Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Scientology related Question & Answer session  or
     Answers to common questions and usual misconceptions clarified
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

        
“Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
        
 
Unless you have observed it
 
 
And it is true according to your observation.
 
 
That is all.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from ‘Ability 125’, Feb 61 “Personal Integrity”)  

Here you will find a collection of questions and answers. I simply have been asked certain questions and I thought it to be good idea to compile the responses that I gave to these questions and print these below as they may shed some light on matters and could be helpful to those who wonder.

 
Index:                   (Click on Expand to see the questions respectively on Collapse to reverse)

 The subjects of Dianetics and Scientology (incl. ‘E-meters’)
 Krishnamurti vs Scientology
 Is Scientology a sect?
 Workability and results
 Expenses (incl. ‘Ideal Orgs’)
 The ‘Xenu’ controversy (incl. a ‘creation’ narrative?; is there a Scientology belief system?)
 Freezone vs Church (incl. ‘Declarations of Independence’)
 The Church of Scientology today  (present status and agenda)
 Scientology services & materials: How? What? Where?




Go back The subjects of Dianetics and Scientology (incl. ‘E-meters’)     


Go back Question: “Is Scientology something to have?”

     Answer: Basically Scientology is a kind of applied philosophy aiming to get people to open up their eyes and start looking. Scientology is something to have, however people within the organization still can behave like any people in any religion or organization. If you criticize you do not always make yourself loved by those whom you criticize. It's the information of its founder which should have your attention. It's all in books and tape recordings. It is important to as always follow one's own integrity. Scientology is a ‘workable’ technology, and that is ‘all’ it is!

        
“Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
        
 
Unless you have observed it
 
 
And it is true according to your observation.
 
 
That is all.”          LRH
(from ‘Ability 125’, Feb 61 “Personal Integrity”)
 

 
Go back Question: “I don't know very much about Scientology. Frankly, I have been conditioned to think that Scientology is a wacky cult! I remember years ago sometimes seeing people from Scientology on the streets trying to recruit people to take a ‘personality test’. Then of course I have heard that there were some scandals in Europe.”

     Answer: Well, there are 2 sides here. You have the technology, and you have the organization that was created to deliver this technology in some professional fashion. Since the originally development of the organization things have changed in its line up. One should keep that in mind. Further an organization consist of people, and people do make mistakes and may have their own fixation and agreements. They do not per definition present a correct application of matters, this is just a simple reality of life. Where ever you go, whatever you do, this may cause a problem. For that reason if you would encounter anything that would not find support in the writings of these subjects, then you should use your personal integrity attempting to getting it resolved. And if you would get opposition simply relay it back to the original writings and enforce that. L. Ron Hubbard did write: “Never compromise with your own reality”. This appears to be hard not to do for quite a many. There is some sort of hierarchy found within the Church of Scientology which seems somewhat similar as we see in the Theosophical Society. Well, it doesn't make anyone smarter to believe one is something more than others.
Then you should not believe all you read in newspapers and see on television. They will publish that will sell, and good news does not sell very well. Further one should reflect upon that evaluation for another within the organization is not particularly something that is advocated or even allowed. It is taboo when studying in the organization and as well when receiving these processes called ‘auditing’ from a person called an ‘auditor’ (listener). No drugs are ever used, on the contrary vitamins to raise your physical and mental alertness in a natural way are recommended. In fact if you took a painkiller for a headache or so, you may not be sessionable (eligible for receiving auditing) for at least 24 hours. This is always asked prior to starting the auditing session. And if it is found that you did take something, then the session will not be started.
The purpose of this auditing is essentially to make you aware of mental images (past experiences) which you may have forgotten about, but in present time are still affecting your present day life. By making you look at them, you will become aware of them and this will make them stop affecting you in present time, the result will be that you are looking more clear at what you are looking at right now. You will be actually here in present time, and not part of you stuck in your past.

 
Go back Question: “What exactly is Dianetics?”

     Answer: It's all in the book Dianetics. Dianetics was first (before Scientology) and addresses the physical body ‘somatics’ (basically physical reactions). Its purpose is to dispose of physical illnesses. Scientology is basically broadening the study of self, it addresses man as a spiritual being. Here one addresses fixation, patterns of the mind, and past decisions. The book Dianetics gives the basic lay out for such processes, a good help is the Dianetic picture book. There is also a Scientology picture book.

 
Go back Question: “Are the E-meters necessary?”

     Answer: Not necessary, but it will locate areas of mental charge much easier and with certainty. It's a help tool only.

Go to index

Go back Krishnamurti vs Scientology     

 
Go back Question:
“Could one make a comparison of Krishnamurti and L. Ron Hubbard, which is of more importance?”

     Answer: One certainly could make some kind of comparison there. Krishnamurti has an interesting message which forces one to look at oneself. It's like returning your question back to yourself and make you start realizing why you had asked that question in the first place, this process may dissolve your question. L. Ron Hubbard's approach is somewhat different, he uses a more scientific approach which anyone can learn how to apply. Also you will get more exact information of how you can handle a certain situation or problem in which you may find yourself involved. Scientology is scientific in every possible way, it consists solely of processes and/or information which will give the solution/answer to your problem. It is simply a workable technology. Scientology also addresses more different area's.
Both Krishnamurti and L. Ron Hubbard are reaching out for understanding and spiritual freedom. Krishnamurti's way of getting to the bottom of things is not the same as L. Ron Hubbard does ... anyhow they are both valuable. We are all different as beings, we may find ourselves easier within a certain concept of thinking than another. Even if one of these concepts/system is more far reaching and better organized than the other it may not be equally attractive to all. Krishnamurti makes that one questions oneself. If I regard some Scientologists, then I may think that it will do them well to read or listen to some Krishnamurti. On the other hand anyone will find something of interest within Scientology. The early Scientology study groups which popped up during the early 50's in USA even had Krishnamurti in their list of recommended reading material.

 
Go back Question:
“Is ‘auditing’ in Scientology similar to ‘looking’ in Krishnamurti's work?”

     Answer: Its base is the same. The difference is that auditing is an exact tool which basically anyone can learn and use. Krishnamurti and Scientology are aiming at the same target, however with a very different way of going about it.

 
Go back Question: “Scientology has many followers, but how much do they really understand, are the majority of them just like the people who come to listen to Krishnamurti's talks? If you have to spoon feed people, are they really getting anything of quality?”

     Answer: I am afraid so. The Scientology procedures only relieve mental charge, they do not make you responsible unless you yourself are willing to live up to that responsibility. It is the same for anything you do, or want to fight for. Lesser bright persons (not to say robots) you will find anywhere in society, in any group, religious or not.

Go to index

Go back Is Scientology a sect?     

 
Go back Question:
“In the media Scientology is usually presented as some sort of sect. Is this true or what is it really?”

    Answer: Definition 1:  The original meaning of the word ‘sect’ implies or refers to something that has separated itself from an established church of any already existing religious oriented group. (Latin secare = to cut).
Now, if we apply this on Scientology, then it would be a rather hard reality that the present Church of Scientology (particularly since 1978), and about all the various offshoots from this that established themselves in the early 80's like Ron's org and Free Zone, and the present day so-called Independents, per this given definition, would be sects. See, they have separated themselves from that original path laid out by L. Ron Hubbard. Although each of them will tell you that they follow a true LRH route. But they do not!

