Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

The definition of ‘Clear’  or  A detailed tracking of
     how it was subjected to change through time
(2)
(Did the changed criteria for the Clear cognition in 1978-79 turn Dianetics & Scientology into a guessing game?)
(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.


The definition of ‘Clear’ 
 (page 2)

Go to “The definition of ‘Clear’” index page



 
Attestation of ‘Clear’

Back to Main Index How to make out if you were a Clear? (certifying Clears) – A historical overview

    
The original development (1958-1967)
  1958: Test for Clears (with use of Clear test form)
  1963: Clear test simplified (Clear test form abandoned)
  1965: ‘Grade VI Clear Test’ & “higher states ... found” (Grade Chart updated)
  1966: The first Clear announced (John McMaster)
  1966: Introducing ‘Continental Clear Checker’ and ‘Clear Check Hat’
  1967: Finalizing the steps of the Clear check
 
A new development (1979- present time)
  1979-85: ‘Dianetic Clear Special Intensive’ (DCSI)/‘Clear Certainty Rundown’ (CCRD)

 
  

Go back Test for Clears (with use of Clear test form)

1958:  There were ways to certify if anyone was Clear or not a Clear. You were simply tested or put through a check. The earliest notice that addresses this was found in “The 19th American Advanced Clinical Course Lectures” (19ACC-9), given 30 Jan 58 “Clear Procedure IV: Test for Clears”. The first reference released was HCOB 20 Feb 58 “ How to Test for Clear” (written by L. Ron Hubbard, note that this is not included even in the 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes). At that time there were “three sections to a Clear Test. The first is Auditor Evaluation. The second is E-Meter questions. The third is written tests, such as the APA and IQ.”.
The auditor evaluation involved that the “individual has been able to successfully execute without further reaction on the meter, the entirety of HGC Procedure of February 6, 1958, including part 2, CCH 0 (b), Help.” (referred is to the references HCOB 6 Feb AD8 “HGC Clear Procedure Outline of February 6, AD8”  &  HCOB 6 Feb 58 “HGC Clear Procedure Outline - Part II, CCH 0 (B) - Help in Full, Starting Session”.
For the E-Meter check among other a certain amount of ohms were expected to register. All “according to present findings”.
The American Personality Analysis (APA, a personality test) had to “read in the top third of the profile”. The Intelligence Test (IQ) had to “register in excess of 135 for a state of Clear to be established”.
The HCOB also listed various disqualifications, such as needle reactions that were not supposed to occur, that is if you were a Clear. The only one of these 3 references noted in the previous that you will still find in either the 1976 or the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes is the last one, although it omitted saying Part II. Things obviously had moved on since they were released. I have no information about when or if the first 2 HCOBs were cancelled (no cancellation data was found). Interesting here is that some of the information found in these references has in later years (at least since 1979) been labelled as confidential.

        
“No clear bracelets will be issued until person has been tested for engrams as per E-Meter techniques of 5th London ACC [held Oct-Nov 58] which will be made available shortly.”          LRH
(from HCOB 17 Nov 58 “Clear Bracelets”)
        

        
“The entirety of the Clear test is conducted with the testee on the E-meter. A Clear test form is used by the Director of Processing. The Director of Processing only conducts the E-meter Clear test and forwards all tests up to the HCO Board of Review. He cannot tell the person he is Clear.”          LRH
(from HCOB 17 Nov 58 “R2–R3, Important Date, Don't Force the PC”, as quoted in ‘Sec ED 150’, 9 Mar 59 “Director of Processing Hat”)
        

        
“Henceforth there will be no charge for clear estimates or clear check outs when passed through Registrar and when done at F.C.”          LRH
(from FCPL (HASI PL) 17 Nov 58 “Free Clear Estimates, Free Clear Tests”)
        

Later in 1959 we had HCOB 27 Aug 59 “Clear Tests Revised MEST Clears and Theta Clears”. Cancelled in 1974 and as per the information that I have it was not written by L. Ron Hubbard. I have not been able to consult this reference, also no further cancellation information has been found.

 
  

Go back Clear test simplified (Clear test form abandoned)

1963:  There was HCO PL 22 Feb 63 “Clear Test 1963”. A month later superseded by HCO PL 23 Mar 63 “Clear Test 1963 Issue II”. I have not been able to consult the former, the latter is only included in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume VII, 1963-1965’ (1991). It is about that “No GPM may be called cleared until this test has been made.”  LRH.
Next it came to:
        
“CLEAR TEST 
        
 
You don't need to do a Clear Test. It might mess up the bank.
 
 
A natural free needle without prepcheck begins to appear around the fifth GPM. ...
 
 
A bracelet clear would be, actually, a theta clear, and would emerge after the 5th to 8th GPM had been cleaned up.
 
 
By present calculation a free needle, totally stable theta clear emerges after the 8th GPM has been run.
 
 
No calculation on Operating Thetan exists at this moment, but at a guess, it's well beyond the 8th GPM.
 
 
Up to the 6th GPM a clear test is liable to foul up the case a little. So save it for later and really send up rockets in celebration. ...”          LRH
(from HCOB 18 Mar 63 “R2–R3, Important Date, Don't Force the PC”)
 
Then:
        
“No such bracelet [Clear bracelet] shall be issued until procedure of test is established in HCO Policy Letters after this date, all former such tests being cancelled.”          LRH
(from HCOB 12 Aug 63 “Certificates and Awards”)
        
Resulting in:
        
“CLEAR TEST–Clear sits at Clear read on the TA with a free needle. No natter. No upsets. No whole track keyed in. No SERVICE FACSIMILE.”          LRH
(from HCOB 1 Sept 63 “Routine Three SC)
        
* Routine three SC.  Routine 3-SC: Routine Three, Service Facsimile Clear.

 
  

Go back ‘Grade VI Clear Test’ & “higher states ... found” (Grade Chart updated)

1965:  Then HCO PL 2 Apr 65 “Meter Checks” refers to something called “RELEASE CHECK” and followingly it makes mention of a “GRADE VI CLEAR TEST”. Various criteria for these and other meter checks are listed in this policy letter.
Take further note that on the (May) 1965 Grade Chart the state of Clear was positioned still at Grade VI. The next updated Grade Chart released later that year rectified this and accordingly noted:
        
“The quality of processing has been upgraded in 1965 as higher states have been found. Clear today is a higher state than previously. We once called ‘Clear’ what is today called RELEASE. Clear was higher than was first thought.”
(from 26th September 1965 Grade Chart)
        
Since then the charts positioned Clear at Grade VII (after thus having completed the Clearing Course).

 
  

Go back The first Clear announced (John McMaster)

1966:  That year a “despatch” was send to L. Ron Hubbard by this person named Anton (Assistant Qual Sec Saint-Hill, England) about the first Clear (John McMaster). Apparently this was considered of such a “historical and technical interest” that he issued it as HCOB 23 Aug 66 II “Clear Test”.
        
“It’s with greatest joy and happiness I have to report to you that John McMaster has passed The Clear Check and no doubt exists that he has erased his bank completely and it’s gone.
        
 
There is no meter reaction at all, meter tested before check by D/Review, TA at 3.0 floated down to 2.8 on request he move the needle by postulate.
 
