What's new

Marty Rathbun: thoughts on Scientology and spirituality

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

"ealadha | April 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Reply

The crimes they have committed have been done in this life or a past life.
If you can’t find the crime they have committed , then look earlier on the track.
I agree with LRH on this, anyone who is critical of scientology is a criminal."

:duh:

This is deep indoctrination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

has this person not even realized that it may or not be true for himself/herself unless he/she observed it in real life. Per hubbard's own words. :melodramatic:

No no Gib, he means the real Scientology - L Ron's Scientology. You know, the L Ron that every word he spoke was scripture. The L Ron that told you the whole truth and nothing but the truth about everything including how to wash windows, make movies, and get teenage girls to wear hot pants and halter tops for ya - That L Ron, that Scientology.
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

Quoting Marty Rathbun:

"When David Mayo started practicing Scientology outside of the control of the cult in the early nineteen eighties, Hubbard directed that the church 'squash him like a bug'. Notwithstanding that Mayo's essential clarification concerning Scientology was that the violent, combative aspects were not true L. Ron Hubbard Scientology."

Firstly, congratulations to Marty for the progress he's making in finding his way out of the Hubbard labyrinth.

He has a ways to go, but it looks promising.

Secondly, what Marty is describing as "David Mayo's essential clarification" may have been accurate, for a while, after his first leaving the CofS, but he continued to evolve and grow and, ultimately, moved beyond Scientology and ceased considering himself to be a Scientologist.

Thirdly, Marty, I hate to tell you this, but "true L. Ron Hubbard Scientology" is not what you're trying very hard to convince yourself it is.

But, no matter, you just need some more time.
well i am amazed he even said this about david. i stopped reading his blog back when he was posting shit about david mayo and "invalidating" those who called him out on it, and WTF? he obviously knew the above info when he was slamming mayo and anyone who cared about him.. i tried to like marty and support him while he peeled his onion, but meh. he's too self centered and arrogant. i wish him well and hope he never screws anyone over again, but i dont consider him to be anyone i would have ever called a friend. and i KNOW he never would have been a friend to me if i could not forward his agenda, ermm i mean "survival".
 

Andtheyalllived

Patron with Honors
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

well i am amazed he even said this about david. i stopped reading his blog back when he was posting shit about david mayo and "invalidating" those who called him out on it, and WTF? he obviously knew the above info when he was slamming mayo and anyone who cared about him.. i tried to like marty and support him while he peeled his onion, but meh. he's too self centered and arrogant. i wish him well and hope he never screws anyone over again, but i dont consider him to be anyone i would have ever called a friend. and i KNOW he never would have been a friend to me if i could not forward his agenda, ermm i mean "survival".

Yeah! Mayo was the turning point for me, too. It was basically "Wow, if you can say that, then nothing you say from here on out is trustworthy."
 

Gib

Crusader
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

No no Gib, he means the real Scientology - L Ron's Scientology. You know, the L Ron that every word he spoke was scripture. The L Ron that told you the whole truth and nothing but the truth about everything including how to wash windows, make movies, and get teenage girls to wear hot pants and halter tops for ya - That L Ron, that Scientology.

that's what I said but in a different way
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

Following up on:

It appears there are Independent Scientologists who disagree with Marty.

https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264347
ealadha | April 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Reply

The crimes they have committed have been done in this life or a past life.
If you can’t find the crime they have committed , then look earlier on the track.
I agree with LRH on this, anyone who is critical of scientology is a criminal.
742817c1603c6e5f9f5086f4763a57b5
iamvalkov | April 29, 2013 at 4:47 pm | Reply

ealadha, then the key question to me is, What do you mean by “scientology”?
Certainly anyone who actually looks at the current policies and conduct of many people connected with the CoS can’t help but conclude that it is a dangerous and criminally inclined corrupt organization from the top down.
df3dbda5ead3f595c6054fcf1c0bb486
ealadha | April 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Reply

I mean the original scientology that was developed by L.Ron Hubbard.
I asked the following question of ealada on Marty's blog:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264378
CommunicatorIC | April 29, 2013 at 8:08 pm | Reply

ealadha – Two questions, if I may.

