed this out as something unethical, is further evidence of hypnotized staff.

                Testimony from Lana Mitchell:

                Laurie Zurn D/ED ABLE Int — “Spent her whole career working in ABLE (Association for Better Living and Education) and SOCO before that (Social Betterment Corporation — part of the old Guardian’s Office). Have no idea what she was doing at Int as she never worked there while I was there. She was in ABLE Int in LA as the second in command (D/Executive Director ABLE International). When I was the WDC ABLE, I once sat in an all-day meeting with Laurie, Simon Hogarth (the ED ABLE Int at the time), the DSA ABLE Int, Lyman Spurlock (Corporate Coordinator CSI) and two church attorneys (Monique Yingling and Tim Bowles). Legally, the ABLE sector was not supposed to be sending money into the Sea Org reserve accounts, but it was, and the tax attorneys were trying to figure out a solution. I had made a proposal on how to organize the sector based on the attorney’s advice, which would have meant that the funds that had been going to Int Reserves would get rerouted to the social betterment programs themselves, instead. This didn’t fly with Miscavige, who said that it’s up to legal to find a way to set things up the way we (church management) want it, not the other way around. My proposal was therefore rejected and I was removed from post, restricted to the property and once again assigned to berthing out by the swamp. ”


              • I wonder how many Scientologists properly originated the cognition, “I can communicate about anything with anyone!” And I wonder how many of those Scientologists copped out of communicating by disconnecting instead.

                It is fascinating that these Born Again Communicators brandish Disconnection like a finely honed sword, thinking that they are “at cause over communication cycles.”

              • Disconnection was carried out and enforced by Hubbard himself. As we know, he wrote the PL, Fair Game. There was some PR letter written to publically refute it after disconnection was queried and to cover up but he never cancelled Fair Game. It was alive and applied to people like Paulette Cooper who had her life ruin. Hubbard did this, not Miscavige!

                All Miscavige does is carry on with the process because he doesn’t know what else to do. It seemed to work for Hubbard but that was before the Internet. This is all DM does and it was what he as trained to do – by the man himself. DM is in trouble because of the Internet. He’s floundering, his stable datum has been shook up. One could almost feel sorry for him.

                Hubbard set the ball rolling for the collapse of Scientology. As I’ve said before, Miscavige is just the messenger.

                • What a lovely defense argument for David Miscavige. I hope his attorneys can rely upon you when the time comes.

                  “Your honor,Mr.Miscavige was just following orders. He was brainwashed. It was his religious upbringing. He didn’t know better…blah blah blah”

                  I see it disturbs you that I do not align myself with your defense arguments about David Miscavige. And trust me. he,and his attorneys will rely upon people just like you in the court systems, that will buy into the idea that he has religious rights to follow his religion, and Hubbard is the one to blame because he founded Scientology.

                  But I was there. I did not beat people, spy on people, abuse people, harm attack and suppress people. No matter what others were doing. I refused to take places in comm evs and I never disconnected from anybody, even when they were declared. I have nothing to blame Hubbard for because I disregarded what didn’t feel right to me.

                  And at this late date it is totally unlikely that I will contribute to a defense for David Miscavige. And hold someone else accountable for what he has done and is doing.

                  Not that I don’t suspect witness’and arguments like you and yours, will provide a possible means for him to evade justice.

                  • You are so literal, Oracle. And your arguments quite childish.

                    Do you ever listen to yourself?

                  • You fell right into it, Oracle. You just can’t help yourself, can you?

                    • “You just can’t help yourself”. That’s kind of a gnarly spell I wouldn’t cast on anyone.

                    • Oracle, ALL you can talk about is Miscavige. Miscavige, Miscavige, Miscavige…………………………………………………………………………!!!!!!!!

                      You are simply do not have the ability to confront the man who LRH ACTUALLY was or to assign proper cause and therefore seem to be able to see only what is before your eyes.

                      It’s a shame. You miss a lot!

                    • Oluckyme, Perhaps primal scream therapy would have been a more workable route for you.

                    • LOL 😀

                      Actually, I think whoever developed primal therapy may have gotten the idea from a process in *Creation of Human Ability* called “Yelling”:

                      “In that man has, for a long time, used words to make space, and as any barbaric people uses noise to make itself big, it will be found that an inhibition of making noise is a major difficulty on the case of any preclear.…The auditing command is: ‘Start yelling’, and ‘keep yelling’. The preclear can be sent off by himself to yell. If a group is being processed where its noise will not disturb others, a back and forth interchange between the auditor and the group will be found beneficial. This process is very limited and has a tendency simply to make people cheerful [like it did in the posted video], but occasionally some cases are so inhibited on the making of noise that they are having difficulty with their vocal cords or with their mouths. Tooth trouble can be traced to the inhibition of making noise. Distaste for singing is equally traced to the making of noise.”

    • Maybe this belief needs to be explained better. As noted above, effects of good tech are measured through the reality and rationality it imparts, and not just “good feelings”. When a person has “good feelings” but he is out of touch with reality, and moving farther away from rationality, as a result of auditing, then it cannot be called good tech.

      So, take a good look at how closer you are to reality as a result of Scientology auditing. Are you able to see the abuse and contradictions in the Church of Scientology?

      • That quote is not a core belief of Scientology it;s Marty’s opinion.

        • Well, the Scientology belief is that its “tech” is infallible. My criticism of this belief is as follows:

          1. Scientology consists of much ground breaking work by Hubbard.

          2. Scientology introduces a whole new plateau to addressing the problems of the mind.

          3. The work on this breakthrough is, however, far from complete.

          4. The success from the application of Scientology is far from consistent.

          5. Any lack of success gets blamed on the practitioner of Scientology.

          6. Unmanageable difficulties seem to exist in the application of Scientology.

          7. Correction lists have become a part of “Standard Scientology.”

          8. A closer look at Scientology shows a lack of application of the principle of poka-yoke.

          9. Mindfulness is the key to successes in Scientology auditing.

          10. Scientology does not seem to put emphasis on Mindfulness.

          11. Scientology takes up aspects of mindfulness on TR0, Obnosis, and Data Series, but it fails to treat mindfulness systematically, and fails to highlight its importance in auditing.

          12. The principles of Mindfulness were first elucidated by Buddha 2600 years ago.

          13. Mindfulness seems to provide poka-yoke to Scientology processes.

          14. The principles of Mindfulness are presented under KHTK Mindfulness on this blog.

          15. Here is an example of application of mindfulness to Scientology processes – Running Scientology Grade 0 with Mindfulness (Part 1)

          16. Here is a closer look at Scientology Auditing.

          For details, please see,


      • A very good point, Vinaire.

        Can you also live better as a result of your auditing? Once the euphoria has worn off, is life better, simpler, happier? Are you more able to earn a good living? Are you well physically?

        I didn’t find many Scientologists whose lives had improved in spite of all the auditing they’d had. My OT friends are having a hellish time. So are my Clear friends. And they can’t see it, that is, that their life was not much better.

        Oh, you hear stories of how right in the middle of a proces, not even before it had ended, this wonderful thing had happened. It was probably going to happen anyway. A little down the road, you find out their spouse did them in, or their boss; or they got very ill; even died of cancer. And so on.

      • I don’t entirely agree with this because it depends on the process and intended EP. If the EP is intended to be subjective, eg “feeling good”, then that’s it. If the EP is intended to be “aa better meory”, or “Higher IQ”, if it does that, then that’s it. Being “in touch with reality” is a possible goal or EP, but it isn’t stated as such in most of what Hubbard wrote or said. My grandfather didn’t approve of comic books or sci-fi, because they were not reality oriented. He was kinda suppressive in that way. He didn’t see the value of fantasy or even imagination unless they were placed in service of “reality”. In fact I kinda agree that “agreement with reality” is not a very worthy goal, especially when it is enforced. As when cops beat people up for not mindlessly complying with their their commands. Obviously it is the cops’ reality ythat their commands must be obeyed, or else. What kind of freedom is that? Makes me wonder about some of the statements posted by commenters here, who appear to be trying to enforce their view of Hubbard on everyone else.

        • Valkov, good to see you back. You were missed.

          My definition of reality seems to be different from yours. I see reality as the lack of inconsistency resulting in harmony. To the degree there is inconsistency and disharmony something is unreal.

          Reality includes both physical and spiritual aspects.

          • Thanks for the welcome Vin. I don’t know, maybe our meanings for reality differ. Reality to me has subjective aspects and it has objective aspects. Subjective aspects can be targetted, and objective aspects can be dealt with also. There is a lot about these in Scientology, as I’m sure you are aware. The old-school differentiation is “inner” vs. “outer”.

            • What I am saying is that if there is some inconsistency even between “inner” and “outer”; or between “subjective” and “objective” then there is lack of harmony and also unreality.


            • I agree with that. This relates to ontology, which is the study being, reality, etc. Some thoughts.

              In terms of ontology I myself fall in the range of constructivist and post positivist.

              Constructivism holds that what we consider reality Is constructed by ourselves. To me this is nearly self-evident as it relates to things like beliefs, religion, culture, and so forth. This can be correlated to be subjective reality whether within an individual or a group.

              Positivism holds that there is a universe independent of human considerations and that the truths of the universe can be determined. Post positivism makes a qualification. It asserts that we can get closer and closer to understanding the universe, but most likely we can never get there 100%. Positivism and post positivism correlate to objective reality.

              While Scientology as a constructed, subjective reality and culture Is pretty much immune from having to prove itself (like religion in general), it makes a number of objective claims that do not stand up to scrutiny and which can be and have been falsified, and/or for which no objective evidence has been brought forward.

    • Hubbard tricked CofSers into using hypnotic, domination techniques. For example, a lot of CofS policy directed towards the handling of disagreements, dissidents etc come straight out of what Hubbard called “The Brainwashing Manual”, he merely used a trick of semantics to rename them for propaganda purposes, then introduced them into CofS policy while telling his followers that it was to “help” when it was order to make a self enclosed thought bubble to entrap the minds of his followers. Apparently, he wanted everyone to be his slave under hypnotic control.

      • Agreed, Gene Trujillo. The SO and most staff behave like robots, carrying out orders without such rightness and without any real thought about what they’re actually doing.

        I believe we were all in this state to one degree or another and that is why it took so many of us so long to see and to leave. This is a hell of an evaluation, I know. If it is a wrong indication to you, scrap it.

        However, it does answer the question I’ve asked of myself many times, Why did I wait two decades to make my move? Others longer than that? And in that very first decade I was as unhappy as hell – but I stayed!!!

  5. Thanks for this. My son just asked last night for an explanation of scientology as it was brought up in his psychology class. This is scientology in a nut shell.

  6. This sums it up. This is the ‘Confession of Belief’ of the Scientology Church, which you can’t read nowhere as such in Hubbard’s scriptures. But it is the most important thing to read before entering an (ideal) org!
    It explains everything that is going on within and with Scientology. It is all you need to know really.

  7. I would like to add: this gave me a long fall blowdown. Scientology finally as-issed/as-ist (don’t know how to spell this).

  8. I so much appreciate your continued thoughts on this subject. All The best to you, Mosey and the little tyke.

  9. rogers100, that is covered in point #7.

  10. Great summary. Thanks for continuing your writing. It is always of interest and value IMO. Simple truths do not require but simple explanations and I feel you got it just right.

  11. It is to be realized that Hubbard lived with these beliefs. These beliefs made up his case, or rather, to him, a solution to his case.

    He was still working on them as his case was not really resolving, and he was getting frustrated about it near the end of his life.

    Still he thought he was right in his beliefs.

    I feel sorry for Hubbard!

  12. Is it worth noting in this post that Scientologists are only fed this info in bits and pieces over a long period of time? Some may not even be aware of it as they are lower on the bridge and would sincerely deny its truth if confronted with it.

  13. Thank you for your essay Marty. I wholeheartedly agree with your summation. Those who don’t agree will one day reach this same conclusion that you and many of us have already attained. Keep up the good fight brother.

    • as crazy as thinking that a man born from a virgin rose from the dead 3 days later and floated to the heavens …..

      • And this man never existed in the first place. It is just a remake of the Egyptian god Osiris. Osiris = Jesus Christ.

      • Silly AnonWWP – Jesus didn’t rise from the dead 3 days after he was born from a virgin!

        Gah! Where are the Grammar Police when you need them?

      • AnonWWP, back then, magic and religion were the same thing. There were some powerful magicians. I think Jesus was one of them. Don’t you believe in magic? Isn’t magic part of the Scientology belief system also?
        Not sure why you fundamentalists always discount it.

        “But mysticism/occultism isn’t our source. Our source, actually, is magic. Magic is something that, today, is performed on a stage with prestidigitation. But magic actually has a much more vivid and noble history than a stage magician. It is quite remarkable that the magician attempts directly to use spirits to perform his will. And that is his basic modus operandi. That is his goal in practicing magic.”from a Lecture given on 29 January 1958, The History of Clearing by L Ron Hubbard.

      • Hey, AnonWWP, who is using you to perform his will?

    • Dear deanblair06,
      You really expect all those who don’t agree will one day agree? God forbids, why would you want that? ALL of them and us agreeing to SAME conclusions which you have attained…? B o r i n g… I Kind of prefer everyone has and keep their own covlusions, no? Unless… you absolutely have the whole and nothing but the truth… Sir!

  14. What a great post! I would just add ‘and all his money’ after ‘efforts’ in point 8 🙂

  15. That brings it full circle. Joining in on number 8

  16. Thank you for your succinct statement of the facts. Within Scientology its unpalatable truth is so buried beneath theta talk and feel good Scientology Zero that it goes unrecognized for what it is.

  17. Thank you for speaking the truth about scientology. This is the answer that scientology (and scientologists) avoids revealing. This will ultimately help many people.

  18. Excellent and thank you Marty. Thank you very much. #8 has been weighing on my mind, particularly since reading Tony Ortega’s story from yesterday about the mentally ill woman who was victimized by Scientologists. I hope you don’t mind my sharing something I wrote after reading that:

    Although it’s veiled, Scientology’s dogma does advocate death. Think about it:
    -It’s only a body, you’ll come back.
    -LRH dropped his body because it became an impediment to his work.
    -But don’t worry, he researched, codified and left us all the “tech” on how to die (Pat Broeker, LRH Death Event)
    -Billion year contracts.
    -Advocating against life-saving medical care.
    -Denying the existence of life-threatening illnesses.
    -We’d rather have you dead than incapable. (KSW policy).
    -Coerced abortions.
    It goes on.
    The fact that Scientology places so little value on human life should be cause for great concern.

    • Roger From Switzerland Thought

      “The fact that Scientology places so little value on human life should be cause for great concern.”
      This is a very sad TRUTH. No real concern about death and illness..He is out-ethics or pts etc., should get a new Body.

    • Amen Shelly! Amen Marty!

      I love this post… and this reply to it. I am going to copy it and carry it around to share with those whom ask “What is that Scientology?”. Thank you! As previously stated, you nailed it!

    • That story on Tony Ortega’s blog is very telling indeed. I remember a yound Marc Valliers from my days on Flagship during the 70’s.

      I don’t know if Scientology dogma advocates death, but it does discount individual life in favor of the survival of the Church of Scientology. I regrad the following beliefs in Scientology to be false.

      (1) A soul (thetan) is believed to exist indpendent of the body, and even to move to another body after the death of a previous body. This is not the belief in Buddhism or in other Eastern religions, which differentiate spiritual elements from soul. A soul is a configuration of spiritual elements. This configuration is temporary and it disintegrates after death. The spiritual elements may continue like the physical elements (atoms and molecules), but not a particular configuration as a body or a soul.

      (2) That LRH continues to exists as a being is a false belief. His soul is disintegrated just like his body. The concept of “reincarnation” is misunderstood in the western society. It is no a being that gets reborn. It is simply a new configuration of spiritual and physical elements. It is not only a new body, but also a new soul. The spiritual elements that made up Hubbard’s soul may continue like the physical elements that made up up his body. But they are long absorbed in new bodies and souls.

      Scientology has simply exploited the ignorance of western cultures in these matters.

      • Then why did Buddha say he recalled many of his own past lives, and that he had been “born for the last time”?

        • In my understanding, Buddha was talking about different configurations of spiritual elements that he was aware of. Each configuration was a different “I”. For details, please see

          THE STRUCTURE OF “I”

        • marildi,

          “Then why did Buddha say he recalled many of his own past lives, and that he had been “born for the last time”?”
          In original Buddhism, the Buddha does speak of a few past lives. However, the details of the past lives would today seem “culture bound.”
          They are mostly restricted to India. The point is that the Buddha was
          more concerned about a level of knowledge which reaches the expression of the “regularity of karma”. In other words, the idea of the Samsaric cycle.
          The Buddha stated “born for the last time” after enlightenment.
          Many of the past life accounts found in later texts such as the Jataka are disputed.
          The idea of past life is only important in the context of the Four Noble Truths. By the way, this is not a very good translation. It is more like
          “facts of existence.”
          May all beings be well and happy!

          • marildi,
            I have one other piece of information on this. The Buddha recalled past lives in blocks 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 etc. . It seemed odd to me at first, but he is looking at the overall pattern. In Theravada, we do not use
            past lives. In fact, I know of an interesting story in Thailand in the early 1900’s.
            A Nun wanted a certain monk to be her teacher. She never stopped talking about past lives despite his pleas. He finally tossed her out. She came back and listened to him and attained sainthood.
            May all beings be well, happy and peaceful!

            • Thank you for writing your book. I feel unseen encrusted thought patterns breaking open as I read and contemplate. It is a liberating experience and came at the perfect time.

          • Path of Buddha: “The Buddha stated ‘born for the last time’ after enlightenment.”

            The above seems to say that the soul / self / thetan does exist – although not permanently, as it ceases to exist when enlightenment is achieved.

            Sometimes it seems to be a matter of semantics as regards the question of “soul or no-soul?”

            At the top of one of the columns of the Chart of Attitudes (40.0), the “attitude” is “Everyone”. Below that, in the same column (at 22.0), is “I am an individual as I please.” So it would seem to be a matter of position on a scale where there is no matter, energy, space or time at the top.

            Also, I think the idea of “Everyone” would correspond to “co-existence of static” in the following axiom:

            “Axiom 25. Affinity is a scale of attitudes which falls away from the co-existence of static, through the inter-positions of distance and energy, to create identity…”

            • marilidi,
              In Original Buddhism, the idea of “no self” or “no soul,” which is a stretch, is a working construct not a fixed idea. The monk Sati tried to corner the Buddha when he asked about the soul. The Buddha replied that he never taught that doctrine. In ancient India, the Vedas had inspired the doctrine of
              transmigration. The Buddha was breaking from that tradition. His idea of
              “no self” or no soul was new. This is not correctly reported in Scientology so it is important. In another meeting, the Buddha when pressed about the soul and was silent. This gets back to the idea of the working construct of the idea of “no self”. The Buddha was very clear that theoretical issues were to be avoided as no one could prove the existence of the soul. At the mundane level of awareness, the soul is evident as an awareness because of the grasping better called in this case “bhava kamma”. This is an aspect of kamma restrcted to the idea of the soul. The Buddha was also clear in the doctrine that the universe, in his view, had no beginning. This contradicts Scientology’s “Before the beginning was a cause”. At the surpramundane level in early Buddhism, the idea of soul is examined in a four fold void corresponding to the Noble Truths. The Buddha clearly stated that he had to do this. In phenomenological reality the working constucts of soul and “no self” are used to see multiple causes or Karma with a capital K. Thus Buddha instructed us to keep away from theoretical discussions of the soul.
              The structure of the universe in Original Buddhism is vast and complex,
              but centered on one point which is not a soul.
              Axiom 25 would not apply. Co-existence of static violates the primary dictum of Buddhism. Everything is impermanent. Existence or co-existence is “bhava kamma”. This is a hinderance to knowledge.
              The Chart of Atitudes also does not apply. The Buddha does not use MEST in the same way as Hubbard. The Buddha clearly stated that the elements of the universe are physical atoms and mind. Mind is not a spirit, soul or theta.
              It is dependent on matter for awareness. This is complex stuff better left for now.
              A better topic to discuss is Meta or loving-kindness. This operates on a far higher plane than affinity.
              At any rate, the primary point is that “no self” is a working construct used
              in meditation. Thetans in Buddhisms are impermanent gods subject to the laws of kamma. These gods come in many flavors.