 
Further tests, no reactivity and no bank. His presence in the environment brings about a calmness and safety.
 
 
He looks excellent. ...
 
    Anton.
    A/Qual Sec SH”
 

You will however not find this reference included in either the 1976 or the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes.

 
  

Go back Introducing ‘Continental Clear Checker’ and ‘Clear Check Hat’

1966:  This same year also introduced these Continental Clear Checkers:
        
“In order to speed up the checking out of Clears residing in other countries and to handle the tremendous flow of Clears that is occurring, and in the interest of economy for students, personnel have been appointed in certain Continental Orgs to perform this duty.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Nov 66 “Clear Check-Outs in Continental Orgs”)
        
This reference also makes specifically mention of a “Clear Check Hat”. If anyone out there would have more data about this, or have any such Clear Check Hat materials issued somewhere late 1966 and in use well into 1967, then please contact me!

 
  

Go back Finalizing the steps of the Clear check

1967:  In this year we find the procedure being pretty much finalized through HCO PL 13 Sept 67 “Clear Check Outs” cancelling all “former check out procedures for Clear”. This HCO PL then lists some straightforward steps:
       “1.  Has run the materials of the Clearing Course to free needle.       
  2.  Is the person's TA between 2 and 3 with a loose or flowing needle?  
  3. 
Rehabbing ALL grades from Dianetic Release up to Clear, making sure they have actually, each one, been run and attained.
 
  4.  A marked change in the person.  
  5.  Is the person cheerful and happy about being Clear?”          LRH  

These steps were further enforced and supported by HCO PL 15 Sept 67 “Release and Clear Check Outs” that reads:  (underlining is mine)
        
“NO CERTIFICATE DECLARING ANY GRADE OF RELEASE OR THE STATE OF CLEAR OR ANY STATE OF OT IS VALID UNLESS THE EXAMINER IS A CLEAR CHECKED OUT AS PER POLICY LETTER OF 13 SEPTEMBER 1967, ‘CLEAR CHECK OUTS’, AND WHO IS AN SHSBC GRADUATE.”          LRH
        
And HCOB 8 Oct 67 “Clear Checks and Re-Clear Checks” that reads:  (underlining is mine)
        
“A Clear Check or a Re-Clear Check is done exactly per HCO PL 13 Sept 67, ‘Clear Check Outs’”          LRH
        

Then remarkably enough we find that HCO PL 13 Sept 67 “Clear Check Outs” was later cancelled by HCO PL 9 Jan 68 “Cancellation of HCO Policy Letter 12 Sept 1967 and HCO Policy Letter 13 Sept 1967”.
And with this we stumble on what may seem to be a somewhat confusing situation publication wise when we find that both HCO PL 15 Sept 67 “Release and Clear Check Outs” and HCOB 8 Oct 67 “Clear Checks and Re-Clear Checks” are building on and confirming the validity of HCO PL 13 Sept 67 “Clear Check Outs” and appear to be fully valid references till this day!
Here we have to look at why these 2 references were getting listed as cancelled. HCO PL 9 Jan 68 explains that “both policies contain inspection before the fact and therefore violate the Fast Flow system of Management.”  LRH. We should regard here “contain” as apparently there are some statements found that signify such “inspection before the fact” and these we find following the listing of the 5 steps of the Clear Check Out. Therefore the cancellation is not affecting these 5 steps. In fact HCOB 8 Oct 67 “Clear Checks and Re-Clear Checks” specifically confirms their validity and adds various details about how to go about them.
     Note: Now, a policy letter got written and then some realizations surfaced and/or discoveries were made while practicing its instructions. Then changes (small or big) came along and had to be somehow incorporated. Here you are then creating a working record of information.     
  Mind that HCOB 8 Oct 67 “Clear Checks and Re-Clear Checks” already had been issued prior to the issuance of HCO PL 9 Jan 68 that cancelled HCO PL 13 Sept 67 “Clear Check Outs”. Reissuing references with corrections comes at an extra cost, randomity and distribution. You just can't always afford doing that. Instead you thus have to learn to read these references together!  
  And so you will find this cancelled HCO PL 13 Sept 67 “Clear Check Outs” factually included in the 1970-74 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes, with the footnote it had been cancelled by reference such and so and indicating on which page to find that enabling you to learn about the reason and do your evaluation/calculation. We find this reference footnote also included following HCOB 8 Oct 67 “Clear Checks and Re-Clear Checks” in the 1976 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume VI, 1965-1969’.  

 
  

Go back ‘Dianetic Clear Special Intensive’ (DCSI)/‘Clear Certainty Rundown’ (CCRD)

1979:  In this year we see this previous setup being superseded and replaced with this new special procedure. A significant difference was that now you could enroll on it at any time you felt and/or originated that you might be Clear. It really didn't matter where you were on the Bridge, or that you even had started on it (the previous year had introduced this Natural Clear). You thus were not anymore required to run each of the steps as they chronologically were outlined on this Grade Chart. It was even assumed that one did not need to do Grade V, VI and VII anymore as a standard course of action. It was said that these were only for those that did not go Clear on Dianetics. The situation being that if you had not originated the possibility being Clear earlier on, then you would enroll on it as soon as you attested Dianetic Clear. Which explains the original name given for this special intensive. And yes, in effect it pretty much did abandon the Scientology Clear.

Whereas the Clear Test or the Clear Check virtually were free of charge, and were a simple rather short procedure, this too was to change rather radically in 1979. The reference FCPL (HASI PL) 17 Nov 58 “Free Clear Estimates, Free Clear Tests” appears thus also superseded by this new setup that consisted of this 5 hour intensive which was thus not particularly free of charge.

This Dianetic Clear Special Intensive (DCSI) was introduced in May 1979. It was for:
        
“(1) Persons who have gone Dianetic Clear earlier in auditing (2) Persons who were declared Dianetic Clear without a rehab yet need the state rehabbed (3) Persons who feel they went Dianetic Clear and want it checked and handled.”
(from HCO PL 1 May 79R (Revised 25 Mar 81) “Dianetic Clear Special Intensives, Administration of”)
        

During Nov-Dec 1985 it was repackaged (with no fundamental changes) and was re-released/rechristened as the Clear Certainty Rundown (CCRD).

A promo sheet (© 1985) from AOSH UK about this CCRD tells:  (these lines are attributed to L. Ron Hubbard although I am unable to find the source of it)
        
“Since 1978, an auditing action called the ‘DCSI’ (Dianetic Clear Special Intensive) has been used to rehabilitate the state of Clear, when that state was achieved in Dianetics® or NED® auditing.
        
 
In light of recent technical discoveries a new rundown has been assembled for the verification and rehab of the state of Clear, superceding and replacing the DCSI. ...”.
 
Although I do have it positively confirmed from an old-timer Class IX Auditor (who worked on these lines in the organization) that this was just the same procedure with no fundamental technical changes, it was just a rechristening of the very same thing. Donations requested for the DCSI in April 1985 were also exactly the same as the ones asked for in August 1986 for the CCRD. A motivation for the change of name may have been to effectively dissociate these procedures from the person David Mayo, as they were originally released and developed during his time of reign, and yes various of the original DCSI references do witness of his involvement. Anyhow a newly written series of references accompanied this CCRD, which related the exact same ideas and approaches. Nonetheless it is promoted as if something new.