Mind this:
        
“So technical progress has been:
        
 
CLASS VIII - 1968.
 
 
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
 
 
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.
 
 
This is quite an achievement.”          LRH
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
 

This established path was left behind and turned around during 1978-82 by the Church of Scientology. The offshoots like Ron's org and Free Zone based their path on that path (Bridge). Same goes for the Independents (this term came about when churchgoers were leaving the Church of Scientology and started to publish what they called Declarations of Independence, in essence a misnomer actually, more about that here, separate window).
Ron's org (originally called Free Zone) was established by Captain Bill Robertson in 1982 in Germany. Separate from this we also had the Advanced Ability Center that was established by David Mayo in 1983 in Santa Barbara, CA. Most of the groups (or individuals) that today call themselves Free Zone are pretty much following the path set by David Mayo. Independents is a more recent term for the same.
Thus in essence the Bridge (or path) that is followed by virtually all these groups is what I will call the David Mayo Bridge (established during 1978-82 when David Mayo was the Senior C/S International of the Church of Scientology). Each of these groups have abandoned the original LRH Bridge as it was completed in 1970 and in use until July 1978. Then 3½ years later in January 1982 the conversion to that new Bridge was concluded. The original LRH Bridge since and today is pretty much forgotten and abandoned. (more info here, separate window)

Definition 2:  A today popular and widely used definition of this ‘a sect member’ would be “a devoted member, especially a narrow-minded or strongly prejudiced member” (from ‘World Book Dictionary’). Commonly it is not a term used that implies something positive. Usually here is thought of a person that has separated him or herself from independent thinking and/or making decisions on one's own selfdeterminism. Instead one would follow (Latin sequi (sect)) some supposed leader and/or doctrine of sorts, and incapable of questioning anything.
Well, in regards to the original topic of Scientology this would not apply either. The common knowledge (or technology) that makes up Dianetics and Scientology are opposed to any following, it is solely and only offered as tools for application. The only reason the organization was established was to create this meeting place (find other people to practice with), promote dissemination (spreading of application) and a place where materials could be printed and obtained. That's all. It is not a place where we are going to pray/worship something and go on our knees for our leader/saviour and stuff, as various people really seem to believe and as the media often presents or implies it. The matter is just that in 1954 it was ordained as a church for obvious benefits and status, although religious aims are found present in the topic (which is a freed being).

However what it today all has turned to be within this Church of Scientology is a very different thing indeed! Worship? Quite so! Clapping by routine for a photograph of L. Ron Hubbard? All the time. Is that Scientology? Certainly not, got nothing to do with it. So, is the Church of Scientology a sect? Pretty much so and for both the above laid out definitions of the word.
What about that Ron's org, Free Zone and Independents, are they sects? Yes, in regards to having deviated from the original LRH Bridge and technology. No, in regards to worship.

Go back Workability and results     

 
Go back Question:
“What kinds of results does Scientology claim to get for people? Maybe I just can't imagine that an American Science fiction writer and entrepreneur founded a religion?”

     Answer: 80% of all his fiction is actually not Science Fiction, in the 30's and 40's he made a living being a writer, but primarily he used his income to finance his research. He wrote everything from love stories, detectives, westerns, adventures and also film scripts. His Science Fiction is simply being associated with Scientology, so this is being stressed. True however is that the last novels he wrote were Science Fiction, i.e. ‘Battlefield Earth’ (also released on film) and ‘Mission Earth’.

 
Go back Question: “Its hard for me to grasp why they claim to get the results that they do, with apparently little contemplation or meditation.”

     Answer: In general I do not like all the Public Relation about and what people or organizations claim and such, in my opinion it's not so very important. It is more interesting if it can be of some help to you! It is also not entirely correct to assume that it involves “little contemplation or meditation” as you state. It does involve that you have to look at yourself, at your past, it also involves taking responsibility and correct things. This is not equally easy for all. There exist roughly 2 parts, one of them is ethics the other is auditing. To get through the auditing part one needs to be fairly clean on regarding this ethics, as this will work as a stumble block. The idea behind this is that if you have done wrong (or withhold something you are ashamed of) that you as a person are likely to justify it, to make it look right. It creates then a fixed condition, and makes you unable to look at what is actually right in front of you. When this is present you will not be able to as-is things in that auditing either.

 
Go back Question: “I wondered if ‘clearing’ yourself of old experiences, etc., has any lasting effect. What I mean to say is what is the result? Is some type of insight arrived at or is it just the fact of looking at something that divests it of its power?”

     Answer: Clearing means that you get rid of wrong associations, associations you are not aware of that you do make them. It makes you coming into present time. For example you get a big smile on your face for no apparent reason as soon you look at this a guy who has this short moustache, then all of a sudden you see a picture of Charley Chaplin and he has this exact same moustache. Another person may start to feel depressed and sad seeing this same moustache, and this person may have associated it with Adolf Hitler. The moment you realize this you clear yourself from this association, and from that moment on you will simply look at this individual for what he is. These wrong associations get created in moments of unconsciousness or partly unconsciousness. Clearing is permanently or pretty much so, the Dianetics Picture book shows and explains this process in detail. Scientology clearing extends upon this, as basically here you remove decisions you have ever made for example solving some situation. A situation however does not get always solved with some previous handling or solution, and so you can clear yourself from these sort of fixations as well.

Go to index

Go back Expenses (incl. ‘Ideal Orgs’)     

 
Go back Question:
“Also a critical site about how expensive it is to reach the higher levels. Why would they do this? (Charge incredible amounts of money) Why wouldn't these things be available to all?”

     Answer: They are available to all, there is nothing that says that you have to buy all those expensive things. You can get together with a friend and run processes on each other, you only need a book. It has been argued that these expensive auditing processes are on a very high level and a lot of people and work are involved with them. But they did not always cost that much as they do now. In fact there is something to say about the current pricing. L. Ron Hubbard left us with a basic calculation rule for this. A simple calculation will tell you if this rule has been applied.

        
“THE COST OF A CERTIFICATE COURSE MAY NOT BE LESS THAN ONE MONTH'S AVERAGE PAY FOR THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS GIVEN AND MUST BE IN CASH.
        
 
By average pay is meant the average upper lower class or lower middle class pay scale. (Example guesses: U.K. about £50. U.S. about $500. Australia about $75. South Africa about £80.) ...
 
 
ONE WEEK'S PROCESS (25 HOURS) SHOULD COST AN AVERAGE MONTH'S PAY (AS IN TRAINING).”          LRH
(from HCO PL 23 Sept 64 “Policies: Dissemination and Programs”)
 

It is unfortunate however that this guideline is not particularly followed anymore by the Church of Scientology. The local so-called Class V organizations I have found are asking twice as much then is allowed. Higher classed organizations are asking even more. Certain services can only be gotten from these, and compared to old pricings from the mid-70's they can charge 10 times as much.

