Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Notes on NED for OTs (NOTs) and its relation to
    the state of ‘Clear’
(no confidential information is shared)
(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.

        
“OTs AND DIANETICS
        
 
When a person gets above Clear, oddities can be expected to occur when you try to run Dianetics on them. If they really haven't made all their grades, however, and are physically ill, the correct action is to do all possible to handle their case by Standard Dianetics and then rehabilitate or get done all the rest of the grades. What has happened here is that they were using Scientology to escape an uncomfortable body that should have been straightened out by Dianetics in the first place. The ‘out grade’ is in fact Dianetics, failure to use it before going on to Scientology.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams”)  

 
“OT CASES
 
        
Any OT who has somatics is auditable on Dianetics which he should have had in the first place as he was using Scn grades to get rid of his headache! Or some somatic.”
        
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”)  

 

New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans’ (abbreviated ‘NED for OTs’ or in short ‘NOTs’).

There is a direct relation between the change in criteria of the state of Clear and NED for OTs. For this reason this analysis on NED for OTs could be seen as a logical continuation of my analysis of Clear study.

 
Index:

    
That which caused ‘NED for OTs’ to come into being...
  A brief overview with annotations...
      - A technical ‘breakthrough’ versus an economical consideration?
- A new datum with various implications
- A ‘somatic’ explained and its ramifications
- Time coincidence: ‘New definition of Clear’ vs ‘NED for OTs’
  The origin of NOTs and its circumstances according to David Mayo
             (Includes:  Merrill Mayo and Julie Mayo (Gillespie) about NOTs)
 
The materials, their release and contradictions with earlier writings
  ‘Audited NOTs’ (Sept 78) & ‘Solo NOTs’ (Sept 80)
      - Audited NED for OTs (NOTs)
- Solo NED for OTs (Solo NOTs) (course and auditing part)
- ‘Audited NOTs’ & ‘Solo NOTs’ turn ‘New OT V-VII’ (Mar 82)
  The need for NOTs contradicted in earlier writings of L. Ron Hubbard
      - Dianetics run on OTs as per 1969 (a skipped gradient)
- The 1978 state of affairs
- ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) vs ‘Standard Dianetics’
 
Whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard, authorship of NOTs and reflections
  Who wrote NOTs?
      - A note about the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard in regards to NOTs
- Composer/typing initials as found on the ‘NED for OTs Series’ references
  Clear and its relation with the NOTs materials and final notes
      - Reflecting back on ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”
- A brief summary of the technical changes
- NOTs? What was David Mayo thinking?
- A proposal and warning (a final notice)



 
That which caused ‘NED for OTs’ to come into being...

Back to Main Index A brief overview with annotations... 

 
Go back A technical ‘breakthrough’ versus an economical consideration?

    
“BREAKTHROUGH 
A research fact which was impeding further progress of Clears, and which applies to OT Grades, has been found by Ron. New Era Dianetics cannot be run on Clears or above without serious consequences to the body particularly when New Era Dianetics is run wrong and upside down. Below that grade New Era Dianetics can be run safely and beneficially.
    Immediate benefit from this discovery is that ‘New Era Dianetics for OTs’ has been developed for issue and use at AOs and Flag. ...
  D. Mayo
Flag Senior C/S
  Approved by
  L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER”
    
 
(from ‘Source 18’, Nov-Dec 78, page 11)
 

Now, Clear would mean that you would no longer suffer from somatics (physical encumberments caused by your reactive mind), for what reason then was Dianetics for OTs called into being? Could it be because the Clears that were being made were not really Clears? Wouldn't that then mean that if they were not Clear that you could give them still Dianetics without “without serious consequences”? Then why are we having New Era Dianetics for OTs? Then to “run” New Era Dianetics “upside down”, how is that done anyway?
If you change the criteria for Clear, abolishing in effect the Scientology Clear (=Grade V, VI and VII), you then would require NED for OTs! And guess what, they were both called into being at the very same time!
The article that introduces New Era Dianetics for OTs says: “BREAKTHROUGH”, but if one regards the brief summary of criteria that I mention here above wouldn't it then may be more correct to say “DOWNGRADE”? After all you are reversing something, first you take something away, creating a gap, next you then offer a new solution for the problem (filling up the gap) you thus had created?!

So, what's the deal here? Where is the logic found in all this? Could there may have been an economical consideration present here? It does say:
        
“‘New Era Dianetics for OTs’ has been developed for issue and use at AOs and Flag.”
        
Service is not cheap at these places. Running Grade VI only required a solo auditor. Here you would not have to go to such an Advanced Organization or Flag.