The periodical ‘Advance! 88’, [Dec 85] introduces it as follows:
        
“Question: What is Clear Certainty Rundown auditing?
  Clear Certainty Rundown (CCRD) auditing is a new rundown by Ron for the verification and rehabilitation of the State of Clear. He says, ‘The object of this new rundown is to remove any doubt a person might have as to whether or not he had attained the State of Clear, and give him certainty of his state, a positive knowingness of where he stands on the Bridge to Total Freedom and a stable starting point for his continued journey upwards. Its name is the Clear Certainty Rundown.’ (HCOB 2 Dec 85 C/S Series 112R, Clear Certainty Rundown New Saint Hill Service.)”
        
And it also tells the following:
        
“Question: I've had the DCSI, but I still have attention on whether I'm Clear or not. What should I do?
  You should sign up for Clear Certainty Rundown auditing right now, at a Saint Hill or higher org. You'll be routed straight to the Tech Division where arrangements will be made to get you started. Contact the Registrar or write to the Letter Registrar today. (Ref: HCOPL 1 May 79RA, Re-rev. 17 Nov 85, Clear Certainty RD Series 3, Clear Certainty Rundown: Administration.)”
        
Above text appears to hint at that the CCRD could solve things that the previous DCSI did not handle. This kindles the notion if the rechristening was not because of having this sales pitch.

At its release the CCRD was only delivered at so-called Advanced Saint Hill Organizations. However since December 1988 it was also delivered at any Class V Scientology organization. In 1994 we have a turnaround in the numbering of the Clear Certainty Rundown Series, also it was adding one reference to this series, this was HCOB 4 May 94 “Clear and Release” (i.e. 8 years after the passing of L. Ron Hubbard). This CCRD remains in use today, and the CCRD references are carefully kept under lock and key.

The transformation of HCO PL 1 May 79 is interesting. It changed title 2 times (changing of title occurs only occasionally) and it did convert from Dianetic Clear Series to Clear Certainty Rundown Series:
  
HCO PL 1 May 79  -  “Dianetic Clear Special Intensives”
HCO PL 1 May 79R
(Rev 25 Mar 81)
 Dianetic Clear Series 3 “Dianetic Clear Special Intensive, Administration of”
HCO PL 1 May 79RA
(Re-Rev 17 Nov 85)
 Clear Certainty Rundown Series 3 “Clear Certainty Rundown: Administration”
HCO PL 1 May 79RB
(Rev 18 Dec 88)
 Clear Certainty Rundown Series 3 “Clear Certainty Rundown: Administration”

We see this also confirmed in for example HCOB 15 Nov 81 “The Sunshine Rundown” that in its revision of 18 Dec 1988 exchanged “Dianetic Clear Special Intensive” into “Clear Certainty Rundown” as “the next step on the Grade Chart”.
But also the Grade Chart changed its entry at the level of ‘CLEAR’: ‘Subject Audited’ from in 1984: “Dianetics Clear Special Intensive (to verify and rehabilitate the state)” to in 1985: “Clear Certainty Rundown counseling (to verify and rehabilitate the state)”.
The periodical ‘Advance! 88’, [Dec 85] also confirms: “DCSI: Dianetics Clear Special Intensive, now replaced by Clear Certainty Rundown auditing.”.


I've made a detailed study of the publication information of all the references relating to or being part of either the ‘Dianetic Clear Special Intensive’ or the ‘Clear Certainty Rundown’. I marked carefully various information like revision notes, the persons involved in each individual release and composer/typing initials, etc.:  (pop-up windows)
    Dianetic Clear Series (DCSI) (1978-81)
  Clear Certainty Rundown Series (Nov-Dec 1985)  (includes Dec 1988 reissues)
  Clear Certainty Rundown Series (Mar-May 1994)

 
Back to Main Index Then and now: Attesting to Clear
(Includes:  The Grade Chart  &  Our present day)

The ramifications of the shifting of the concept of the Clear Cognition starting in 1978 are rather significant (see earlier in this study, chapter “(c) The ‘Clear Cognition’”). It introduced the concept of unpredictability. But there is an additional aspect that needs to be addressed concerning the subject of Dianetics and Scientology itself. From its very inception it has been self-determining. These subject matters were different from for example psychotherapy and psychology because here you did not have someone else deciding anything for how you would perceive anything or in what condition you were in. This however has grown to change over time within the Church of Scientology.


The Grade Chart

The Routing and Gradation Chart was initially developed to give structure to the subject matter of Scientology. It was to lay out the path to walk and which sequence to follow. A first Grade Chart was thus issued in May 1965, and it focused on Scientology. It was not until mid-1966 that Dianetics found its place on it.

Matters progressed and the December 1966 Grade Chart added an Attainment column. Basically these signified the End Phenomenas (EPs) that would indicate, to the person traveling this path on the chart, when they would be ready for their next step. ‘Ability Gain’ is defined in HCOB 28 Feb 59 “Analysis of Cases” as “Pc's recognition that pc can now do things he could not do before.”   LRH.  The person would then make an attest to this effect.

The January 1968 Grade Chart renamed this column to Abilities Attained.

HCO PL 14 Mar 68 (Reissued 8 May 68) “Policies Governing the Qualifications Division” directed:
        
“The PC or student signs an attestation slip that he has completed, or can apply the data or has attained the grade.”
        
(Notice: The history of attesting can be studied in more detail on my Grade Chart pages, see “‘The Bridge to a New World’ (History of the Grade Chart) - b) Detailed analysis”, consult in particular: 1966-Jan 1968: Attestation for grades (since 1966)”, consult here, & Jun-Dec 1970: (2) Corrections (c): Proper attestation of grades (‘Ability Gained’ and ‘Inability Lost’)”, consult here. They are well worth a read.)

The June 1970 Grade Chart added a second column called Inability Lost (the Abilities Attained column was renamed Abilities Gained). Interestingly this chart also broke up the lower grades (Grade 0-IV) into their respective flows (F-1, happening to self; F-2, done to another; F-3, others to others).

‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases” established:
        
“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”)
 

Next the December 1970 Grade Chart maintained the columns as established earlier in June that year. This should all seem like a finished cycle of action at this point in time.

It was however not to be. The January 1975 Grade Chart then suddenly reverted back to how it was lastly displayed on the September 1969 Grade Chart, it removed the Inability Lost column and all the flows for the lower grades. This 1975 chart in effect set the trend for all forthcoming charts.
As a side note here the Ability Gained characteristics for the so-called OT levels also had disappeared, from this time on they were considered confidential.

It was not until late 1980 that the columns were extended upon again, however not on the Grade Chart itself, but in the form of issuing this as a separate policy letter. This was HCO PL 23 Oct 80 II “Chart of Abilities Gained for Lower Levels and Expanded Lower Grades”. Aiming at that “Expanded Grades are attested to by the pc declaring the full statement of the Ability Gained for all four flows.”. The Inability Lost column did not get reinstated, although it did add the flow (F-0, self to self).