If you want to get into great detail about this then feel free to consult my study in link here below:
    “L. Ron Hubbard vs Pricing policies  or  How much should a Scientology service cost?”  (separate window)

 
Go back Question:
“Is Scientology a religion that was created just for the sake of making money?”

     Answer: This is a rather usual statement made by those that oppose to the subject of Scientology. They will assure you that they have support for that claim though. The question to ask here is if their arguments are valid, and if there would be data that they may have overlooked. There are various angles to be looked at and considered. Such as (Q1) since when was it getting addressed as being a religion?; (Q2) evidence should be found that from the very beginning it would cost you a lot of money; (Q3) are the sources that make the claim reliable? If one would give short replies to these then they would sound like (A1) in fact, it was introduced as a science, not a religion; (A2) from the beginning it was rather inexpensive, the aim was to get it to as many people as possible, this remained so till 1976 in when a price system was introduced that would make the prices skyrocketing. Now who would wait till he was 70 years old before doing so?; and (A3) the claims are that L. Ron Hubbard would have said something like that he would a create a religion because that was where the money was. The persons making the claim relate to conferences held during the 2nd half of the 40's in where he would have said that. Mind that the persons interviewed relate about this a whole 40 years later. Now, who would remember exactly what he would have said, and for all, who would remember the context in which something would have been said? People often do not even remember what they did last Friday! Besides that other persons that attended the same conference have testified that L. Ron Hubbard did not say that. All this does not provide for a very strong base for the claim being made at all.

A detailed overview of the matter can be consulted in the link here below:
    “Scientology: A religion created for the sake of making money?”  (separate window)

 
Go back Question:
“What are these ‘Ideal Orgs’ I read about and that money is being asked from the Scientology parishioners to fund them?”

     Answer: This is indeed a bit controversial. This is basically a matter about to determine “What Your Donations Buy”!

“So little by little, using donations you give us for your service, your training and your processing, we create little by little areas of sanity.”          LRH
(from ‘The Auditor 55’, 1970 article: “What Your Donations Buy”)

A detailed overview of the various pro's and contra's re this can be consulted in the link here below:
    “‘The Ideal Org’ initiative (mid 2004 to present)”  (separate window)

 
Go back Question:
“On the Internet I saw the following phrase posted: ‘MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY.’. Wouldn't that imply that Scientology is all about the money after all?”

     Answer: It is fairly easy to mislead or play tricks on people. All that it requires is some citation taken from some place, thus taken out of context, and then present that with your own explanations of how to interpret that isolated piece of text. To properly understand a text, any text, one has to regard these citations preferably in their original context. Who was it written to? What is the actual purpose of it having been written? In what area is it to be used?

I addressed this detailedly in the link here below:  (separate window)
    “MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY.”

Go back The ‘Xenu’ controversy (incl. a ‘creation’ narrative?; is there a Scientology belief system?)     

 
Go back Question:
“I saw the ‘Xenu’ document, is this supposed to be taken literally, or is it a vision of some sort? Do I have to believe any of these things to be true before being accepted in Scientology?”

     Answer: When L. Ron Hubbard researched auditing processes he found common denominators for certain incidents. Apparently many people told the same or similar incidents when receiving auditing. He simply compiled this information and published them in 1952 in a limited circulation In US entitled: ‘What to Audit?’ (title explains itself). This publication never was anything else then a guide for auditors. Its purpose was to assist the auditor to identify that what could be originated by the person receiving the auditing. Later this circulation when it was reissued in England the following year in 1953, it was given the title ‘Scientology: A History of Man’. To my understanding this was done without the initial approval of L. Ron Hubbard, but as it appears he did not act against it and it has carried this title ever since. It is definitely a better selling title, but it may not reflect so clearly anymore what it in reality was about. One could figure that L. Ron Hubbard thought that the intelligent well-informed reader wouldn't misinterpret the writing and how it was to be taken and dealt with. Particularly in later days many of the less literate among us have started to regard the information offered as being factual, things that really have happened. They may not have understood that the whole point is that these incidents as collected in this little work may in reality have happened or they may be imaginary, this all is entirely irrelevant.
See, the single and only purpose of auditing is to relieve mental charge on incidents, whatever they may be. Mind also that there is this Auditor's Code that instructs that you are not to evaluate anything for the person receiving the processing. Now, with help of this device called the E-meter (registers bodily reactions) you can locate mental charge which lay on some ‘incidents’. In fact they will only then be registered by this E-meter if there is some mental charge connected to incidents. Then you reduce this registered mental charge by making the person simply and solely looking at it and go through some incident, several times if need be, and/or find earlier similar incidents. This all until the charge is reduced, the needle of that meter is then floating (moving in a particular way, a floating needle). The ‘Dianetics Picture Book’ explains/shows the principles of how this works. This is basically all what there is to it. There are no tricks attached to this.
After having completed successfully particular auditing you will then learn to self-audit with use of that meter. This Xenu or so-called OT levels are done with self-auditing. So, you run the information and see if the meter responds to anything. Then you reduce the charge of anything you come across with. This is the essence of it.

These ‘Xenu’ documents have been rather exaggerated out there on the Internet. It has been said that this is confidential material and they are believed to be part of those higher level processes. But in fact similar things we find also described in ‘Scientology: A History of man’ and in ‘Ron's Journal 67’ (a public lecture from 20 Sept 67 disseminated on a broad scale). OT III (Xenu incident) is confidential only because it is not advised to run it without previous releases of mental charge, simply because it is found that it would be overwhelming (too much charge, and can not be run anyway).


A belief system?

A rather significant misunderstanding is in fact as if Scientology would be some sort of belief system. It simply is not. It never has been. Scientology could be circumscribed as something that let you find out about yourself, who you actually are, and offers knowledge and tools. It is a simple reality and fact that you don't have to believe any of these things either prior to being accepted in Scientology. Scientology is simply not about believing. It is no more and no less than an applied philosophy. It should work even if you may not believe the theory behind it, that's the whole idea. I have spoken to people about exactly these things. All what did matter to them was that they were not bothered anymore about certain problems they wanted to get handled. And after accomplishing that they still didn't believe that any of these things they may have originated in their sessions were actually real. Various persons I asked thought them to be ideas, and nothing more. But of course you will also find people within this Scientology thing that have adopted their paradigms, their dogma's, they may have created their own personal belief system. But this is what they did, it does not represent Scientology per sé. In reality these persons will have created a stumble block, as Scientology is about finding out, and you will not find out anything anymore when your frame of mind is already set. Definitely this is an usual problem. I have only met few that not have been subjected to this. Within Scientology and outside of Scientology. (more info here, separate window)


‘Xenu’, a core belief?

Another significant misconception is that if this Xenu thing would be a core belief of Scientology. You see, in the media they may tell you that first you will gently be lured into Scientology, you do some courses, get some brainwashing of some sort, courses will be more and more costly, and then finally after paying extravagant amounts of money truth will be revealed to you in form of this Xenu story. Well, the reality is that only a limited amount of persons within Scientology actually have ever heard of Xenu. Per this, then how can this be core belief? It is not core and it is not a belief. Unless you yourself will turn it into that, but then you will not be doing Scientology.