 
Go back A new datum with various implications

September 1978 thus introduced this new datum:
        
“New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears.”   
(from HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”)
        

The question to ask is why a Clear or OT would have to deal with a somatic? You see, NOTs stands for Dianetics for OTs (or Clears). So why are we having all this?
Well, some persons have proposed to me that a Clear was that person that “can be at cause knowingly and at will over ‘mental’ matter, energy, space and time as regards the first dynamic (survival for self).”. So, this proposed option then may theoretically tell us why there still would be somatics, as they will be relating to the remaining “dynamics” and not to “survival for self”.  If that is the case then why do we not find this argument supported anywhere in Scientology writings?
The problem is that a somatic is defined as something that springs from the reactive mind. A Clear as per its original definition has effectively eradicated this very reactive mind, and thus removed the necessity of still having somatics. This would be the Scientology Clear.

Why calling NOTs for Dianetics when it isn't?:  If NED for OTs is about handling somatics then this may create a predicament, as it handles somatics (or so it says) with other procedures than Dianetics. So, the question arises why it is referred to as being New Era Dianetics (NED) when in reality it isn't!

A repair turning mandatory?:  A short track of the history of this NED for OTs reveals that at the time of its introduction it was only promoted as a repair action on those OTs that have had Dianetics run on them. Very soon after that it suddenly turned into a mandatory course of action that every person had to go through (turning it into New OT V). There is no explanation given anywhere to why suddenly everyone had to do it!

An attempt for explanation why it later was turned into New OT V?:  The periodical ‘Clear News 44 (AOLA Edition)’, [Nov-Dec 70] noted on its front page that “Results on Dianetics and Expanded Grades are also much faster and complete after OT VII.”. Further notices appeared about this in later issues of this periodical. We find such a sequence first in a technical bulletin in HCOB 31 May 71 “Best Advance Program (As often done on Flag)” and later confirmed again in HCOB 3 Feb 72 “R6EW–OT III No Interference Area”. To be run only after completing OT III or OT III Expanded (OT IIIX).
[Note: the sequence run in 1970-72 was OT I-III → OT VII → OT IIIX → Dianetics to full EP → Expanded Grades to full EP → OT IV-VII Rehab. By 1982 the original OT IV-VII were dropped, New OT IV was Drug Rundown, followed by New OT V NOTs, New OT VI-VII Solo NOTs]

 
Go back A ‘somatic’ explained and its ramifications

The ‘Dianetics and Scientology: Technical Dictionary’ (first released 1975) says:
        
“SOMATIC, 1. by somatic is meant a pain or ache sensation and also misemotion or even unconsciousness. There are a thousand different descriptive words that could add up to a feeling. Pains, aches, dizziness, sadness—these are all feelings. Awareness, pleasant or unpleasant, of a body. (HCOB 26 Apr 69)  2. body sensation, illness or pain or discomfort. ‘Soma’ means body. Hence psychosomatic or pains stemming from the mind. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)  3. this is a general word for uncomfortable physical perceptions coming from the reactive mind. Its genus is early Dianetics and it is a general, common package word used by Scientologists to denote ‘pain’ or ‘sensation’ with no difference made between them. To the Scientologist anything is a somatic if it emanates from the various parts of the reactive mind and produces an awareness of reactivity. Symbol: SOM. (HCOB 8 Nov 62)  4. the word somatic means, actually, bodily or physical. Because the word pain is restimulative, and because the word pain has in the past led to a confusion between physical pain and mental pain, the word somatic is used in Dianetics to denote physical pain or discomfort, of any kind. It can mean actual pain, such as that caused by a cut or a blow; or it can mean discomfort, as from heat or cold; it can mean itching—in short, anything physically uncomfortable. It does not include mental discomfort such as grief. Hard breathing would not be a somatic; it would be a symptom of misemotion suppression. Somatic means a non-survival physical state of being. (Science of Survival, p. 79)”
        

It says quite clearly: “pains stemming from the mind”, “coming from the reactive mind” & “anything is a somatic if it emanates from the various parts of the reactive mind”.

And as per HCOB 2 Apr 65 “The Road to Clear”:
        
“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.”         LRH
        

So “A clear has no vicious Reactive Mind” and thus would not have somatics as these were “coming from the reactive mind”. The options for solution as given by HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” & HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” , which are: skipped gradient back to Dianetics run the somatic flat back to Scientology processing, are in alignment with and are a logical continuation of all the above.

Then why would OTs have somatics? Why do we have NED for OTs? Why does everyone have to run it? Have some people reverted to alternate solutions instead of simply going back to basics?