              • G, thanks very much for your learned comments. Very helpful. Buddha’s idea of “no self” as a working construct makes more sense, put in that way.

                You also wrote: “The structure of the universe in Original Buddhism is vast and complex, but centered on one point which is not a soul.”

                Is that one point karma (with or without the capital “K”)?

                I get a sense of what is meant by karma as being a sort of inevitable flow of things, and that makes sense to me too. However, it would be a completely deterministic viewpoint if there exists no free will / choice – so how does that fit in? You also said:

                “The Buddha clearly stated that the elements of the universe are physical atoms and mind. Mind is not a spirit, soul or theta.”

                If there is nothing but atoms and mind, “who” or “what” is making the choices in life that will determine the karma and whether or not there will be rebirth for that “who” or “what”?

                • Marildi,
                  Free will fits into the idea of Karma because the individual or the “I” is actually accountable for its position in the cycle of birth/rebirth. This
                  sounds contradictory because there is “no self.” The contradiction is
                  handled because the point of self/no self is an inflection point. The
                  forces of karma are manifested in a series of mental contaminations. The Buddha used a word which translates as “fermentations” or “pickled”.
                  Imagine a person soaked in Bud Light. The brain is in fermentation. This is the analogy on the level of thought. Free will is not possible when picked.Since the
                  goal is cessation, free will is really the idea of stillness. You do not have the idea of free will in the modern sense of capitalism in Buddhism. Gain/loss are lower levels.
                  The centered point is not Karma with a capital “K”. Buddha uses the idea of
                  the “centered point” to get the idea that “all you need for salvation is within your five or six foot body”. You don’t need anything else. Time in original Buddhism is not linear. Thus you cannot apply the idea of MEST. There is no beginning in Buddhism. Also, the past and the future are infinite. However, you can center yourself in the universe through meditation. It sounds strange. But remember Time is non-linear.
                  The individual thus has an input of both determinism and free will at the same time. Free will in Buddhism is better defined as the removal of black karma.
                  Karma with a capital “K” is the grand accountant of the universe. It is
                  like a debit and credit card that does not go away.
                  The “who” or “what” is impermanent and temporary. The being comes from nowhere and goes nowhere. There is no “doer” in Buddhism.
                  You can look at all of Buddhism as birth/existence/death. Buddha taught this as a fundamental building block. Hubbard’s create, create, create would
                  have been rejected as temporary. The cosmic cycle in Buddhism extends over more than 91 big bangs but there is no end. Buddha said it went on and on beyond. Moral Thetans are accounted for in Buddhism. They actually hang around in a special place waiting for the next big bang. They never go clear until Nirvana or Nibbana. They are impermanent.

                  • I love your explanation.

                  • G, thanks for all the interesting data. My brain is no doubt too pickled 🙂 to fully grasp what you wrote; however, I still get a sense of possible semantical differences only. One reference that comes to mind is a short paragraph from 8-8008, which describes a state above 40.0, the highest level on the tone scale:

                    “Space is not necessary to the beingness of a thetan when the thetan is above the tone level of 40.0 and can create space at will. He creates space to have specific beingness. AT 40.0 space and beingness can be considered to be interchangeable. BEINGNESS CAN EXIST WITHOUT ANY ENERGY OR MATTER, WHICH IS TO SAY, WITHOUT TIME [my caps].

                    Another part of Hubbard’s cosmology would be the Gradient Scale of Exteriorization (COHA). At the top of the scale is “a true Static” – that might correspond to the description of Nirvana as “stillness”. Here it is:

                    “There is a gradient scale of exteriorization which could be described as follows:
                    First, the thetan without contact with a universe;
                    Then, a thetan in full contact with a universe;
                    Then, a thetan in contact with part of a universe, who considers the remainder of the universe barred to him;
                    Then, a thetan in a universe without any contact with any part of the universe;
                    Then, a thetan unknowingly in contact with a large part of a universe.

                    “The first condition would be a true Static. The last condition is called, colloquially, in Scientology, ‘buttered all over the universe.’

                    “As it is with a universe, such as the physical universe, so it is with physical bodies. The thetan, who has already gone through the cycle on the universe itself, may be in contact with a physical body in the same order:

                    “At first he would be without association with a physical body;
                    Then, with occasional contact with bodies;
                    Then, with a fixed contact on one body but exteriorized;
                    Then, interiorized into a body but easy to exteriorize;
                    Then, in contact with and interiorized into a body, but withdrawn from the various parts of the body;
                    Then, obsessively ‘buttered all through the body’;
                    Then, obsessively and unknowingly drawn down to some small portion of the body, and so forth.

                    “This is the gradient scale which includes inversion and then inversion of the inversion. The auditor will discover preclears are very variable in the matter of exteriorization. Some preclears, even when they have a dark field, exteriorize rather easily. Others, after a great deal of work, are still found to be difficult to exteriorize. The matter of exteriorization is the matter of which level of inversion the preclear is in.

                    “One of the more difficult levels to work is so inverted that he thinks that a thetan is running him. In other words, here is a thetan functioning in a body and actually running it through various covert communication lines, who yet believes he is a body to such an extent that he considers himself, or any life around him to be some other being…”

                    • Hi M,
                      Great response. I’m happy you laughed at “pickled.” The critical issues boil down to the definition of a body and “potential”.
                      Exteriorization from the body is a step beyond mindfulness which does not apply to Buddhism. In Scientology, Hubbard talks about the body as an
                      object. He does this over and over. In the scripture that you posted above,
                      it is a central theme. Hubbard uses the idea of the “genetic entity” as the conductor of the body. This body is used in transmigration. This theory fails at the outset because it ends in the dichotomy of theta and mest. In original Buddhism the body is a product of physical matter and Karma with a capital “K”. The internal world and the external world are linked together into a unified whole with mind. The difference in regard to the thetan is related to Hubbard’s “potential” In other words, the thetan has the ability to return or transmigrate. In Buddhism, nibbana or cessation is bliss and it is not necessary to return.
                      It is “letting go”. Hubbard wanted to keep grasping or clinging in the picture.
                      You can come up with any scale you want 40.0 or 400.0, you are still stuck in the Max Planck constant. You could also call it Hubbard’s paradox.

                      “As it is with a universe, such as the physical universe, so it is with physical bodies. The thetan, who has already gone through the cycle on the universe itself, may be in contact with a physical body in the same order:”

                      The above merits discussion.
                      Hubbard separates the universe from the thetan and implies that they go through the same cycle. In Buddhism, there is an integerated view. Mind and matter exist. The idea of the thetan is derived. It is not primary. There is
                      no description of nirvana which includes anything like a thetan or potential.
                      Think of Buddha’s definition as a live shell you would find on the beach.
                      A child not knowing about these animals knows there is something inside but
                      cannot describe it. Hubbard does not know what the universe is, but describes it with the thetan. In reality, what is in the shell and how it was formed is far more complex. The thetan would be the child drawing conclusions with no understanding.

                      “Space is not necessary to the beingness of a thetan when the thetan is above the tone level of 40.0 and can create space at will. He creates space to have specific beingness. AT 40.0 space and beingness can be considered to be interchangeable. BEINGNESS CAN EXIST WITHOUT ANY ENERGY OR MATTER, WHICH IS TO SAY, WITHOUT TIME [my caps].

                      In Physics, it is not proven that beingness can exist without time.
                      What Hubbard is talking about here is theoretical. There is no experiment that proves this. You could use quantum physics. However most of these experiments were done in the 1930’s and Hubbard does not define them.
                      They are not proven. The observer is not defined in science.
                      If a person wants to accept Hubbard on faith, that is clearly an option.
                      Beingness without time is a derivative of the exteriorization of the thetan
                      which is also not proven. We are into some wild speculation which is beyond science. These axioms you quote are not convincing.
                      In Buddhism, it is not important if beingness is “in time” or “out of time”
                      The process is more important.

                      May all pickled beings be well and happy!

                    • Hi G,

                      “May all pickled beings be well and happy!” You got a hearty lol on that one. 😀

                      G: “Beingness without time is a derivative of the exteriorization of the thetan which is also not proven.”

                      As a matter of fact, there is a lot of scientific evidence of exteriorization (easily found on the internet) in spite of the fact that scientists in general and thus the media (especially in this country) don’t pay it much heed. Based on this evidence, you essentially made the case for individual beingness (soul/thetan) where you said that from exteriorization one can derive beingness without time.

                      That is actually what I understood Hubbard to mean where he wrote that ABOVE the scale (a scale of physical universe wavelengths) “beingness can exist without any energy or matter, which is to say, without time.”

                      More to the point of our overall discussion, the word “can” in the above quote seems to me to be the same idea as what you said about nibbana (or nirvana) – i.e. that “it is not necessary to return.” In other words, “not necessary” seems to be another way to say “can”. So I am back to seeing different constructs – which amount to semantical differences only. Which pickles me pink. (Sorry for the corn, but I liked the alliteration. 🙂 )

                    • One very compelling out-of body (exteriorization) experiment was described by Tom Campbell in his book *My Big TOE* (TOE = Theory of Everything). Campbell is a NASA physicist and a researcher of “consciousness” for several decades. As a scientist, he used scientific protocol in experiments involving his and others’ OOB experiences. He and a research partner named Dennis Mennerich started out being skeptical (but open-minded), as any good scientist would be. They had quite a moment when they got the first proof that their OOB experiences were real. Below is an excerpt from Campbell’s book *My Big TOE*.

                      “One of our first experiments was for Dennis and me to take a trip (experience) in the nonphysical together. Our independent descriptions of what we were experiencing should correlate closely if the experience were real and independent of either of us. From the beginning of our training, we had learned to give real-time descriptions of whatever we experienced. A microphone was suspended from the ceiling above each of our heads. What we said was recorded on tape. Dennis and I could not hear each other because we were in separate soundproof chambers.

                      “Dennis and I quickly achieved the appropriate altered state, left our bodies, and met in the nonphysical as planned. It was a long adventure. We went places, saw things, had conversations with each other and with several nonphysical beings we happened to run into along the way.

                      “Bob had let us go a long time before he ended the session and called us back. We pulled off our EEG and GSR electrodes and stumbled out of the darkness into the hallway of the lab.

                      “In the control room, Bob was waiting for us. After a quick exchange, we knew that this would be a good test because we both had experienced many specific interactions. But were they the same interactions? Bob looked at us deadpan. ‘So you two think you were together?’ he asked, trying to sound disappointed. We looked at each other and shrugged our shoulders.

                      “‘Maybe,’ Dennis said tentatively, ‘at least we perceived meeting each other.’

                      “‘Listen to this!’ Bob said emphatically. The tapes, rewound as we disconnected electrodes and climbed out of our chambers, began to roll forward. We sat down and listened. The correlation was astonishing. For almost two hours we sat there with our mouths open, hooting and exclaiming, filling in the details for each other. Bob was now grinning. ‘Now that tells you something, doesn’t it?’ he exclaimed beaming. He was every bit as excited as we were.

                      “I was dumbfounded. There was only one good explanation: THIS STUFF WAS REAL! […]

                      We repeated that experiment with similar results. It wasn’t a phenomenon that depended on the two of us. Nancy Lea and I shared equally astonishing joint experiences. We tried other things as well. We read three and four digit numbers written on a blackboard next to the control room. Somebody would write a random number and we would read it while our bodies lay asleep. Then they would erase it and write another one, and so on and on. We went places – to people’s homes – and saw what they were doing, then called them or talked to them the next day to check it out…”

                      (Thomas Campbell – *My Big TOE*)

                      Here’s the link, if you want to continue reading where the above leaves off (the whole book can be read for free on Google books):


                    • p.s. Just to note – “Bob” is Bob Monroe, who at the time was already well known for his book *Journeys out of the Body*. He recruited the two scientists, Tom and Dennis, to do scientific experiments on OOB experiments. He also founded the famous Monroe Institute.

                    • Good afternoon G. Excellent article you wrote to Marildi.

                      I have spent a few thousand hours investigating this subject and have written many of my observations. Perhaps you would like to see them. They are at minimum entertaining, possibly thought provoking. The information I have was a bit hard won, but I am glad to share. Maybe you will recognize a few of the principals and can add further detail and align some of the occurrences. I am always searching for further understanding.

                      Your assistance would be welcome.
                      I am continuing with my metallurgical research with the assistance of Marshal Space Flight Center, and have become the communicator to my family with my mother after her stroke. But time is a created thing and I have found that to be a valuable skill lately.

    • There are various perspectives possible, on death. Here is a book that reflects some American attitudes. It is a largely unexamined subject, compared to some other cultures. Look at the traditional Japaness attitudes towards death and suicide in particular. That was a culture in which suicide was actually institutionalized and called for under some circumstances. What I am saying is, a culture’s attitiudes towards death and suicide in particular, usually constitute a “bubble” of its own, apart from any “objective” reality of death. I don’t think we know much about what happens, and this makes us susceptible to “stories” about it. Early Christians were notoriously fearless of death, as are today’s “Islamic” suicide bombers. They were disliked by secular rulers then, and are just as disliked by today’s powers-that-be, because not fearing death, they are difficult or impossible to control. Even in recent history, was it not Patrick Henry who said “Give me Liberty, or give me death!” ?
      Hubbard did write a funeral service that I liked, because it validates the idea that the person is not entirely “dead and gone” but has moved on into the future. Its a comforting thought.

  19. Done it all… I have found the above to be true, except for Xenu and the gang. Personally just hogwash. But if you agree with the prison, billions of beings thing etc & dig in, I say have at it. If you do some research you’ll find elements of the truth here, but it is not the total accurate truth. So IMHO running it is just running LRH’s case. What a mixed bag of $#%&

    • What elements of truth exist in the “prison” and “billions of beings” thing? Where do you suggest one research to verify any elements? How does one determine these elements of truth?

    • For one thing, if one were to consider the Xenu incident as having happened, and I am not saying it didn’t. Just because I wasn’t in the White House today doesn’t mean the president didn’t go to work. Anyway, Earth was here already. There were people on it. I have dated earth incidents in my auditing, and there were other Earth calendars. I ran something that happened here on Earth in the year of 4000’s. So, there was an earlier time here, an earlier beginning. But the point is, there were Earth people, even if the Xenu incident happened. Earth was not an abandoned planet.
      So, the Earth people would not have been part of that. Doesn’t anyone ever think about that? So why would they need to think that applied to them if they did get involved with Scientology? And Hubbard made a lot of snarkey comments about Earth. The people who were already here were not dumped here and were nobodies prisoners. The “loyal officers” and all the rest that got offloaded, don’t even act like guests. They are guests. And they want to determine the fate of this planet. The motto is “we come back”. Well, let them go back. What do they need, a spaceship? Doesn’t the IAS have enough in reserves to cover that yet?

    • I mean, if one does accept it as a truth, it sounds even worse.

      “We were very noble and loyal officers and we just happened to end up here with all of the criminals”.

      All right.

      “We were doing everything right, everybody loved us, Xenu just wanted to thin the population.”

      All right.

      “Earth is dumping ground for the unwanted, but we ended up here because we are the most valuable persons in all the galaxy.”

      All right.

      “We come back. We will go back to reclaim that civilization. No date set yet. No address either of where we are going back to, in case you wanted to give us a lift back home.”

      All right.

    • After what those loyal officers became unto themselves out in that compound in the desert, I am highly suspect of the shipwrecked story.

      One thing we could do is sec check THEM, and find out why they got expelled from the last planet they were on.

  20. Hubbard has credibility problems. Miscavige has mental/social issues.

    • Hubbard: more problems than his pop pyschology or Problems Release can ever resolve. Miscavige: more mental/social issues than he can ever blame on Hubbard.

    • Lol! Hubbard had mental/social issues, too. Serious ones. Just listen to the people who were on the ships with him and come to your conclusions. I’ll think you’ll agree that he was insane, callous, cruel and anti-social.

  21. I am just going to refer people to this post over and over every time I am asked what the fuck Scientologists believe. Brief, exact and still contains all the crazy. Thanks for this Marty. Brilliant.

  22. so glad – you are finally there…. hope you remember all those deleted messages….. but…. so glad you are here, welcome Marty.

    Big hello from LRHs Bulgravia.

  23. No Standard Tech

    @rogers100. As a Libertarian I respect your religious beliefs and your right to speak freely of them. I also respect the rights of others to speak freely about anything they wish to comment on. Yeah, things get messy when free speech is practiced, but freedom by its very nature is messy. If one values freedom, one has to learn to tolerate all that freedom others are exercising too. Or one could just live in a neat and tidy tyranny if that is what they prefer. Having said all that, I would like to say this about the standard tech you mentioned. I got into Scientology via DMSMH back in the 70s. That book promised eidetic memory when Clear was reached. It also promised alleviation from all psychosomatic ills. After 30 years of “standard tech” I never even came close to eidetic memory. And I have the same psychosomatic illnesses I was hoping to deal with back in the 70s. When you say people are “winning” with standard tech, that is just too vague for me. I had specific, clear-cut gains I was going for based on promises from Hubbard, yet these were never forthcoming despite lots and lots and lots and lots of auditing (through the OT levels by the way), including tons of repairs, O/W pulling, PTS handlings etc etc etc. Sure, I had “wins” all the time whereby I was temporarily elated. However, those specific goals never happened and I justified the lack of achievement of those specific goals for literally decades. But no longer. I am sorry to have to question “standard tech”. But with all due respect to you and your beliefs, I do.

    • I think “standard tech” ought to be studied without regard for what Hubbard “promised” it would deliver, but objectively as to what it actually does deliver. What changes of state does it actually produce? That to me is the main question. I have used assists, for example, on people who had never heard of scientology, and gotten good results. So clearly, often, something does happen.

  24. BIG hugs to you, Marty! It’s been a long road you’ve traveled, and I’ve cheered you on every step of the way. Yesterday, we were idiots. Today, we know better. Imagine what we’ll be tomorrow…

    Marty, you’re one of my heroes; I hope to meet you in person to tell you that someday. ❤

  25. Jesus Marty I don’t know about throwing a primed hand grenade, you’ve just thrown in a suitcase nuke. Ta don’t lack balls pal!

  26. Last line should have been ” ya don’t lack balls pal!

  27. Michael Leonard Tilse

    Thanks Marty. Good summary. It’s quite a journey from there to here, isn’t it?

  28. Well guys, I’d never intentionally set out to denigrate, dismiss, invalidate or negate another persons wins or beliefs but as Jack Nicholson famously bawled to Tom Cruise ( oh the irony) ” You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth!”

  29. Mark, these are very clearly stated. There seems to be a big gap in your summary, though. You don’t mention the belief in Body Thetans. Half of the upper OT levels are about exorcising these invisible dead alien infestations. So much time, energy and money is spent on pursuing this. You also chose not to mention belief in the whole track and past lives, which appear to be core scientology beliefs. Just wondering if you might share your reasoning about why you didn’t include these in your list?

  30. I don’t believe in any of that. And yet, somehow, I find value in Scientology. Go figure.

  31. Michael Fairman

    Millions of words distilled down to these eight brief paragraphs.Bravo!
    Here, in my opinion, is a further distillation: Scientology Beliefs = bullpucky.

  32. I think a few indies just fainted. This is fantastic and spot-on. The only downside is that somewhere a 5’1″ dictator just breathed a sigh of relief as he realized that Marty is really not trying to take over.

  33. Brilliant, Marty! Thank you.

  34. I have always approached auditing as a tool to help me investigate myself, others, life and the universe. I have never found a more powerful tool for doing so. Even though there was an auditor there I was using the tool – not the auditor. From this causative viewpoint i have discovered amazing things. It has led to an amazingly successful life.

    That doesn’t mean I subscribe to scientology “beliefs”. There is a fantastic amount of BS connected to the subject. It just means that I have found it to be a very powerful and valuable tool.

  35. You have come a long way over the years, Marty, and with that you are taking others out along with you. So glad to see the fruits of your evolution out of the Scientology mindset hit such a new high.. Here is hoping many will read and listen and get it.

  36. This is then the real ‘Truth Revealed’.

  37. Another Thought

    Not wrong at all on any of this. Perhaps I would add that for the vast majority of those still in and many who are out, that the “game” of Scn. is having these “mysteries” revealed to one as they progress.