First, would someone following “the original scientology that was developed by L. Ron Hubbard” be justified in creating, planting and then “discovering” evidence of crime by a critic of Scientology on the ground that the critic is, as a matter of fact, a criminal, even if his real crimes occurred during a past life “earlier on the track?”

Secondly, could you consider that possibility that, in Scientology terms, you have a ser fac, and/or have created a non-falsifiable hypothesis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

That is, that you have a fixed idea, an irrefutable assumption, that you use to make yourself as a Scientologist right and critics wrong, and that is not subject to disproof or refutation even in principle? You assume, and pretend to “know,” that the critic MUST have crimes in at least one past life. If he says he doesn’t or, heaven forbid says he doesn’t have any past lives or whole track, you just “know” he is wrong and, at best, ignorant. There is no evidence he or anyone else can provide to disprove your theory. Since you “know” you are right, you have no need to consider evidence from anyone else. The critic is guilty of crime, and a criminal, not because there is any evidence that he committed any crime, but because you “know” he “must” be guilty — otherwise, how could he criticize “original” Scientology?
As of this writing, ealadha has not responded to my question.

ealadha has, however, gone on to state:


http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264437
ealadha | April 30, 2013 at 6:26 am | Reply

If they had not have committed criminal acts they would not be critical of Scientology, instead if there was anything wrong with scientology they would sort it out, they would not have to be critical to sort it all out.
At least one person agrees with ealadha:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264422
Chris from Germany | April 30, 2013 at 2:31 am | Reply

ealadha,

I totally agree with you!!! Finally somebody says it!


The quote of Ron it truth, it IS a technical fact, that anybody critical of Scientology is a criminal. Of course this is not the same as to never mention that something is wrong. Why then the policy to write KRs? Is a writer of a KR being critical or trying to KSW? Why is KSW 1 mentioning that the supervisor should have been at the auditor-student´s neck who said that “it didn´t work”? Of course many of us independents were called critical – but I am very convinced, for my part, that I have not been critical of Scientology, but rather fighting against the misapplication of Scientology – trying to drive it home to the E/Os that I was not in agreement any longer (= being “critical”), because I was and am trying to keep Scientology working!
In short: The quote, per my estimation, is totally correct!! It is a technical fact to me. Still it is not meant to be misunderstood and misused to call those, who fight Out-Tech in the Church are being critical!!! We have to differenciate.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
I always thought this was where Marty (and many, but far from all, Indies) were heading. I had also recently concluded that Marty, and other Indies, had arrived there.

This is also the second area where Marty (and also apparently Mike, see below) parts with the Fundamentalist Independent Scientologists. The first is KSW. This, the second, is Ron's Third Dynamic Tech. As demonstrated in numerous cross-posts from the Fundamentalist Independent Scientology blog, iScientology blog, the Fundamentalist Independent Scientologists not only believe in Ron's Third Dynamic Tech, they are rather desperate to reestablish and KSW same outside the Church of Scientology. In contrast as reflected below, Marty (and, again, also apparently Mike) is quite done with Ron's Third Dynamic Tech.

And, yes, above analysis depends on taking Marty at his word, and also not seeing a grand conspiracy and deeper game. YMMV

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264451
martyrathbun09 | April 30, 2013 at 8:01 am | Reply