Misrepresentation by Church of Scientology promo

There have been various Public Relation announcements about this book ‘Scientology: The history of Man’ that adequately appear to promote and give cause for a misinterpretation of the book. We see these appearing since so about 1976 in the various Scientology periodicals. In 1979 phrases are used like: “FAR BEYOND DARWIN  Get the real story of Man's past!”. The accompanying text then was elaborating on that concept (see ‘Advance 59’, Jul/Aug 79). The cover shows a caveman or sorts. This cover is specifically copyrighted 1975, although we see this caveman already in the 1968 edition.
I remember that in 1988 or so at Flag (Clearwater, Fl) a new release of the book was being presented. Then I saw these various staff persons around me, right outside of the auditorium of the Fort Harrison hotel, discussing this book and accepting it as factual history. Indeed they were not realizing the actual significance of this book at all. There was this common agreement that had parted from the original concept of the publication and had then turned it into a dogma.

Some years back (2005 something) I caught this radio program. A program that dealt with Scientology. Here an invited representative of the Church of Scientology was faced with this Xenu thing. She was directly asked (repeatedly and persistently) if she believed that tale to be true. She finally and reluctantly replied: “Yes,” and didn't elaborate further very much. Excuse me? Did this lady understood anything at all of the subject matter she was representing? See, this is how bad it can get!
These latter days I really do not find that particularly intelligent nor independently thinking people are found within the Church of Scientology. What a huge difference with the early days of Scientology! Its parishioners used to be primarily educated people, very intelligent persons. Today we see that most of the literates leave after a while. Of course they do, seeing all the worshipping, blind following, plain sillyness and general intelligence level of the common Church of Scientology parishioner. Mind though, it is not doing Scientology all that. This is what the official organization has grown to be since basically the later 70's and early 80's. Since then it only has become worse.

 
Go back Question:
“Is the Xenu tale the explanation from Scientology for the origin of this universe, and is it taught as such to its parishioners?”

     Answer: Indeed, this is often presented as such by the media. It is then told (by that media) that much money has to be paid, and in the final end this ‘creation tale of how this universe came about’ is being ‘revealed’. As if the Scientology parishioner is told this and has to believe this being the case. One could not be more in error about it. It is true that we do find parishioners that have taken it as such. In the same way as you find illiterates and non-thinking followers anywhere and everywhere. But is this something that is actually being taught to that parishioner? Well, Scientology simply does not work that way.

See, you are supplied with information, and you then audit it. Then you'll have to see what happens. In the same way as why the little book ‘What to Audit?’ (reissue title: ‘Scientology: A History of Man’) was written and issued. See, you get some clues about what to audit, that's all.

Go to index

Go back Freezone vs Church (incl. ‘Declarations of Independence’)     

 
Go back Question:
“I saw a site called ‘Free Zone’ or something like that which claims that they are trying to bring Scientology back to its roots.”

     Answer: Free Zone actually has no relation with the official Church of Scientology. It is basically a group of Scientologists who chose to leave the official organization or were not being welcome anymore. The general idea is that they object towards the present management which took command during the early ’80's, early that year L. Ron Hubbard had disappeared from the publics view. It is thought that the changes since then incorporated are not necessarily deriving from L. Ron Hubbard. For this reason Free Zone basically only make use of the materials which were released prior to 1980. Going back to the roots would mean that only that part of Scientology is being used from the time that L. Ron Hubbard was still considered being in control.
Also Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the scope of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology.

 
Go back Question: “Basically you seem to think L. Ron Hubbard's ‘teachings’ are good, but the church is not so good?”

     Answer: I would rather refer to it as knowledge which has something to offer. Everywhere there people are involved, you can expect some kind of fixation. Any organization or group will risk that its members will be creating silent agreements. The less intelligent or the fearful one may oppose to those that do not submit immediately or blindly to such agreements. (I describe this behaviour in more detail on my essay: “Witch hunt and sect behaviour”, consult here (separate window).
I may have been faced one time or another with opposition within Scientology organizations, but I never allowed this to stop me from acquiring knowledge. L. Ron Hubbard has described precisely how organizations should run and what they are supposed to do and should not do, but may be not all abide to that all the time. So, if something happens which I do not like, I'll simply ask where is it written that you can do like that. I have done several services at Scientology organizations, but I also have a collection of many lectures on tape and most of his books (almost none of his fiction actually).
L. Ron Hubbard says: “That mind which understands itself is the mind of a free man.”, if his research is something for you to have is for you to find out. Unfortunately many are scared away before they got a chance to find out what it actually is about.

 
Go back Question: “What are these postings on these Free Zone sites that I see on the Internet about ‘Declarations of Independence’?”

     Answer:This appears to be fairly recent phenomena, this started so about 2010. It is basically about persons that had been hooked up with the official Church of Scientology, and now they make it known to all that they broke away from that particular branch and then were joining these Independent Scientologists or something. This in essence is in reality a sort of very strange happening. But let's first actually define properly what a Scientologist is supposed to be composed of:

As per ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
        
“SCIENTOLOGIST, 1. someone who can better conditions. A Scientologist then, is essentially one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using Scientology technology. (BPL 21 Oct 71 I You as a Scientologist)  2. an individual interested in Scientology. Disseminates and assists Scientologists. (HCO PL 21 Oct 66 II, City Office System)  3. the being three feet behind society's head. A trained Scientologist is not a doctor. He is someone with special knowledge in the handling of life. (HCOB 10 Jun 60 What We Expect of a Scientologist)”
        

And per ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’:
        
“SCIENTOLOGIST, 1. One who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of other by using Scientology technology. (The Auditor 73 UK, ca Feb 72)  2. One who controls persons, environments and situations. A Scientologist operates within the boundaries of the Auditor's Code and the Code of a Scientologist. (PAB 137, 1 Jun 58)  3. One who understands life. His technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life. (The Creation of Human Ability, 1955, p. 12)  4. A specialist in spiritual and human affairs. (Ability Magazine 1, ca Mar 55)”
        
Note: The Code of a Scientologist you can consult here  (pop-up window).

It is interesting to see how the Church of Scientology (or some employee there) actually changed this working definition in their registering the trademark for ‘SCIENTOLOGIST’. It says: “Indicating membership in a church”. Next section reads: “Collective Membership Mark”. Sorry folks, that's not what it is about!!! It is not what the word means nor indicates! Big, big mistake! You can see the registration for yourself here (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). Do you see the consequence of this? This way it can be used to determine that only those people rightfully can call themselves Scientologists if they adhere to and are an approved member of the Church of Scientology. If you are not approved you are simply not a member, but does that also imply that you are suddenly not a Scientologist?

And then we have:
        
“I don't expect auditors or Scientologists to instantly agree with or seize upon whatever I say. I would be offended if they did and would feel they weren't a Free People. Since they are intelligent I expect them to think over what's said, try it, and if it's good for them, use it.
        