    1. The “Prison Earth” idea is expressed in one’s training as early as the first auditor course one does. It is strongly bookend-ed by information on the ARC=U, session procedures, etc., – but it is still an indoctrination item regards what things are wrong with a person.
    2. Xenu never comes up until one is well into their progress into higher levels and training. However, those that “know” are well-trained to generally keep their mouth shut and present themselves as “knowing the mystery” below what is wrong with who they are talking to. I’ve heard this expressed as an ingenious trap, and the fact of hearing this and such statements in conversations with the intiated leave one feeling that there is something to know and drives one to the goal. So, again, another indoctrination to continuing up to discover the mystery.
    3. “Psychs” being the root of all evil is heavily promoted and a firmly held belief, and a strongly run indoctrinational point very quickly for those who are new to the subject.
    4. Hubbard’s “discovery” of the mysteries, and development of the only technology to walk through the construct is another strong indoctrination in his “Keeping Scientology Working” writings. Reinforced each time a new development is announced, in most technical writings on the subject, and so on.
    5. “Behaving as Ron”, the most blatant example of this indoctrination is how he recommends handling a post in an organization or otherwise. “What would Ron do?”
    6. “Enemies” are firmly established by his writings, but most specifically covered in his “Conditions Formulas” works and the Suppressive Persons, Potential Trouble Source writings. To the latter, again, a fairly early piece of church indoctrination.
    7. The technology itself, I am personally only beginning to see the hypnotic aspects of it, although I do have some reality on the “pop psychology” reference. In short, what I have presently come to understand is that the whole “present time” aspects are possibly the most theraputic aspects of anything Hubbard wrote, which I have also found are expressed countless times in many self-help and religious works, as well as sport and artistic fields. “Being in the moment”, “being in the zone”, etc. Sitting down and interiorizing on past upsets, transgressions, etc. to then change one’s mind about them to then “come to present time”, from an outsider point of view, seems a long way around the mulberry bush to simply just handling the present environment as it is. Lots of time was wasted by me to find irrelevant root causes to things I should and could simply handle in the now. Ultimately I find life taught me a much better lesson than Hubbard could, and to that, I am much more fulfilled as a result. However, I begin to really feel for those who lost or weaked their abilities to simply just have their full attention on their environment at will, and those that bought the promise that auditing will restore it. Each time they buy, is another step to “resolving the ultimate mystery”.
    8. Unfortunately this is so true as a working practice, I am hard pressed to argue about this not being a “belief”. In my own area, I have seen suicides, persons who are to a significant degree “undersireable” or not qualified to access higher levels of the Promise of Scn. due to their physical being, sexual orientation, or even age. “They need to drop their body” is a common refrain. Ultimately, were I pressed to determine why this was so common in my own area, I would have to identify those factors in the works of Hubbard and how he desired public indoctrinated. Hence, yes, a belief and faith in what he wrote being the only answer to the problems noted above.

    Not a pretty nor politically correct distillation of the core of Scientology, but personally resonating and true, none-the-less.

    • Hubbard was intetriorized into “I”, and Scientology is an expression of that. Thinking in terms of “terminals” and not in terms of “processes” is a symptom of this interiorization. Focusing on “what” and not on “how” or “why” is also a symptom of this interiorization. And so we have a terminal named “Xenu” in Scientology. It is much more solid than the terminal called “God” in Christianity.

      Most rational is the view of “I” and “God” as a process in Eastern philosophies.

    • I think that condemnation of “psychs” is a cornerstone of Scientology belief, primarily to have a war cry that corrals all the followers into their camp.

      It is also to convince them of Scientology’s greatness and winning monopoly.

      But the way the field of the mind is progressing and reforming itself (while Scientology remains frozen), any advantage that Scientology obtains from putting down psychiatry shall soon be gone.

  38. This is an axiomatic true summation.
    If there was a #9 to add, I would add that in Scientology Inc change of conduct and behavior is brought about by escalating punishments, domination, humiliation. There are reams of policies on Qual “Correction’, i.e. to correct instead of discipline, but in actuality, punishments are used for behavior modification.

    • Karen, are you saying you no longer adhere to LRH beliefs? and if so, how come you still promote yourself as an auditor in the FZ? Please, no more BS: Are you a believer or not? and Why u keep auditing people?

      • OSA ~~ nice try ~~ LOL

        • Karen, do you still believe in running OT3 materials? Do you still think Xenu is real?

          I am not any of the above GO/OSA. I think you know me by now.

          Do you still run these things on people? Or yourself?

          These are just questions. Not attacks.

          • Inquisitions are your bag brother! No wonder you landed a post as the MAA!

            • Love the way you flaunt the instant subpoena power! As if you can just summon her up for a public inquisition and she somehow has some duty to appear for questioning!

            • What is wrong with this question? If I asked a Catholic if they believed in the Virgin Birth they would not be ashamed to answer yes.

              I am only asking a person if they still resonate with a practice. It’s only a question.

              Oracle, do you believe in Xenu? Do you run BTs?

              There is no shame in saying yes or no. Just be honest. What is wrong with stating the truth.

              • Ha ha yes MAA. Basically my job was to keep the EPF cleaning and making things shiny.

              • “Just be honest”. Like that is a problem for someone?

                “There is no shame”. Brother, you don’t know what shame is.

                It is none of your f*(%^*g business what I believe. What I have done in a session. I do not feel compelled by you to step forward in your inquisition.

                But, if you will make 500.00 donation to this blog within the next 24 hours I will answer any ten questions you ask.

                • As long as it does not betray another trust.

                • Show me the money honey, it’s a pay to play world. How important is it for you to know these things? You can always make a counter offer.

                • I just need to know, how VITAL AND VALUABLE do you really these consider these ANSWERS TO BE?

                  • Not that vital at all Oracle. They are simply questions. You have every right to not answer them. Thanks for the reply.

                    • Well, I’ll throw you a bone and maybe you’ll pony up something.

                      I was aware of spiritual influences before I read the OT3 materials. I was not aware of spiritual interference. The whole space opera story I really didn’t attach much interest or significance to. It was the idea of extending further into the supernatural that interested me.

                      To be able to step into the invisible and be at home in that space.

                      When I took a look there were a lot of interesting things to see. Can’t say I have ever thought of “BT’s” although I have used the word for the benefit of communicating to an auditor. They were not part of my body, they were part of my soul. There were people that were part of my soul. A lot of them, in a better place than I was. I didn’t feel any need to distance myself from that, I mean,it just didn’t bother me. Some were there because of unfinished conversations. Most were there because of the laws of ARC, and occupying the same space for that reason. Some were just earlier versions of me, that I parked in a closet. Per the laws of ARC you know, you occupy the same space through affinity. Not through engrams. That is what was true for me. But if you loved someone, and you were pushed off a cliff together,and you were both killed, do you think that could really create distance between you?

                      Yes,it is sometimes noisy in your space when you can hear one another’s thoughts. That noise comforts me. I have learned a lot from these conversations. A lot of valuable information.

                      Hubbard said magicians use spirits to do their bidding, as a goal. I can see how he thought that, but it is not a goal for everyone involved in magic. I don’t do that myself.

                      You find many people on Earth that say they are doing “God’s” bidding.

                      I feel there many Gods. And I care to remain in favor with them.

                      The here and now is not very relevant to me. I have someplace I am going to be,in the future. And where I am going to be about 1,000 years from now, is important to me.

                      I am just gathering an education.

                    • If the word “BT” is replaced by the word “inconsistency” one will get better results on upper OT Level. Trashcan the word “BT” and all the significances that go along with it. It is all hogwash.

                      Sent from my iPad


                    • So,OT3 for me, was soul searching. Whatever anyone else made of it, I treat as their personal business.

                      Contrary to popular teachings, I do not care to “Invade another person’s privacy” to obtain intel.

                      I like it best when I am a guest.

                    • Thank you Oracle, thank you for sharing something very personal. See, it wasn’t so ill intended as you thought.

                      Any looking is better than no looking. Being attuned to and being cognitive of the inner world of limitless imaginings and states of being, the endless filters of mind that color our true nature as raw power, light and being is truly a hero’s journey indeed. As Joseph Campbell has stated,”Some mystics drown in the mystery and some become good swimmers” (paraphrase)

                      So for you the OT 3 materials were a metaphor or a good excuse to go diving inwards and look?

                      If I’m getting you correctly, OT3 materials are not literal. Xenu was simply an idea of Hubbard’s from his Sci Fi imagination? And 75,000,000 years ago, just his imagination.

                      Do you believe Hubbard believed it? And in your opinion, could running this level and assigning cause to one’s problems on this level create distortions in one’s capacity to directly perceive truth? If in fact what is being run is not true.

                      That is, if our problems are not our own, but something outside of ourselves, or more exactly, some alien creature attached to us.

                      Can you see that this approach can be the cause of mental delusions for some? Believing in imaginings as realities?

                    • I understand there are people who think they should be protected from radical ideas. That they should be illegal. It’s a big planet. I think most of those people do gravitate to areas where ideas are closely monitored. There are still many places like that. Not sure if the entire planet should be lock down. South Korea and places like that provide for people en danged by ideas and communication that is “out of the box”. Not sure what your thoughts are on past or future lives. This is taboo in many places also. People will find what is comfortable as time goes on. Where they belong. Yesterday is really part of “past life” in some forbidden alleys. Ideas can be very terrifying to some people. Some people think the freedom in the U.S. is a plague. For them, it is.

                      Some people are just in cross purposes. I wouldn’t stand in the way of anyone seeking shelter from ideas they consider dangerous. I just don’t wan the burden of inheriting their fear. I don’t care to attack ideas. They are things put out there the same as traffic lights. But if you were traveling down a road in 1329 and came upon a traffic light, I am sure it could have been a very terrifying experience.

                    • If you have ideas that counter other ideas. I think this is better than complete avoidance or suppression of ideas.

                      For instance,”ethnic cleansing” ideas I do not think are good ideas.

                      But many people have risen against the back drop of that idea and it’s results. New ideas about it have been laid on the table. That changed the course of life in many countries.

                      I have faith in my fellow man. Contrary to some ideas being put out there that the world is coming to an end, that people are doomed, I see conditions improving. I see this civilization rising up. Not falling down. And it took some radical ideas to push it in that direction.

                    • From what I have seen of those OT 3 materials, and I have seen it in cartoon form twice,most people think it is funny. Kids across the nation watched it on South Park and didn’t fly into mental shock or delusions, that I am aware of.

                      That it is scaring the hell out of a few grown ups, sure, it’s possible. I have a friend that will not take her children out on Halloween because she believes it is Satanic and they will be influenced by Satan. It’s a real current situation.

                    • Thanks for sharing your deep thoughts Oracle. Yes I agree, I am a hopeless optimist as well.

                      Behind all of this projected madness, within the soul of each of us, is so much joy and sense of well being.

                      We are never alone when we know were happiness lies.

                      Some drink and drink and drink alcohol. At night, when no one is around, every night. Out comes the bottle. Some think it’s like medicine, but it only corrupts.

                      The Himalayan Musk Deer secretes a strong perfume in the middle of it’s belly. It smells it and goes mad trying to find it’s source. The nose cannot reach that part of it’s underbelly and goes searching here and there, outside of itself.

                      It gets agitated and goes crazy trying to find the source. Some have flung themselves off a cliff to their demise in that mad attempt to locate the source.

                      Human beings are like that.

                      It was always within us, what we are looking for.

                      When the student is ready, the teacher appears. The true Preceptor leads the student to his/her own under belly through a practice that reverses the search lights of the senses back into the source from whence we have come .

                      The source of all we are looking for. Immortality, bliss, power, true knowledge and wisdom, guidance. It’s there for the taking. If we want it.

                      “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few.” Jesus the Christ

                      Tat Tvam Asi……….. Thou Art That

                      Peace and Hugs to you and Marildi

                    • Peace and hugs to you Brian. I note you have great potential as writer.

              • Brian, I think that the way you are approaching it, you are generating in others a fear of being misinterpreted. It is like you are insisting that the question, “Do you still beat your wife?” be answered with a yes or a no.

                Xenu and BTs seems to provide a certain framework for auditing at OT3. It is not the belief in this framework that produces actual auditing results. But some people literally start to believe in that framework and lose their rationality.

                This may not happen with everybody though. Some may not believe in the framework of Xenu and BTs, but may just find that there are some auditing results.

                What produces actual auditing results (without the hypnotic “feel good” effect) is mindfulness. There is this factor of mindfulness in scientology auditing, but it occurs very infrequently right in the geginning of one’s auditing, or never at all.

                Personally, using the framework of Xenu and BTs is completely unnecessary. It is a product of convoluted mind of Hubbard. Straight application of the Scientific Method with mindfulness is much more effective. Please see

                Solving Real-Life Problems

                • “you are generating in others a fear of being misinterpreted”

                  Sometimes I seek out being misinterpreted so I can deal with the fear. Once the fear is gone, there is no more need to be understood by others. It is a wonderful practice. Then it it easy to love those who think we are jerks because we realize that all experience is self generated. Then we don’t take others personal issues so personally any more.

                  But in Hubbard’s Lientology it is considered powerful to be misinterpreted. Being misduplicated in Scientology has been given the power to take away one’s “wins”.

                  How certain is a certainty that can be invalidated by know it all fools like me?

          • Another Thought

            Who cares if she does, and what would it matter if she did? She and others like her are a stepping stone away from the cult, and a valuable one at that. They offer direction to those still in and those out, to get out of the cult and ultimately, hopefully, out of the hypno-psycho-babble.

            Otherwise, might it have made better sense to simply ask her privately? It’s not like she’s that hard to reach? Tackling this, if you are really interested, in an open forum just plays to the trolls.

            • Thank you Another Thought. I am sure you would know how she feels.

              I am grateful for Karen and the work she does. I watch all of her Vids. I have thought from time to time that maybe she does not mention Ron because of not wanting to alienate those just now leaving who still believe in Ron. I can appreciate that totally. And honor it.

              I guess I have been out of the bubble so long that I have tossed the idea that we can talk about somethings and not about others. Unthinkable thoughts and secret knowledge are no more for me.

              And since these forums are about Scientology it seems to me that more communication not less is better. That being punished for being there and communicating is what needs to be tossed in the rubbish bin like a stinky bad potato.

              Trolls seek to disrupt. I only asked a question. Equating troll-hood with asking questions in an unreality for me. I cannot even think that way. We are free, knowledge is free, we are free to believe in anything we want. I support and honor that.

              I am so glad I have 30+ years behind me. The intellectual stifling was unbearable.

              If you know Karen please tell her I wish her all the success and happiness.

              Another Brian

              • Sorry, I misinterpreted the mention of trolls. I thought you were implying that I was. My bad. 🙂

                • No worries on the misinterpretation. I really don’t know Karen that much, but she, as was Mark and Mike, quite helpful and instrumental in my settling myself when I decided to leave after a few decades myself. She offered to audit me, which was a rather soothing balm as I went through what essentially was my withdrawal period. Though I never took her up on the offer, just the fact of knowing that helped me dramatically, I think. My point was mainly that I found she served a worthwhile purpose in being ready to service what I though I needed as I settled out into my life without Scn, and I am sure there are many, many more like myself.

                  How many others on the edge, but still indoctrinated heavily into the Hubbard system Mark summarized above can be released from it by persons who can service in accordance to those procedures while at the same time, opening their clients’ eyes to the idea it might all be a placebo after all. So, I’m a little protective of this valuable potential in forums like this because this really can the the trickle that becomes the flood of people stepping away from the bs.

                • Whatever, Brian.
                  I can personally attest that Karen actually helps other people to live happier lives every day of her life. I have seen it up close and personal for myself and in others. What do you care what she believes? Instead of asking what she believes, you might ask yourself if YOU actually help others to live happier lives every day of YOUR life. I hope that you do.
                  If you actually do that, I still won’t question what you believe. Just do what you do.

                  • I ask these things because I believe the upper level OT3 implant, gruggie BT NOTS things are dangerous to knowing what is real and unreal.

                    It is a lie to equate one’s problems to Ron’s imaginary enemies: BTs, Xenu.

                    The OT3 material can distort our ability to perceive reality as it is.

                    Regarding happier lives. Amway can make that same claim. I am for happiness wherever it happens.

                    The OT3 materials and NOTS are a lie. They are part of Ron’s nightmare. That nightmare had him wishing electrocution to rid himself of BTs. This one really gets me.

                    Do you understand, that the man who conjured up these levels to make to you free was trying to commit suicide to rid himself of BTs????

                    Ah!!!!! It must be the Prison of Belief. I simply cannot fathom how people still buy into it with this new info that was in Marty’s book.

                    My question for you is: how can you stand by allowing this delusion to be perpetrated on our citizens. And letting them pay for it.

                    There are no BTs, there was no Xenu, Hawaii was not even there 75,000,000 years ago!!!

                    • Brian: “Ah!!!!! It must be the Prison of Belief. I simply cannot fathom how people still buy into it with this new info that was in Marty’s book.”

                      There is no surprise really. A scientologist is looking at these beliefs through the filters of his “wins” in Scientology. It would invalidate his wins if these beliefs are knocked down. So, to himself of the validity of his wins he must uphold these beliefs.

                      The truth is that those wins, if real, are not dependent on these beliefs. But the person doesn’t see it that way. Or maybe those wins are just “feel good” moments.

                    • Like I said, Brian, I am not questioning what YOU believe or saying that you are “bad”. It is your right to form your own conclusions about the universe, what is truer, and what is less true.

                      I don’t really care much about what people say. I am much more interested in how they do affect other peoples’ lives, i.e., do the people around them wind up feeling happier, more empowered, and are they glad for the experience of interacting with that person.

                    • Espiritu: “I am much more interested in how they do affect other peoples’ lives…”

                      Yes that is good parameter. But it should be kept it mind that the final outcome of how someone affected a person’s life depends on not only on the actions of that someone, but also on the nature of inertia in that person affected.

                      Each person’s inertia is different. It determines the reactions within the person to outside influences. Basically what I am saying is that it takes two hands to clap. Niether hand can be blamed for how the clapping sounds.

                    • I agree with you Espiritu.

                      My addition to this is accurate knowledge. Right Knowledge.

                      Although I myself have a long way to go, I know, from my studies and inner investigations of many paths, that there are similarities in procedural outcomes, theory, practices. There is an underlying unity within spiritual paths of diverse customs and cultures.

                      I can tell you with complete conviction, that L Ron Hubbard instilled untruths in his religion.

                      The only way to really know this is to investigate other paths. To practice the disciplines of the sages for some time. Read their works.

                      But L Ron Hubbard booby trapped that possibility by associating other spiritual traditions with the ultimate evil: OT3 materials. Thus making it a holy writ for Scientologists to be compulsively condescending about meditation and other teachers.

                      L Ron Hubbard actually had no idea of what he was talking about regarding the soul and Spirit.

                      He dazzled with his quick witted, compulsively lying rhetorical skills.

                      And we mistook this for wisdom. That is the trap.

                    • Hi Brian,
                      I got what you said. Cool.
                      Regarding Karen, one of the many ways that she helps people is by advising and giving excellent referrals to those who need to get a refund or repayment (and there is a difference between the two!) from the cherch of $cientology.

                    • Thanks Espirtitu. I never questioned her decency in helping others.

                      It was simply a question regarding the OT 3 materials.

                      It still has the mystique of danger. I will let it go.

    • Karen, as always your valuable knowledge and insights inspire people. 🙂 I was thinking about this very thing you mention here just the other day. (e.g.) – In an org, if stats drop for the day a “correct LRH ethics action is “punch the org staff in the head to gets their stats back up to par”. Magic overts! 🙂 [sic] And of course everyone knows LRH wrote this. He may have, some of it, but would he like it if someone did that to him if his stats dropped for the day, and his stats dropped plenty for several years in a row if he ran and hid from the IRS I think! 🙂

      On a broader, brighter note they need more vegan restaurants out there in sunny California! You and I are going to campaign for this one day together! 🙂 Maybe even over at INT Base where food and utility bills and staff health issues cost 20x more than they should because of the staff’s ignorance on the subject of diet. And can you believe the church see the Purif as the real answer to all of this? It is helpful but not the whole truth. Be well! 🙂

    • Another Thought

      Well, can’t argue that. Domination and degradation seems to have become the rule of the day, for sure.