Mike, that is a very clear picture you drew of the Scientology gpm. Thanks for the reference to Data Series tech (pretty much my lifeline while working for LRH between 79-86). Here is where I think I am having a huge fall off in terms of understanding with certain folk. I began an investigation and eval by noting a most glaring, central outpoint: contrary facts. That is, the first dynamic Scientology technology – sanely applied (big caveat) – is perfectly consistent with the Tao Te Ching (which best represents 2,500 years of spiritual wisdom – even according to L. Ron Hubbard’s unequivocally expressed opinion). The Scientology third dynamic technology is 180 degrees diametically opposed to the Tao Te Ching (which speaks liberally to governance and leadership), and so too 180 degrees (in many essentials) to Scientology first dynamic technology itself. The data trail is leading toward the answer to this situation: a technology proven fully capable of leading a person to greater heights of consciousness is leading toward a narrow-minded, neurotic, and hostile mentality. The hostility endendered by the simple act of gradiently sharing the data trail – while sometimes frustrating and distastefully dissonant – is educative, and thus part of the data trail itself. So, at the end of the day despite all brickbats, all in all things are all right in the heart of Texas.
ab01b94a5e488af57abff572315e5487
mrinder | April 30, 2013 at 8:25 am | Reply

Marty — appreciate the further explanation of the process you are following. I guess I kind of understood that, but the picture is now very clear. I am very happy that things are well in the Rathbun neck of the woods. Mike
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

Following up on:

I asked the following question of ealada on Marty's blog:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264378
As of this writing, ealadha has not responded to my question.

ealadha has, however, gone on to state:


http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264437
At least one person agrees with ealadha:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264422
i just feel sorry for these people. But i dont doubt they wohld assign me a low tone for it.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

Following up on:

I asked the following question of ealada on Marty's blog:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264378
As of this writing, ealadha has not responded to my question.

ealadha has, however, gone on to state:


http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264437
At least one person agrees with ealadha:

http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264422
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/04/29/the-quest-quixotian-or-gandhian/#comment-264543
CommunicatorIC | April 30, 2013 at 6:14 pm | Reply

ealadha, Chris from Germany,

Have you ever heard of a motivator? Have you ever heard of justification? In non-Scientology terms, have you ever heard of karma? That what you put out is what you get? That which you sow, so shall you reap?

How would you like it if a Christian concluded you were a criminal solely because you criticized Christianity (as LRH does)?

How would you like it if a Muslim concluded you were a criminal solely because you criticized Islam (as LRH does)?

Has it ever occurred to you that to be the beneficiary of toleration, you must also extend tolerance — including tolerance of criticism?

Considering workability, did it ever over occur to you that saying, “anybody critical of Scientology is a criminal” can serve only to CAUSE criticism of Scientology?

Again considering workability, did it ever occur to you (to put it in the nicest possible way with all of the ARC that is appropriate) that saying “anybody critical of Scientology is a criminal” makes you, and unfortunately by lack of differentiation other Independent Scientologists, look like fundamentalist, close-minded, fixed-idea, intolerant, extreme, zealot cultists?

Yet again considering workability, did it over occur to you that saying, “anybody critical of Scientology is a criminal” will cause NON-Scientologists* who are looking to see if there is any real difference between Independent Scientology and the corporate Church of Scientology to conclude, “Nope, there is no real difference at all — they are all close-minded zealots and intolerantly dangerous?”

I personally can differentiate between you and other Independent Scientologists. Unfortunately, I know many who cannot or will not.

If I hadn’t seen you post here previously, I might speculate that you were OSA agent provocateurs posting here to make Independent Scientology look bad. You might want to think about that.
————-
* If (as I suspect you might given the fundamentalist tone of your comments) you use the word “wog” to refer to or label non-Scientologists, I’m done with you and don’t want to hear another word from you.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

"ealadha | April 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Reply

The crimes they have committed have been done in this life or a past life.
If you can’t find the crime they have committed , then look earlier on the track.
I agree with LRH on this, anyone who is critical of scientology is a criminal."

:duh:

This is deep indoctrination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

has this person not even realized that it may or not be true for himself/herself unless he/she observed it in real life. Per hubbard's own words. :melodramatic:

Best ignore IMO
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

"ealadha | April 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm | Reply

The crimes they have committed have been done in this life or a past life.
If you can’t find the crime they have committed , then look earlier on the track.
I agree with LRH on this, anyone who is critical of scientology is a criminal."