What we should ask ourselves is why the 1970 Grade Chart set up was interfered with and not maintained! And before all determining why these columns were so detailed and why there even was an Inability Lost column. Who changed all that, authorized it, and got it printed up like that? You see, this Grade Chart was there hanging on the wall, it was this piece of paper which the public saw. Having it on a Grade Chart is not the same as have it hidden away in some policy letter issued in 1980.

“Now that we have ethics in and VIIIs in every org WE CAN RESTORE ATTESTATION. When we knocked it off we also knocked down our stats. Ron's Journal 1968 will RESTORE ATTESTATION OF GRADES AND CLASSES. This will speed up training again and raise stats. It works only if you keep ethics in.”          LRH
(from ‘LRH ED 81 Int’, 20 Jan 69 “A Vital Target, Trained Auditor Program”)


Our present day

It was somewhere late-2008 or so, that I watched this video at some Scientology event. It was about motivating people to achieve and go Clear. I was appalled when I saw the video sequence in where various public persons were approached and informed that they now had reached the State of Clear. These public on that video then responded in delightful surprise: “Am I really? That's great! Wow!”. And I was wondering, are these people really involved with the subject of Scientology? You see, they were being told they were something. A reality was being forced upon them, and they adopted this reality. Now, what was Scientology all about again?

The audience that was there watching these video sequences were in effect swallowing this, just like that. I looked around and could see the smiling and happy faces of the persons in that audience. This was something they also wanted. Was I the only one perceiving that something was not quite right here? This present day Scientology public has turned exceedingly uncritical. The relay of the subject matters of Dianetics and Scientology are not studied anymore, it is instead adopted. The problem here is that adopting will not get you anywhere, and in particular not in Scientology. Adopting will never nourish understanding. If your aim is freedom, then you will not arrive there this way.

Go to index

 
Additional related information

Back to Main Index A “misdefinition of the State of Clear” (David Mayo relation per ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83)

 
Go back The original problem proposed...

This is the initial reason that I started to look into this. Some claims were being made about the person David Mayo in the church paper ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”. It resulted in systematically clarifying and investigating the whole subject of Clear and anything that related to that.

The section of the SO ED entitled DETECTION says:
        
“With Mayo, the first clue to what he was up to was when he broadly published a misdefinition of the State of Clear. A cramming order was issued at the time, but instead of simply doing the cram, he claimed motivators:
        
                 
‘Mayo was the boy they were relying on. He is a very clever fellow in that he could lie to me consistently, convincingly report, this that or the other thing. He actually came a cropper when two of the most banal technical actions you ever heard of (the first one was a cramming order, clearing the word ‘Clear’ as per Book One and the second was taking a car down a road) ‘caved in his case’ and caused him to have an accident and break his finger. This is the symptom of a mental reaction of trying to make somebody else wrong. The truth of the matter is that these actions were about as strong as a drink of milk and couldn't possibly have done anything to anybody. He directly lied and was found to be squirrelling the simplest process there ever was. He also false reported the actions of a pc on [the process] and bow the program was run on her. It was this last straw which broke the camel's back.’   (LRH)”
                 

Now, what was this “broadly published a misdefinition of the State of Clear” and what publication is referred to here?

The obvious issue that should be raised here is if David Mayo would still have been qualified to maintain his position as the Senior C/S International (top tech person after L. Ron Hubbard) if he in fact had such a misunderstanding about such a fundamental Scientology word. If it is found that he had, then from that must follow he that he had basic misunderstandings overall on the subject matter and therefore should by automation be deemed to be unqualified to maintain this post position. A simple cramming order for that reason may thus not particularly have been the right measure!

What has been done here is scanning through the various references that discuss the definition of Clear during the time that David Mayo was active and see if any of his involvement could be detected.


Summarizing

So, if the SO ED claimed it was “broadly published” then one should be able to track this down. Now, what definitions of Clear are there found in the period that David Mayo was active (1978-82), and that were effectively reversed after his removal?

We can see that 1978 and 1979 introduced some rather drastic turnarounds. Now, these changes in the definition of Clear that I have listed in the previous, is there any David Mayo involvement that is demonstrable? The prime references that introduced and set forth these changes are the following 2 references: The HCOB 24 Sept 78 III “Dianetic Clear” & HCOB 24 Sept 78 IV “The State of Clear” (Confidential). No involvement of David Mayo that within these releases themselves can be detected are found. That is, they are attributed to as deriving from L. Ron Hubbard, with no mention of any assistant or any other person in the signature area, the composer initials found at the bottom of these references also indicate no ‘DM’ or even typing initials ‘dm’. This applies also for HCOB 5 Mar 79R (Revised 6 Mar 79) “Dianetic Clear False Declares” that introduced ‘Natural Clears’. Also here we see no detectable involvement of David Mayo.

The month September 1978 however is in a sense quite curious. We have those so-called ‘NED for OTs Series’ which were released starting mid-September, the bulk of them then were released during Sept 1978-Feb 1979. These series appear to be the earliest releases that witness that David Mayo at least was involved in the compilation of these particular series of references. That very same month we then see the issuance of those references that altered/adjusted the definition of Clear, which later in May 1979 resulted in the establishment of this Dianetic Clear Special Intensive (DCSI). Although David Mayo was not being officially posted as the Senior C/S International earlier than October 1978. Either way we find that David Mayo made his introduction at the exact same time as these previous analyzed changes in Clear were introduced and implemented. Consider also that he was the highest posted technical terminal after L. Ron Hubbard, naturally he must have been involved in various matters, or at least must have had knowledge about it. So, we conclude that there at least exists a time coincidence in regards to these particular changes and the person David Mayo. An argument could be made with the fact that David Mayo also does submit to these changes. In particular we can then refer to 5 references that were made part of the Keeping Scientology Series that he authored:
     
HCOB/PL 27 Aug 80, KSW Series 21 “Examples of Quickying and False Declares”         
HCOB/PL 28 Aug 80, KSW Series 22 “How to Handle the Quickie Impulse”  
HCOB/PL 29 Aug 80, KSW Series 23 “How Not to Miss Out on Gains From Your Auditing”  
HCOB/PL 30 Aug 80, KSW Series 24 “Wins, ‘States’, and Grade Chart Declares”  
HCOB/PL 31 Aug 80, KSW Series 25 “Programming and Handling Cases Who Have Been Quickied or Falsely Declared”  
     


HCOB 12 Nov 81 “Grade Chart Streamlined for Lower Grades”

Per the section found in ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo” entitled Suppressive Acts David Mayo is being accused of the following: “Issued verbal tech and squirrel instructions to auditors and broadly published a misdefinition on the State of Clear, causing tech personnel to think that this was Source data and send pcs who had not achieved the State of Clear to attest to Clear, thus jamming these persons’ progress up the Bridge; ... .”.

For a moment it was thought that it may have been HCOB 14 Dec 81 “The State of Clear”, that carries as its title the State of Clear just as that the SO ED referred to. And, we also see that this was published during the time that David Mayo was posted as the Senior C/S International. We find however that this reference does not carry any involvement from David Mayo when we look at the signatories and the initials that are listed on it. Nonetheless there are some things that do not add up which is addressed in chapter “Confusion on ‘The State of Clear’ (Dec 81)”.
It would be obvious though that this reference was released just to account for and give an explanation for an “outness in the lineup” because of that “Dianetics and Scientology have been switched around”. Was this the reference that was referred to in the SO ED? It does not appear to be so, as it does not change any definition of Clear that could be detected.