      • “The purpose of ethics is to remove counter intentions from the environment. And having accomplished that the purpose becomes to remove other intentionedness from the environment”

        This is domination, and ethnic cleansing purposes. Why won’t a spokesperson for the Church announce this along side their “Human Rights” campaigns?

        Huh? That’s what I want to know. This is one big f%&^#*g with hold, that’s why.

        • The purpose of the Sea Organization is to put ethics in. It’s right in their bibles. Ethics is REMOVING counter or other intention from the environment. This is the only reason anyone needs to get a restraining order on that group. It is their sworn duty to remove YOU from the environment if you are a counter intention.

        • How does that align with Human Rights?

        • I’ve thought about the fact that anyone who buys into this “purpose”, is in an automatic enemy condition with the rest of their fellow man outside of the group. Unless they ” intend” everything you do.

          This is a big with hold many Scientologists carry. That they are in an enemy condition with many of their fellow man. Anyone that has counter or other intention. That would definitely be every other religion.

          How do rise up when you are in a persistent enemy condition with your fellow man? How does this purpose of ethnic cleansing take you “higher”. And what kind of spiritual supremacy would one need to have to even think this is even righteous? A group that discards children as counter intention or other intention. That’s how bad it is.

  39. Children thrown into chain lockers on this ship, people who could not swim blindfolded and thrown overboard, the sadism of SP Hole, the horrific Rehabiitation Project Force locking people up in the dreaded Old Gilam House, imprisoning them on freewinds, constant kidnap held against will so that in mates cannot reveal what happened and terrorizing them to stupefaction, this is the woof and warp of daily Scientology conduct.
    Here are some Escape stories from those who made it out.

    • Karen, thrown into chain lockers by who?

      • I have a sincere question Karen. Why do you not ever say Ron when communicating atrocities? You say “church”.

        Churches are a generality that make up no doctrines.

        Why do you never say L Ron Hubbard is the source of this violence against our citizens?

        • The thought police is at it again. How about it is none of your business because you are not paying her electric bill? You are running depositions with no power to subpoena. It is none of your business why she chooses the words she does or what she thinks. Get off it.

          • It is only a question. Your characterization and judgment of my question says more about you Oracle. It’s only a question.

            I’ve found it interesting that folks can’t even say his name. It’s like Lord Valdomort in Harry Potter and people can’t speak his name.

            Oracle, I truly believe this happens because of years and years and years of being asked the question, “have you ever had a critical thought of L Ron Hubbard.”

            Think of it. Year after year, knowing full well that if your secret judgment or disagreement was picked up by the needle it potentially meant:

            1) word clearing
            2) Ethics
            3) Declare
            4) being declared PTS
            5) If declared loosing family
            6) if declared loosing friends
            7) if declared loosing your “only road to spiritual freedom”
            8) if working for or with Scientologists, loosing your job
            9) being seen as an SP by family and friends.

            All of these fears being cemented in association with criticism of Hubbard. So if you do not want to experience any of the above. Keep your mouth shut and deny what your feel and perceive. Better yet, if you do have these thoughts, it’s because of your evil intentions. You are evil for criticizing Ron.

            I have felt that blow back. But it’s fine. It’s all good. It’s good practice for me to be centered when folks think I’m a jerk. Great learning and I appreciate every one.

            No wonder people have a hard time. The command to never have a critical thought is laid in like cement.

            The outcome of this hypnotic command is to explode with anger towards critics Ron. It is diabolical Oracle: evil beyond a doubt.

            • So well said. The implant is that It’s so wrong to criticise the big man.

              What’s the problem? We won’t be on church cans again. Let the bs go now, man.

            • Karen is a Class XII C/S. And as LRH has said “When a Class XII speaks, people listen”.

              Ripley: Do you get it? We homed in on it’s beacon.

              Executive: And found something never recorded once in over 300 surveyed worlds. A creature that gestates inside the living human host – these are your words – and has concentrated acid for blood.

              Ripley: Look I can see where this is going but I am telling you those things exist.

              Commader Van Leuwen: Thank you, that will be all RIpley!


  40. Thank you. Regarding # 4- “Ron Hubbard is the first to discover the truth of 1 through 3 above, and the only one to have devised a means of escaping the prison planet.”

    This ‘only one’ concept invited to the use of excuses to force it on others, either by invalidation of their knowledge and the covert, but always present pressure to introvert the individual by clearing what you failed to understand and/or find out what you did that prevents you from seeing the ‘truth’. Practically constant nullification.

    In addition it became a ‘save every man, woman, and child’, ‘save the planet’, ‘you won’t make it unless you use and are a scientologist’ – which translates into domination through fear (your eternity is at risk), and later on through threats, abuses, and even crimes.

  41. “Psychs were sent here from a planet called ‘Farsec.’ ”

    LOL. I guess that explains why I’m such a weirdo — I’m not from this planet at all! 😉

    • Farsec looks and feels like a completely made-up name. Which I am sure that it was.

      For one thing, it is way too close to the astronomical term parsec, which is a measure distance — 3.26 light years.

      For another thing, it is quite odd that Hubbard’s names fit so well with the English sound system and phonological rules.

      It’s almost as if a science fiction writer were making things up …

      • Hi FOTF2012,

        Hubbard considered scientology to be gnostic. Gnosticism expresses itself in myth, and truths are considered to be embodied in the myths. This may be why some pcs who didn’t agree with the literal theory on the OT levels, for example, still got gains from them.

        • Marildi: “Hubbard considered scientology to be gnostic. Gnosticism expresses itself in myth, and truths are considered to be embodied in the myths.”

          All gains come from as-isness of fixed attention. Underlying any method that accomplishes this, is mindfulness.

          How OT Levels get one to apply mindfulness, and as-is one’s fixed attention needs to be analyzed properly before making such general, inane statements.

          • Hey Vinnie, must you be like a little dog that has to pee on every bush?

            Let at least a few comments go by without leaving a “deposit” of pronouncements – as if you are the supreme authority. It gets old.

            • Marildi, My comments are intended to clarify the truth about what is being claimed. They are not meant to upset you.

              Please use Scientology to maintain your inner peace. Do you think Scientology is up to meeting that challenge?

  42. Marvellous Marty. Now, if you could only do a summarised, tweetable version….m’kay thx 🙂

  43. Your outline is correct. Sad but true.

  44. Bravo.

  45. As in any prison what lessons do we learn? If you had God power could you use it responsibly, if the universe were inhabited by countless Gods whose “will” would dominate, still here witnessing

  46. IF you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
    If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;
    If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
    Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
    And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

    If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
    If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
    If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two impostors just the same;
    If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
    Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

    If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
    And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
    If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,
    And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

    If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
    ‘ Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
    if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
    If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
    Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
    And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!

  47. “the way out is the way through” -lrh

    “clear the planet” clear of what, humans, non-scientologists

    “scientology, the only game where everyone wins!” -because there will be nobody left who opposes them

    anyone who leaves or doesn’t join scientology will be asked for a reason why they aren’t joining, and that reason will be considered criticism, suppression, and per the ethics book, lol, critics are suppressive persons, who are to be… “deleted… quietly disposed of… What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?”

    replace homo sapien with homo novis, a clear

    There’s no need to make up or exaggerate things about the church, just read lrh carefully, ironically the ethics book or the 2nd book, science of survival and genocide is spelled out in plain english.

  48. The Church of Scientology’s central ideological construct is embodied in the narrative Mark Rathbun describes. This narrative is gradually disclosed in a series of steps. The net effect of this narrative is to create a radicalized collective identity that is binding upon both the individual and the group.

    This collective identity summates to this fact: At its core, the Church of Scientology is a genocidal master race cult:

    • wow that’s accurate!

      and the narrative is so distracting people don’t even see the end they are pushing towards

    • Interesting page. I too felt that the movement had ethnic cleansing goals. This really lays it out. The H.B.O. documentary airing is the tip of the iceberg. Once it airs, people will run to their computers to Google “Scientology” and find everything that has been documented on the Internet in terms of Sea Org abuse,domestic violence and domestic terrorism.

      eth·nic cleans·ing
      the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society.
      Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or religious groups from a given territory with the intent of making it ethnically or religiously homogeneous. The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as mass murder.

    • Very interesting hypothesis at your link, JSwift. Looks like Hubbard was moving toward the Brave New World of Aldous Huxley.

      Bad boy!

    • Brilliant article, Jeffrey. I’ve saved it. Thanks.

    • Master race. Apparently, I am the only one, to think, “Remove all counter intention from the environment” is an evil purpose and an ethnic cleansing goal.

      But if someone thought for a minute they were going to be “removed from the environment” for having counter intention, they might keep that counter intention on full suppress. Apologize for having some “counter” intention.

      I can co exist with counter intention. Sometimes, it feels good!

      • When you lay things out like that and cut to the chase, the meaning becomes very clear. But I think a lot of people were operating on their own interpretation and with their own definitions of what that meant, and so were never fully aligned to begin with. It seems to be a group where everyone has their own private version of the truth.

        • Thanks LG. I thought it was clear as a bell. But this is why I got labeled “reasonable”. But it comes down to mathematics doesn’t it?

          If the purpose of the Sea Org is to put ethics in on the planet. And ethics is removing all “counter intention” from the environment, and then, all “other intention” from the environment. Who will be left in the environment?

          I mean, if you are sleeping and you are woken by a siren, that is counter intention. Traffic is counter intention. Other intention.

          Counter intention and other intention is also known as co existance.

          If you lived in a world with no counter intention and no other intention, what kind of world would you live in?

          When you think about purpose, you have to have some idea of why you would align yourself with a purpose right?

          The purpose of ethics then, within the Scientology framework, and the purpose of the Sea Org, is that no counter intention or other intention exists.

          But if there is only one other person on the planet besides yourself, you are going to have other intention.

          So, this entire premise that the ethics structure is built on, in the Church, is anti social in itself.

          • It doesn’t even align with the admin scale.

          • I mean, no wonder the Orgs are empty. Those people “out there” are other intention. The Sea Org is supposed to keep those people REMOVED from the environment, not suck them in!

            • And you know, I broached this subject a while back on another forum. About this whole ethics subject and the way it is set up. And it seems very clear to me about what it is. But I got slammed by a “KSW fanatic” as “railing against ethics and justice” (therefore labeled whatever…)

              Well, what about theta being repelled by entheta? Doesn’t that count for anything?

              See, you can rail against the entire system. But it doesn’t unfold, the pieces that do not work, unless you pull a little string.

              What is so theta and in ethics about the KSW series? Look at the purposes a person is supposed to align themselves with that.

              Hammer out of existence ?

              Closing the door?

              Hubbard states, “I know what a group of people will do and how insane they will go in accepting unworkable ‘technology’.

              How about that unworkable ethics technology? How insane have people gone in that group accepting unworkable ethics technology? The Orgs are empty. The Sea Org has made more SP’s than Clears!!!!!!!!! There is more counter intention towards the Church than ever because of the people that got set up for losses with the ethics sections of the Church.

              The leader of the Organization is running domestic terrorism crews!

              I am not railing against ethics and justice!!! I am railing against unworkable technology!! Anti social technology.

              This environment is a CO OPERATIVE. You can’t just remove others from it because they have counter or other intentions.

              If you can’t through ARC and reasoning, bring people over to your side to support you, what does that say about your own communication skills? The product you are selling.

              Police and soldiers do not have the same effect on people they did 50 years ago. It is no longer a police power or a soldier power civilization for the majority of the planet.

              This is not the same planet Hubbard lived on when he wrote these notes and ideas.

              And isn’t ” removing all counter intention and other intention from the environment”, the exact complaint against Xenu?

              The purpose of the Sea Org aligns with Xenu!

            • And, I mean, O.K., the ethics formulas are fine. That is very helpful. Except for the lists you are given to choose from. “harm attack or suppress”. What if your item is not on this list? What if one of those just doesn’t feel right for the situation? You still have to pick one or all of them to graduate up! A person should come up with their OWN idea of how they want to deal with it.

              And then there are the comm evs. That doesn’t work because by the time the comm ev members sit down, they are all out ruds on the person being comm eved. In fact, from what I have seen, by the time they convene, they have already decided the person they are comm eving, should be harmed attacked and suppressed! If they are in a lower condition, and they have to be at least be in doubt about this person or they wouldn’t be comm eving him,

              Ordering people for sec checks? Public, at their own expense so the org can feel secure? That’s crazy.

              You see, so much of it doesn’t help the person or the group at all.

              Yes, there are situations. There are sociopaths. Information about their treason and hidden agendas and sabotage and their usual social intercourse needs to be shared for damage control. But these are rare.
              They are discovered rather quickly as one for one they are pathological liars. They need to be to cover their tracks.

              But if you groom someone to unmock anyone in their path who has counter or other intentions, aren’t you creating sociopaths?

              And why is it considered technology at all? It’s rules. customs ,traditions and ceremonies. I mean, it’s SOOO bad that in the ethics book under “Rewards and Penalties”, there are NO rewards listed!!!

  49. Thank you, Marty, for once again summarizing the crux of the matter in a concise and understandable few words.

    Since I used this forum to announce my leaving the cult of cofs four years ago, and given Marty’s profound summary here, I would like to update my status. I do not consider myself a scientologist; independent or otherwise. Yes, I had gains while participating in scientology. I also was very accomplished in life before scn and had many gains in other practices as well. I consider myself to be a person who could obtain gains in life because that was my viewpoint on life – gains to be had.

    Four years ago, I still retained respect for Ron Hubbard. Now I see him very differently. Time and investigation and feeling safe to evaluate for myself, I see LRH and his probably intentions differently.

    Life is good. Joy and happiness are here for my taking. Kindness is my religious practice.

    • Congratulations! You have inspired me today. Kindness may be the best religious practice, today I will try to practice.

    • I see LRH as a very troubled person, who could find nobody to help him. So, he helped himself in a remarkable way.

      I may have simply succumbed if I were in his shoes. I admire LRH for fighting valiantly against his demons.

      Nobody is perfect. LRH did the best he could. I don’t agree with his philosophy, but I am impressed by his genius.

      • You might probably be less impressed by his genius when you read about his proposed way to get rid of ‘wogs’ or inferior people (2.0 tone scale and lower). He uses words like ‘to delete’, ‘to isolate’, ‘to quarantine’, ‘to dispose’ of ‘quietly without sorrow’. Homo Novis has a right to use Fair Game on them, just because they are antagonistic towards Scientology. See the essay on

        • Why is evil genius not impressive?

          I love Spy vs Spy.

          • I would not quality Hubbard as a genius. He might have written a lot of words (or borrowed them from others), but quite a lot of it is bad SF or downright unintelligible. Also, the tech of scientology is not producing what it promises. His ideas about government take-over, ethnic cleansing, controlling the mental health field, are just ludicrous. Delusions of a fascistoid utopia by a SF writer. If you ask me.
            I have to admit one thing though: he was a master in pseudo-science.

    • Beautiful. Thank you for this. 🙂

  50. Oracle: a Suppressive is “who refuses to be bypassed / hypnotized.” True. Scientology; “knowing how to know in the fullest sense of the word” Until you know (or find out too much) then you graduate. An SP Declare is the Graduation Certificate.

  51. “8.When a scientologist has expended all of his best efforts”……. AND ALL OF HIS MONEY, PPROPERTY, AND BUS TOKENS.

  52. Marty their is more , hope you did not miss it this life !!
    Darren may

    Sent from my iPhone


  53. Victoria A. Berry

    Lots of integral info in a nutshell article, when they can’t convey anything meaningful in a full page ad. Hate seeing this waste.

  54. BINGO!

    Next, and final stage: all these beliefs were systematically implanted into the minds of Scientologists as a distraction from the original, single intention of extracting cash from them.

  55. A good perspective to read this from is to pay special attention to the sentence that precedes these points: “In plain English, here are the core religious beliefs of scientology…”

    Almost all that follows are observations of what Scientologists believe to be true, save point #7. People who believe point #7 to be true could not any longer be Scientologists, could they? That would be like a Christian saying “I am a Christian, even though I only am a Christian because the writings and practices were carefully designed and administered so as to lead me and other Christians to wholeheartedly accept and live according to my beliefs.”

    So, I think an earlier commenter (aotc) here was right in saying that #7 is what Marty (and many others here) believe to be true. Someone dissed aotc for that, but the disser was not as careful a reader as aotc.

    One of the core beliefs I have not seen mentioned here is, I think, the principle and most core belief of Scientology. That belief is “Ron is 100% right and none of the tech can be argued against.” This smothered out of existence a “belief” put forth in Scientology Zero materials: “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself to be true”, etc. This essay on personal integrity worked as a good TR4 to the newcomers’ qualms when they first get in, but, after not very long, that stable datum was shaken and was replaced with KSW 1 and KSW 2 (Safeguarding Technology). It’s never, ever been right for a true Scientology believer to consider for a moment that Ron could be wrong in anything, as far as I can tell.

    But the belief that Ron was always right and the “only one” who could be Source is the most important belief of all to inspect and then discard. Once a person does that, he can assign relative importances to all the various data of Scientology. That’s how I can still value much of Scientology, and disregard, or relegate to the trash heap, so much that is not of value or is harmful.

    We might liken Scientology to the notes of some brilliant 18th century chemist who managed some break throughs. Trained chemists now might still marvel at some of this fellow’s discoveries and insight, but blush or shake their heads at other things once asserted as truth, that just did not turn out to be so.

    While looking at the other points, remember Marty introduces them as “religious beliefs”. Remember the etymology of religion – it’s from the Latin “religare” – a binding together. It’s things that a group or people hold together to be true.

    There is little or no distinction in this post or in the comments here between the beliefs of Ron and Scientologists and the technology of auditing. And it would be of more benefit in this discussion if such a distinction were made.


    a)if a person were to be audited all the way from Life Repair, through his Grades and Power Processing, even up to OT 2, and

    b) was not subjected to the indoctrination that is continually brought to a student or parishioner by virtue of course materials, books, policy letters, registrars, promotional pieces and events, then

    c) he might not believe ANY of the things brought up my Marty here. Consider: He might not even have thought any of those things, let alone believe in them, without those sorts of influence.

    These beliefs are not borne out of realizations attendant to auditing sessions. They are borne out of indoctrination brought to people by course materials, books, policy letters, registrars, ethics officers, FSMs, promo pieces, taped lectures, confidential briefings and upper level materials, etc.

    That may be why there are still a few people refusing to succumb to the ex-Church people who now want to lump all of their Scientology experience together and call it “bad”.

    I think that it might be therapeutic for some here to sit alone at a table and write out answers to these questions: “Have I benefited from Scientology?” “If so, how?”

    I’ve done that several times and it’s always been fun. You can call that hypnotism, if you like, you and John Atack can call it “increased levels of dopamine”, if you like. You can call it whatever you want.

    Call it “hypnotism” though, and I will respond with, “Yes, and what, exactly, is not hypnotism?” Cheering for your favorite Super Bowl team or anything else is a sort of hypnotism. Having good manners or a certain way of addressing elders is a programming, in some respects. Much of life is, for most of us, spent in a sort of hypnotized state. The red pill or the blue? Even the red pill is an illusion.

    If you are one of the blessed few for which life is not at least in part a hypnotic trance, I kneel before you in awe of your awesomeness. Cause baby, you’ve got it.

    Increased levels of dopamine? Running does that, and so does getting laid. These things are now wrong? Should we just be injecting ourselves with the stuff instead, or working to run or have sex without having increased levels of dopamine?

    I begrudge the use of the term “pop psychology” to dismiss any subject. I would not want to put ANY subject under that umbrella, not even bumper sticker stuff or facebook feel good memes. I don’t think of Marty as being snarky, but that feels snarky to me. In being described, the subject deserves better than that.

    Scientology has not been asserted in to our lives. It’s not some cruel demonic inky black stuff that engulfed us that we now have to exorcise from our lives. It’s a subject that we thrived in, toiled under, found thrills in, and feel betrayed by. It’s a lot like every other area of life.