:duh:

This is deep indoctrination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination

has this person not even realized that it may or not be true for himself/herself unless he/she observed it in real life. Per hubbard's own words. :melodramatic:


Best ignore IMO
Why? So we can give a pass to mindless, delusional intolerant zealotry?

Or more specifically, so we can ignore intolerant close-minded, intolerant religious zealotry among some in the Independent Scientology community? Nothing here to look at, just move along?

So we can ignore the fact that some in the Independent Scientology Community are no different than those in the corporate Church of Scientology?

How convenient. To some.
 

Andtheyalllived

Patron with Honors
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

CommunicatorIC | April 29, 2013 at 8:08 pm | Reply

ealadha – Two questions, if I may.


First, would someone following “the original scientology that was developed by L. Ron Hubbard” be justified in creating, planting and then “discovering” evidence of crime by a critic of Scientology on the ground that the critic is, as a matter of fact, a criminal, even if his real crimes occurred during a past life “earlier on the track?”


Secondly, could you consider that possibility that, in Scientology terms, you have a ser fac, and/or have created a non-falsifiable hypothesis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability


That is, that you have a fixed idea, an irrefutable assumption, that you use to make yourself as a Scientologist right and critics wrong, and that is not subject to disproof or refutation even in principle? You assume, and pretend to “know,” that the critic MUST have crimes in at least one past life. If he says he doesn’t or, heaven forbid says he doesn’t have any past lives or whole track, you just “know” he is wrong and, at best, ignorant. There is no evidence he or anyone else can provide to disprove your theory. Since you “know” you are right, you have no need to consider evidence from anyone else. The critic is guilty of crime, and a criminal, not because there is any evidence that he committed any crime, but because you “know” he “must” be guilty — otherwise, how could he criticize “original” Scientology?

CIC, you know I appreciate what you do, but I'll say it again.

Thanks for the crossposts - I would miss a lot otherwise.

The above is really logical, and kind. All anyone can ask!
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

CIC, you know I appreciate what you do, but I'll say it again.

Thanks for the crossposts - I would miss a lot otherwise.

The above is really logical, and kind. All anyone can ask!
ditto. i could not possibly wade through this on my own i really appreciate what you are doing here.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Marty said:
. . . the first dynamic Scientology technology – sanely applied (big caveat) – is perfectly consistent with the Tao Te Ching (which best represents 2,500 years of spiritual wisdom – even according to L. Ron Hubbard’s unequivocally expressed opinion) . . .

Scientology - just like Tao Te Ching, only with UFOs, Aliens, and Venusian Implant Stations.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Marty: More respect for "other practices" ("Can I Get A Witness?")

EDITORIAL NOTE AND REFERENCE: For another post on Liberal Independent Scientology respecting "other practices," see
Curiosus: Buddhism as an alternative clearing path
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?31654-Curiosus-Buddhism-as-an-alternative-clearing-path

Marty: More respect for "other practices" ("Can I Get A Witness?")
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/can-i-get-a-witness/
Can I Get A Witness?

Posted on May 7, 2013 by martyrathbun09 | 77 Comments

At its core Scientology revolves around the auditing process. The word auditing comes from the Latin root audire which means to listen, or to listen and compute. The entire purpose of a Scientology auditor is to provide a construct through which an individual may look at his or her life in such an honest fashion that that which is viewed no longer has a hold on that person. Scientology postulates that ‘charge’ (mental energy) ‘erases’ through that process. One could just as easily postulate that one’s witnessed experience objectifies. That is, one’s experience moves from the subjective (part of, and thus affecting, oneself) to the objective. In that construct, matters of the mind that tend to drive one on an automatic basis are no longer hidden and automatic. Objectivized matter of the mind is no more capable of driving you than any other person or idea that you can clearly see as apart from yourself. Your own choice in the matter of what to do, what to choose, what to pursue and what to react to is restored to you. Each time one witnesses in this wise one recognizes that much more the true nature of self, apart from, and thus less subject to, matter, energy, space and time. Witnessing led the Buddha toward recognizing the impermanent nature of matter, energy, space and time.