However, this here appears to be related to this. HCOB 14 Dec 81 “The State of Clear” notes: “There has just been a change in the Grade Chart (HCOB 12 November 1981 which has been reissued as HCOB 12 November 1981R Revised 14 December 1981 to correct an error in it where someone else redefined Clear).”.
This is probably that which the SO ED refers to. The problem is only that I have been unable to investigate it as I was unable to get copies for HCOB 12 Nov 81 “Grade Chart Streamlined for Lower Grades” and its revision HCOB 12 Nov 81R (Revised 14 Dec 81) “same title”. More details about this you'll find here (separate window).

Either way still one problem with this does persist. If it is said that “and send pcs who had not achieved the State of Clear to attest to Clear, thus jamming these persons’ progress up the Bridge”, then isn't that exactly that which HCOB 29 Nov 78R (Revised 31 Mar 81) “Dianetic Clear Attests” promoted some 7½ months earlier?
        
“When a person validly attains the state of Clear, whether this is reached on the Clearing Course or at any point earlier in his auditing, he attests to ‘the State of Clear.’ Clear is Clear and there are no qualifying remarks at the attest such as ‘Dianetic Clear’ or anything else.”  (signed with LRH)
        
Wasn't this effectively abandoning the Scientology Clear? Wouldn't this all be an irony? It would be interesting to consult HCOB 12 Nov 81 and see what it said.

 
Go back (1) “Destructive ‘KSW’ Issues by Mayo” & “Lower Harmonics”

The section found in ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo” with the title Destructive ‘KSW’ Issues by Mayo says:
        
“It was discovered Mayo had authored a batch of squirrel issues in 1980 and 81 consisting of grossly twisted interpretations of the tech, very misleadingly labelled ‘Keeping Scientology Working’ issues. These are described in the HCOB of 11 April 83, CANCELLATION OF DESTRUCTIVE ISSUES, by LRH, which cancelled the lot. (And, not surprisingly, there was a sharp rise in delivery stats internationally right after these issues were cancelled.)”
        

On the overall we are actually missing out on various specifics about the claims that are being made. Both the mentioned HCOB nor the SO ED do fill in all the specifics and rather resorts to just listing generalities.
During exactly that time (1982-83) we for example see that a whole variety of persons left the organization or were simply discarded of. The release of ‘SO ED 2192 Int’, 27 Jan 83 “List of Declared Suppressive Persons”, which lists 611 names does bear witness for this occurrence. Many of these people had been in the organization since many, many years, reportedly old OT VIIs, high ranking Sea Org members and Cl XII auditors were listed. It defies logic that at about the same time that these well-trained persons left, that a “sharp rise in delivery stats” would have occurred.
It is then observed that during these early ’80s that the prices for services were skyrocketing, which could be for reason to simply compensate for a loss of income. If you remove experience and competence your income will take a dive. Now, which “delivery stats” are being referred to here in this SO ED? The amount of people on service or just income wise? These are questions that require an answer.

The “grossly twisted interpretations” were about:
      
“(a)
Giving the impression that there are lots and lots of pc false attests, ...
      
 
(b)
These issues sought to place the responsibility for the outcome of a session or grade squarely on the shoulders of the pc. ...
 
 
(c)
Two of these false HCOBs referred to ‘harmonics’ of states up through Clear and OT, and that there are ‘variations’ of the State of Clear. ...
 
 
(d)
Several of these issues contained interpretations by another of what is written in the C/S Series HCOBs. ...
 
 
(e)
Largely these issues described ‘quickie grades’ and pcs who had not been gotten in-session by their auditor. ...”
(from HCOB/PL 11 Apr 83 “Cancellation of Destructive issues”)
 

Those issues being cancelled were:
HCOB/PL Title KSW
Ser. #
Attributed         Initials Notices                 
27Aug 80   “Examples of Quickying and False Declares” 21 LRH LRH:bk (also DM? see notes in HCOB/PL 11 Apr 83, although no DM involvement noted on reference that is being cancelled)
28 Aug 80 “How to Handle the Quickie Impulse” 22 LRH
As assisted by Senior C/S Int
LRH:DM:bk  
29 Aug 80 “How Not to Miss Out on Gains From Your Auditing” 23 LRH
Assisted by Snr C/S Int
LRH:DM:dr  
30 Aug 80  “Wins, ‘States’, and Grade Chart Declares” 24 LRH LRH:dr (also DM? see notes in HCOB/PL 11 Apr 83, although no DM involvement noted on reference that is being cancelled)
31 Aug 80 “Programming and Handling Cases Who Have Been Quickied or Falsely Declared” 25 LRH
As assisted by Snr C/S Int
LRH:DM:dr  
30 Oct 81* “C/S-ing for the PC” 28 LRH
Assisted by Snr C/S International
Accepted by the BDCSC
BDCSC:LRH:DM:dr  
   
  [* This issue had already previously been cancelled by HCOB 30 Oct 81 (Cancelled 7 Nov 82) “C/S series 114 Cancelled, KSW Series 28 Cancelled”. This cancelled it “because of the false and arbitrary data it put forth regarding ethics actions on pcs” (this is addressed elsewhere on my pages). It was probably added here as it was also issued as part of the KSW Series, although it was issued at a later date, was already cancelled 4 months earlier, and is not in particular relating to the other 5 references.]

 
Go back (2) “Lower Harmonics” & “‘variations’ of the State of Clear”

Now, the claim made by this HCOB/PL 11 Apr 83 “Cancellation of Destructive Issues” concerning Clear is:
        
“(c) Two of these false HCOBs referred to ‘harmonics’ of states up through Clear and OT, and that there are ‘variations’ of the State of Clear. There is no such thing. Clear is Clear. (Ref: HCOB 14 Dec 81, THE STATE OF CLEAR.)”
        
Indeed only 2 of these references do refer to this thing referred to as “lower harmonics”. You may decide for yourself, here below I have quoted these sections relating to this in full:
        
Lower Harmonics  
        
 
Many of the states on the route up through Clear and OT have lower harmonics. (For further data on this hear SHSBC lecture 6608C16 SH Spec 75, ‘RELEASES AND CLEARS’.)
 
 
For example, a person who is unable to communicate and can't conceive of the idea of communicating, let alone being able to do so, would in processing come up scale to a point where this person began to realize that communication exists and that it is possible and that he could become able to communicate. This in itself would be a release state. It is not Communications Release as the person is not yet able to communicate. But it is a release state, and far preferable to the condition the person was in prior to the auditing. One would not declare the person a Grade 0 Release. One would continue the auditing until the person had the full abilities of Grade 0 - Communications Release.
 
 
Similarly, a person can get quite a release in processing when he keys out sufficiently and gets the idea of what it would be like to be Clear, OT, or even gets the idea of what it would be like to attain Native State, or Static. This could be accompanied by the realization that one actually could attain these states, and this would be accompanied by a resurgence of hope about getting out of the dwindling spiral. Obviously the person has not yet attained any of these states, and should not be sent to declare or attest that he has. While it is a lower harmonic of the actual state, it is still very good that the person has achieved this heightened reality and hope. If the person were sent to, or allowed to, declare that he had made any of these states of Clear, OT, or Native State when he had not yet done so, then it could actually act as a stop on the person's forward progress up the Bridge. False declares give the person the false impression that he has already made it, and so there is nothing higher to achieve! (This gives the person a very incorrect idea of the value of these states, and to others seeing this it acts as a degrade of both these states and of Scientology.)
 