    So, why be miserable about it? I know Jews that whine about their upbringing, and Catholics too. I think that less than 1% of us have been brought up properly. And we’re assaulted by undue influence on a daily basis by marketers and politicians.

    So what? There’s always been something rough going on here, making life a bit of a bitch. Once it was saber tooth tigers and tar pits. Now we have politicians, marketers and religions. About the same thing, I think.


    • . . . There is little or no distinction in this post or in the comments here between the beliefs of Ron and Scientologists and the technology of auditing. And it would be of more benefit in this discussion if such a distinction were made.


      a)if a person were to be audited all the way from Life Repair, through his Grades and Power Processing, even up to OT 2, and

      b) was not subjected to the indoctrination that is continually brought to a student or parishioner by virtue of course materials, books, policy letters, registrars, promotional pieces and events, then

      c) he might not believe ANY of the things brought up my Marty here. Consider: He might not even have thought any of those things, let alone believe in them, without those sorts of influence.

      These beliefs are not borne out of realizations attendant to auditing sessions. They are borne out of indoctrination brought to people by course materials, books, policy letters, registrars, ethics officers, FSMs, promo pieces, taped lectures, confidential briefings and upper level materials, etc . . .

      It would appear that your consideration is invalid in that it seeks to draw a differentiation where none exists.

      Sure, by applying just the technology of auditing, a person may well not have certainty or even know about any of the items mentioned in the OP. However, if a person was subject to auditing outside of the cult infrastructure up to OT 2, that person would still be required to believe lots and lots of L Ron Hubbard’s bullshit, just as the auditor does. Things like the “reactive mind”. There is no evidence for a “reactive mind”, so how can anyone insist it exists? The most likely background to the concept of the “reactive mind” is that its a perverse fusion of Freud’s “unconscious mind” and Korzybski’s theory of identification. Freud only ever used his concept as a model for understanding, whereas L Ron Hubbard insists that the reactive mind is an actuality, and then he jammed in things called “engrams”. It doesn’t take too many keystrokes to source scientific evidence – which L Ron Hubbard helped compile – confirming there is no such thing as an “engram” as defined by L Ron Hubbard. Then there’s the e-meter which, according to the technology of auditing. “. . . passes a tiny current through the preclear’s body. This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits and machinery. When the unclear pc thinks of something, these mental items shift and this registers on the meter . . . ” Again, this is utter bullshit. The e-meter certainly measures something, but it is not what L Ron Hubbard says it is even if L Ron Hubbard believed it when he wrote it.

      And so it goes on. Bit by bit, gradient by gradient: the auditor’s attempt to slowly inject L Ron Hubbard’s beliefs, which the auditor has adopted as their own, into the mind of the PC. Accordingly, there can be no differentiation between the beliefs of L Ron Hubbard and the technology of auditing.

      • I’m sorry, but if you don’t know what the emeter measures, then how do you know it does not measure what Hubbard said it measured?

        Also, “reactive mind” is as good a term as any in psychology or psychoanalysis. It pretty clearly differentiates functions taking place “below the level of awareness of a person”, from those that are consciously monitored/initiated. Anyone who has observed/studied post-hypnotic suggestion can see that.

        • . . . you don’t know what the emeter measures, then how do you know it does not measure what Hubbard said it measured?


          . . . Also, “reactive mind” is as good a term as any in psychology or psychoanalysis. It pretty clearly differentiates functions taking place “below the level of awareness of a person”, from those that are consciously monitored/initiated.

          Huh? The term “reactive mind” makes no such differentiation. Think about it: reactions can be entirely conscious and monitored, they can even be pre-determined. A more accurate term which does make the differentiation you describe is “sub-conscious”.

          • “Below the level of awareness”, “sub-conscious”, you think there is a fundamentl difference in meaning? It sounds like quibbly nit-picky word-play to me. As I mentioned in a discussion with Vin recently, any language, any words are “filters”. They point to realities but do not necessarily delineate them with absolute precision.

            • “Below the level of awareness”, “sub-conscious”, you think there is a fundamentl difference in meaning? . . .

              No, and I never suggested there was. Flunk for fallacy of equivocation.

              • Well, I don’t know what a “fallacy of equivocation” is, but here is your post I was responding to, in which you seemed to clearly saying there is a difference:
                “Huh? The term “reactive mind” makes no such differentiation. Think about it: reactions can be entirely conscious and monitored, they can even be pre-determined. A more accurate term which does make the differentiation you describe is “sub-conscious”.
                The reactive mind is defined as operating below the level of a person’s awareness, as is (to me), the “subconscious mind”.
                So it appears that “reactive mind” and “subconscious mind” are pretty much referring to the same phenomena. I use “reaction” as denoting stimulus-response, rather than consciously intended, planned, or volitional actions.

    • Consider:

      a)if a person were to be audited all the way from Life Repair, through his Grades and Power Processing, even up to OT 2, and

      b) was not subjected to the indoctrination that is continually brought to a student or parishioner by virtue of course materials, books, policy letters, registrars, promotional pieces and events, then

      c) he might not believe ANY of the things brought up my Marty here. Consider: He might not even have thought any of those things, let alone believe in them, without those sorts of influence.

      I am living with a such person. He did the entire bridge and has never stepped foot in a Church. He does not consider himself a Scientologist.
      He did everything in a few years and just kept on moving forward with out a hangover, or any trace of the items listed above.

      But how could he have done that without an auditor, who was “indoctrinated” with course materials and books?

      • All I was wanting to point out is that such a person as the person you are living with would not find himself believing the various things that Mark Rathbun says are the beliefs of Scientology. Unless this person was also indoctrinated thusly.

        Fundamental Christianity has in it some pretty barbaric aspects, particularly in the Old Testament. There we have stonings, whole populations being rubbed out by a vengeful God, etc. The New Testament, while less barbaric, doesn’t sit well with a lot of today’s sophisticated people for various reasons, including Paul’s views about women and homosexuality.

        Various Christian thinkers have managed to get past the “it’s ALL God’s Word and it’s ALL got to be followed”, and have basically asked themselves, “What’s workable and generally improves conditions?” and they take those things and preach and practice on the workable and leave all else alone. Ernest Holme’s Church of Religious Science is an excellent example of this. Hinduism is full of brilliant information and guidance; it’s also full of myth. Certainly there’s many people who have been able to decipher the difference between the good and bad.

        Islam is another example, with the most dangerous being those who want to follow all the Prophet’s words, and it’s unfortunate that his later teachings were venomous; his earliest teachings very loving. So there are fundamentalists there beheading and stoning, and other’s who have filtered out the hatred.

        Such could bea “new way” to teach Scientology. Label the balderdash and non-sensical and harmful any way you want, but move it off the line up. I think there’s many in the Indie Field doing just that. Although these beliefs Marty has enumerated are certainly embedded in the Church and in many church-goers; there is lots and lots of material that are not influenced by these beliefs and do much to bring relief and a clearer view of things to people. There’s a lot left over.

        I think that there’s many people who have benefited from Scientology in a similar fashion to your roommate or partner. And there’s also lots of people who held on to their personal integrity while being on org lines studying. Just because these points have been put forward by Ron and then advanced by many, there are plenty of people who filter these nonsensical or harmful things out. Very few people at the Washington Times personally advanced the aims of their owner, the Unification Church. We are not infected with the principles of Christian Science if we read the Monitor’s book and movie reviews.

        Here we are on Marty’s blog. Perhaps a few thousand of us have commented over the years. How many of us have employed Scientology in such a way as to hurt another since we have left the Church? I think there are very few or any of us here who have done that.

        I think that most of those still active in the corporate Church are tolerating these beliefs. less than accepting them. And I think that is true with many of us here. And, just as there was a “breaking point” for us, there will be a “breaking point” for many of them. The ranks of “exes” bailing is greater every day. There are 3 people who have told me they are under the radar to every one person I know who has said publicly that they have left.

        • Good points. All. I really enjoy reading your posts.

          • Thank you! I think we should get together and establish a pop psychology practice. Let’s call it it “Playology” A lot like Scientology, but without ethics policies, bad guys and space opera. Here’s my proposed 8 beliefs:

            1. Planet Earth is a playground. The vast majority of human beings – and billions of invisible other beings – are your team mates. We are here to express and experience freedom, growth and joy.

            2. Steve Irwin (aka “The Crocodile Hunter”) was the name of the hero of our pop psychologist group. Steve established Earth as a playground and transported billions of beings to serve as our fellow team mates.

            3. Our continued state of play is assured by stand up comedians, late-night talk show hosts, friendly people we meet in day to day life, ex-Scientologists and people who write critically about Scientology without having any first hand experience with it. The males are from Mars, and the girls are from Venus.

            4. Dan Locke and The Oracle were all amongst the first few billion to have discovered the truth of 1 through 3 above, and are not the only ones who have devised means of enjoying life on this planet, and wanting to immerse themselves in the experience of it, and can’t imagine why anyone would want to escape from it.

            5. It’s of vital importance in our group that we don’t consider there’s only one hole in any wall and that it’s typically not necessary to navigate through holes in walls. It’s usually fine to let a hole in a wall just continue to be there, and not go through it. If one decides to go through a hole in a wall, it’s usually only necessary to determine if the any of the available holes are wide enough to pass through or can be made wide enough, and this can be done usually without skills in navigation.

            We also recognize that going around the wall or through a door are frequently available options.

            It is also important to answer the age-old question many of us have suffered with over the ages, that being the question, “What wall???”

            6. Playologists don’t have enemies. About as bad as it gets for a playologist is to encounter people they haven’t yet quite figured out.

            7. Playology ‘technology’ consists of a sophisticated mix of “pop” psychology and hypnotism carefully designed and administered so as to lead people to wholeheartedly accept and live according to these beliefs. In keeping with “pop culture”, we do our best to keep up with what’s trending, and mod clothing. We are pretty split on the whole Justin Bieber thing.

            8. When a playologist has expended all of his best efforts in the vibrant pursuit of these beliefs he is expected to belch loudly and shout “Huzzah” and laugh as others wonder what “huzzah” means. All playologists eventually “die”, usually while laughing or after extraordinarily satisfying sex.

        • All I was wanting to point out is that such a person as the person you are living with would not find himself believing the various things that Mark Rathbun says are the beliefs of Scientology. Unless this person was also indoctrinated thusly . . .

          Huh? Just like any regular poster here at “Movin’ On Up”, the person TO is living with is not in any way a Scientologist by Scientology’s own definition. This person doesn’t call themself a Scientologist. The OP is talking about Scientology beliefs – why on Earth would any non-Scientologist believe any Scientology let alone the core beliefs as delineated by Marty?

          The remainder of your comment, I suggest, is invalid in that it seeks to draw a false equivalence. This is because Scientology is not a religion. For it to be valid to describe Scientology as a religion the definition of the term “religion” would have to include as a qualifier something like this:

          “an organisation which systematically and covertly applies hypnotic-like practises against adherents in order to gain deeply personal and other information for subsequent use against the person so as to extract cash and/or protect the on-going functioning of the organisation”.

          Now, while that qualifier is an accurate description of the day-to-day and on-going core business of Scientology, it also excludes Scientology for consideration as a religion.

          A valid equivalence with which to measure Scientology would be with criminal organisations such as the Mafia, the Hells Angels, the Tongs, the Triads, and so on. Just like Scientology, each of those criminal organisations has facets which could be described as religious in nature, but not one of them can be described as a religion.

          • crep, I believe the differentiation was between the “believers” in the church and a person who was “audited” up through, say, Clear, outside the church, by auditor or listener or facilitator using perhaps the Clearbird materials which are distillation of the procedures, apart from any indoctrination into the beliefs outlined by Marty.
            That is what some of us are talking about, and what some refer to as “core scientology”. I think it is a differentiation worth making. One might call it “decontaminated scientology tech”.

            • I think that the only decontaminated Scientology tech may be OT TR0, but there I have my doubts because the instructions for it are so skimpy that it can be easily misinterpreted.

              Almost all Scientology Tech is contaminated by the flawed Theta-MEST theory.

            • crep, I believe the differentiation was between the “believers” in the church and a person who was “audited” . . .

              My point was that regardless of whether a person was a “believer” in Scientology or a person who was “audited” in the Free Indie Dependent Zone up to Clear or OT2, they will still end up believing a whole pile of L Ron Hubbard bullshit. From that perspective, it doesn’t really matter because, if the auditor has done a “standard” job, the poor PC could well end up believing in Xenu and all the other core beliefs as delineated by Marty. And paying good money for it, poor soul.

              • I find what you say in this comment entirely unsupportd by experience or logic. It would however be a good objective test of tjhe matter, to have a person be “processed” without being “indoctinated”. You seem to feel s/he woud somehow magically be indoctrinated/imbued with Hubbard’s worldview and cosmology. That seems like magical fantasy to me, but carry on.
                My point about Berdyaev and subjectivity was perhaps well delineated by Ken Wilbur. He does a petty good exposition of the roles of each in and the different realms of knowledge involved in ech. Kool-aide drinkers like current CoS members are introverted into their own subjectivity; some critics seem compulsively extraverted to the opposite extreme. From my own pre-scientology experiece, here is an example: Back in the 1960s, I took some LSD, and prmptly went out the top of my head(not “3 feet behind it”, but straight up). Of course the LSD experience varied from person to person, but some of the “expert” “authorities” who had never taken it authoritatively stated that my experience was a “hallucination” or “delusion”.
                How in the world could they know what it was?

  56. I’m “coming out” as “pro-pop psychology”.

    Defined: “Popular psychology (or pop psychology or pop psych) is the concepts and theories about human mental life and behavior that are purportedly based on psychology and that find credence among and pass muster with the populace. The concept is cognate with the human potential movement of the 1950s and ’60s.
    Popular psychology – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”

    Ron’s and Scientology’s claims that Dianetics inaugurated the human potential movement of the 50’s and 60’s are true, I think. It even preceded “The Power of Positive Thinking” by two years. Living in the USA, prior to 1950, if you wanted to find encouragement and validation for “being you” and being alive, you found it from a family member or from a popular song lyrics, not from a non-fiction book. It’s true that there was psychology before Dianetics, but it was not popular, and it did not validate or encourage human potential or “being awake”.

    I think that “pop psychology” has been a “It’s a Wonderful Life”‘s George Bailey type of influence on our culture – and that’s brought a lot of good. If it had never been “born”, the world would not be as nice a place.

    My turn to be snarky! Nyah ha ha! Take THAT, you scoundrels!

  57. Let me be the first to state that I do not … I repeat DO NOT include Dr. Phil in #3 above. Dr. Laura, yes.

  58. From my point of view, the core beliefs of Scientology are stated in the Scientology Axioms. One could also include The Factors.

    • Here is my criticism of the belief contained in Scientology Axiom #1:

      An Analysis of Scientology Axiom #1

      • Vinaire, I have read what you have said about this a number of times as you continually use your truth to make less of other beings’ truths on this matter. You never offer it as another explanation or as another viewpoint on the properties of theta/spirit but as THE TRUTH. I understand the sources for what indicates to you as truth, as you have noted these in you essays. I would never actually question what indicates to you as truth, as I do not feel that my personal truth (or L. Ron Hubbard’s) is in any way superior to yours. But as you keep mentioning your truth as THE TRUTH to point out how untrue other peoples’ truths are, I have asked you more than once (though you will never answer me) HOW you know your truth about the properties of a being is true, but axiom one is not. Now if your answer is that your truth indicates to you more or feels more right, why not just say s0? That would be real to me. But you assert it is the ONLY truth, and I’m just curious how you came to that conclusion.

      • By the way Vinaire, so it is clear, let me add that I am in no way attempting to debate this point of theta/spirit with you. Far from asserting Axiom #1 as true, I’m not even sure it is anymore.(it may just have been an idea that has indicated to me since I go into Scientology in 1970). What I’m so curious about is your personal experience or viewpoint, WHY you are so sure what you say is the truth.

        • Joe, my intention is simply to highlight the inconsistency that I see in Scientology Axiom #1. The rest what you say about my intention are your additives. I am very aware of the knee-jerk reaction of Scientologists to any criticism. They always “defend” by attacking back. I see that characteristic displayed here. There is complete absense of a logical response from you.

          How can one theoretical end of a spectrum produce the other theoretical end of the same spectrum as claimed in Theta-MEST theory? A virgin giving birth may be more convincing.

          I am not sure of absolute truth, but I am sure of an inconsistency when I see one. Please see #4 of the Scientific Method in the following paper.

          Solving Real-Life Problems

          • Vinaire, I am not a Scientologist anymore and as I am quite in disagreement myself with a number of LRH’s ideas, I do not feel obligated at all to “defend” him in any way. As far as I’m concerned it is open season for all to battle out any philosophers’ ideas. I didn’t think I was “attacking” you. I was just interested a bit more in your certainty of viewpoint. That’s all. Your answer that you are not sure of the absolute truth is appreciated.

            • The Quest for Certainty

              Buddha declared.

              “The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.”

              DEFINITION: Absolute means, “Viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.”

              This postulate may appear self-contradictory to some, but it essentially says, “There are no absolute certainties.” This is reflected in one of the most ancient hymns, The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda.

              All certainties are relative. This statement does not degrade any certainty we have. It simply means that one can always come up with a better certainty.

              That is how science makes progress. Einstein declared the speed of light to be a universal constant. This is a certainty for now, but there may possibly be a wider context in which the speed of light is a special case.

              Similarly, in the field of spirituality, we cannot be absolutely certain that self or soul is permanent. The phenomenon that is described as self or soul must be open to further investigation.

              There is little progress possible for a person who believes his certainties are absolute.

              One can always improve upon a certainty one has.

      • I wish to give you a long overdue thank you for a post you made in 2013 and to present it here once again as I have often referred to it when discussing the cult with others. I could go into an ego-reinforcing description of exactly how and why I am grateful, but I believe it is self evident to anyone who practices mindfulness and has undergone the Scientology indoctrination process (technical training as a Snr. C/S in my case).


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

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

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

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

        • Mark C. Rathbun

          And so it was with God, for Hubbard.

        • Mark C. Rathbun

          You are right on the money Don.

        • That is beautifuly expressed. That you for sharing, particularly the last paragraph.

        • Thank you Don, I was always trying to remember when I read this and what it said. It is directly the opposite of any sage, saint and wiseman?women has ever said. Ron actually invalidated to goal of life itself with this.

          This is the doctrine of the deification of the ego. It could be considered Anti Christ as Christconsciousness by definition if feeling unity and oneness with all life. It could also be considered Santanic as this doctrine preaches eternal separateness.

          I sometimes feel this man, Ron Hubbard, was a lower astral being, come on earth for a time.

          He even identifies with the dark side with his affections for being called the Prince of Darkness and the Anti Christ. Nibs even said his dad thought he was the 666 Beast.

          He hypnotized his way, to smash his name into history, with his powerful will and bold face lying. This was a dark man.

          • Brian, you wrote: “I sometimes feel this man, Ron Hubbard, was a lower astral being, come on earth for a time.”

            When I read this Brian it made me chuckle. Not at you or what you shared but at the insanity of this world, this cosmos. Over the seeming years I have imagined many scenarios regarding the who, what, where and why of this character L. Ron Hubbard. Finally, I came to recognize that this identity emerged in my experience of consciousness as a projection, a manifestation, of my own unconscious guilt, fear and self-hate. I have played this particular story line so, so many times (like portrayed in the movie Ground Hog Day) never waking up, never getting the lesson and the experience always having the same outcome. This time, though, something happened, and I finally made a different choice. A choice that put me on the path of waking up and getting a very important lesson. For me, L. Ron Hubbard has never existed except as a character I imagined and inserted into my seemingly endless dream of an existence in an unreal world that I have totally believed is real.

            It wasn’t truth that I couldn’t recognize all along, it was the lies.

            • Hi Monte. Nice post. You reminded me of a Wayne Dyer quote:

              “When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at will change.”

              This may be the biggest reason why people view scientology, or anything else, and see such different things.

              • Hello marildi! Thanks for the video clip of Wayne Dyer. I have seen this particular presentation of his on PBS numerous times in its entirety and always benefited by doing so.

                His quote that you shared is one of those that requires absolutely no debate but invites one to embark on the simple journey of personal exploration and experience. How difficult could it be for one to pick something that they hold a belief on as to how that something is, then choose to change the way they look at it and and observe how the perception of that ‘something’ changes (or not) after doing so?