 
I sorrow when I see somebody accomplishing less than he should because he thinks I wouldn't approve of it. In organizations and out I count upon initiative and good judgment.”          LRH
(from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)
 

When we regard all these then is being a Scientologist about being in some particular group or organization? It does say in PAB 79 “Free People”. The common denominator in these listed definitions is basically that one has agreed upon to make use of some particular technology to help oneself and others. Now, does it follow from this that one joined a particular group that agreed upon a particular interpretation? The whole point of the technology is that predicted results can be gotten. See, a Scientologist is already from the very start an Independent! Then what is this all about having the need to go out with some Declaration of Independence? The only thing that it basically creates is a segregation from other people that still also wish to use this technology to help themselves and others. You effectively cut a communication with people that have the very same goal. Now, what was being a Scientologist all about again?

It gets even weirder when we realize that pretty much the same version of the technology is being delivered this in the Church of Scientology and those so called Free Zone groups out there. Recently a contact of mine applied for membership of some Free Zone association out there. His application got denied. Reason given was that he only wanted to deliver the 1972 status quo of the technology. It was figured that “There are other advancements and breakthroughs developed by LRH since 1972 as well that if denied a pc, can harm their progress or prevent them from attaining the full EPs of the grades, Dianetics and even the OT levels.”. (this is just a pick of the arguments that were held against the applicant, see details here, separate window)
Well, it would appear that all these groups present a brand, and you better submit to the brand that a particular group is abiding to. If you do not, then you are not welcome. Doesn't matter really here then if you be a Scientologist or not. See, it's all about that brand!

See, there is control and demands within the Church of Scientology, exactly the same is enforced in these Free Zone and other groups, simple control and demands. You conform or you will be out of there! And it is this very same Free Zone that have these Declarations of Independence listed on their sites, ah well. The “Free People”? Whatever happened to them?

        
“I consider all auditors my friends. I consider them that even when they squirrel. I believe they have a right to express themselves and their own opinions. I would not for a moment hamper their right to think. I think of auditors and Scientologists as the Free People.
        
 
Just as they consider one another their people, so I consider them my people.
 
 
I think their errors of the past, when they existed, came about because we are new and we are finding out and I don't think any of their errors were intentional any more than mine were.”          LRH
(from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)
 

        
“Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only comes about from non-comprehension.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)
        

Go back The Church of Scientology today (present status and agenda)     
There exists a particular situation within the Church of Scientology. A problem is that the type of auditing that moves people on that Bridge is virtually not occurring anymore. These days its parishioners are primarily reading books, application is not even asked for as it is not listed as an acquirement if you examine the course checksheet. Mind that these subjects are applications, they are not just theories that you stuff into your head. Further we find that they are all into tremendous overruns on these so-called Objective Processes. Processes that actually do not move a person on that Bridge case wise.
You see, according to this technology itself the only thing that would create a permanent effect on the condition of a civilization is if you run out the mental charge on engrams, facsimiles, and so on. If you fail to do that, the same problems will occur again, again and again in some future. This is what always will happen if you only change the outer circumstance but fail to address the actual cause of matters! Efforts of that kind will not have any lasting effect. As this reactive mind that is full of these engrams, facsimiles simply will call it into being again after a while.
If you want any lasting effect you need to relieve the mental encumberments of man, and not put your whole focus on disciplining them into a particular pattern of behaviour.

 
Go back Question:
“I heard something about that the Church of Scientology at present went back into time reinstating a full use of Dianetics exactly as it was in use during 1950. Why would they do that, had the technology not advanced since that time?”

     Answer: It was a few years back I believe, somewhere mid 2011, that the whole so-called Book One type Dianetics auditing was rekindled and promoted by the International Management of the Church of Scientology. We saw the release of a variety of courses that taught and replicated the exact procedures and routines as they were in use back then as laid out in ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of mental Health’ (May 1950). They even printed up the original forms that were in use in these days and so on. We had a Beginners Book One course, and you had also an Advanced Book One course.
It is however a valid question to ask why one would do such a thing as indeed the technology had advanced since that time rather significantly! Why then teaching old procedures and routines that had been surpassed? And they had been surpassed!

Well, read these passages here below:  (underlining is mine)
        
“In dianetic processing we used to use what was called a ‘canceller.’ At the beginning of the session, the pre-clear was told that anything which had been said to him during the session would be cancelled when the word ‘cancelled’ was uttered at the end of the session. This canceller is no longer employed, not because it was not useful but because lock scanning provides the means of scanning off all the auditing. This is a far more effective and positive mechanism than the canceller. In scanning old auditing off cases, the auditor will occasionally find that the pre-clear cannot recover what the auditor said. The reason for this is that the canceller has acted as a forgetter mechanism and has closed off the auditor.”          LRH
(from ‘Science of Survival’ (1951), Part 2, Chapter 17 (p228-229)
        
And:  (underlining is mine)
        
“The tech used is that of Book I, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, but omitting the countdown and canceller, this is not being necessary today and using instead a simple ‘Start of Session’ and ‘End of Session’ and then running the engram. ...
        
 
E-Meters must be used and regardless of whether the student knows anything about them or not the pc ‘must be on the cans’. We don't care if the student learns much or little about meters at this stage but a bright student will catch on fast. There is no E-Meter training at this stage. ...
 
 
THE MATERIAL IN THIS HCO B TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ANY DIANETIC MATERIAL, BOOKS OR TAPES INCLUDING DIANETICS THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH WHERE A CONFLICT MAY OR MAY SEEM TO EXIST.”          LRH
(from HCOB 3 Apr 66 “Dianetics Auditing Course”)
 

Are you still with me? And so, at present, somewhere mid 2011 that the Church of Scientology had thus come out with this thing about doing ol’ Dianetics again, more precisely, they were doing 1950 status quo Dianetics, and ... with use of the “‘canceller’”, the “countdown” and no use of the “E-Meter”. All which since had been surpassed! And not only surpassed, but prohibited!

I do experience that if you find deviations or errors of a serious nature in the present publications or if action sequences are proposed that find no support in original materials written by L. Ron Hubbard, then even if you show the relevant LRH reference generally you will first be met with a justification. “I follow International Management,” they say, and “International Management would not have missed something like that.”, or “They must have other data.”, or “They must know what they are doing.”, finally saying: “If you are right then International Management will correct that, at such time I will follow that.”. Interesting èh? This matter is basically all about authority.
Now why is that? Probably because of:
    - “The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation.”;
  - “The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront, good or bad, and seek to make it wrong.”; and
  - “The bank seeks to knock out the good and perpetuate the bad.”          LRH
(all from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

Now, when I first pointed out this matter about “‘canceller’”, the “countdown” and no use of the “E-Meter” to various churchgoing Scientologists, that what I received were the rebuttals here above noted, and it was even tried to find fault with my person. I did however clearly point out that they were supposed to follow the guidelines set by L. Ron Hubbard, and not those from International Management or any others, in particular not if their dictations are contrary to the guidelines set by L. Ron Hubbard.
Anyhow a little bit later in time these same people actually started to think. And of course it is rather silly to protest, as they had no defence in the first place! I can thus assure you that International Management and/or Mr. Miscavige did miss this! Sooner or later probably some correction will, once again, be issued. But for heaven's sake, how could anyone miss this in the first place? Or is there something else that ‘I’ am missing?