 
The answer is not to mistake the lower harmonic for the real thing, but to recognize the difference, and acknowledge these lower harmonics or release points as they indicate progress toward the real thing. Continue on with the auditing and the genuine state will be attained.”
(from HCOB/PL 29 Aug 80, KSW Series 23 “How Not to Miss Out on Gains From Your Auditing”)
 
And...
        
FALSE DECLARES  
        
 
Sometimes people encounter lower harmonics of these states and sometimes a preclear can run into a dramatization of a false high from an engram. Unhandled drugs and toxins in the body can go into restimulation and cause the person to experience hallucinations, including the false highs and euphoria contained in drug trips. The person will sometimes state or even assert that he or she has attained some new high and wonderful state and may even want to declare it. But the Case Supervisor must never acquiesce nor propitiate to such demands by permitting a declare. It is always obvious as to whether the pc has genuinely attained a state through auditing, or whether the pc is asserting something not attained but possibly hallucinatory, or is even just hopeful or in wishful thinking.”
(from HCOB/PL 30 Aug 80, KSW Series 24 “Wins, ‘States’, and Grade Chart Declares”)
 

Now, do these quotations relate anything that could be perceived as “that there are ‘variations’ of the State of Clear”? It is not my perception, although you may think differently. To me it is more about various individuals that may express about their personal reality about things, and how they personally may perceive something. This is not the same as establishing or advocating different states, let alone “‘variations’ of the State of Clear”. It does say in these texts: “lower harmonics of these states” which does not address different states, just harmonics of these states. Another angle of these texts is that they advocate to simply run processes to its proper end phenomena, and not just assume or accept something that can not be properly substantiated.

The first quotation does relate to an LRH tape recording for more data, which was “SHSBC lecture 6608C16 SH Spec 75, ‘RELEASES AND CLEARS’” (renumbered in 1991: #438). What does this tape actually relate to us? The word “harmonic” is only used twice in it. I have listed both these entries here below:
        
“Now after you've made one of these fellows, you will find out that within the hour, three days, a week he will have tangled up with more reality than he is prepared to confront in his somewhat tremulous uncleared state. He's just a Release, you see. And he's been asked to walk in this big broad world barefooted and he's still got the anxiety and problem holding on to his body, he doesn't know quite what to do about this. He's afraid he'll forget his body. On the past track it's happened to him before many times. Because you see, it happens to him every time he dies and is associated in his mind with death. And he's had unfortunate experiences when he could do it at will somewhere way back on the track, leaving his body in the inn to pop off and do something of the sort and then coming back and find out they'd buried the body. You see, and he's lost his body and his possessions and so forth and he didn't like that.
        
 
It has very sour connotations with it because he is not competent to cope with the state at all. He's way in advance of himself. He's in actual fact on a harmonic of OT. An OT could care for it. He can't care for it down here when he is a Dianetic Release. And maybe not even that, you know?”          LRH
 
        
sound  Sound snippet (2:00) 
        
And ...
        
“Now of course you couldn't tell a fellow named Smitty that he ought to teach all of his Africans population anything because he would instantly sense something would be very wrong with all this, and he would start to feel very hunted. He would be—feel hunted in the extreme. And so we find in that country there is no free education anywhere—anywhere. It is all very expensive. There is one little school, it has two hundred and some children in it, most of them Africans and it's taught by an American named Howitz down there and they've even had him up before the high court for daring to teach Africans for nothing, you see. So they dimly feel that there might be such an idea that wisdom makes one free. But if that idea exists they're agin [against] it, do you see? They don't want anything to do with that idea, not even the idea of it.
        
 
So that is your first level of Release that is meaningful to you. Now of course there is a lower level of Release that if you're going to work with animals or something like that, you're going to find out that there’s a lower level of Release. It is simply getting the idea it's a sort of a lower harmonic of a Communication Release; it is simply getting the idea that one animal could in actual fact express an idea to another animal. And I dare say you're going to find some races at some time or another someplace who do not yet have that idea. So that would be a lower level of Release. But it isn't common now so I'm neglecting it.”          LRH
 
        
sound  Sound snippet (2:06) 
        

All this about “lower harmonics” I think is a simple misduplication. And did anyone actually care to check out the LRH lecture on it? It really doesn't seem so, because if that was done, one would have realized that no particularly valid argument could be made with it! The thing that in fact is quite odd is that David Mayo is blamed for these “lower harmonics” as if introducing various “‘variations’” of the State of Clear (which has no ground), but that he is not being found at fault with, held responsible for, or even associated with the sudden change in the definition of Clear (on solid grounds) as introduced in September 1978. A change which was implemented at the same time that he had turned Senior C/S International!
Is this also because of some misduplication that this has not caught the attention of anyone or are we purposely being misled? Meaning if our attention is drawn to something else instead of the real deed as in distraction tactics?

That which is particularly at odds is that this very reference making the accusation is attributed as having been written by L. Ron Hubbard. Is it likely that L. Ron Hubbard would have made such a slip? Then could L. Ron Hubbard have condoned or supported its publication? We have to face here that if we assume that L. Ron Hubbard was behind the claim, that he also would defy that which he relayed to us in that Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture! Does that make sense, even remotely?

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Confusion on ‘The State of Clear’  (Dec 81)

It would appear that this HCOB 14 Dec 81 “The State of Clear” was published solely for reason to account for and give an explanation for an “outness in the lineup” because of that “Dianetics and Scientology have been switched around” on the Grade Chart.

We find in HCOB 14 Dec 81 “The State of Clear”:
        
“There has been some confusion lately on exactly what is the state of Clear.
        
 
The confusion was introduced by a statement, not mine, that the state of Clear had harmonics, which is to say there were different states of Clear.
 
 
This is not true. Although it is quite impossible to obtain an absolute in this universe, the state of Clear is, actually, about as close as one can come to it.”
 

Then later in this HCOB follows this explanation of the cause of that:
        
“I believe I know what has been happening that caused the confusion.
        
 
Without invalidating the case gain of anyone (and NED for quite some time now has been making true and valid Clears) - a few pcs and technical personnel have been mistaking the state of RELEASE for that of CLEAR. ...
 
 
A person hits a floating TA that simply won't turn off, his wife and girl friend ooh and aah on how much better he looks, he hasn't kicked the cat for days and is no longer coughing. He says, ‘By golly, I must be Clear!’ even though he really can't pass the test. So the technical people, seeing him glow, say, ‘I don't want to invalidate this guy,’ and they let him declare and he goes to an SH or AO and falls on his head when he starts to climb the next ten light-years to OT. He was just a RELEASE.”
 

We even find a note about invalidating such Clear originators in HCO PL 1 May 79R (Revised 25 Mar 81) “Dianetic Clear Special Intensives, Administration of” that says: “The Qual Sec would investigate the following points and see to their immediate handling: ...  j)  That invalidation is not practiced in session or by the C/S, that there isn't some motive that exists to invalidate the state”.

