Scientology pages index  |  Contact

(to other Scientology pages)

1) General overview/introduction:   Mission statement, overview, present-day Scientology Introduction to Scientology and LRH Scientology in media and Internet (+ forums, Wikipedia) Scientology: Its true history exposed? Scientology Q&A (FAQ) External links Materials want list Recommended list of materials 2) Responses (with annotations): Appreciative responses to my pages Critique received (1) from churchgoing Scientologists Critique received (2) from out-of-church Scientologists Critique received (3) from anti-Scientologists 3) Topics of particular interest: (a): General topics Story of Mary Sue Hubbard Holy Scriptures vs Scientology LRH vs Dictionaries LRH vs theory of evolution LRH's works of fiction (b): Organizational topics A printing history of the materials of Scientology Scientology Membership: HASI vs IAS LRH vs pricing policies The copyrights issue and licensing (c): Technical topics History of Grade Chart: a) General History of Grade Chart: b) Detailed ‘Clear’ defined NED for OTs The ‘Primary Rundown’ 4) Controversial topics: Mistaken ideas of ‘Ethics’ clarified The Fair Game Law Practice of Disconnection Security Checking Freeloaders vs Ex-staff members The ‘Rehabilitation Project Force’ (RPF) 5) Changes in the flow of ‘information’: (a): Alterations (LRH or non-LRH?) LRH vs Alterations Non-LRH turns into LRH? & Proposal to solution The ‘Cramming Series’ - LRH or not LRH? Based on LRH publications (b): General overview LRH vs A New Order (introduction) → Administrative and organizational matters Setup of the printed materials (1973-86) The RTRC, the unit that wrote LRH issues (1973-82) The dawning of RTC and new management (1982-83) → Technical matters Introduction to the event of losing a Bridge) Analysis of HCOB “Tech Correction Round-up” Lost Bridge: Tech changes during 1978-82 The history of the original OT VIII ‘Golden Age of Tech’ (GAT) analysis Drilling in Scientology (c): The matter of David Mayo Story of David Mayo ‘SO ED 2344 Int’ analysis Training drills (TRs) Mayo reference list 6) Conspiracies - In L. Ron Hubbard's footsteps Scientology vs a New World Order →Where is L. Ron Hubbard? (chronology of Scn history) Whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology The era of adoration; Presentation of L. Ron Hubbard L. Ron Hubbard into artistry: Music & Film 7) Scientology under attack (a): A premeditated series of occurrences? (’80s conspiracy) Introduction & Ron DeWolf Gerry Armstrong (‘affirmations’) Russell Miller ( ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’) A religion created for the money? (b): Battles fought and the internet (2016- ) Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath (TV show) planned

>> 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 to see the questions respectively on to reverse)

	The subjects of Dianetics and Scientology (incl. ‘E-meters’)        -  “Is Scientology something to have?”   - “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”.    - “What exactly is Dianetics?”    - “Are the E-meters necessary?”
	Krishnamurti vs Scientology        -  “Could one make a comparison of Krishnamurti and L. Ron Hubbard, which is of more importance?”    - “Is ‘auditing’ in Scientology similar to ‘looking’ in Krishnamurti's work?”   - “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?”
	Is Scientology a sect?        -  “In the media Scientology is usually presented as some sort of sect. Is this true or what is it really?”
	Workability and results        -  “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?”   - “It's hard for me to grasp why they claim to get the results that they do, with apparently little contemplation or meditation.”   - “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?”
	Expenses (incl. ‘Ideal Orgs’)        -  “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?”   - “Is Scientology a religion that was created just for the sake of making money?”   - “What are these ‘Ideal Orgs’ I read about and that money is being asked from the Scientology parishioners to fund them?”   - “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?”
	The ‘Xenu’ controversy (incl. a ‘creation’ narrative?; is there a Scientology belief system?)        -  “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?”   - “Is the Xenu tale the explanation from Scientology for the origin of this universe, and is it taught as such to its parishioners?”
	Freezone vs Church (incl. ‘Declarations of Independence’)        -  “I saw a site called ‘Free Zone’ or something like that which claims that they are trying to bring Scientology back to its roots.”   - “Basically you seem to think L. Ron Hubbard's ‘teachings’ are good, but the church is not so good?”   - “What are these postings on these Free Zone websites that I see on the Internet about ‘Declarations of Independence’?”
	The Church of Scientology today  (present status and agenda)        -  “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?”   - “I also heard that there was something about people running hundreds of hours of Objective Processes, what is that all about?”
	Scientology services & materials: How? What? Where?        - “What Bridge should I walk on?” vs Playing safe              (Includes:  How you can destroy a Bridge ... (a synopsis of a frightening scenario))    - “Where to go for services?”    - “Where to get materials?”