 
Go back Time coincidence:  ‘New definition of Clear’ vs ‘NED for OTs’

Each of these were introduced in the exact same time period, which is September 1978:
        
“The state of Clear can be achieved on Dianetics.
        
 
I have now determined there is no such thing as Keyed-Out Clear (=Release). There is only a Dianetic Clear and he is a Clear.”
(from HCOB 24 Sept 78 III “Dianetic Clear”)
 
Versus:
        
“New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears.
        
 
Anyone who has purchased NED auditing who is Clear or above must be routed to an AO or Flag to receive the special NED Rundown for OTs.”   
(from HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”)
 


HCOB 25 Jun 70RA (Revised 6 Oct 78) II “Glossary of C/S Terms” tells us “A Dianetic Clear is not run on Power (Grade V-VA), R6EW (Grade VI) or the Clearing Course (Grade VII), but goes directly onto OT I (after doing the Solo Auditor Course).”. Thus also leaving the Basic Basic for what it is, i.e. not run flat.

        
“BASIC BASIC—This belongs in Scientology. It is wholly beyond the scope of Dianetics. It means the most basic basic of all basics and results in clearing. It is found on the Clearing Course. If contacted or run before the pc was brought up through the Scientology Grades, he wouldn't be able to handle it anyway as experience has shown. So this is part of Scientology, not Dianetics.”          LRH
(from HCOB 23 Apr 69 “Basic Definitions”)
        

Now, if you do not run out this Basic Basic, then what could be the consequences? Could it be somatics still appearing? Somatics which then would have to be run out with NED for OTs? There exists an obvious interaction in this re-definition of Clear and NED for OTs making their introduction at the exact same time.

This is like the tale of first leaving out some steps (Grades V to VII), this then could create some other reactions later on (somatics), which then need a handling (solution: NED for OTs). Would it not have been easier to just maintain a mandatory Grades V to VII that will run out your Basic Basic and all that, finding then that somatics will not bother you?

Please enforce some logic on to these matters!

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The origin of NOTs and its circumstances according to David Mayo
(Includes: Merrill Mayo and Julie Mayo (Gillespie) about NOTs)

The person that is inseparably associated with NOTs is David Mayo. Since he had been excommunicated from the Church of Scientology in February 1983 various messages and other information have hit the Internet, some of them are attributed as deriving from him, in where mention was made of the origin of NOTs or where a relay of happenings was shared that could be associated with their origin. These may all be authentic and some of them may not be, or could be authentic only in part. It is difficult to determine the source and verify the authenticity of some of these communications.

1983  “An Open Letter to All Scientologists from David Mayo” published in July 1983 only makes the following mention of the surrounding circumstances of NOTs: “In September 1978, I was called from the Flag Service Org to California to audit LRH and there I stayed on, as his auditor. In October 1978, LRH appointed me to the post of Senior C/S International. I remained in California auditing LRH on audited NOTs until he advanced onto Solo NOTS.”.

1986  Then we have the interviews that Russell Miller (British writer and journalist) had with David Mayo in Palo Alto, California on 28 Aug 1986 for preparation of his unauthorized biography of Hubbard, that was released late October the following year as ‘Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard’. These interviews were tape-recorded. The transcripts of these are available, but not the original recordings. These transcripts may or may not be fully authentic. Consult an excerpt from this that can be associated with the origin of NOTs here (pop-up window).
Further reflections:
  (1) Miller then used this for his biography of Hubbard, ‘Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard’, published in 1987. This book itself seems to have been written with the sole intent to defame L. Ron Hubbard and the subject matter of Scientology. It is not particularly objectively written. Where ever the opportunity presented itself (as slight an association may have been), the subject matter and especially the person are being discredited and associated with bad things or interpretations. The question arises why David Mayo would have agreed to be interviewed by this Russell Miller, an author who is not credited for his objectivity nor his impartiality.  
  (2) When one goes through these transcripts we then find that David Mayo does not give a very flattering picture of L. Ron Hubbard. The person that is portrayed by David Mayo appears unreasonable, is frequently very angry and is displaying erratic and at times cruel behaviour (excerpts, pop-up window). If this was his impression then this raises another question. David Mayo had been involved with Scientology for a considerable amount of time. That is: he stayed on! He was well acquainted with the technology and its subject matter, became a Class XII auditor and so on. Then... why did he stay on? Even after he was expelled from the church he then created his own group using Scientology materials, and even compiled a new version of these NOTs materials. Why does he assume or figure that a person with these behavioural characteristics still would come up with something like Scientology that actually gives the results as it claimed it does?  

