Tag Archives: Lao Tzu

Non-Peakers vs. Peakers

Abraham Maslow was a 20th Century psychologist who did a lot of work in the field of the psychology of spirituality and religion. He carried on a tradition started by William James in the late 19th Century. James and Maslow observed that there was a great divide that made reconciliation of materialist thought and spiritualist experience daunting if not impossible. For a primer, see Maslow’s Religions, Values and Peak-Experiences and James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience. In summary, they understood that the spiritually-inclined could not be understood or taken seriously by a class of materialists. Maslow referred to the latter as ‘non-peakers.’ That is, people who seemed constitutionally incapable of peak experiences, a term he coined for personal transcendent spiritual events. These have variously been described as glimpses of or connections to non-duality, unity consciousness, or God.

Whatever the description, the peak experience by its nature defies words. The futility of relating such through language was noted 2,500 years ago by Lao Tzu in the opening verses of the Tao Te Ching: the unnamable is the eternally real. General Semanticist Alfred Korzybski put it this way in the 20th Century: the map is not the territory.

More recently physicists have applied science to validate Lao Tzu and other Eastern sages (and in a way the likes of Korzybski, Maslow and James too), see The Tao of Physics – Fritjof Capra, The Unobservable Universe – Scott Tyson, The God Theory – Bernard Haisch, Biocentrism – Robert Lanza; to name but a few of many. In various ways the authors argue that the evolution of science is beginning to reveal the accuracy of what spiritualists have attempted to describe since antiquity as the true nature of the universe.  It is a nature that transcends the limitations of language and two-value logic.

In his essay “The Will To Believe” William James addressed why the materialist/spiritualist debate is a dead end street. It is because while materialists write off any spiritualist argument as being predicated upon belief, the materialist’s ‘certainty’ of the dual nature of the universe is just as strongly founded upon faith. To quote U2, both sides are coming from “a place that has to be believed to be seen.” But, the materialist is dead certain he is not. A better appreciation for the truth of James’ conclusions can be found in Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything. In a simple, matter-of-fact manner Bryson demonstrates that all branches of science rely upon faith in theories.

Having spent three decades exploring scientology and another decade examining its nemesis, the Anti-Scientology Cult (ASC), I believe the answer to the ASC-Scientology perpetual conflict may lie in the observations of James and Maslow. As much as ASC’s Scientology debunking is embraced by the infotainment, scandal-obsessed media –  which ASC’s leaders have chortled effectively makes Scientology fair game – the ASC is more of a belief-based culture than Scientology is (a self-acknowledged religion).  ASC’s means of attempted conversion to its materialist world views can be  more zealous and coercive than anything it accuses Scientology of.  Attempts to ameliorate ASC’s extremism have been met with the most vicious, surreptitious back stabbing; carried out with crusade-like fervor.

But, put all that hypocrisy aside for the moment – it leaves a lot of room for debate. Let’s focus on one  fact that cannot be disputed. It is published for the world to see. That is, all ASC fora (Underground Bunker, Mike Rinder’s blog, Ex Scnsts Message Board included) default to making ruthless fun of that which Scientologists swear Scientology does for them spiritually. While wrapping their periodic scandal-mongering around a noble reform flag, ASC sites most consistently revel in denigrating professed results of Scientology applications as nothing but the bunk. It is a critical component of ASC membership. It justifies all of its ass clown hijinks against Scientology. It operates like a bedrock article of faith. The highest attainment in ASC is the firmly expressed certainty that peak experiences are delusions of the weak minded.

Those who got something useful from their Scientology experience but ever felt afraid or embarrassed to share it might agree with some of this. They might also reinstate the power of their peak experiences by perusing some of the references cited above.