 
Go back Question:
“I also heard that there was something about people running hundreds of hours of Objective Processes, what is that all about?”

     Answer: This dates to somewhere early 2012. Churchgoing Scientology public were told that these so-called Objective Processes were a very vital step and that magnificent wins could be gotten from these if run long enough.
A Class VIII auditor was telling at a church event that during the early 50's (1953-54) L. Ron Hubbard had been giving hundreds of lectures about exactly these Objective Processes. She then forwarded the assumption that if L. Ron Hubbard had given so many lectures about it, that it must therefore be an important necessary cycle of action and should be given ample attention and should be run for at least thus many hours. Followingly she told about some person that possibly had to run in excess of 800 hours for this sort of processing, but that other persons might manage with 300-400 hours. And since about that time it was decided that all persons that had not attested Clear basically had to run Objective Processes. The information went around that pretty much everyone had this skipped gradient. it was figured that they could not have run their Objective Processes till a completion and so they had to go back and first complete that.

Well, a bunch of assumptions were being forwarded by this Class VIII auditor about the matter, but one may fail to find a justification for them founded in actual fact! Just because L. Ron Hubbard spend time on these matters would only indicate that he was researching and testing out these matters during these 1953-54 years. Selected people were invited to attend these Advanced Clinical Courses (AAC's) seminars in where L. Ron Hubbard was lecturing about that. Then people were applying the information when running various procedures they had just learned about. Therefore assuming that everyone in present day need to run hundreds of hours of these processes is rather nonsensical, primarily because L. Ron Hubbard DID NOT IMPLEMENT SUCH AN ACTION DURING ALL THE YEARS THAT FOLLOWED AND DURING WHICH TIME HE WAS CONSIDERED PHYSICALLY STILL AROUND (1954-86). So why starting now in 2012? Did L. Ron Hubbard miss that somehow? Really not very likely at all now is it!

A founding Scientologist from 1951 writes: “We ran each objective as long as it produced change and no longer.” and “Not everyone needs objectives to start out.”. This full article can be consulted in the link here below:
    “Running ‘Objectives’”  (pop-up window)


We don't either see these Objective Processes presented on any Grade Chart issued earlier than 1978. It was thus never in earlier years a planned step on this chart or this so-called Bridge to Total Freedom. Considering:
        
“So technical progress has been: ...
        
 
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
 
 
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.”          LRH
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
 
It was the December 1978 Grade Chart (printed in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (Dec 78)) that was first to list a step called “New Era Dianetics Objectives” with the process circumscribed as “To orient pc* in present time, drop out past and improve havingness”. With other words if the person is fit and responds well in auditing, and can satisfactorily answer the questions from the auditor, you don't actually even need it!

Then during the later 80's you had this that generally was referred to as Objectives in use. This consisted of a package of processes that were run prior to receiving these Grades 0-IV. It was listed on that Grade Chart and everyone had to go through the processes. These days this consisted of the CCH processes I-IV (see HCOB 1 Dec 65 “CCHs”).
(CCH: Control, Communication & Havingness. Several associated processes which bring a person into better control of his body and surroundings, put him into better communication with his surroundings and other people, and increase his ability to have things for himself. They bring him into the present, away from his past problems.)
Any of the processes that are run within these subjects of Dianetics and Scientology had a very clearly circumscribed End Phenomena (EP). And so you could determine if the process had reached its end. I think I run this 4-5 hours or so, then I got into an overrun, which was corrected the following day. During these late 80's some person may run as much as 7-8 hours or may be 10. But 300-400 hours? I wouldn't think so. See, it would go into an overrun. If you are THERE, you are done! If you can do a process comfortably then it is done, the person subjected to the process would have good indicators, utter some origination, and the person giving the commands will simply end the process. Since this new initiative instigated by the Church of Scientology to run these Objective Processes in eternity I have seen people going into extensive overruns and not getting anywhere. So, what about returning to the practice as how it was dealt with in the days that L. Ron Hubbard was around? It worked back then, why would it not work today?
These Objective Processes are not actually an action to improve a person case wise. They are just processes to improve the susceptibility and response of the preclear in receiving auditing processes that do address his/her case. Objective Processes are a conditional action, some will require it but most persons simply will not. Either way since the 2010's the times indeed have been a-changin' ...

Go back Scientology services & materials: How? What? Where?     

I frequently receive questions of this nature. I thus opened up a new little chapter here.

 
Go back Question:
“What Bridge do I have to follow?” vs Playing safe

     Answer: This is clearly something that you have to make up your own mind about. Mind however that it is all pending your own understanding. The business of getting involved with this Dianetics and Scientology is not a matter of someone telling you what to do. It is just not a matter of figuring, “Now I am here in this group that I joined, and now I just have to follow the crowd.”. So, if you are a person that has this attitude, then I fear that these subjects are not particularly for you. That is, if you wish actual results other than turning into a blind follower. In essence it is about following nothing other than your own understanding and the results gotten there after.

There are 2 basic Bridges to name. There is that Bridge that came about during 1978-82 under the guidance of David Mayo, the route that is being offered by the official Church of Scientology. We also find that virtually this same Bridge is being delivered in the various Free Zone groups. They make use of the New Era Dianetics technique and it includes New Era Dianetics for OT's (NOT's). They are following the rules that had been established during this time interim. They start with the Scientology Grades 0-IV and then run Dianetics. The Scientology Grades V-VII are usually passed by, and next one starts on the OT levels. The Free Zone groups generally also deliver the original OT levels IV-VII, whereas the Church of Scientology has abandoned them.

The other Bridge is the one that was established during 1968-70 at such a time that L. Ron Hubbard announced: “So technical progress has been: CLASS VIII - 1968. COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969. COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.”  LRH  (from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”). Here is used the Standard Dianetics technique, the Grades V-VII are a mandatory action, and you will find no New Era Dianetics for OT's (NOT's) here. Here you start with Dianetics and only after that you do the Scientology Grades 0-VII. For reasons of convenience this Bridge is referred to as the 1972 Bridge, as some final additions and corrections were released in that year.
It is this 1972 Bridge that I call for playing safe, and the other Bridge of a later date I used to call for a risky business. It is basically all a matter of going about this in the correct sequence. You don't take leaps jumping and passing by steps just like that. Something that nonetheless has been happening ever since these late 70's!


How you can destroy a Bridge ... (a synopsis of a frightening scenario)

(A chronology and details of the various occurrences folded out here below can be consulted here: “Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82 vs A lost Bridge” (separate window).)

        
“But the moment that you move even a sixteenth of a millimeter sideways off of what is generally applicable to all minds, you are again into the particularities and opinions. So therefore, if you had a broad sphere of knowledge which was true, and these were all high generalities and everybody would agree with them, frankly it'd be very easy to bankrupt and upset that whole operation by taking it, and by false relay—you see, bad instruction and bad relay of the Material and dropping out a datum here and a vital datum there and substituting something or other—you eventually could then again effect a sort of a slavery out of that information.
        