1987  Next in the chronology we have an affidavit from David Mayo, dated 1 May 1987, wherein he states: “I am the primary source of NOTs and SOLO NOTs”. Consult applicable excerpt and context from this affidavit here (pop-up window).

1991  There appears to exist also a court ruling, dated 4 Jun 1991, concerning the “authorship of certain Scientology scriptures called NOTs” and who would presently be the owner of these. This document may speak for itself. Some interesting information is being relayed, click here to consult (pop-up window).

1996  Then we have a supposed excerpt from a message (letter) that was to be posted(?) on the anti-Scientology newsgroup A.R.S. in early 1996 in where a poster introduced himself as David Mayo. A check of the A.R.S. database reveals today (2019) 220 registered messages of a person posting as David Mayo during Jan-Jun 1996. In the year 2006 we found that 256 messages were listed. Either way this letter was not found then and not today to have been posted on A.R.S. (A Russian Free Zone website makes mention of an article dated 28 May 1996 which may give a date to this letter (or something else). This excerpt is the only part I have ever seen of it.
Today we only find this (excerpt of this) letter posted on a few anti-Scientology websites and groups where it is introduced as: “In early 1996 he wrote a letter introducing himself to the alt.religion.scientology community, in which he summarized his history with the Church. In this excerpt from his (never published) letter, Mayo describes how he came to co-author the NOTs material.”. Consult this extract here (pop-up window).

2012  Lastly we have this article attributed to David Mayo that was published on the Internet and was dated 27 May 2012. It makes again mention of the NOTs materials. I am not sure about its distribution or its actual source. David Mayo may or may not have written it, but he probably did. Consult excerpts relating to NOTs in the article here (pop-up window).

After reflecting over this L. Ron Hubbard as described by David Mayo and the circumstances in where NOT's came into being, then... who, in his right mind, still wants NOTs? Or may be it would be better to refer to it as NUTs?


Merrill Mayo and Julie Mayo (Gillespie) about NOTs

From Merrill Mayo's Open Letter, ca. 1983. Extract from a letter that is found posted on the Internet. It is probably authentic.
        
“In late August of 1978, David was called away from Flag to audit LRH. Then LRH made him Senior C\S International. When LRH discovered and formulated NED for OTs, David worked with him very closely on this research. David also got people trained to audit and C\S it and got it delivered to the public, and again the same was done for Solo NOTs later.”
        
She was the wife of David Mayo at that time and also functioned as his assistant.

A communication from Julie Mayo, dated 28 April 1996, which was found posted on the newsgroup A.R.S. that among other tells:
        
“In 1980, I became Senior C/S INT Assistant. One of the first things that I did as Senior C/S INT Assistant was to help David Mayo write Solo NOTs. In fact, part of the original SOLO NOTs checksheet was written by yours truly. Hubbard wasn't around Gilman Hot Springs at that time. He was in seclusion with the Broekers.”
        
In 1980 she was known as Julie Gillespie, it was not until later that she would become the wife of David Mayo. The writing is probably authentic.

 
The materials, their release and contradictions with earlier writings

Back to Main Index ‘Audited NOTs’ (Sept 78)  &  ‘Solo NOTs’ (Sept 80)

 
Go back Audited NED for OTs  (NOTs)

Release date:  15 Sept 78
Flag release date:  16 Dec 78
Available service:  at least Jul 79

When this was first introduced it was already referred to as the Second Wall of Fire in ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”. A few months later ‘Source 19’, Feb-Mar 79 said the following about it:

“The most major breakthrough since 1968 — New Era Dianetics for OTs,— produces remarkable results in the OT band. It is a must for every Clear and OT.
  The 29 rundowns on NED for OTs result in an OT who is ‘cause over life.’
  It is not a solo level, but is audited by a top notch OT III, Class IV auditor called an Advanced Course Specialist (ACS).
  This phenomenal rundown is being delivered now at the Flag Land Base. It can only be fully described in the words of those who have had it — the results are beyond all expectations!”


Originally released and promoted being just a repair action

It is not generally known that these NOTs originally were meant and introduced as a repair action for those that had been run on Dianetics (or NED) after they went Clear. It appears that this is also specifically stated by HCOB 15 Sept 78 I, NED for OTs Series 1, (Confidential). This original intent however was fairly quickly abandoned.