                Personally, just taking the subjects of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology…I couldn’t begin to count the number of times I have changed the way I look at them. And with each change in view came a change in perception and interpretation.

                The world I see is the world I have invented through both my conscious and unconscious beliefs about the world. Everything I perceive means to me what I have decided for it to mean thus there is no truth or facts in time that I can share with what would seem to be another. All that I am able to share in the seeming journey through time and space is my interpretation of what I perceive.

                • Monte: “The world I see is the world I have invented through both my conscious and unconscious beliefs about the world. Everything I perceive means to me what I have decided for it to mean…:

                  I think there is a lot of truth to what you say. However, dear Monte, I’m not sure I would agree with what you wrote here:

                  “…thus there is no truth or facts in time that I can share with what would seem to be another.”

                  Tell me what you think of this passage from Dan Brown’s book *The Lost Symbol*, in which a speaker by the name of Peter Solomon is addressing a student body:

                  …Solomon said, “I find it wondrous to note that throughout history, all of mankind’s disparate philosophies have all concurred on one thing – that a great enlightenment is coming. In every culture in every era, in every corner of the world, the human dream has focused on the same exact concept – the coming apotheosis of man…the impending transformation of our human minds into their true potentiality.“ he smiled. “What could possibly explain such a synchronicity of beliefs?”

                  “Truth,” said a quiet voice in the crowd.

                  Solomon wheeled. “Who said that?”

                  The hand that went up belonged to a tiny Asian boy whose soft features suggested he might be Nepalese or Tibetan. “Maybe there is a universal truth embedded in everyone’s soul. Maybe we ALL have the same story hiding inside, like a shared constant in our DNA. Maybe this collective TRUTH is responsible for the similarity in all of our stories.”

                  Solomon was beaming as he pressed his hands together and bowed reverently to the boy. “Thank you.”

                  Everyone was quiet.

                  “Truth”, Solomon said, addressing the room. “Truth has power. And if we all gravitate toward similar ideas, maybe we do so because those ideas are TRUE . . . written deep within us. And when we hear the truth, even if we don’t understand it, we feel that truth resonate within us . . . vibrating with our unconscious wisdom. Perhaps the truth is not LEARNED by us, but rather, the truth is re-called . . .re-membered . . . re-cognized . . . as that which is already inside us.”

                  • marildi, thanks for the excerpt from Dan Brown’s book. It’s profound. I’ll give you my interpretation of what is communicated in the last paragraph of the excerpt and then some. 🙂 That paragraph being:

                    “Truth has power. And if we all gravitate toward similar ideas, maybe we do so because those ideas are TRUE . . . written deep within us. And when we hear the truth, even if we don’t understand it, we feel that truth resonate within us . . . vibrating with our unconscious wisdom. Perhaps the truth is not LEARNED by us, but rather, the truth is re-called . . .re-membered . . . re-cognized . . . as that which is already inside us.”

                    TRUTH IS. I am, you are, we are TRUTH. TRUTH is not fragmented, there are no degrees of when it comes to TRUTH. TRUTH is not just ‘inside us’ it is us. However, in our identifying with the human condition we believe that TRUTH exists outside of us and needs to be sought for, discovered and learned. We do not know that WE ARE and we are terrified of knowing who WE REALLY ARE. Therefore, we have made a universe of perception that appears to have a subject and object, a cause and an effect and in this universe we hide from TRUTH. In the fragmented universe of perception where each seeming individual identity can determine their own truth and where truth is always seen to exist outside of the individual…TRUTH is obscured. You could say that TRUTH is the ever shinning Sun and perception is the system of clouds that continually block the light of the Sun.

                    In the universe of perception all I can perceive through my senses is the past. BTW, my senses constantly affirm that there is indeed a world of form that exists outside of myself and in perception ‘myself’ is nothing but a construct.that I identify with. What resembles truth in the universe of perception is based on observations, comparisons, evaluations and judgments that are filtered through myriad belief systems that exist both consciously and unconsciously. In the universe of perception no two individuals will ever join in an exact truth.

                    The universe of perception is nothing but a dream that we believe to be quite real and we act toward it as if it is real. The universe of perception is a very strange place indeed. It is a place where the individual is never complete and there is always more to want and more to get. The good news is though, that regardless of how incredibly inventive we get, we can never escape from being who and what WE REALLY ARE.


                    Isn’t it interesting that the very things we want and are in constant pursuit of in the world of perception i.e., truth, knowledge, love and immortality…are the very things WE ARE and always will be. Indeed, WE have never been anything else, This is why ALL paths taken in the universe of perception eventually and inevitably arrive at the same place…TRUTH. It cannot be otherwise.

                    • Monte, beautifully said. What you wrote in the following rings of truth. 😉


                      The only thing you’ve said that still doesn’t ring as truth for me is that we are all “one” and not individuals. It seems to me that even apart from the universe of perception, there could exist an infinity of individuals – each one truth, love, eternal. When I look “inside”, I feel/know that “I am”, not that “I am one with all”.

                      Over to you Count Monte. And have a Happy “Valentine’s” Day. 🙂

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Marildi
                      This idea that we are “one with all” is one of the most elusive teachings in ACIM, but if embraced it brings about TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY.

                      How can you not love your brother if in TRUTH you and he are one. Obviously we are speaking from a spiritual dimension, so gender does not apply.

                      Lots of love

                    • My dear Pip, have you forgotten that article by UCSF Professor Arthur Deikman? You introduced me to it about a year ago, right here on Marty’s. The title is “‘I’ = Awareness”. Here’s the abstract:

                      “Introspection reveals that the core of subjectivity — the `I’ — is identical to awareness. This `I’ should be differentiated from the various aspects of the physical person and its mental contents which form the `self’. Most discussions of consciousness confuse the `I’ and the `self’. In fact, our experience is fundamentally dualistic — not the dualism of mind and matter — but that of the `I’ and that which is observed. The identity of awareness and the `I’ means that we know awareness by being it, thus solving the problem of the infinite regress of observers. It follows that whatever our ontology of awareness may be, it must also be the same for `I’.”

                      The article is summed up with the following:

                      “KNOWING BY BEING THAT WHICH IS KNOWN [my caps] is ontologically different from perceptual knowledge. That is why someone might introspect and not see awareness or the `I’, concluding…that it doesn’t exist. But thought experiments and introspective meditation techniques are able to extract the one who is looking from what is seen, restoring the missing centre.”

                      “Once we grant the identity of `I’ and awareness we are compelled to extend to the core subjective self whatever ontological propositions seem appropriate for awareness. If awareness is non-local, so is the essential self. If awareness transcends material reality so does the `I’. If awareness is declared to be non-existent then that same conclusion must apply to the `I’. No matter what one’s ontological bias, recognition that `I’ = awareness has profound implications for our theoretical and personal perspective.”


                    • Marildi, this is human self-centric view of awareness. It is a very narrow view.

                    • No, it’s cousciousness-centric. 😛

                      And that has been proven by quantum physics with the experiment that went beyond the double-slit – that is, the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment:

                    • christianscientology

                      Vinaire for once we are in agreement. Please see my reply to Marildi. This article is still confusing the “I” with “Me” which I would agree is “self-centric”.

                    • christianscientology

                      My dear Marildi
                      How could I have forgotten the article by Professor Arthur Deikman. I originally came across that article when exploring AWARENESS of AWARENESS on Google.

                      Ever since I was “EXPELLED” and yes! I said expelled from the Church of Scientology I have continued to test the assertions of Scientology against known data in the larger world.

                      Awareness of awareness is one of the fundamental tenants of Scientology, and at the time this article by Arthur Deikman came nearest to my understanding of awareness of awareness. It isn’t quite there as demonstrated in the title “I” = Awareness. If this was true then anything that had awareness would be an “I”, no! it should be “I” = Awareness of Awareness. Awareness is the beingness of ME not THE “I”.

                      I have just revisited AWARENESS of AWARENESS on Google and this most interesting site came up

                      To my mind it is the best example I have come across of what OT TRO is. Please have a look.

                      Lots and lots of love

                    • Thanks Pip, great link.

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Valkov
                      I am glad you enjoyed it.

                    • My dear ol’ Pip 😉

                      Now that you put my attention on it, I think Deikman’s article was mis-titled, in that he actually describes “I” as an awareness of awareness, although it’s only implied. He came pretty close to articulating it in the “Conclusion”, where he said “Knowing by being that which is known is ontologically different from perceptual knowledge. That is why someone might introspect and not SEE awareness or the `I’ – concluding…that it doesn’t exist. To me, “SEE awareness” is another way of saying “aware of being aware” or “awareness of awareness.”

                      But the article you posted the link to explicitly expresses the idea of “awareness of awareness” And I would agree – it is a very good description of OT-TR0.

                      I think we’re also in agreement that plants and many animals (perhaps not all) are “aware” (obviously) but not “aware of being aware” – and thus, it would seem, they are “one with the universe” (their environment).

                      marildi xo

                    • christianscientology

                      Not so much of the ‘Ol’!
                      Yes for me and I know for you it is the concept of the AWARENESS of AWARENESS that sets Scientology apart from most other attempts to figure out how the mind works. In fact it is there in the opening pages of DSMH “man is looking at mental image pictures”.

                      Lots of love
                      Pip X and ❤

                    • If you really look at it “awareness of awareness” is the same thing as “introversion.”

                      One is looking at one’s awareness. One is introverted. Hubbard was indeed introverted.

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Vinaire

                      That is the whole point. YOU CAN’T ‘LOOK’ at the Awareness of Awareness, because it is that which is doing the looking, all you can do is EXPERIENCE it.

                      It is the complete opposite to introversion.


                    • Experiencing is looking with all the senses. The two are the same thing. Therefore, “awareness of awareness” is introversion.

                      Simply being aware is extroversion.

                    • christianscientology

                      O.K. So now we have three different awarenesses. AWARENESS – AWARENESS OF AWARENESS and SIMPLY BEING AWARE – RIGHT!

                    • For now it is whatever appears consistent to you.

                    • christianscientology

                      For me there is AWARENESS of AWARENESS – then AWARENESS on a sliding scale towards UN-AWARENESS, down to BUT MYSTERY.

                    • Sorry, there should have been closing quote marks after “…that it doesn’t exist.”

                    • christianscientology

                      Love you!

                    • Hi again Pip,
                      Spyros reminded me of the bulletin “O/W, A Limited Theory”. It has everything to do with this idea of unconditional love – expressed by Jesus as “Love thy neighbor” – and it bridges the gap between ARC and universal love. In other words, one can indeed reach Love through Understanding – which only makes sense if you think about it.

                      I hadn’t thought about this before but the bulletin also correlates with physics. In the realm of aberration, the principle in operation is from Newton physics – which is linear. But there is also a correlation with quantum physics – in the sense of life units being entangled. And experiments have now shown that not just particles but life itself can be entangled. (Yet another example of LRH’s insights being “re-discovered”.)

                      Here’s the relevant excerpt from the bulletin (my caps for emphasis):

                      “The theory that what you do to others will then happen to you is a punishment control mechanism peculiar to this universe. It derives from a deteriorated willingness to duplicate. IT IS THE LAW OF PHYSICS OF INTERACTION – FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND CONTRARY REACTION.

                      “‘Love thy neighbor’, when it is no longer a willingness, is enforced by the theory of O/W. ‘Love thy neighbor’ can exist only when help, control and communication are high. When all these go, then O-W comes into vogue as a method of enforcing peace.

                      “O-W is a theory which sets in when aberration sets in. It is not a high natural law. It is junior to the various laws of Communication, Control and Help.

                      “O-W can occur only when help has failed. Help is a CO-JOINING OF VECTORS OF LIFE.

                      “When two BEINGS WHO HAVE JOINED FORCES to help fail each other, only then does O-W come into existence.

                      “THE FORCES OF TWO BEINGS CANNOT COME INTO DISPUTE UNTIL AFTER THEY HAVE FIRST JOINED. Thus there is no war like that seen between brothers or husband and wife.”

                    • christianscientology

                      Hello again Marildi

                      That directive by Jesus to “love thy neighbour” is not complete, the rest is “as you love yourself”. It is literally impossible to love your neighbour more than yourself for the simple reason your neighbour IS YOUR SELF. Also this is the second of the two great commandments, the first is “you shall love the lord your god with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; ……”Luke 10:27. And then “your neighbor as yourself.” NAS bible.

                      When Jesus is speaking he is never talking about natural love (the ego), but DIVINE LOVE, (the true self)

                      Your last point “The forces of two beings cannot come into dispute until after they have first joined”, is so true and can equally be summed up with ARC ALWAYS PROCEEDS AN ARC BREAK.

                      Lots of love with understanding
                      Pip x

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Monte
                      As I have said before I have been aware of and have studied ACIM for the past 15 years and although I still read and post on miracle_e_pals_uk@yahoogroups I am aware the Course Students have quite a back off where Scientology is concerned, and in fact many of them would believe that ACIM is closer to Buddhism than Christianity.

                      My attention was drawn to your thoughts concerning who and what we really are. I was particularly interested in your last statement “WE ARE NO THING” this is where Scientology makes its fundamental mistake. Having first established that man is a NO THING that is THETA, it then goes on to speaking about a THETAN. So WHO YOU TRULY ARE is THETA, WHO YOU REALLY ARE IS A THETAN. In other words you are A THETAN by AGREEMENT. This handles the apparent paradox of how we can be ONE and separate INDIVIDUALS at the same time, in fact, INDIVISIBLE and INDIVIDUAL come from the same root, as I have said before.

                      Love and Understanding

                    • Deikman’s essay makes some sense to me. In Vin’s terms, “I = mindfullness”. When Vin is being mindfull, then he exists. When he is not being mindfull, he does not exist and the world is not real to him.

                    • Here is my current understanding.

                      “I” = the center of Ego. Mindfulness can exist without “I”.

                      Mindfulness is attentiveness. The function of mindfulness is to bring clarity to what is being perceived. The basic approach is:

                      “Observe things as they are, without assuming anything.”

                      For details, please see: The 12 Aspects of Mindfulness

                    • It seems consistent to me that observing brings into being an observer(as well as that which is observed), and perhaps vice-versa.

                    • In my view, a phenomena is self -aware. It divides into “oberver” and “observed” only when filters come into play.

                      With filters is generated the ego and the “I”.

                    • Well, I can’t really disagree with that, as I see any language is a “filter”. Language and thinking is “knowing about”, is different from just plain direct “knowing”. It’s kinda like the difference between swimming naked in water, as opposed to being in a submersible craft of some kind.

                    • Valkov, thank you for understanding. 🙂

                    • That’s very consistent, Val. 😀

                    • christianscientology

                      Thanks for that Valkov
                      I think you are spot on. Vin’s viewpoint is “human centric” to the nth degree.

                  • Hi again marildi! The exchange of interpretations of perception can, I believe, work to form a ladder, so to speak, that one can climb to access interpretations that were previously inconceivable or unimagineable. That being said, here is a video from Ruppert Spira where he presents yet another interpretation of the subject matter we have been addressing.

                    • Hi Monte. Very nice video.

                      A couple of things came to mind. One was that I have a friend who was a last-lifetime Clear, who remembers his experience between lives as simply being aware – without an “identity” in any physical universe sense. In other words, not the previous life identity or any other . Just an awareness of his existence.

                      The other thing I thought of is the time you experienced a communion with me(!) 🙂 one morning, and then you wrote about it in a comment here. It was a communion of spirit only (obviously). So my question is – what is your understanding of that kind of experience (in light of what Rupert had to say in the vid)?

                      One thing he said was “As the localization [of mind] disperses, its contents are still in consciousness.” That seems to say that the “localizations” are permanent in some sense.

                    • christianscientology

                      Thanks Monte for the video. I am going to share it with my Christian Science friends. Christian Science and ACIM are very similar.


                    • Hey marildi! You ask what, in light of what Rupert is saying, my understanding is of the experience of our spiritual communion. Well marildi, this is going to possibly seem like a cop out on my part, but I have to say that I don’t have an understanding of that experience. However, there is the experience and somehow I know that there is the experience. I could easily fabricate some understanding of the experience and perhaps even present this understanding in a convincing manner that would at least give it merit enough to appear worthy of your consideration. And, marildi, not all that long ago this is a likely scenario as to how I would have responded to your question. Now, though, I realize that when it comes to that which is abstract e.g., consciousness, the mind, eternity, love, truth, knowledge, and so on…I do not know or understand anything. Now that being said, I must add that I do not recognize any other individual that seemingly appears to me as being one who knows or understands either. I do, though, seem to benefit in examining the interpretations, in their many creative forms, as offered by others…even if they are offering what they’re saying as being true (that, I believe, is the result of an incredibly common training program). As long as one realizes that when it comes to addressing the abstract from the realm of perception there is no truth or understanding to be had, one can remain free to explore, look and adjust their desires, beliefs and interpretations as they see fit.

                      Take care marildi. I always enjoy our exchanges. Much Love, Monte

                    • Monte, good post!

            • no doubt Monte that to a large degree others are defined by our experience of them, colored by our own views and biases.

              but others do have an independent existence outside of our mental understanding and projection of them.

              I am coming to a conclusion as a result of the past few years of blogging here.

              I was a true believer for 11 years. Ran with Scientology celebrities, was in the Sea Org, was the first artist to perform at celebrity center when Yvonne got the OK to restart Celebrity Center on La Brea, was a Missionaire to find a new New York Org directly connected to Ron in the early seventies.
              So I have experience.

              My present view of Ron now, I know this can sound crazy to some, is that he is a sort of Raksaha as is talked about in Indian scriptures. He is a lower class of being who has certain powers and is inherently opposed to Righteousness and Dharma.

              He preaches a doctrine which is completely the opposite of any sage. He preaches a doctrine of eternal seperateness, eternal ego and hates Christ, hates Yoga, hates the concept of God as omnipresent, puts hate above sympathy on the tone scale, loves Crowley, says he’s the Prince of Darkness, say’s he’s Lucifer, says he’s the Beast 666.

              Metaphysically speaking L Ron Hubbard is NOT a being of the Light.

              Empathy and sympathy is considered a weakness by him.

              The family unit is made into the product of genetic ghosts and IS doctrinal source of all this family agony.

              L Ron Hubbard metaphysically speaking is a being from the dark side. Just look at the fruits.

              He knew and had certain hypnotic abilities and he used them not just in a stage entertainment way, he used them in a nefarious metaphysical way to create an empire of the cult of personality, power, money and control.

              Ask yourselves this question. When you think of the concepts or reality of God, where does your mind go?

              L Ron Hubbard hated God. L Ron Hubbard said that the only god that ever was is you. He said that, I read that.

              L Ron Hubbard payed no homage to any reality other than if it is true for you it is true.

              L Ron Hubbard was who he said he was. The Prince of Darkness, Lucifer and the Beast 666.

              What I mean by that is not that he was actually these symbolic personalities, but that because he enjoyed the monikers with a chuckle on one of his tapes, he reveals his own spiritual state as a man who is repulsed by common standards of decency.

              And beyond simple common standards of decency he was on the dark side of the metaphysical spectrum.

              He hate Christ. Christ stood for love.

              You and I were duped by a dark ignorant soul who had some psychic powers of manifestation, and a con mans understanding of the mind and spirit.

              “the truth though always fought, always in the end prevails” L Ron Hubbard

              • Brian, I too used to believe this…”but others do have an independent existence outside of our mental understanding and projection of them.” However, this belief ever so gradually gave way to the belief that the idea of there being individual beings is a misperception where what is unreal is accepted as being real. While I cannot begin to conceive of, describe, define or explain…I believe that nonduality is actuality. This is where my mind goes Brian when I think of the concepts of God and Reality, which is really, for me, beyond concepts and symbols.

                • I see what you mean. But, two different truths can be simultaneously opposed and in agreement.

                  There is the absolute and the relative. In the absolute we are one. In the relative we are individual. The wave is the ocean and the ocean is the wave. But there are individual waves, are there not? Where does the wave begin and the ocean end?

                  If we are the same individual then I want your car because it is mine. Hand it over bud!

                  This is a great discussion Monte. Just marvelous.