Pursuit of Understanding

I am introducing my recommended reading list to anyone who has attained the Scientology state of Clear.  By doing so, I am not promoting or trying to win over anybody to a particular line of thought.  Nor am I attempting to dissuade people from continuing to worship their firmly held religious constructs. I respect their First Amendment rights to continue to do so.  Instead, I am responding to the relative few who have expressed genuine curiosity about from whence I have come and to where I am going.  Folks can take it or leave it, or pick and choose to satisfy their own curiosities. And, as is their wont, Scientologists can of course nitpick and snipe so as to kill the agent who brings news they will likely find is anathema to their Scientology religious beliefs.

I recommend that these materials, minimally, be studied before embarking on Scientology OT Levels 2 through 8.   Actually, I think anyone would gain a tremendous amount of insight by reading these books. But, I believe this (or a comparable) recommended study is essential to understanding from a scientific and spiritual view what it most likely is that makes a meter read on a Clear.  It also gives a much deeper understanding of what it is that Ron Hubbard was grappling with on the upper levels.  To pursue a subject calling itself a ‘science of the mind’, while subjecting oneself to religious mythological belief constructs (as one inevitably does by running headlong into the OT Levels of Scientology) sets up a vicious form of cognitive dissonance: religious belief masquerading as scientific certainty.   The result is the inability to perceive as-is; defeating the entire stated purpose of Scientology.  More debilitating, Scientology at the upper levels continues a process of self-affirmation and self-fixation that firmly shackles an individual from rising to greater heights; locked into a solidified ego as he or she becomes. I think this recommended study can alleviate that dissonance, freeing an individual to continue to move on up a little higher.

I am not creating some new study by this recommendation.  I am sure there is an infinity of gradients and steps one could, and some certainly have, take to navigate the mire that is implanted at the Scientology upper levels.  I did not follow this recommendation.  I went through numerous other valleys and peaks along my own way. For example, as part of my own study, I studied and evaluated what Hubbard studied and drew from in developing Scientology; and I haven’t included that byway on this list.  I reviewed my path and noted those studies I feel were integral in understanding Scientology in the only way Hubbard himself recommended anything could be fully understood. That is, studied against data of comparable magnitude.  When one does, I believe one cannot help but recognize that Ron was definitely onto something in his upper level research, but that developments in science and consciousness far more rationally and accurately revealed what it was.  One may or may not also see in the light of this understanding, that continued, blind adherence to mythological constructs supplied in Scientology might be crippling of spiritual evolution.

If sufficient interest is communicated, I may follow up with a series of posts on each of these references, explaining why I consider them important, connecting dots demonstrating relevance to the Scientology experience, and making sense of the sequence, etc.  In either event, I hope some people find this of some assistance in their graduation and transcendence process.

1)      Tao Te Ching – Stephen Mitchell translation

2)      Siddhartha – Herman Hesse

3)      The Prophet – Kahlil Gibran

4)      The Four Agreements – Don Migel Ruiz

5)      The End of Suffering – Russell Targ and J.J. Hurtak

6)      Buddha’s Brain – Rick Hanson

7)      A Brief History of Everything – Ken Wilber

8)     Kosmic Consciousness – ten part interview with Ken Wilber, Sounds True Productions.

9)      A Short History of Nearly Everything – Bill Bryson

10)   The Biology of Belief – Bruce Lipton

11)   The  Unobservable Universe – Scott Tyson

12)   The Secret – Rhonda Byrne (book and video)

13)   The Intention Experiment – Lynne McTaggart

14)   The Field – Lynne McTaggart

15)   Entangled Minds – Dean Radin

16)   The Tao of Physics, Fritjof Capra

17)   Quantum Enigma – Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner

18)   Biocentrism – Robert Lanza

19)   A Gradual Awakening.- Stephen Levine

Some folks have already expressed dismay at such a recommendation in that it is a hefty amount of reading.  One person implied that I am asserting that one must become proficient in Quantum Mechanics in order to achieve enlightenment.  I am not suggesting that.

I am suggesting that if one devotes the better part of one’s life to following someone who implants in one’s mind a certainty that what he is following is proven scientifically to be the only road to spiritual freedom, one is demonstrating a large degree of gullibility in accepting and dramatizing that implant with no context explored against which to evaluate the truth of that implant.  Understanding is an universal solvent, in my opinion.