But isn't that already old news per the following HCOB from 1965:
        
“I have just made a breakthrough in finding what a clear really is. ...
        
 
A clear has no vicious Reactive Mind and operates at total mental capacity just like the first book (‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’) said. In fact every early definition of CLEAR is found to be correct.
 
 
People have been unable to define release to their own satisfaction. I find now a RELEASE is a person who has been able to back out of his ‘bank’. The bank is still there but the person isn't sunk into it with all its somatics and depressions. The E-Meter reads at the Clear read! The needle of the meter is floppy. This is a simulated clear. We called it a ‘keyed out clear’ quite properly. But it isn't a clear I know now, it's a RELEASE. The person has been released from his reactive mind. He still has that reactive mind but he's not in it. He is just released from it. He may go into it again but it feels good to be out of it.”          LRH
(from HCOB 2 Apr 65 “The Road to Clear”)
 

Nonetheless HCOB 14 Dec 81 “The State of Clear” continues little further on with: “So I looked over this problem and found an outness in the lineup which I have described more fully in HCOB 12 December 1981, THE THEORY OF THE NEW GRADE CHART.”. If we then consult that referenced HCOB we find: “The main change in the new Grade Chart is that Dianetics and Scientology have been switched around. One gets his Scientology, per this chart, before he gets his Dianetics.”. Now, was this the “outness in the lineup”? This at least would seem so, as this is pretty much all what HCOB 12 Dec 81 “The Theory of the New Grade Chart” is about.

This then would supposedly have lead to those “few pcs” and that “technical personnel” would not err anymore about “have been mistaking the state of RELEASE for that of CLEAR”? It does not in particular make very much sense to explain or account for that “There has been some confusion lately on exactly what is the state of Clear. ..., that the state of Clear had harmonics, which is to say there were different states of Clear.”. Now what does this got to do with some claimed “outness in the lineup” if anything at all? How exactly would “that Dianetics and Scientology have been switched around” remedy the problem? Is there an actual problem here?

The situation here may be is that if you let people dwell in those ideas about that “When an individual thinks he is or might be Dianetic Clear.” (from HCOB 2 May 79 I “Dianetic Clear Special Intensive”), that you then start to imagine that you may be Clear for real, and so on. There was an earlier instance about that back in 1970: “It is not however attained by feeding people Scientology cognitions as was done in L.A.”  LRH  (from HCOB 25 Jun 70 II “Glossary of C/S Terms”). L. Ron Hubbard found out about it and he wrote: “This is being handled and the practice stopped.”  LRH  (from ‘LRH ED 10 SH’, 6 Jun 70 “SH Pcs”). Either way the idea of such originations about possibly being Clear was reintroduced in 1979, again opening up the pathway that may in fact feed these misconceptions!
But no, HCOB 14 Dec 81 “The State of Clear” covers the problem with: “So I looked over this problem and found an outness in the lineup ...”, which lead to the solution: “... that Dianetics and Scientology have been switched around” on this “new Grade Chart”. This is then how we got “One gets his Scientology, ..., before he gets his Dianetics.”.

Amazingly enough though we may draw the conclusion, as per the above findings, that Dianetics and Scientology switched places for no apparent reason and more importantly without any well reasoned explanation. So, one may have to pose the possibility if this may have been the wrong why and therefore the wrong handling? More data about this and various matters relating to this can be consulted on page “History of the Grade Chart - b) Detailed analysis”, see “Nov-Dec 1981: First grades then Dianetics”, in particularly chapter “A change in the Grade Chart in regards to an error in redefining Clear” or click here (separate window).

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index ‘Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved’  (Mar 84)

This is all about HCOB 27 Mar 84, C/S Series 119 “Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved”.
Does this indicate that there was a situation with those that had attested for Dianetic Clear, and that they got stalled for some reason? It would appear that this was found being the case.

This C/S Series 119 (as this HCOB frequently is referred to) proposes in its first paragraph: “Earlier, various persons carefully obliterated the technical data given below (and the tech of Expanded Dianetics) from use, to effectively bar Dianetic Clears from going any further up the Bridge and becoming fully powerful beings.”. No details however are given how this would have been exercised.
Following it lists the main outset:
        
“The major steps for a Dianetic Clear moving up the Bridge are:
        
        
      CCRD and the Sunshine Rundown
        
        Solo Auditor Course Part 1  
        OT Preparations/Solo Setups  
        Solo Auditor Course Part 2  
        Eligibility for OT Levels Check.”  
Then the situation is stated:
        
“There is no reason to interfere with a Dianetic Clear who is progressing on that route or who is progressing on the route between OT I and OT III and doing well. They should not be interfered with by Sec Checking or anything else, really.
        
 
But where the person in this zone is moving slowly or stalled, there is a technical factor which must be known and taken into consideration:
 
 
Dianetic Clears who do not go up the Bridge are still subject to the vagaries and pressures of life.”
 
Thus allowing for a whole list of actions in order “to handle and of the points of possible hang up”.
It considers among other:
        
“Finding postulates and considerations is a free field on a Dianetic Clear; there is no slightest prevention of it. Finding and handling evil purposes is also in the area of postulates. And a Dianetic Clear can also be black PRed and go PTS.
        
 
Because someone is Dianetic Clear is no reason he does not still have postulates in place or counter-survival considerations which, cleared up, could improve his power as a being.
 
 
You will find that people who are not burdened with overts and black PR and evil purposes ARE going on up the route to the top. What stalls the person is lack of Sec Checking and discovery of any PTSness or black PR or evil purposes and the like—all of them counter-survival.”
 


There are 2 additional arguments however that could be forwarded here that could have been the cause of various occurrences or at least have been a contributing factor. Neither of these have even been considered by the HCOB:

#1.  One aspect that this reference overlooked, but should be considered is the increase of pricings for services. If one compares the pricings for services from 1984 with those from 1976, from which time on the pricings were subjected to a monthly increase of initially 5% and later 2% because of –so it claimed– to keep up with inflation (ref. ‘LRH ED 284 Int’, 16 Sept 76 “The Solution to Inflation” and its subsequent releases). This resulted in an increase of an average of 750% in costs for services when we finally arrive in 1984. Inflation may be so, but it is quite doubtful if such an increase to pricings would have been justified simply because of this referred to inflation.
I wonder if these problems of persons being stalled actually existed in the earlier days in this same way as it was claimed was faced in 1984. It should be obvious that as donations requested for services had increased so dramatically that it must have had a contributing factor somewhere on the line.
   
  
 Service:  Early 68-Oct 76:   Jan 84-and still increasing:  Price increase:
 OT I     $75     $739     985 %
 OT II     $500     $2601     520 %
 OT III     $875     $6601     754 %

Please note that these price increases were affecting any service within the organization.

#2.  Then we have the consideration that a Dianetic Clear may not be an actual full-fledged Clear. After all since September 1978 the Scientology Clear (and Grade V, VA, VI & Clearing Course with it) basically got abandoned. We should be aware that this can be a contributing factor as well. The Evaluation Series references are quite clear about that if some situation arises, that one should look at what was changed directly prior to when things went awry! As this may very well have been the cause of the problem.