 
In other words, even if you arrive at the technology, you still have the task of safeguarding the technology because, once more, it can easily turn and become a false technology.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #308, renumbered 1991: #338 “Saint Hill Service Facsimile Handling”, given on 18 Sept 63)
 
 
sound  Sound snippet (1:28) 
 
        
(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)
        

Now, if that is the aim then you don't necessarily have to alter particular essential services. You simply sidetrack the person. One way of going about that would involve simply ensuring that a person is not ready to commence on a certain action, but that one nonetheless can tell this person that he/she is ready! Some of these so-called OT levels can be considered rather tricky steps (noted are OT II-III). So, all you got to do is to get non-Scientology Clears up to doing these levels. You see, you just can't run that what you are not aware of, what you do not see. One needs to be properly prepared every step on the way. If you are not, you will simply find nothing to run. Then you think you have completed some level, but the reality is that you have not actually done that. The worst it can do is that you restimulate matters in your case. You thus need to know what you are doing and where you are at!
A first indication of steps undertaken achieving that came in a package of various technical changes that were released and incorporated during July-Sept 1978.

New Era Dianetics released:  At the end of July 1978 we see that Standard Dianetics (StDn) was cast out (silently) and its place was taken by this New Era Dianetics (NED).
Scientology Clear abolished:  Then just 6 weeks later it was announced that “There is only a Dianetic Clear and he is a Clear.”, implying as if a Dianetic Clear would be the same as a Scientology Clear (which it is not!, see extensive referencing: “Dianetic Clear vs Scientology Clear”, separate window). But this new and recent technical ‘discovery’ did cause that the Scientology Grades V-VII had been pretty much taken out of use. As if it would be implied here that New Era Dianetics does take care of that as well? An incorrect assumption as L. Ron Hubbard guides in HCOB 22 Apr 69 “Dianetics vs Scientology”: “To mix the two has been a very bad error.”. The matter is that Grade VI (Routine 6) traces this Basic Bank, but since this time most (if not all) persons are still stuck with this very Basic Bank when they commence on these OT levels.
And then, is this not warning enough?
        
“... —and there is no shortcut for VI and VII. Anybody who comes along and tells you there's any shortcut for VI and VII, he's just trying to cut your throat. Remember that. There is no shortcut.
        
 
Somebody said to me, ‘I should have thought, Ron, that you would have blown the whole bank just by plotting it.’ Ho, ho, ho! Ha! Even me, no. ... Huh, confronting the basic reactive bank isn't like that. I'm not trying to scare you; I'm just trying to keep you from making mistakes.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #72, renumbered 1991: #435 “Dianetic Auditing and the Mind”, given on 28 Jul 66)
 
 
sound  Sound snippet (1:03) 
 
        
(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)
        
Wakey, wakey, people!
It would appear that some of these OT levels are related with Grade VI (a.k.a. R6, R6EW). The Free Zone even tells me that remainders of R6 would be run out at these levels. May be so, but this is just not the sequence of the Bridge as L. Ron Hubbard had built it. Anyhow, you are likely to get into trouble if you try to run particular OT levels when you have not properly concluded this R6.

Dianetics forbidden on Clears:  The package of technical changes from mid-1978 also involved another huge setback guiding that Dianetics was forbidden to be run on Clears (any Clears). Although there is really NO problem with doing that as long as you are standard. See here: “Dianetics run on OT's as per 1969 (a skipped gradient)” (separate window).
Dianetics placed after the Grades:  The steps taken to limit the use of professional Dianetics were concluded in December 1981 at which time it was established that it was (1) to be trained on by students; and (2) to be run on preclears, only after the Scientology Levels 0-IV (for students) and/or Scientology Grades 0-IV (for preclears) had received a pass. And so this is how you effectively can get professional Dianetics auditing out of use overall! Which had thus far been THE successful action that got people into Scientology and got them to actually stay on.

The Natural Clear:  March 1979 had also a technical ‘discovery’ to announce, it was this Natural Clear, which basically allowed you to move on to the OT levels with little or no auditing. So we got persons with little auditing experiences and usually limited training also up onto these OT levels. Although L. Ron Hubbard had repeatedly stated that “There has never been a true Clear or true OT” (separate window). Then although it was still confirmed back then that such Natural Clears were very, very, very rare occurrences, we find that people were actually standing in line to attest for it. At present day within the Church of Scientology many such persons are having their Clear status revoked.
The Clear Certainty Rundown:  These recent ‘discoveries’ that folded out a rather fluctuating condition of Clear urged the development of a means to verify if a person would be actually Clear or not. In May 1979 we thus got the Dianetic Clear Special Intensive (DCSI), which is special auditing for persons that had originated that they might(?) be Clear. Thus essentially allowing a person to make rather significant leaps and pass by the previously standard steps, that is if you say the right things while receiving that special auditing. (since 1985 this is called the Clear Certainty Rundown (CCRD))

New Era Dianetics for OT's (NOT's):  At the same time (September 1978) as it was announced that “Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears” (any Clears) we see in turn the coming into being of this New Era Dianetics for OT's (NOT's) that supposedly would now handle the physical disturbances (somatics) that occurred. The name itself (i.e. Dianetics for OT's) would be a factual misnomer as it does not use Dianetic techniques.
This NOT's may be seen as just side-tracking, as various of the previous standard actions had been skipped, requiring now this NOT's to sort of take care of that. It is not said that it may not have values, but it is just not part of the standard route.
Mind that it has been found by some practitioners that NOT's as a short repair action has been beneficial for persons that had their progress stalled due to not being able to go exterior of oneself. It is in essense not wrong to apply some action if it benefits progress and handles something, but after things are fine just go back to the original route and continue where you had left off.


The important actions to run are Standard Dianetics (i.e. not New Era Dianetics), that will get all your engrams dis-attached from your immediate case. Grade V is all about confirming that there are no remaining engrams in actual restimulation! At this point you are able to run out the Basic Bank with R6 (which is done solo), which may take a while for most people. The OT levels (the original one's) would take you a couple of weeks or a few months according to the information relayed by periodicals from the earlier days. Mind that I talk here about the 1972 Bridge. And that ‘Old tech’ is ‘valid tech’ (separate window).

Thus the actual route would be to just follow the sequence as laid out. If you had moved on to Scientology Grades or may be the OT levels and get somatics, then you go back and run Dianetics (as in skipped gradient). If it is found that this was not the correct action to address it, you just confirm this to the person and get on with whatever action is needed, and then get back onto where you had left off.
You run Standard Dianetics, you run the Scientology Grades 0-IV, and you run V-VII, in that sequence. You don't get into this thing about originating that you might be one of these very, very, very rare individuals that would/could be a Natural Clear, or taking it as a precedent that when you attested for Dianetic Clear, that you are that kind of Clear that can skip Scientology Grades V-VII. You instead just follow the standard route, step by step, if certain actions don't reveal charge going off, you acknowledge that to the person, and you just go on to the next step, you don't make leaps. You will be getting there, eventually, and with certainty. This is thus what is called playing safe!