Official release

Audited NOTs was officially released at Flag (Clearwater, Fl) on 16 Dec 1978 at “what has been called the best Flag event ever” in a “thrilling talk” by “David Mayo, Senior C/S International who assisted Ron in his research and development of this new OT Level”. L. Ron Hubbard himself was conspicuous by his physical absence although David Mayo did say: “Ron asked me to give you his love.”.
David Mayo tells that “NED for OTs began on September 12 of this year [1978] when Ron discovered that you can't audit a Clear on R3R or engram running.”. To that effect we see the release of HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”. The main outline of this short HCOB is found in this sentence that gives us the following clue: “Anyone who has purchased NED auditing who is Clear or above must be routed to an AO or Flag to receive the special NED Rundown for OTs. They are NOT to be run on regular New Era Dianetics.”. This is implying persons still having bodily reactions (somatics) after having gone “Clear” or being “above” Clear. Theoretically however you would already have run ordinary Dianetics that would have run out somatics. NED (Dianetics) for OTs would then address somatics that still may exist, or so it says and claims.
It was made available to the public since July 1979 as we see that the service appears first on donation lists since that month as per periodical Advance!.

The ‘Source’ article with announcements and various information of the Flag release of NOTs as hosted by David Mayo can be consulted in the below:  (pop-up window)
    ‘Source 19’, Feb-Mar 79 “NED for OTs Released at Flag”

 
Go back Solo NED for OTs  (Solo NOTs)  (consists of course and auditing part)

Release date:  Sept 80  
Flag release date:  11 Oct 80
‘Flag's First Public’ Solo NOTs Auditing completion:  7 Jul 84
 (see ‘Source 43’, [late 84], p. 8)

“On 11 October 1980, David Mayo returned to Flag with the joyous task of bringing the capacity audience assembled in the auditorium, the news of Ron's great breakthrough on NOTs — Solo NOTs.”
(from ‘Source 30’, [Jan-Feb 81])

A full transcript of this talk was published as ‘Flag Information Letter 383’, Dec 80 “Solo NOTs – A Talk by Commander David Mayo”. From the introduction notices on this reference: “It specifically answers all such questions and probably all of the questions you are likely to be asked by public persons.”.
The main outline of this speech was re-published in the periodical Source which can be consulted here in the below:  (pop-up window)
    ‘Source 30’, [Jan-Feb 81] “The Special Release Briefings for NOTs & Solo NOTs”

See also another article of David Mayo in ‘Advance! 77’ [ca Sept-Oct 82] “NED for OTs: The Second Wall of Fire” (pages 15-17).

 
Go back ‘Audited NOTs’ & ‘Solo NOTs’ turn ‘New OT V-VII’ (Mar 82)

Audited NOTs:  The publication ‘What Is Scientology?’, (1992 edition) notes on page 507 that “Later that year (1978), New Era Dianetics for OTs (New OT V) was introduced.” and on page 645 it then says “SEPTEMBER 1978”:  “Audited New Era Dianetics for OTs (New OT V released)”. However it is actually not generally know that it was not until March 1982 that it was addressed as New OT V.
We further learn from page 769 at: “NEW ERA DIANETICS FOR OTS (NEW OT V) MATERIALS” that “This new, audited OT level was released 15 September 1978. The materials covering New OT V comprise over 60 HCOBs.”. Then it is rather strange that it says in ‘Advance! 74’, [ca Mar-Apr 82] that “Ron's recent breakthrough at the level of OT bring you NEW OT V — NED for OTs. ”, as this service itself had been released already a whole 3½ years earlier. NED for OTs was not new, that which was new was that it had turned New OT V.

Solo NOTs:  On page 507 in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition) it says that “The most significant achievement of 1980 was the release in September of another two OT levels, New OT VI and VII.” and on page 647 at “SEPTEMBER 1980” it says: “New OT VI and VII released—the Hubbard Solo New Era Dianetics for OTs (Solo NOTS) Course (New OT VI), utilizes technology developed by L. Ron Hubbard and enables a person to take the role of both auditor and preclear and actually audit himself on the level of OT VII, Solo New Era Dianetics for OTs ... .”. Here the same as with Audited NOTs it was not until March 1982 that Solo NOTs was addressed as New OT VI and New OT VII. (New OT VI was the Hubbard Solo NOTs Auditor Course, New OT VII was the auditing part as per that course).

I think this is rather noteworthy. Why is history not being related to us as it actually happened? In the same manner it completely skipped to mention anything at all about what may have happened with the original OT levels that were something else. So, where had these original OT levels gone?

As a matter of coincidence “New OT VIII through XI” were first announced in this exact same time frame (see ‘Advance! 74’, [Mar-Apr 82], insert). That will not have been a coincidence though.