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

• “Is Scientology something to have?”
• “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.”
• “What exactly is Dianetics?”
• “Are the E-meters necessary?”

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”)

 
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.”

 
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.

 
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.

	Krishnamurti vs Scientology

• “Could one make a comparison of Krishnamurti and L. Ron Hubbard, which is of more importance?”
• “Is ‘auditing’ in Scientology similar to ‘looking’ in Krishnamurti's work?”
• “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?”

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

 
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.

 
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.

	Is Scientology a sect?

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

 
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 ’80s 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)

	Workability and results

• “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?”
• “It's hard for me to grasp why they claim to get the results that they do, with apparently little contemplation or meditation.”
• “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?”
  

 
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 ’30s and ’40s 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’.

 
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.

 
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.

	Expenses (incl. ‘Ideal Orgs’)

• “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?”
• “Is Scientology a religion that was created just for the sake of making money?”
• “What are these ‘Ideal Orgs’ I read about and that money is being asked from the Scientology parishioners to fund them?”
• “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?” 
  

 
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-’70s they can charge 10 times as much.

 
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 ’40s 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.

 
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”)

 
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?

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

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

 
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?”

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

 
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.

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

• “I saw a site called ‘Free Zone’ or something like that which claims that they are trying to bring Scientology back to its roots.”
• “Basically you seem to think L. Ron Hubbard's ‘teachings’ are good, but the church is not so good?”
• “What are these postings on these Free Zone websites that I see on the Internet about ‘Declarations of Independence’?”  
  

 
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.”

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

 
Question: “What are these postings on these Free Zone websites 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:

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?

	“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?

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 websites, 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”)

	The Church of Scientology today (present status and agenda)

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

 
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?”

“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)

	“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!

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”)

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

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 this day needs 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!

	“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!

	Scientology services & materials: How? What? Where?

• “What Bridge should I walk on?” vs Playing safe
          (Includes:  How you can destroy a Bridge ... (a synopsis of a frightening scenario))
• “Where to go for services?” 
• “Where to get materials?” 

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

 
Question: “What Bridge should I walk on?” 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 subjecting yourself to someone or something else telling you what to do. If your attitude is, “Now I am here in this group that I joined, and now I just have to follow that crowd,” then it may be feared that this is not particularly for you. That is, if you wish actual results other than turning into an obedient, submitting and blind follower. In essence these subject matters are about following nothing other than your own understanding and the results gotten there after.

Two Bridges or Routes

There are two 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 OTs (NOTs). 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.

Does this mean it is all black and white? Do you have to be a purist? In a sense you have to, however... as all cases and all people are different, solutions for particular case situations may have been found in later years. The principle of Scientology is still to hold on and use that which works and delivers the desired and expected result. It is essentially only asked that you do (1) not mix, (2) replace original auditing routines, (3) skip steps, or (4) change sequences from the original laid out route! It is here that the danger lies with the Bridge that came about during 1978-82.

Additionally one has to realize that this original Bridge was erected now 50 years ago. However since 1970 till this day living conditions have changed. Many more people have been starting to use all sorts of drugs, street drugs, also pollution has become an issue since, the use of pesticides in growing our foods have also increased tremendously. We are just not that healthy anymore, and we don't get the nutritions from foods that we used to get. There are other developments such as overuse of vaccines. People have found release from the effects of these various substances, that are strange to our bodily system, and that since have accumulated in our bodies, by undergoing this that used to be called the Sweat Program, today called the Purification Rundown. It is not a bad thing to do even if it is not listed on the original route from 1972.

It should be understood that the 1972 date is not a cut-off date. You are only asked to be sensible, and to not destroy that original route.

A brief rundown of the original route...

The important actions to run (in this sequence) are Standard Dianetics (as opposed to New Era Dianetics), that will free engrams (disattach them) from your immediate case. The next step is to stabilize your condition (or newly found freedom) with running Grades 0 to 4. Next Grade V is all about confirming that there are no remaining engrams in active restimulation. At this point you would be prepared 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 ones) 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).

Study is half the Bridge

It may even be true that up to about 70% of the Bridge consists of study and particularly a proper understanding of materials. See here: “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 just no such thing! It requires an active mind and honest motivation.

And after you finished having played the whole thing safe, then basically do what you like. If you then want to play around with NOTs 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.

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 snippet
	(Please note that above sound snippet is longer than the printed text that you find here above.)

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 snippet
	(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.

	“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 snippet

 
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!

 
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 ’70s 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 BTBs, 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.

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 PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs 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 HCOBs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTBs. By 1980 all BTBs 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)