                  To play chess there is only one square chess board and many individual squares. How many squares to a chess board?

                  Only one in reality, but many imaginary lines of demarcation to play the game.

                  We are both the Unified Field that is omnipresent and the reflection of that omnipresence in our individual forms.

                  We are both because we are One with the Grand Dreamer of dreams who dreams individual souls and universes for fun and play. In Sanskrit it is called Lila: The Lord’s Play or Sport

                  We are made in It’s Image. Jesus said,”I and my Father are One.”

                  Tat Tvam Asi………. Thou Art That

                  • Brian, I could not begin to conceive of, explain or describe the abstract, which the word ‘absolute points to. Yet, somehow I know of it and I feel pulled to it as do we all whether it is recognized or not.

                    A few synonyms for the symbol ‘absolute’ : truth, knowledge, love, eternal, peace, consistency, mind, consciousness, God, light. In the relative (what I refer to as being the universe of perception) these symbols point to the abstract that is beyond the relative as the relative and absolute cannot exist simultaneously. Being that we cannot define or explain the abstract we invent all manner of symbols, stories, metaphors and allegories to point to the ineffable. Unfortunately, though, the pointers are all to often interpreted to be literal and conflict with one another.

                    The relative is both fragmented and fragmenting. It is constantly dividing, subdividing and compartmentalizing. It is complex and complicated. Everything that exists within the relative exists in a perpetual state of incompleteness. In the relative MORE and LESS in are symbolized and manifested in form in seemingly infinite ways. MORE and LESS sit as the ever ruling Gods of the relative and demand measurement, comparison and judgement of everything perceived. In the relative where nothing is seen as being complete but is always in a state of needing, wanting more…all of the conflicting wants bring about a constant state of chaos.

                    Brian, is it possible for there to be more than everything? Can the waves ever really leave the ocean? Can a singularity ever leave itself? Can an absolute ever not be an absolute?

                    I would say no to all the above questions. However, the existence of a relative seems to prove otherwise doesn’t it.? Personally, though, I believe that the relative and all its components is an unreality, an illusion, a dream, an hallucination. I believe that we can never be anything other that what we are. This is where I am in my beliefs now but I know that my beliefs are not true. I know that I don’t know yet I continue to climb metaphors and allegories and symbols to the abstract.

                    Rule of thumb: if it can be measured it’s relative.

                    • Both states of
                      1) Absolute Being, undifferentiated consciousness
                      2) a reflection of that Absolute radiating through our personalities.
                      Are, the same thing.

                      But we, consciousness, Are the dreamer and experiencer in all this.

                      There is a state of consciousness called Nirvakalpa Samadhi. It is a state whereby the soul is simultaneously aware of having a body and living a life and being absorbed in Omnipresence within: All knowing

                      That state is unshakable because the experiencer, the witness, of that state, has cognited on the root causes of matter itself.

                      The double blind experiment, on waves vs particle, which would become Quantum Mechanics, was found to have the influence of the consciousness of the observer out outcomes.

                      We are both the Absolute and the relative because we are the fulcrum upon which duality swings or stays still.

                      That is what I mean, we are the fulcrum. Both duality and an absolutely stillness depend on a third factor: Consciousness; the fulcrum. Untouched by change yet its the reason the scales can sway.

                    • “We are both the Absolute and the relative because we are the fulcrum upon which duality swings or stays still.”

                      Great line. Wish I had said that. 🙂

        • This is strange!
          Scientology 8-8008 contradict THE CREED OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY!
          “And we of the Church believe That Man is basically good. That he is seeking to Survive. That his survival depends upon himself and upon his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the Universe.”

        • Good to speak to you Don.
          If I may, let me paraphrase Ken Ogger, who may have been paraphrasing someone else.

          ‘We are as a shattered glass, wanting to be again whole.’

          But there is more to it than that. Individuality does have it’s place, equal to that of ‘oneness’. To ignore either is to lose half the truth. Hubbard was quite correct in that work toward oneness ALONE will drive an individual down toward MEST and interiorize him into a solidity. But he missed half the picture. I used to believe that he eventually found the rest of the story and I simply hadn’t read or heard later lectures explaining it, but no, he didn’t.

          And the answer was just beyond the tips of his fingers. But I long ago dispensed with the attitude that the tips of HIS fingers were my limit.

          • Thank you, Mark. Of course the ego (“I”) can be a useful tool if one can perceive it for what it is (an artificial construct) and not be controlled by it. But it should never be confused with consciousness (the “observer”) itself. Living life as though awake in a dream gives one a sense of it.

            • Don said:
              ” Living life as though awake in a dream gives one a sense of it.”

              What a fascinating analogy.
              Funny thing though. I can never recall, so far, to an early point in which I did not feel as an individual. Even when I was playing the part of several individuals at the same time, I always considered myself as me, myself. Even when I knew I was everything and everyone around me, I still had a central sense of Me.

              There have been several times lately, of great affinity, when I was the same person as another. I was not joined with that other, I was not intimately connected with the other, I was the same person as he or she while myself at the same time.

              I have learned a few things, but I still have a long way to go.

          • Mark, can you tell me of one person you know of that was damaged by seeking communion with God?

            • Good to hear from you, haven’t talked to ya in a day or two.
              Brian asked:
              “… can you tell me of one person you know of that was damaged by seeking communion with God?”

              Too general a question to answer, and a bit of a stretch to relate to my comment. I have met several who fell into that “one with all, nothing matters, I am just a tiny speck in this enormous universe” type of mentality.

              That is not what you meant by your question but it is what I was referring to in my comment.

          • To assume that this universe is made up of individualities is like assuming that space is made up of points.

            • Vin.
              Interesting thought.
              It would be safe to say that this universe is made up of gradients and relative importances. That is, safe to some.

          • What about what was said regarding “BEING the dynamics” – being all of them at once?

            • Nobody is being anything. Things are what they are.

            • Agreed Marlildi. I have pondered that before as well. The word “as” meaning “the same” does correspond to a unity with.
              But with all things, Ron he is expert at inconsistency. What is Greatness vs Destroy Utterly for example.

              Surviving “as” the dynamics vs. merging into the Unified Field Of Consciousness is a downed toned becoming MEST.

              So that would make the 6th Dynamic: surviving as and for the Material Universe null and void.

            • Acting as, or working toward, or Being the dynamics is a gradient thing with occasional and temporary leap as one becomes aware or more aware of something. At it’s height, being the dynamics fully does not mean losing your self. It means gaining everything else. ‘Me’ need not be lost, but expanded, broadened. Human words fail.

              When an artist becomes, say, one with his violin, it becomes an extension of his hands, the sound comes forth with barely a notice of the position of the bow or fingers, his individuality is not reduced. When in a late night perfect conversation with a good friend, and you begin to think the same things and answer questions before they are asked, one is not diminished by it. As one expands, self is not lessened. Physical and emotional love, when perfect, is a slightly higher gradient. There are higher gradients still.
              I will try to explain in a more duplicatable manner in the future.

              • Mark, somewhere LRH said a thetan can be anything he wants to be while still remaining himself. (Wish I could remember the reference, maybe a lecture.)

                • Thetan is simply a consideration designed to interiorize a person into “I”.

                  Sent from my iPad


                • The sages say that when we merge our individuality (soul) into the Supreme Self (God or whatever you want to call it), which is the meaning and goal of Yoga, we retain our capacity to be that same individual: Eternally

                  Have our cake and eat it so to speak. What gratitude I have for being alive! Such love and joy!

                  Yogananda said once,”Do you want to no what the goal of Yoga is trying to tell you? You don’t know what you are missing. The joy, the freedom for ourselves and loved ones is incomparable!”

                  • Brian, thank you for the uplifting post. This type of thing will do more good than all the warnings of fire and brimstone ever will, IMHO.

                  • Marildi, there are many just out that would think that this is just an implant talking. All this God gooblygook.

                    It is productive to continue the important work of pulling back the veil of Hubbard. Some have never even thought about it.

                    You have no idea who comes on this site and never posts. Some are allowing themselves the right to be critical for the first time. Some are very depressed and are in a bad way.

                    If you don’t like what I post, please feel free to move on and not respond.

                    But I am glad you like what I say about life and the Spirit. I realIy am. I would rather talk about it 24/7.

                    But this is not why I am here.

                • Marildi said:
                  “Mark, somewhere LRH said a thetan can be anything he wants to be while still remaining himself.”

                  And therein lies the rub. Once one has decided to be something, how does he completely release that and decide to be something else. How do you completely release experience while retaining the knowledge and experience gained. A long sought piece of information.

                  Well, I’ll keep at it and keep you informed.

              • There is no “self” that exists independent of the dynamics.

                Sent from my iPad


                • I think you and I Vinayji need to have an arm wrestle and settle this soul no soul thing like men! Once and for all!

                  My “I’ can kick your “i’s” ass.

                  Happiness to you Vinaji 😉

                • Vin said:
                  “There is no “self” that exists independent of the dynamics.”

                  Interesting statement. Do you man that the dynamics are the component parts of self and in their whole make up the self?
                  It was my thought that the dynamics are a description of the activities of the self, but do not define the self itself.

                  Hmmmmm. Your statement suggests that the individual consists entirely of it’s activities.

                  • The concept of DYNAMICS by Hubbard is a perfect human-centric view of life and existence. It is built on the idea of human self.

                    Centered on the human self is the family, then human groups of increasing sizes, and then the whole mankind. These are the first four dynamics.

                    At fifth dynamic we have life other than mankind. It provides us with a human-centric view of life.

                    At sixth and seventh dynamics we find a sharp division between spirit and matter. This again is a human-centric view that elevates spirit over matter. They are looked upon as separate existences that interact to produce life.

                    At eighth dynamic we have the concept of Supreme Being. It is the concept of pure Cause that produces the universe. It projects itself outwards as spirit which impinges on dead and inert matter to produce life.

                    The human-centric view projects humanlike “beingness” as Cause of this universe.

                    • I am thinking MarkNR that maybe Vinaire does not have a self. If in fact he does not have a self, maybe we should not respond to him anymore because there is no “him” there.


                    • Brian.
                      Humor. Ar, Ar, Ar. Perhaps Vin is not without self, but rather, Selfless. An admired quality.

                    • Vinaire has a self but it is not permanent or eternal (like a thetan) by any means. Vinaire’s self is changing every moment and there is no permanent or immortall core underlying it.

                      Brian, it is my turn to ask you a direct question.

                      1) Do you believe that there is an eternal thetan? Or an immortal soul? (Both are the same thing by the way.)

                      This is on the same level as your Xenu question.

                  • If we look with mindfulness, we find that the dichotomy “Cause-effect” is an integral aspect of the Universe. Cause does not lie outside of the Universe since the boundary of universe is not marked by effect.

                    “Cause-effect” may be represented by a scale made up of infinite gradients. The two ends shall stretch into infinity in opposite directions. Neither cause nor effect are absolute. It would be nice to think of Eighth Dynamic as “absolute cause” but that appears to be inconsistent.

                    The postulate of Eighth Dynamic as “absolute cause” indicates human-centric fixation.

                    • Vin.
                      Your view and my view differ significantly. But I learn a great deal from your writings and have been directed to different lines of thought due to your thoughts. For that I thank you greatly. I will continue considering all your directions of inquisition. When you see a thought of my origin that you deem inconsistent, and decide you want to look no further, I am disappointed. At that point we both suffer a loss.

                      Keep writing.

                    • Mrak NR: “When you see a thought of my origin that you deem inconsistent, and decide you want to look no further, I am disappointed. At that point we both suffer a loss.”

                      LRH said something like don’t go past a misunderstood without resolving it.

                      I say don’t go past an inconsistency without resolving it. I certainly look further after resolving the inconsistency.

                  • Beingness is existing-ness. If there is any beingness at Eighth Dynamic, it is the whole Universe with nothing excluded. This is the superset of all existence real or imagined, rational or irrational. This beingness extends beyond the human dynamics of self, family, groups and mankind to all other life and substances and the underlying spiritual and material aspects.

                    The Eighth Dynamic is the complete spectrum of awareness and motion.

                  • The boundary of the universe is, thus, marked by no awareness and no motion. The major aspects of the Universe are awareness (spirit) and motion (matter), which are expressed as seventh and sixth dynamics. These two aspects go hand-in-hand. Even inanimate matter is composed of motion and awareness at atomic level. “Spirit” or awareness cannot be isolated as some absolute condition existing by itself. It would be nice to think of spirit as “superior” but that appears to be a human-centric fixation.

                    The Seventh and Sixth Dynamics describe the two key aspects of the Eighth Dynamic.

                    • Vinaire.
                      You have sparked a realization in myself that i had not expected. It is also one that you had not expected. The relationship, and definition, between theta, thetan, and mest has become much more clear.

                      Thank you.

                      I hope to assist you in the future as you have assisted me.
                      ARCL, Mark.

                    • Mark NR, you can assist me by discussing an inconsistency using a pan-determined viewpoint until it is resolved.

                  • Awareness (spirit) and motion (matter) evolve together from simplicity toward complexity. Thus we have electromagnetic radiation, fundamental particles, atoms, molecules, material combinations, cells, organisms, plants, animals and finally humans. This evolution is covered by the Fifth and Fourth Dynamics.

                    The Fifth and Fourth Dynamics describe the evolution of awareness and motion as life.

                  • Humans as the Fourth Dynamic seems to be the ultimate in evolution of life. It is a very complex combination of motion and awareness. Human species operated at first on instincts alone. Interaction with different geographies and climates produced different races over time. As human awareness evolved under different conditions, different cultures and political subdivisions came about.

                    The Third Dynamic came about as human awareness evolved into races, cultures and political groups.

                  • Families have been the product of cultural evolution. It provided an environment in which children could be raised to become productive members of the society. The sex act was always there, but the family structure now provided a better organization of the need to reproduce, protect and rear children.

                    The Second Dynamic came about as a better organization of the need to reproduce, protect and rear children.

                  • Human ability to solve problems also evolved with awareness. With this ability arose differences among people and thus the sense of self. The earliest focus was on areas of basic sustenance, such as, food, shelter and security. This was followed by barter. Communities evolved around these needs and the knowledge to meet them. Travel required the study of stars in heavens as guides. Birth and death lead to speculations. Religion became a repository of knowledge and a guide to social organization. Increasingly, problems were solved by individuals. Self was perceived as the source of action.

                    The First Dynamic came about with the recognition of problem-solving abilities.

                  • As the individual problem-solving abilities have grown, so have the knowledge and awareness of the Universe. Science has focused on improving physical comforts of life because it is easier to look at physical phenomena objectively. It has been more difficult to look at the spiritual phenomena objectively. But this is the direction to take to further improve the problem-solving abilities.

                    To improve problem-solving abilities we need to start looking at the spiritual phenomena more objectively.

                  • The Eighth Dynamic has essentially evolved into the seven dynamics below it. It is the evolution of motion and awareness toward increasing complex configurations. Trouble spots occur when inconsistencies are introduced and harmony is disturbed. But that is part of evolution.

                    Any harmony and disharmony is part of evolution.

                  • The Universe is a spectrum of motion and awareness. It seems to come about as a transition from no motion and non-awareness. It may transition back into no motion and non-awareness. The expanded Eighth Dynamic shall include motion and awareness as well as no-motion and non-awareness.

                    The expanded Eighth Dynamic consists of the Universe cycling between awareness and non-awareness.

    • And, here is my criticism of the belief contained in Scientology FACTOR #1:

      An Analysis of Scientology Factor # 1

  59. Thanks for the post marty.
    It helps me as a non scientologist get a frame of reference.
    I have to say though, that the materials for me, seems really absolutely way out there. For me these points are impossible to digest

  60. I don’t see #7 as a belief so much as the finding of an analysis of its technology. Seen from the inside, I think the belief would be more along the lines of: Scientology has the only valid and workable technology to free beings from the prison of the MEST universe (and the prison of his own making).

    All in all, it is a concise list and certainly addresses pillars of scientology.

    I see some indipendents seeth with hatred on several blogs when a view other than the party line is presented. It makes me wonder if they realise they are responding on a stimulus/response basis and whether they deem outright attack as evidence of spiritual improvement?

  61. I believe that there was once technology that worked and then it was altered, Misunderstood Word Tech, E-Meter Reads, Overrun, etc. The word tech today regarding Scientology is a generality. and really has no validity. Ron had some valid tech that really worked across the boards and he should be remembered for that.

    • In that case he should also be remembered for locking children in the chain locker on his ship. We have to remember the whole man, not just selective aspects.

      • I would not accept Mike Rinder’s stat calculations as 100% true, especially since he has been getting them for the last year from “un-named sources” and his “special correspondents”.

        I know of a few people who have recently been to FLAG and they claim the course rooms are packed. Yes, it (Local Orgs) may not be like it used to be, but I believe the internet has 3rd partied and frightened many people and money is TIGHT. There are millions of people who have had life changing gains through Sci – but they are “encouraged” not to go on entheta websites to comment; because it really does make you PTS when someone is insulting and lying about your personal endeavors, but if they could I’m sure 1000’s would stick up for their Church. Since I’m an old fart and will probably not be able to go into an Org again in the near future, and I’m quite certain about my personal wins and gains – I can “enjoy” all the various comments here and on Rinders/Tony’s site. Keep in mind too there are only a few hundred “noisy” individuals (haters) who obsess about “getting DM”. Maybe I would want to “get” him too, but I do not feel I was harmed by his actions. If you were personaly harmed – then have at it I suppose, but to blame him for all the trouble the Church is experiencing may be the wrong target, possibly LRH did leave a battleplan or LRHED to be excuted when the Church gained TAX FREE status. I can’t see LRH just dying and not leaving some plan to follow based or triggered on certain “events” i.e. tax free status, wars, crime stats, etc.

        For me, after 40 years as a Scio – I really do see the Church of Scientology making good headway on the 4th D – maybe the 1st D focus has fallen behind, but we need a safe environment 1st in order to get trained and audited. I feel there are many many more PTS and 3rd partied people now, not to put them down, – just – it is what it is.

        • This statement indicates that perhaps you have no clue just how far scientology has altered your mind and perceptions: “I really do see the Church of Scientology making good headway on the 4th D.”

        • Nor… So, you have your “un-named sources” and “special correspondents” too! This is classic! 🙂

          • In your comment to Joe – how about the cycle of a downward spiral. As you know, I could not name the names of those at FLAG. There are many many winning Scios, extremely wealthy and successful individuals who use Scio to help others – name a few of your solutions to War, Crime, rampant Drug use and failing education and governments.

            There is NO guarantee that Scio will SAVE US, LRH made that clear – the race is on. If you do not see the the social ills and the possible benefits of Scio, fine – but some of us do. As mentioned previously, possibly the middle class are in the bubble and PTS from the social ills. There are 4D engrams war, drugs, crime – all engrams!!!

        • The reports of Flag being packed are always second and third hand. Is there anyone here who has firsthand knowledge of packed course rooms?

        • Thank you nor for chiming in. David has been making the environment “safe” for who? He has been dabbling in domestic abuse and domestic terrorism for over 30 years.

          • When you say “domestic abuse” do you mean the Sea Org? or against his wife? Please clarify. Remember, he is 5’3 and 140 lbs at best – not much damage he could do aginst Marty et al.

            • Please, he travels with a pack of dogs. He’s a gangster. And a pimp. Men smaller than he have conquered entire nations.

        • Another Thought

          “I know of a few people who have recently been to FLAG and they claim the course rooms are packed.”‘ – What’s been happening is that public are being referred out from local orgs and sent to FSO. This has been going on for at least 7 years, hot and heavy. Not only that, but the pressure is still high for trainees from orgs, OTs redoing their Bridge with GAT 2, and such. In short, the “true believers”. Local orgs, if not ideal, essentially don’t have the right to hold on to their public, apparently. The ‘net really doesn’t have much to do with it. True believers don’t look at it anyway. Any outward advertising is targeted mainly to keep the true believers convinced the church is expanding. It’s pretty sordid.

          Millions of people is a pretty high number. I hope you are counting since 1950 and also the ripple effect for people who actually got better. That said, that number is a bit out of your hat as well. What possible factual figures would you be looking at?