NED for OTs - received after OT III or any higher level  (since December 1978)
Solo NED for OTs - received after NED for OTs

  
    Release date                     Flag release  
 (hosted by
  David Mayo)
 Cancel date 
 (silently
  disappeared)
 Introduced as
 (in Mar 82)
 OT III                   20 Sept 67  (18 Jan 68*)        
 OT Drug Rundown  29 Jan 80      New OT IV  
 OT IV, V & VI  23* Jan 68    Jan 82*  
 OT VII  20 Sept 70    Jan 82*  
 NED for OTs  15 Sept 78  16 Dec 78    New OT V  
 Solo NED for OTs  Sept 80  11 Oct 80    New OT VI & VII 
   
      Release date:  Given are the dates that are found in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition). The dates indicated with * were found in an article that was published in ‘Advance! 18’, [Apr-May 73], entitled: “A History of Advanced Courses”.
* Omitted on Grade Chart in January 1982 (=HCOB 19 Jan 82 “New – Streamlined Classification and Gradation Chart”)

March 1982 also introduced that Solo NOTs Auditing (New OT VII) could be done “at home”. In order to “save tremendous time and money, and enjoy the powerful gains of Solo NOTs on a continuing basis!”  (from ‘Source Special Edition’, [Mar-Apr 82]).

A more detailed study and comparison of the 1980 with the 1982 Grade Chart regarding “‘OT IV-VII’ replaced with ‘New OT IV-VII’” can be found on my Grade Chart study page. It also discusses some options about why we may have lost these old OT levels. For consultation click here (separate window).

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The need for NOTs contradicted in earlier writings of L. Ron Hubbard

 
Go back Dianetics run on OTs as per 1969 (a skipped gradient)

Prior to September 1978 it was all right to run Dianetics on OTs which the below quoted reference makes quite clear. It may speak for itself:
        
“OT CASES  
        
 
Handling the OT Case can be very tricky. Any one of these can give the auditor trouble. But it is usually nothing much to handle unless the OT is what we call a ‘False III’. This is somebody who gaily went up the grades without doing them. You don't have to know more about it than that.
 
 
Thus if a person who is OT is giving trouble being audited on Dianetics it's better to turn him or her over to a Class VIII for routine handling on Scientology.
 
 
Any OT who has somatics is auditable on Dianetics which he should have had in the first place as he was using Scn grades to get rid of his headache! Or some somatic.
 
 
If the ‘OT’ isn't auditable on Dianetics then he's a problem for a Class VIII and not a very tough one either.
 
 
To the HDG this is not very complex.
 
 
Audit the ‘OT’ on Standard Dianetics. If it works okay just carry on until he's rid of his somatics and turn him over to Qual when he's okay.
 
 
If it doesn't work, then cease Dianetics and turn him over to Qual who will get the thing straight by the usual Class VIII remedies.
 
 
That's all you have to know about OTs in Dianetics.”          LRH
(from HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”)
 
* HDG, Hubbard Dianetic Graduate.  One who is trained to teach the Dianetic Course after graduating from the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course (HSDC).

Obviously the above relayed information was abandoned since mid-September 1978 with the release of HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs” that announced the datum: “New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears.”. The puzzling aspect is though that HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” still is found in its original form in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. It has never been cancelled nor revised. Why is that? Wouldn't that be a bit confusing!


And then we also have the following:
        
“OTs AND DIANETICS  
        
 
We have encountered two cases who were ‘OT VI’ who also got into grinding without there being anything earlier. In both these cases, they did not want a session and were only going through it to be obliging. Both of these ‘OTs’ had skipped some of their grades. The proper action would have been to review their grades, the grade known as OT III was certainly out. When a person gets above Clear, oddities can be expected to occur when you try to run Dianetics on them. If they really haven't made all their grades, however, and are physically ill, the correct action is to do all possible to handle their case by Standard Dianetics and then rehabilitate or get done all the rest of the grades. What has happened here is that they were using Scientology to escape an uncomfortable body that should have been straightened out by Dianetics in the first place. The ‘out grade’ is in fact Dianetics, failure to use it before going on to Scientology.”          LRH
(from HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams”)
 
* “GRINDING means going over and over and over and over a lock, secondary or engram without obtaining an actual erasure.”

This reference actually confirms that “When a person gets above Clear, oddities can be expected to occur when you try to run Dianetics on them.”. Dianetics however as an action that could be run on Clears or OTs was not abandoned. In above HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” and the earlier quoted HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” it is indicated that Dianetics had been passed by (skipped) and that instead Scientology was run on them. The solution proposed is to simply go back and do what should have been done in the first place. Back to Dianetics, run it flat, and go on running Scientology.

As it was the case with HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”, this HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” is also still found in its original form in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. The message of both of these references is that if you are faced with somatics that one reverts back to running it out with Standard Dianetics.