Then considering that this C/S Series 119 says: “Earlier, various persons carefully obliterated the technical data given below (and the tech of Expanded Dianetics) from use, to effectively bar Dianetic Clears from going any further up the Bridge and becoming fully powerful beings.” (underlining is mine). This all can actually work from different angles. After all the Grades V, VA, VI & VII were also carefully obliterated” and “from use” and may have resulted in to “effectively bar” the person “from going any further up the Bridge and becoming fully powerful beings”. We can thus apply the very same logic to this here. We therefore should be alert to any of these occurrences, considering alternate options and thus ask pertinent questions and actually get an answer.

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     AD..:
After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979.
     Advanced Org(anization) (AO):
The denominates a Scientology organization which delivers higher level auditing and training. The first Advanced Organization was located in Saint Hill, England. The initials AO will appear somewhere in the name for the various AOs. For example: AOLA, ASHO, AOSH EU, etc.. This may also be referred to as a Saint-Hill organization.
     AO:
Short for ‘Advanced Organization’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     AOSH UK:
Advanced Organization Saint Hill United Kingdom’: A Scientology organization which services higher level auditing & training, located Saint Hill, England.
     bank:
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”. (HCOB 30 Apr 69)  See also at ‘reactive mind’ in vocabulary.
     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.
     C/S:
Case/Supervisor’.  1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R)  2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545)
     C/S:
A case supervisor direction of what to audit on a pc. (HCOB 23 Aug 71)
     Clear:  (extensive definition list)
1. A Clear, in an absolute sense, would be someone who could confront anything and everything in the past, present and future. (Ability Minor 56)  2. A Clear is somebody who has lost the mass, energy, space and time connected with the thing called mind. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08)  3. A Clear has no vicious reactive mind and operates at total mental capacity just like the first book (DMSMH) said. (HCOB 2 Apr 65)  4. The name of a button on an adding machine. When you push it, all the hidden answers in the machine clear and the machine can be used for a proper computation. So long as the button is not pressed the machine adds all old answers to all new efforts to compute and wrong answers result. Really, that’s all a Clear is. Clears are beings who have been cleared of wrong answers or useless answers which keep them from living or thinking. (Auditor 4 UK)  5. What we mean by Clear is an erasure of the mental mass which inhibits their thinking, postulating, and so on. (SH Spec 75, 6608C16)  6. An unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He obtains the maximum pleasure for the organism, present and future, as well as for the subjects along the other dynamics. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data in it. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 111)
     cramming:
A section in the Qualifications Division where a student is given high pressure instruction at his own cost after being found slow in study or when failing his exams. The cramming section teaches students what they have missed. This includes trained auditors who wish to be brought up-to-date on current technical developments.
     DMSMH:
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’. The first book published on he subject. ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Procedure.’
     ED:
Executive Directive’. Issued by any Executive Council and named for the area it applies to. Thus ED WW, meaning issued to Worldwide. They are valid for only one year. They contain various immediate orders, programs, etc. They are blue ink on blue paper. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R). Note that the rules for LRH EDs are slightly different, and these are blue ink on white paper with a special heading.
    FCPL:
Founding Church Policy Letter’.This is a name for an early issued ‘HCO PL’. See further at ‘HASI PL’ and ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary.
     GPM:
Goals Problem Mass’. 1. A GPM is composed of mental masses and significances which have an exact pattern, unvarying from person to person, whose significances dictate a certain type of behaviour and whose masses, when pulled in on the individual, cause psychosomatic effects, such as illnesses, pains or feelings of heaviness and tiredness. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary).  2. The problem created by two or more opposing ideas which being opposed, balanced, and unresolved, make a mass. It's a mental energy mass. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06).  3. The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs). (HCOB 17 Oct 64 III)
     HASI PL:
Hubbard Association of Scientologists International Policy Letter’. This is an early name for an HCO PL. ‘HASI’ is also referred to as the ‘Founding Church’. In the 1991 release of ‘The Organization Executive Course’ volumes these are renamed FCPL (‘Founding Church Policy Letter’). See further at ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary.
     HCOB:
Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window).
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     LRH ED:
L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC EDs (Secretarial EDs). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R)
     MEST:
A coined word, meaning matter, energy, space and time, the physical universe. All physical phenomena may be considered as energy operating in space and time. The movement of matter or energy in time is the measure of space. All things are mest except theta.
     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)
     ‘The Organization Executive Course’:
Subtitled in the 1970-74 release: ‘An Encyclopedia of Scientology Policy’. This is a series of books that contain the HCO PLs, and any references that are primarily dealing with administrative matters. They are divided up division wise. The HCO PLs are printed in green ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in green bindings. These books may also be referred to as the ‘green volumes’ or even ‘OEC volumes’. The ‘old green volumes’ then would refer to the 1970-74 release, the ‘new green volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     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)
     PR:
Public Relation’.
     PTS, PTSness:
potential trouble source’.  1. Somebody who is connected with an SP (suppressive person) who is invalidating him, his beingness, his processing, his life. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)  2. He's here, he's way up today and he's way down tomorrow. (Establishment Officer Lecture 3, 7203C02 SO I)  3. The mechanism of PTS is environmental menace that keeps something continually keyed in. This can be a constant recurring somatic or continual, recurring pressure or a mass. (HCOB 5 Dec 68)
     Qual (Div):
Qualifications Division’. 1. It could be called the correction division or the adjustment division. But qualifications would also serve. (SH Spec 77, 6608C23)  2. The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run. (BPL 22 Nov 71R)  3. The division where the student is examined and where he may receive cramming or special assistance and where he is awarded completions and certificates and where his qualifications as attained on courses or in auditing are made a permanent record. (HCOB 19 Jun 71 III)
     Qual Sec:
Qualifications Secretary’. The person heading the Qualifications Division (Qual Div). See further at ‘Qual (Div)’ in vocabulary.
     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)
     rehab:
rehabilitation’. When the person was originally released he had become aware of something that caused the reactive mind to de-stimulate at that point or become weak. And so he released. You have to find that point of sudden awareness again. To regain a former release (or thetan exterior or keyed-out OT; released OT). (HCOB 30 Jun 65)
     Rundown:
A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. Example: Introspection Rundown. (LRH Def. Notes)  As a rule this mostly works as a corrective action and not as a mandatory part of the Bridge.
     Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor.
     Sec Check(ing):
Short for ‘security check(ing)’.
     Sec ED:
Secretarial Executive Directive’. A Sec ED is an early LRH ED. An Executive Directive that is written and issued by L. Ron Hubbard. 
     SH (org):
Saint Hill (organization)’. A Saint Hill organization applies to any organization authorized to deliver the advanced level Scientology services. May also be referred to as an AO (Advanced Organization). For example AOSH UK or AOLA. The first AO was located in Saint-Hill, England.
     SHSBC:
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course’. See at that entry in vocabulary.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)
     ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOBs, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOBs are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window).
     tone arm (TA):
1. Tone arm refers to the tone arm or its motion. (HCOB 13 Apr 64)  2. Tone arm action. A technical term for a quantitative measure of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 38)  3. The measure of accumulation of charge. (Class VIII No. 6)  4. A measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case. (SH Spec 291, 6308C06)


Go to top of this page


Advertisement