Forgiveness

What follows may shed light on why Jesus Christ is nullified in Scientology.

In The Gospel According To Jesus, Stephen Mitchell performs a rather competent analysis that shows Christ’s reported teachings for the most part were Middle Eastern iterations of what Lao Tzu and Siddhartha Gautama and other philosophers had communicated for four or five hundred years.   If there were distinctions to be made, they were based more upon emphasis than anything else.  His conclusion was that in essence what Jesus Christ most uniquely brought to the philosophical mix was the all-healing, all-powerful teaching of forgiveness.

Mitchell quoted from William Blake for support:

There is not one moral virtue that Jesus inculcated but Plato and Cicero did inculcate before him. What then did Christ inculcate?  Forgiveness of sins.  This alone is the gospel and this is the life and immortality brought to light by Jesus, even the covenant of Jehovah, which is this: if you forgive one another your trespasses, so shall Jehovah forgive you, that he himself may dwell among you.

By comparison, Scientology inculcates the following.

People attack Scientology; I never forget it, always even the score.

–          HCO Manual of Justice (1959)

On further living I found that only those who sought only peace were ever butchered.  The thousands of years of Jewish passivity earned them nothing but slaughter. 

–          Ethics, The Design Of (1969)

There was no Christ.*

–           Class VIII, lecture 10 (1968)

When I walked down the street and away from the church of Scientology for the last time, I had settled in my mind that I was going to forsake twenty-seven years of dedicated service in favor of experiencing the two most important human virtues.  Both of those virtues I found wanting – even prohibited –  in Scientology.  Forgiveness was one of them.

* the context of the quotation:

In R6 (a matrix implanted into every earth being’s mind 75 million years ago which dictates future behavior until ‘handled’ with Scientology) everybody is shown crucified. So is the psychiatrist shown crucified, although the psychiatrist is a dominant character and that’s how he gets away with what he gets away with. He electric shocks people. The medical doctor is not really represented in R6. It is only the surgeon. The surgeon is shown cutting bodies to pieces. That’s the right thing to do. Actually he shreds a body down to just raw meat down to a skeleton and the skeleton is in agony and then it too is chopped up. Anyway, every man is then shown to have been crucified, so don’t think that it’s an accident that this crucifixtion…they found out that this applied. Somebody, somewhere on this planet, back about six hundred BC, found some piece of R6. And I don’t know how they found it either by watching mad men or something but since that time they have used it and it became what is known as Christianity. The man on the cross – there was no Christ – but the man on the cross is shown as every man so of course each person seeing a crucified man has an immediate feeling of sympathy for this man.

Fear

L. Ron Hubbard once designated the entry level of Scientology as Scientology Zero.  Scientology Zero consisted initially of demonstrating to a person that the environment was not as dangerous as he had been led to believe. It educated a person on the existence of merchants of chaos who traffic in painting a picture of danger so that they can profit by protecting one from that danger.  It is the old organized crime protection racket.

As we have seen over the years Scientology has become that which Scientology Zero warned of.  The church continually plies its public with end-of-world scenarios that can only be handled by contributing more greenbacks to the church.  Some folks on the outside engage in a similar game of designating the church as the enemy that will consume humanity if not combatted continually.

One purpose of this blog from the outset was to demonstrate that the church of Scientology was not something to be feared; that it in fact had simply perfected the protection racket game, giving folk the illusion that it was something to continually fear.

I came across a little something by Bruce Lipton from The Biology of Belief (Hay House, Inc. 2005) that explains why obsessing with fear inhibits growth:

In a response similar to that displayed by cells, humans unavoidably restrict their growth behaviors when they shift into a protective mode.  If you’re running from a mountain lion, it’s not a good idea to expend energy on growth.  In order to survive – that is, escape the lion – you summon all your energy for your fight or flight response.  Redistributing energy reserves to fuel the protection response inevitably results in curtailment of growth…

…Inhibiting growth processes is also debilitating in that growth is a process that not only expends energy but is also required to produce energy. Consequently, a sustained protection response inhibits the creation of life-sustaining energy. The longer you stay in protection, the more you consume your energy reserves, which in turn, compromises your growth.  In fact, you can shut down growth processes so completely that it becomes a truism that you can be ‘scared to death.’ 