And still confirmed in 1972:  (underlining is mine)
        
After 7 above (OT III) or after 9 above (OT III Expanded) one can run more Dianetics, Expanded Grades, GF40, the famous L10 or do any other case action. One cannot profitably do these actions between Solo R6 and OT III. That's just the way the bank is.”          LRH
(from HCOB 3 Feb 72 “R6EW–OT III No Interference Area”)
        


A further notice from 1970:
        
“It occasionally happens that a pc's certain pain does not resolve on Dianetics.
        
 
There are two reasons for this:
 
 
1.  NOT ENOUGH AUDITING ON ENOUGH CHAINS. ...
 
 
2.  SYMPATHETIC NERVOUS SYSTEM PAINS.”          LRH
(from HCOB 15 Jul 70 (Corr and Reiss 25 Nov 70) “Unresolved Pains”)
 
Solutions are given to resolve these Unresolved Pains. Consult the reference for details.

 
Go back The 1978 state of affairs

So it was all right to run Dianetics on OTs at least as early as 1969, and it was still all right to do so 9 years later, till it was abandoned in mid-September 1978. Why? This is touched in ‘LRH ED 298 Int’, 19 Sept 78 “A.D. 28, The Year of Technical Breakthroughs”, although it does not relate much details about this “investigation”& “research” itself.

This reference does relate about NED for OTs. It tells also that “Each of these (Technical Breakthroughs) is the result of years of research and in recent months one major discovery has led to another with great rapidity and astounding success.”. It then tells the following concerning NED for OTs:
        
“An attempt to run NED on an OT resulted in a phenomenon which caught my attention, and on further investigation brought to light the fact that you cannot run NED, or any Dianetics for that matter, on a Clear (Dianetic or Scientology Clear) or above. Research into this paid off handsomely with a fantastic breakthrough for Clears and OTs. I have now developed an entirely new rundown called ‘NED for OTs.’ This deals with living lightning, the very stuff of life itself. Run exactly correctly by the book it produces remarkable results in the OT band, and has made it possible for me to now release OT VIII. ‘NED for OTs’ is a highly confidential rundown done by a Class IV, OT III auditor, called an Advanced Courses Specialist (ACS), who is specially trained on its rundown and techniques. It is now forbidden to run NED on Clears or above. From Grade VI to OT III is the Non-Interference Zone, during which nothing should be run. Persons in this zone should move on up to OT III so that they may be audited on ‘NED for OTs.’ This rundown will be delivered in AOs and Flag to OT IIIs and above. Clears and OTs who have paid for NED will now receive ‘NED for OTs’ which in the pilot auditing produced results beyond their wildest dreams. While much of it is confidential I can tell you that the first step of ‘NED for OTs’ is designed to raise perceptions, especially theta perception, and as for the rest of the rundown . . . surprise, surprise, surprise!”          (signed at bottom with ‘RON’ [=LRH])  
(from ‘LRH ED 298 Int’, 19 Sept 78 “A.D. 28, The Year of Technical Breakthroughs”)
        

Note that it said in above LRH ED:  “An attempt to run NED on an OT resulted in a phenomenon which caught my attention, ... .”.

The following is what David Mayo wrote and published in April 1985 relating to this when he was called to see L. Ron Hubbard who was taken ill somewhere early September 1978:
        
“I had some folders and the main thing that I could see from the folders was that he'd been having quite a lot of auditing on NED and that there were various strange indications. His TA had been getting higher and higher and the needle had been getting tighter. Various somatics had been turning on and the more somatics that turned on, the more they'd try and run these somatics out with NED and then the more somatics would turn on, and so on.”  
(from ‘The Journal of the Advanced Ability Centre’, April 1985)
        
Per this statement it would seem that this “OT” that the LRH ED refers to would have been L. Ron Hubbard himself. He then (assuming the statement is truthful) would have caught the attention of himself!

There is also the following notice further justifying NED for OTs in an LRH ED issued in December of 1978:
        
“NED is cleaning up anything and everything Book One ever mentioned with lightning speed. Of course, when somebody goes Dianetic Clear, he can't be run on more engrams. right? Right! So it's forbidden now to run NED on Dianetic Clears. ...
        