It is my view that any time devoted to honestly viewing the content of your mind, your experience, is progress in moving the external world back out of one’s head where it no longer drives you. There used to be a saying in Scientology, ‘any auditing is better than no auditing.’ No matter what processes, what grades, what levels attained or not, every hour spent objectivizing the subjective is net gain. There is so much emphasis included in Scientology about the attainment of grades and levels, and purported permanent states of consciousness that the failure to attain very high on the Scientology Bridge (the chart of progressive grades and levels of spiritual attainment) tends to serve to invalidate the work a person did execute in witnessing his or her own mind.

Scientology contains so much dogma asserting superiority to and difference from all other forms of witnessing that people tend to lose site that they spent a tremendous amount of time and effort doing just that, witnessing. I use the term ‘witnessing’ because it is a generic term that captures what is at the heart of all effective psychotherapeutic and spiritual practices. Most forms of meditation (Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, et al), most forms of psychotherapy, and Scientology too, create a desirable effect to the extent the individual applying it fully, honestly views the mind.

Any meditator who discounts effective psychotherapy that accomplishes the same result as meditation, or any psychotherapist who discounts effective meditation that accomplishes the same result as psychotherapy, is as narrow minded and prejudiced as any Scientologist who discounts meditation and psychotherapy wholesale. Corollary, any former Scientologist who discounts his own blood, sweat and tears exerted in confronting his own demons with Scientology is selling himself short. Witnessing is witnessing. Meditation, effective psychotherapy, and Scientology are all different methods of helping – and are workable to the degree they allow – an individual to witness his own mind and its experiences.

Do yourself a favor. Try to consider that someone who has spent time in other similar practices has spent time witnessing just as you did in Scientology. See if that doesn’t open up an interesting world of increased affinity, reality and communication. Just as importantly, validate the time and effort you put in likewise. You might find you are in better shape than you have previously permitted yourself to believe.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Now if we only had someone to give us the Cliff Notes versions of the tl;dr and (to me) pretty much unintelligible scribes....
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
I'm with Lulu Belle.

Even the Cliff Notes make me ill.

Not saying I don't appreciate the effort, CIC and others -- I do, I do.

However, the mind-bending, intestines-peering effort required to read that crap is so not worth the effort for me.

It's like attending a junior college religion seminar on The Similarities and Differences Between Adherents of the Southern Baptist Convention and the General Council of the Assemblies of God.

:puke2:

TG1
 

In present time

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Marty: "the religious cult of Scientology" "the religious cloak"

:duh::duh::duh::duh::duh::duh:
LRH, "imma slam my name into the clusterfuck of history."
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Marty: Self-transcendence

Query: Does Marty write more about Scientology these days, or about non-Scientology?

Then again, Marty might say that my asking that question, my making that distinction, demonstrates that I have missed the point....

As always, YMMV.

Marty: Self-transcendence
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/self-transcendence/
Self-transcendence

Posted on May 12, 2013 by martyrathbun09 | Leave a comment

In imparting advice on how to find one’s meaning in life in Man’s Search For Meaning Viktor Frankl shares a lot of other gems of wisdom. I came across the following passage when reviewing the book this weekend. Having recently discussed the cathartic nature of witnessing one might want to consider the need for balance in that regard.

Frankl:

By declaring that man is responsible and must actualize the potential meaning of his life, I wish to stress that the true meaning of life is to be discovered in the world rather than within man or his own psyche, as though it were a closed system. I have termed this constitutive characteristic “the self-transcendence of human existence.” It denotes the fact that being human always points, and is directed, to something, or someone, other than oneself — be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself to a cause to serve or another person to love — the more human he is and the more he actualizes himself. What is called self-actualization is not an attainable aim at all, for the simple reason that the more one would strive for it, the more he would miss it. In other words, self-actualization is possible only as a side-effect of self-transendence.
 
Top