Maybe that is a scientific explanation for Lao Tzu’s having wrote the following in the Tao Te Ching:

There is no greater illusion than fear, no greater wrong than preparing to defend yourself, no greater misfortune than having an enemy.  Whoever can see through all fear will always be safe.

Is Spirit of Quality or Quantity?

For the first several years of L. Ron Hubbard’s research into a path to enlightenment, his focus was on simplicity. In that wise, his quest aligned perfectly with the ancient universal truths he sought to make more easily and uniformly attainable.  Those truths, per Hubbard, were particularly well articulated by Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), and Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Ching.   Hubbard seemed to understand, and could communicate in modern language, the Buddhist and Taoist descriptions of the spiritual, the difficult to conceptualize ideas of ‘emptiness’ or  ‘nothingness.’  Hubbard lectured as follows on 1 December 1954:

You can have a quality in complete absence of a quantity.  You don’t have to be “a quart of good boy.”  And this was what he (the scientist) was assuming, see.  The next time you see a pound of lust, send it around and we’ll put it in a museum.  These things are not quantitative.

So we had to get out of quantitative thinking, thinking in terms of objects and masses, before we had any real comprehension of existence.  And this was very easy to do. Very easy to do.  You merely had to define what zero was .  And we find that life, basically the awareness of awareness unit in life, is not a thing of quantity – not even vaguely of quantity. It is a thing of quality, of ability. 

Where you have ability, you have life. Where you have space, energy, mass…I don’t care what kinds of energy.  The energy contained in your engrams.  The energy contained in mental pictures.  The space contained in your visios or lack of them.  Anytime you have any quantity of any kind, you have walked downhill from life.  Just like that.  And this works out.  This works out in processing, works out gorgeously.

Scientology counseling (processing or auditing) does work out quite gorgeously when a thetan (the awareness of awareness unit, or individual spiritual being) is considered in this wise.   When this framework is kept in mind, Scientology procedures are rather simple.  That is because all of them are used toward the result of removing additives, or complexities, and returning the quality of the awareness of awareness unit to itself.   That quality is uniformly found to be good by universally recognized human standards.

Hubbard clearly mapped philosophy and procedures that brought about abilities (qualities) in a being that culminate in the state of Clear.  Hubbard defined a Clear as “an unrepressed and self-determined being” who is no longer subject to stimulus-response reactive thought processes.

Unfortunately, the issue becomes muddled as one assays to move higher on the Scientology path, called the Bridge.   Above Clear, the reached for states are no longer expressed in terms of freedoms from the additives that hamper a being.  Instead, Scientologists shoot for the vaunted state of ‘cause.’   Cause over matter, energy, space, time, and life is the state that is promised.   Powers become the target.   Rather than the removal of additives the goal becomes the inclusion of an additive, expressed in a term that infers physical properties or force, power.

In formal, organizational Scientology the relentless promotion and cultural propaganda and pressure hammer that theme home.  They seize upon some later seemingly contradictory words of Ron mentioned in policy letters and bulletins because of later turns Hubbard himself took.  By the mid sixties he began to contradict the maxim regarding quality versus quantity.  Beings were increasingly considered to vary in size, or to be recognizable by something other than quality, the new measure being quantity.