          Yup – there are haters for sure. There are lots. Getting out of the church is a pretty daunting experience for many. Lots of odd emotional responses, and lots of confusion. However, there are easily many, many more who are trying to come to grips about what they have experienced, and how they let that happen to themselves, and so on.

          Personally I really don’t think DM is the problem, and he is an easy target. I think the more germane problem is how many let him get away with what he does. Once, when I was working in an org, there was an HCO interog regarding using physical violence against people in Scn. I can only imagine those poor MAA’s faces when they started realizing how far up the org board it went. And I would bet real money all many ultimately did was disconnect from the truth. When I realized how far up it did go, I simply stopped supporting anything Scn related, myself.

          However, many have quite loudly and vocally left and begun to call attention to those abuses, and I believe this is actually the ultimate undoing of the organization. Still, it is a hard pill to swallow when you see the church promoting HUman RIghts when the highest ecclisiastical members are regularly whistleblowing the lack thereof in their own organization. It’s like being a pornographer and supporting celibacy. Personally, I fail to see any good the church has done on the 4D. Following the logic of dynamics, it takes strong individuals to make strong groups to make strong impacts on a global scale. I don’t see how making slaves of one’s fellows is going to do any good for anyone, anywhere. Frankly, I don’t see how you can think so as well.

      • And for what he did to Paulette Cooper and others who stood up to him.

    • I agree C Ann. You really should give people their “right items”. If you found reasons to be glad for some of what you learned, good for you. This isn’t a pity party or a witch hunt. It is just a broader viewing of backstage activity. Most people do not get invited in, as the Sea Org is highly secretive. I do think as more members or Scientologists are informed of the real situations, they are going to have to take more responsibility. Perhaps all of it, and excuse the Sea Organization away from their lives. David Miscavige’s incidents of domestic terrorism and domestic abuse are a burden laid on all Scientologists now.

  62. christianscientology

    Scientology and THE CHURCH 0F SCIENTOLOGY are two different things. There are no BELIEFS in Scientology. It either works or it doesn’t work, it is basically a set of tools hence it really has nothing to do with belief. On the other hand The Church of Scientology very definitely is a belief system, and it is impossible to embrace the belief system of the Church of Scientology and still maintain another belief system intact for the simple reason that for L.R.H. the Church of Scientology was and is his personal belief system hence he sees it as “the religion of religions” which I cannot help thinking may be where Alistair Crowley was coming from.

    Unfortunately once one has embraced the belief system of the Church of Scientology and found it wanting it is often the case that the person who has lost their faith in the “Church” also loses their belief in the workability of the technology of Scientology.

    It reminds me of what happens when a child loses respect for their parents and as a result rejects any good advice that those parents might offer. The expression “Throw out the baby with the bath water” comes to mind.

    Love with ARC

    • Well said. I took forever to say much the same thing. I think it’s also important to recognize that there are many who have gained much from auditing and training without having bought into all these beliefs. I don’t think most of us ever bought into all of these things all of the way, and some did not not buy into these things at all, and made case gain, perhaps more case gain than those who did buy into them.

    • It all depends on what you are angling for.

      Theta-MEST theory is a belief of Scientology. You cannot afford to not-is it.


    • Good comment, I thought you summed it up quite well.

      Like you, I do not see Scientology as a belief system either, I do see it as having a practical approach to life. A previous commenter stated that you could go from basic courses all the way up to OT2 and have fabulous wins and gains without even being aware of OT3 and onward. And you do not have to “believe” in anything, what is real for you is real for you. You either attest honestly to what you just finished – or false attest to the completion – or leave. It comes down to “you”!!

    • If you want to end up a Satanist, Scientology is the way to go. Masters and slaves.

    • What if there is no baby in the bath water? What if you are convincing yourself that there is a baby in the bath water?

      • christianscientology

        Hi Eileen

        What! No baby in the bath water, now there’s a thought. However since I believe that “considerations are senior to mechanics” then if I consider there is a baby in the bath water there is, just as if you consider there isn’t, then there isn’t.

        Love with ARC

    • Another Thought

      Right, and if it doesn’t work, you misapplied it, had Mis-U, or overts in the area. In short, all homosexuality is covertly hostile, out-of-valence and degenerate activity, correct? (As a dramatic example of SOS book technology.) Or, Pain and Sex are implants by the psychs of long ago? Just because someone can remember a past-life, does not also immediately mean he is covered with entities that challenge him at every go in life. This is all Scn. technology. And if you are not getting results with it then it ultimately comes down to what’s wrong with you, correct?

      My friend, they are not that different. There is plenty of Hubbard belief in the technology.Factually, Hubbard refers to his “admin tech” as 3D technology, and places it on par with 1D technology. I mean, really, what is your line between the two?

      • christianscientology

        Hi Another Thought

        Certainly any technology that doesn’t work, if you become critical and start to blame the technology, it has to be you misapplied it, had M.U’s or overts. There is a line in A COURSE IN MIRACLES that says “the blameless cannot blame”. Please note there are two definitions for the word ‘critical’. One is continuing or making severe or negative judgements. The second is containing analytical evaluations. To be negative about anything is to choose disharmony rather than harmony.

        If a person truly knows “who they are” it is impossible to blame anyone or anything, because the truth is everything I see in my external world is only a projection of my internal world.

        As for homosexuality, well there has been a revolution in that area over the past twenty years or so, something for me as a 73 year old I am still trying to catch up with. However promiscuity whether homo. or hetro. is an indication of a chronic low tone.

        Since I never got further than Clear in the Church my knowledge of implants and BT’S is very sketchy. I got fabulous results from my study of Scientology but then I long since stopped thinking I might find unconditional love in the Church.

        I find no conflict between admin. tech and any of the other tech. I use ethics tech. in my business and admin tech but the difference is I endeavour not to let the tech become senior to the THETA (LOVE). Where is my line between the two? Scientology works, L.R.H.’s belief system and world view is interesting but is very definitely HIS PHILOSOPHY, which is available for me to “cherry pick” where and when or not at all as I choose.

        Love with Understanding

        • Removing any good or bad connotations, and Scientology in its most pure and simplest form is a system, and essentially like any other system. One can obviously cherry pick out what they want but then that is not a representation of what it actually is in its fullest form then, does it? One of the best lines that I felt suckered people into the subject is that it is not a belief system. It very surely is and Hubbard’s assertions to the contrary.

          Case in point, friction is friction, and will be produced regardless of whether one believes it will happen or not, whether one is critical of it or not, whether one has “overts” against whatever objects one is using to produce it or not. Nothing in Scientology can hold up against that test.

    • To measure whether a tool “works” one must first grasp its purpose. What was it created for? Is one using it in the manner it was intended?

      The “self-stated” purpose of Scientology is arguably the attainment of “OT” (via “the State of Clear”). Its pursuit obviously requires an acceptance this purpose is worthy. Broken down, this involves a belief in Hubbard and his authority. Belief in the existence of these states and that they can be achieved through one’s submission to, and participation in, Scientology therapy.


      • christianscientology

        Thanks mwesten

        I agree with your first paragraph but let’s take an example of a Scientology tool. Take for instance “Communication is the universal solvent”. Here is a very workable tool. If I want to know something I need to communicate. I can’t think of a single activity that does not involve communication of one sort or another.

        The “self-stated” purpose of Scientology is best expressed through the definition of a Scientologist, namely “one who has found a way to a better life and is actively achieving it by studying the material of Scientology” and that is certainly true for me.

        However I was fortunate to get thrown out of the Church before I had done any more than the Clearing Course. I am Clear nine hundred and something.

        I say fortunate because if I hadn’t been I may not of found Jesus Christ and I would still be craving the love that attracted me to Scientology in the first place.

        Every human being who gets into Scientology craves unconditional love, and hoped they would find it in The Church and all they found was UNDERSTANDING and although that satisfies the mind the heart remains bereft. Only by reconnecting with our creator can the heart be satisfied.

        Take it from me only when the void at the centre of each being has been filled will the desperate search for ultimate meaning be over.

        Love with Understanding

  63. Any cult that presented a smiliar set of beliefs in this exact way would be viewed by most people as a fad, while Scientology has a big number of followers (compared to other “recent” cults anyway).
    I wonder if the practice of limiting access to some of these points until a person is much deeper into the study of Scientology is the only thing that makes a difference, or if there is some other factor that helps making this cult stand out and have more credibility.

    • Good question! Scientology must have filled some need that was left unfulfilled in the Western culture.

      To understand Scientology fully one also need to study the Western culture. Scientology is no fly-by-night affair.

    • Melyanna, This may be hard to imagine. But there was a time when going into a Scientology Organization, (one far far away from”management” and the police force) meant having a lot of fun, with a lot of laid back people, who had very good intentions, were very helpful and respectful to the others. It was very fun and exciting and every one was having a really good time. It was very easy to buy courses and counseling. It was very accessible,nobody was paranoid,nobody was getting punished. Really, you could do no wrong. THAT was a “safe environment where auditing could occur”. That was when it was packed with curious (and educated) people.

      I do not think they have ” a big number of followers” as you now suggest.

      It has been a real drag to walk into one of those places since 1982. David Miscavige sent soldiers all the down into the streets and people’s living rooms to wipe out the missions (small intimate groups). Cutting off the feeder lines to the Orgs, and causing a mass exodus.

      You can see it reflected on these graphs in this article:

    • “Big number of followers” – mmm…? Thirty thousand or so world wide? And dwindling fast…

  64. Bingo!
    Many valuable points for all to consider. Even (especially) those here who are “convinced of their rightness.”
    Thanks for adding a shake and a pop to the discussion.

  65. From my viewpoint, there is tech from scn (that may all, or in part) be in other workable philosophies, as well, that can be used from a self-determined position to improve life and mental state. One is “the clear cog” which is contained in Viktor Frankl’s books as well many other works. The service facsimile is a related subject, but the specifics of it have been very helpful to me in looking at myself (and others) and seeing where life went off track, was too painful to confront, and the resulting “solution” which ever after, was clung to as if to a life raft. Fascinating stuff to me. I have witnessed others making lasting, life-changing gains, as well – the kind that everyone who knew them would observe. There’s some good stuff, for sure, but I have gotten more gains with it on my own, using it as I see fit, than I did in the church, where there was a suppressing agenda. I like to be able to pick and choose, not only from what I have learned through scn, but from the whole wide world of knowledge that is available. I did not interpret LRH’s “discard” of his body to have anything to do with what I should do. I thought it was all about his research.

  66. Thank you for publishing a clear, simple and largely objective description of Scientology. Are you still performing any auditing on people? I hope so since I can’t imagine anything that would actually devalue the practice of auditing but I am interested to hear your views.

  67. Interesting summation.

  68. Take what you need or want (if anything) and leave the rest.

    One nice thing is that now it’s all Free to anyone who is not in good standing with the cult.

    • I agree. I love the conversations, the auditing. Some people pay for vacations, gambling, drugs, theater, vitamins, spas, sex, wardrobe, food..whatever. I pay for conversations. So what? Makes me feel good.
      I love the auditing. Hubbard’s value,in my mind, was in setting people up to have meaningful conversations. Recommending questions. I like the questions. Not so much the accusatory ones. That a person is forced to answer. I think that is where the craft got a little seedy.

  69. Has no one noticed that Mark does not refer to himself as Marty? He posts as Mark C. Rathbun, and signs his name as Mark.

    Couldn’t we all respect the moniker he has chosen?

    Mark, thank you for your clear and succinct description. I wish I had found your blog as soon as you presented it. You have helped me so much!

  70. Pingback: Scientology Beliefs | The Scientology Money Project

  71. christianscientology

    Most people are looking for security and it appears that certainty will bring about security and it also appears that knowledge brings about certainty. The problem is that at the very heart of existence is a profound MYSTERY which can only be approached by FAITH (Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. – Hebrews 11:1 – King James Bible)

    What drew me into Scientology was the belief that I COULD KNOW but of course if you can know you don’t need faith, and without faith THERE IS NO HUMILITY, there is NO LOVE and certainly NO FORGIVENESS.

    For 40 years I have been communicating off and on with The Church of Scientology through the C.J.C here in England, and the reply is always the same “your only recourse is steps A to E, and my plea that I was never a Suppressive Person falls on deaf ears.

    You might well ask why do I persist. That is because I believe in the technology. In the Seventies I was declared P.T.S. and was given an S & D supervised by L.R.H. on board the then Royal Scotsman. My item was SCIENTOLOGY – L.R.H. wrote in my P.C. folder “Give him his item and get him out of the area”. That left me two choices, 1) Handle my suppressive or 2) disconnect. I chose the former, which brings us to P.T.

    It has been there in the Bible all along in the allegory of the Garden of Eden, we were never told we could not eat of the TREE OF LIFE but we were warned of the consequences of eating from the TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, and of course the rest is history.

    Talking of history this video graphically shows what the results are when we believe that knowledge brings certainty.

    Love with ARC


      Why does one wants to be in good standing with Scientology? Why does one want the false security of Scientology? The “technology” that one has learnt from Scientology cannot be taken away from one even if the Church has declared one a suppressive person.

      So, why does one want to be back in good standing with Scientology?

      Because, one has been hypnotized into believing that one’s eternity depends on Scientology..

    • The hypnotism of Scientology locks on to earlier hypnotism received through some corrupted brand of Christianity.

    • Hey Christain, That was a great story!

    • and without faith THERE IS NO HUMILITY, there is NO LOVE and certainly NO FORGIVENESS.

      I beg to differ.

      But following your logic according to you LRH lacjed Faith.

      • christianscientology

        Hi Cat Daddy

        It is said that a river cannot rise higher than its source, and for someone who follows L.R.H. exclusively and that includes most in the church, they will never develop anymore humility than they were graced with when they got involved. Ron was a very capable man but humble he was not!

        The standard tests of humility he failed on miserably which are best expounded by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount Matthew chapters 5-6. Namely “Turn the other cheek” ”love your enemies” “do good to those that persecute you” “walk the extra mile” etc. These are sadly missing in the tenants of Scientology.

        I don’t think L.R.H. lacked faith, he just saw no place for it in his world view.


        • Pip, LRH actually does talk about faith. It’s at the top of one of the columns of the Chart of Attitudes. And here’s what he says about it in a lecture:

          “The first cause, the first prime thought, is TO BE – moving from a state of not-beingness to a state of beingness. That is a decision and that is a postulate. And once that is undertaken it airs out into the spheres of motion or activity in life. To continue being, of course, one has to go through these various changes, because the whole environment shifts. So does the individual. But this decision TO BE is ahead of all these other decisions, and the only thing that can happen after TO BE is modification. You can’t close out that first decision. The consistency of that first decision is very powerful, very strong.

          “This is the first act below faith. Faith is sort of above all this and faith is actually a state of not-beingness. Faith is the word which describes the life static. That emerges from faith.
          “This situation of being faith or having faith is very interesting. You are faith!”

          (from “CAUSE AND EFFECT – PART I, a lecture given on 19 November 1951, Being and Not Being”)

          Here’s the link if you want to read the whole transcript:

          Btw, I like this definition of “faith” from my Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary: “complete confidence”

          • christianscientology

            Hi Marildi
            Very interesting! “The first cause, the first prime thought, is TO BE”. This is so true. However as per the FACTORS it starts “BEFORE THE BEGINNING”, here is the SOURCE of FAITH. As Ron says faith is above TO BE. Scientology does not get involved in the area beyond TO BE (BEINGNESS) because beyond beingness the technology no longer applies. This is the realm of UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, the realm of the EIGHTH DYNAMIC. Here we find ONENESS instead of INDIVIDUALITY but where individuality is contained. AFFINITY is a scale of attitudes that falls away from the CO-EXISTENCE OF STATIC, but LOVE (unconditional love) will forever be beyond affinity for affinity can not even exist unless DISTANCE is postulated.

            Thanks for that definition of faith and it works well in terms of M.E.S.T., but in terms of THETA I like UNDESERVED FAVOUR.

            Lots of love

            • “…affinity can not even exist unless DISTANCE is postulated.”

              Generally, yes. However, there is also the following definition of affinity:

              6 . in its truest definition which is coincidence of location and beingness, that is the ultimate in affinity.

              In that case, there would be no distance. And people do have this kind of experience. Here’s one description of it, where it’s jocularly referred to as OOB sex:

              • christianscientology

                Hi loveliness!
                Let’s take your “6. in its truest definition which is coincidence of location and beingness, that is the ultimate in affinity.” If we assume A THETAN is located in SPACE and TIME then by definition a thetan has MASS. Now we know that “two objects may not occupy the same space at the same time and that if they do it will cause the vanishment of both objects. Hence if two thetans occupy the same space all MASS is ‘asised’ and what is left is THETA which is unconditional love – NOT AFFINITY.

                As for OOB sex, bring it on. Sounds like an extension of “phone sex” or maybe cyberspace sex, like we have, but of course in the “best possible taste”.

                Lots of love

                • Hi Pip, my pet 🙂

                  The “combining of energies” (as worded in the video) in the same space would not be the same as any (or all) of the particles of those energies occupying the same space. (And so far, at least, physics hasn’t proved LRH wrong on that point.)

                  marildi xo

                  • In my view, energy is disturbance of space. Space is the limiting state of energy of zero frequency.

                    Please see
                    Disturbance Levels of Space

                    • christianscientology

                      You know more about physics than I do, my field of interest is metaphysics. I see no reason that a wave should not be made up of particles of THOUGHT and as the wave length of thought changes so matter is created which itself defines SPACE. This helps me to get my head around the Zero Point Field.


                    • Whether it is physics or metaphysics, particles result from a condensation of wave inertia.

                      Thoughts are waves. They condense into particles of ideas (like the fundamental particles). The ideas can then become fixed into a configuration, like the atom of matter.

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Vinaire

                      I don’t really know what I am talking about except YOU CAN’T GET NOTHING OUT OF NOTHING.

                      Even a wave must be made of SOMETHING. Waves have ENERGY (I am a messer about in boats) and energy is made up of POSTULATED PARTICLES.


                    • True. Something can come from something only. There is only transformation and transition of state. Creation is just a myth.

                      That is why thetan’s abilities are a myth, and postulates cannot come from the thetan.

                    • christianscientology

                      Interesting. So where do POSTULATES come from?


                    • Awareness comes from non-awareness, and then awareness returns to non-awareness. It is a cycle.

                      Postulates are part of awareness.

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Vinaire

                      Perhaps we have different definitions of the word POSTULATE. I am using the definition “to say a thing is and have it be”. in that case there has to be a “SAYER”.

                      This idea that “awareness comes from non-awareness and then returns to non-awareness is an idea that I came across in Theosophy and I find singularly unattractive. The idea that Brahma breaths out the universe and then breaths it back in again, over some unimaginable time period does not do it for me. SORRY!


                  • Energy starts as space and ends as mass.

                    • christianscientology

                      Hi Vinaire
                      I know you like to re-write the Axioms of Scientology but it makes sense to me that ENERGY ACTUALLY CREATES SPACE, that is of course after the particles that define it have been postulated. So I would say


                    • A postulation is basically making an assumption.

                  • christianscientology

                    Hi Sweet one!
                    Energies can indeed combine, but that is in terms of sharing SIMILAR SPACES. The Axioms of Scientology define ENERGY as “postulated particles in space” and since two particles may not occupy the same space at the same time without their vanishment it surely follows that two energies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, but that in no way precludes two energies interacting with each other. They can duplicate each other but not PERFECTLY else it would bring about an AS-IS-NESS.

                    It is great to share our NO-THING but a little MASS can be fun too.


                    • Scientology is just a pseudo-science. It is pretending to be a science.

                      It appeals to those who are also pretending to know, and who do not like to put out the effort required for critical thinking.

                    • christianscientology

                      Vinaire, I am sure people said the same about Quantum Physics in the early days. I was brought up a Christian Scientist and Mark Twain apparently said that “Christian Science is neither Science nor Christian” and yet when Einstein was in New York he visited the Christian Science Reading Room and believed that Mary Baker Eddy was ahead of her time in her discoveries.


                    • Are you just using authority? or do you have a logical argument to make?

                    • christianscientology

                      A bit of both.


            • Hello Pip. Haven’t spoken to you directly for awhile, but I keep up with you. Interesting conversations lately.

              On the point of “The decision to BE”, I can only relate my experience and extend that into my opinions.

              The decision to be an