        
“The situation with regard to standard tech at this time is we have had a few mice. And I imagine down through the years there will be a few other mice. A bulletin gets altered, a tape gets pulled off the line, some vital action is shifted. Somebody comes tearing in with a brand new idea that seems to be absolutely vitally essential, and the first thing you know, why we have trouble of one kind or another. And tech fails. And it suddenly ceases to give the results which it should attain.
        
 
At that time morale goes down. ‘No, Scientology doesn't work.’ These are the danger points of the past and of the future.”          LRH
(from Class VIII lecture #5 “The Standard Green Form and Rudiments”, given on 28 Sept 68)
 
        
sound  Sound snippet (1:05) 
        

Probably about 80% of the Bridge is study and for all PROPER understanding. It would include this: “A rundown of the understanding required today ...” (separate window). There is NO Scientology in where you can comfortably sit in a chair (with cans in your hand) and believe: “Now I am going to be made free!”. You see, there is NO such thing!!!

And after you finished having played the whole thing safe, then basically do what you like. If you then want to play around with NOT's or want to find out what that was all about, that's wholly your choice. Other people find values in further materials found in Ron's org. They have this thing they call Excalibur and additional OT levels that they consider to be “very powerful”. May be they are, but first finish that original route the standard way! Undoubtedly you will then be able to get the most out of it all.

 
Go back Question:
“Where to go for services?”

     Answer: It would of course be pending which Bridge you wish to walk on. If you wish to walk on that 1978-82 Bridge you would have 2 choices. There is the Church of Scientology, but there are also those groups that operate outside of the control of the official organization. Generally they may be referred to as Free Zone, Independent Scientologists or Ron's Org. Here it is pending your personal preference, or possible considerations concerning how standard the services provided by these groups of organizations would be.

Now, if you wish to do that 1972 Bridge, then you are in for a search to find persons willing and for all able to deliver these services. You see, it has been a while since Standard Dianetics was ruled out by New Era Dianetics. You will have to find people that have learned this technique once, and simply ask them! At this time there is a growing interest into this, and people are, here and there, starting up and learning this technique. But at present it remains just a sporadic effort. An increased demand for receiving this routine of course would urge more and more persons to be able to deliver the routine. In essence it is not hard to learn, but it should be done with some guidance. One can start as a group, or study with another person, and use the techniques on each other. So, you have to go around, contact people from the earlier days, and then simply ask!

Realizing however that the search has to take place amongst independent Scientologists, as the Church of Scientology will not be found willing to service you that 1972 Bridge.
Then both the Church of Scientology and the various Free Zones will confide to you that the technology from the early 1970's had been surpassed at a later date. I have had frequently people telling me that New Era Dianetics would be better, and so on. It is up to you to believe them, or not. Consult the materials, the forwarded analysis, and then decide if you want to play their game, or your own game! It's wholly up to you.
To give an annotation to that, I usually find out that, those persons that are ensuring me that, are not aware of the information that I uncovered about Standard Dianetics, and they have no means to make any comparison from practice. Often, they are not even willing to look at it more closely either ...

 
Go back Question:
“Where to get materials?”

     Answer: This would be another problem. Well, books and materials have been printed up during thus many years, and they actually can be found. It also appears that people have been active scanning particular hard to find materials. Considering that one is free to copy materials for use of practice, this according to US law.

Then for example the 70's release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes are also available secondhand for reasonable prices. If it be your choice to focus on the 1972 Bridge, then it would actually suffice to have Volume I to X to your exposal. You would not need Volumes XI & XII, in fact you should stay away from these! With this however you have mostly only access to the writings by the hand of L. Ron Hubbard. Excepting only Volume IX, that contains BTB's, but these are addressing matters that L. Ron Hubbard had not written about himself. You would thus still be lacking various technical references written by other persons that address various technical aspects that one should know about. These you will find included in old course packs.

I give an overview of various materials and make various suggestions at page found here below:
    “Recommended Dianetics and Scientology related materials”  (separate window)
There is a section for Standard Dianetics materials.

 

Vocabulary:

     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     as-is:
To view anything exactly as it is without any distortions or lies, at which moment it will vanish and cease to exist.
     Book One (or Book I):
Refers to ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ that functions as ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Therapy’. It was first published in 1950.
     BPL:
Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's had been revoked.
     BTB:
Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked.
     engram:
1. Simply moments of physical pain strong enough to throw part or all the analytical machinery out of circuit; they are antagonism to the survival of the organism or pretended sympathy to the organism's survival. That is the entire definition. Great or little unconsciousness, physical pain, perceptic content, and contra-survival or pro-survival data. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 68)  2. A moment when the analytical mind is shut down by physical pain, drugs or other means, and the reactive bank is open to the receipt of a recording. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 153)  3. The word engram is an old one borrowed from biology. It means simply, “a lasting memory trace on a cell.” It may be engraved on more than the cell, but up against Dianetic processing, it is not very lasting. (Science of Survival, p. 10)  4. A recording which has the sole purpose of steering the individual through supposed but usually nonexistent dangers. (Science of Survival, p. 10)  5. A mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)  6. A complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11) 
     EP:
End Phenomena’. The expected end result of some action done, a course completed etc ... In study: (1) floating needle, (2) cognition, (3) very good indicators, (pc happy).
     floating needle (F/N):
The idle uninfluenced movement of the needle on the dial (of an E-meter) without any patterns or reactions in it. It can be as small as one inch or as large as dial wide. It does not fall or drop to the right of the dial. It moves to the left at the same speed as it moves to the right. It is observed on a Mark V E-meter calibrated with the TA (Tone Arm) between 2.0 and 3.0 with GIs (Good Indicators) in on the pc. It can occur after a cognition, blowdown of the TA (Tone Arm) or just moves into floating. The pc may or may not voice the cognition. (HCOB 7 May 69 V)
     ‘Modern Management Technology Defined’ (released 1976):
This is within the Scientology organization commonly referred to as simply ‘Admin Dictionary’. Presently used editions of this book are identical to this first edition.
     objective processes:
1. Processes which familiarize a person with the MEST universe. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Objective processes deal with body motions and observing and touching objects in the auditing room. (HCOB 30 Sept 71 V)  3. Look around or physical contact processes are obviously “objective.” Pcs who have been on drugs obviously have to be run on objective not subjective processes. Anyone can be brought more into present time with objective processes. (HCOB 2 Nov 57RA)
     Operating Thetan (OT):
1. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08)  2. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09)  3. A being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta (θ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (Book of Case Remedies, p. 10)
     OT:
Short for ‘Operating Thetan’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     PAB:
Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other.
     pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     R6:
Routine 6’. It means the exact processes and aspects of case handled at Level VI of Scientology (BTB 12 Apr 72R)
     R6EW:
Routine 6 End Words’. When the pc has taken the locks off the reactive mind itself, using R6EW, he attains Fourth Stage Release. (HCOB 30 Aug 65) [Grade VI Release].
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58)
     service fac:
service facsimile’. 1. These are called “service facsimiles.” “Service” because they serve him. “Facsimiles” because they are in mental image form.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)


Go to top of this page


Advertisement