For example, in a policy letter issued on 22 March 1967 Hubbard introduced the idea of size with respect to thetans. He wrote,  ‘Some  thetans are bigger than others.  None are truly equal. ‘  He went on to instruct that smaller beings, whom he designated as degraded beings, occur ‘about eighteen to one over Big Beings in the human race (minimum ratio). ‘

Along with that shift of focus onto size came the introduction of different goals for processing.   Rather than the original goal of returning a being to the simple, uniformly good, freedom from the additives tainting the being’s quality, the focus went toward achieving powers.  Conditions of existence were issued along with formulas one could apply in life to improve one’s condition.  Those conditions were determined primarily by the quantity produced as measured by statistics. The most senior of those conditions to which all of them were designed to lead toward was called ‘Power.’  While those condition formulas were, and are, very workable, the schema contributed to a culture of lust toward attainment of power.

The very definition of power in Scientology radically changed as follows:

a)      The ability to maintain a position in space.  – 1 March 1958

b)      The amount of work which can be accomplished in a unit of time, or the amount of force which can be applied in a unit of time.  – 6 December 1966

Over time the adjective “powerful’ became regularly associated with ‘thetan’ in Scientology think and speak.   Scientologists began to promote and covet the idea of becoming a big, powerful  thetan.   Scientology promotion became more geared toward such ideas as ‘unleashing the power of the thetan’, and  bestowing ‘super power’.   Achievements in the Scientology world were ascribed as attributes of ‘powerful thetans’ and ‘big beings.’   Conversely, bad conduct was routinely condemned as that of smaller beings.

Exacerbating matters were more Hubbard policies that excused otherwise destructive behavior of beings based upon the size or power of the individual, particularly when that alleged size or power was abused in the forwarding of the power of Scientology as a movement.  Thus, in the policy The Responsibilities of Leaders, Hubbard’s ‘seven points of power’ suggested the ends justify the means when protecting the ‘power’ one relies upon for his own power.   Hubbard suggests the physical beating of the critic of the power one relies upon and serves is commendable behavior.  He even suggests that a real power would accept those who rely upon his power murdering enemies of the power.   And that a true power would encourage his underlings to keep him ignorant of the crimes they commit in increasing his power.  In fact another  Hubbard ethics policy letter stated that an individual who produced a lot toward expansion of Scientology could ‘get away with murder.’

In the years that Scientology evolved in this fashion, most particularly after the death of Hubbard, its very aims were demonstrably altered in significant ways.  Gradually, alleviating the world of ‘insanity’, ‘war’, and ‘criminality’ was replaced by a drive to wreak ‘planetary obliteration’ or exact ‘global vengeance’ against the Scientology-designated evil-doers of earth.

It fairly makes one wonder whether somewhere along the line Scientology lost sight of its own purpose and the quality of life it was created to restore.

Does Scientology address beings as ‘qualities’ that lost sight of their own very nature by introduction of the confusion of ‘quantity’ into the equation?

Or does Scientology address beings as ‘quantities’ that need to have some quantity added to them to become sufficiently big and powerful?

Integration, Evolution, and Transcendence

Learning the art and honing the skills of differentiation, identification and association increases accuracy of observation. It increases intelligence. It increases ability.  L. Ron Hubbard aptly defined the application of those skills as sanity.

When one observes while exercising differentiation, identification and association one has assumed and assigned identity, differentiated himself from and made associations between himself and those phenomena and things that he observes.  By doing so, one is experiencing duality in the mode of causation.

Continued practice in these skills can reduce complexities and systems to simplicity and create a heightened sense and certainty of oneself and his place and role in the cosmos.  It can bring about an unrepressed, self-determined, well and happy state of being.  Scientology technology, sans cultish policy/group think indoctrination, is well equipped to bring about that state (the means and reasons why are covered in some detail in the book What Is Wrong With Scientology? – along with vital data on how to steer clear of the policy/group think cult indoctrination).

Once attained, one can trade on those skills to bring about higher intelligence and power of observation in others and/or more profit and power to oneself.  Some, though they would be the last to admit it, obtain and exercise a feeling of superiority and a comfortable identity for having accomplished a high degree of competence in the skills of identification, association and differentiation.  If the exercise of one’s skills are of sufficient value by way of their scarcity, more penetrating observation beyond them might seem a threat to the value of those skills of differentiation, identification and association and all that they garner. One can very easily find a contentment level where further observation of higher truths and unexplored realms might be seen to upset the comfort of the help, profit and power zones one is experiencing or operating in.  Some have even bought into the idea that to transcend or move on from that which increased one’s ability to identify, associate and differentiate would be tantamount to eschewing those skills and constitute the most heinous form of treason.  The act of continued observation beyond the constructs provided apparently threatens the very identity the skilled one carved out and created for himself as a master of identification, association and differentiation.

On the other hand, one could also value curiosity, sense of adventure, and thirst for higher truths above comfort and power – and possess the courage to explore them – and one could thus seek to view larger and more complex systems and the interactions between them.  Over time, one might begin to observe entire universes and their interactions.  One might even transcend identity and the differentiation, identification and association that defines it and catch a glimpse of all of existence and the synchronicity with which all elements within it seem to interact.  Contrary to the fears announced by those profiting and comforting by expertise in the skills my personal experience is that further exploration only sharpens those skills.

When one observes the whole of existence with no differentiation, identification and association in mind – simply observes the whole of existence as it is – one does not differentiate, identify or associate himself.  One is not separate and apart from the whole of existence.  One is experiencing nonduality.

If one also studied advancements in science, he might find that the higher reality of nonduality is being validated in the laboratory.  And if he continued to observe, beyond differentiation-association-identification, he might find that the universe can be seen to behave as quantum mechanics is beginning to demonstrate. That is, the behavior of the universe is dependent upon the character of the observer; that there is a synchronicity and interconnectedness across the cosmos that is largely invisible and undetectable to the five traditional human senses which are all bound up in identity, and its dependence for survival upon differentiation and association.  Planet earth’s greatest scientific minds – historically, the most skilled at differentiation, identification and association – tend to say of quantum mechanics, ‘if you think you understand it, then I know that you don’t.’

They might more accurately have stated that ‘if you think you can explain it in words, then you haven’t witnessed it.’  As Lao Tzu noted: The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.  The name that can be named is no the eternal Name.  The unnamable is the eternally real.  Naming is the origin of all particular things.  Free from desire, you realize the mystery.  Caught in desire you see only the manifestations. Einstein called it ‘spooky’ phenomena, as phenomena observed potentially could turn our entire concepts of all of existence, our very identities and the definition of God, upside down.  For decades hence science agreed to steer clear of examining how quantum phenomena might impact or shed light upon the nature of the soul, spirit and consciousness. For the past five decades, however, scientists have increasingly explored consciousness and contemplative philosophers have begun to explore science. And in this meeting of minds more clarity is arising.

The heightened abilities to differentiate, associate and identify are demonstrating with greater accuracy how we can better predict the manner in which the universe responds to stimuli.  The universe can be more causatively manipulated. It can be more thoroughly controlled.  It can be caused to bring about more comfort, profit, and power to the identities exercising identification, association and differentiation on a more causative level.

However, it seems that only when one transcends identity and the need for comfort, wealth, and power and the need to differentiate, identify and associate in order to collect and maintain them, that the higher truths of the universe can be directly experienced and perceived.  Not with the five traditional senses.  Instead, with the sixth sense and beyond – referred to in Scientology as theta perceptics, referred to in Eastern traditions as nondual consciousness or awareness.

It seems that if one can learn to let go of an avid craving and drive for the ultimate, everlasting state of ‘causation’ he or she might get a taste of it.  Ironically, contemplative teachers increasingly refer to such tastes as ‘causal consciousness.’ It might just be an activity that one cannot do, but instead a state one must actually be in order to realize.

In that experience, the universe does not respond to one’s causation. It is not something separate, apart, or even associated with you.  There is no association or differentiation between you and it. It is you and you are it.  It and you simply is.

Is one then a separate, distinct identity or a part of a single infinity?

It would appear that it all depends upon how one is viewing himself and the universe.

Can one have it both ways?

Inevitably.

Mission Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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