 
In 1978 I discovered that it was deadly to go on running Dianetics on a Dianetic Clear. Such gave the semblance of no case gain! (Naturally.)”  
(from ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”)
 

A logical question to ask is: “Why took it a whole 9 years to actually realize that something was wrong with running Dianetics on OTs?”. This time factor does not come to me as directly comforting. Just think about it for a moment. If something was awfully wrong with it, it would obviously have caught someone's attention at a much earlier date. Things like this are not likely to appear sudden! Now, couple this with the fact that both HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” & HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” (see previous section) are also still considered valid references till this very day! Why is this?
The big irregularity here is basically that it is not explained why this would be so! It is just a claim that is being made about that a “Dianetic Clear, he can't be run on more engrams”. It comes sudden, unexpected and we receive no adequate explanation of any kind. If you talk about “years of research” this is certainly not a scientific way to go about it!

Another important angle here is the observation that problems only occurred with reference to running New Era Dianetics (NED). The examples given here above do at no place directly involve the running of Standard Dianetics (StDn). Rather obviously this should be given attention, as the conclusion nonetheless made in ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech” was that “it was deadly to go on running Dianetics on a Dianetic Clear”. Remember that HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” and HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” made/make no objection running Dianetics (StDn) on Clears.
Only one restriction is made by HCOB 3 Feb 72 “R6EW–OT III No Interference Area”, that says: “One cannot profitably do these actions between Solo R6 and OT III. That's just the way the bank is.”   LRH.

The LRH ED also further states clearly: I have now developed an entirely new rundown called ‘NED for OTs.’” (underlining is mine). Which authorship later was disputed by David Mayo.

 
Go back ‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) vs ‘Standard Dianetics’

Mind that it did say in ‘LRH ED 298 Int’, 19 Sept 78 “A.D. 28, The Year of Technical Breakthroughs”:  (underlining is mine)
        
“An attempt to run NED on an OT resulted in a phenomenon which caught my attention, and on further investigation brought to light the fact that you cannot run NED, or any Dianetics for that matter, on a Clear (Dianetic or Scientology Clear) or above.”
        
It says actually NED (=New Era Dianetics) here, it does not say Dianetics. Could this be the reason why this “phenomenon” did not occur at an earlier date?

It raises the question what difference there may exist between NED and Dianetics. Could there be something that triggered this “phenomenon” when run NED but not Dianetics? It could explain why it did not surface at an earlier date, as NED only was released a few months back in July 1978. This reasoning seems enervated though by the LRH ED that reads (underlining is mine): “further investigation brought to light the fact that you cannot run NED, or any Dianetics for that matter, on a Clear (Dianetic or Scientology Clear) or above.”.
Does this mean that NED was actually more accurate than Standard Dianetics and so this “phenomenon” could be caught or is NED something that caused this “phenomenon” to actually come into being, but wasn't ever there from the start? And thus it caused NED for OTs to come into being to fix this newly created problem?

I go into more detail about this in an article that can be consulted in below link:  (separate window)
    “‘New Era Dianetics’ can not be run on Clears, but it can with ‘Standard Dianetics’”

 
Whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard, authorship of NOTs and reflections

Back to Main Index Who wrote NOTs?

 
Go back A note about the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard in regards to NOTs

We learn from the previous chapters that both the Audited NOTs and Solo NOTs were not introduced by L. Ron Hubbard in person. The official release of both of these were hosted by Snr C/S Int David Mayo. We actually may ask the question why L. Ron Hubbard would have chosen not to do this himself. We in fact do not even have some video taped announcement from L. Ron Hubbard that easily could have been produced and then shown during the official release. We do not even have any tape recording in where L. Ron Hubbard speaks about it.
When Audited NOTs was released at Flag on 16 Dec 1978 it was David Mayo that spoke for L. Ron Hubbard. Per ‘Source 19’, Feb-Mar 79 in the article “NED for OTs Released at Flag” David Mayo said: “Ron asked me to give you his love.”. This does not relay what kind of contact he would have had with L. Ron Hubbard, did he actually meet him in person, was it via letter, by phone or otherwise. A good question to ask would thus be why we don't see L. Ron Hubbard doing these things himself anymore, as he did actually used to do so!

I was given the following information by a person that had turned a Class XII Auditor in early ’90s, that proposes to shed some light about how NOTs may have been recorded:
        
“From 1976 onward everything was recorded on a dictaphone. Only access to the original recordings would tell what were his actual words. To make things more complicated, these dictaphone tapes can be a hodge podge of 20 or more subjects. For example, on a tape he starts by telling something about NOTs, then the next section is about letter writing, how to run a course, then orders to the Flag Bureaux, Instructions about his clothing and room requirements, data on the cramming series, more data on NOTs, etc.”
        
Realizing though that these dictaphone recordings (if the story turns out to be true) obviously never would be made part of any public release either way. This same person then continues with writing to me: “Some of them have even been destroyed for various reasons. (mainly legal worries).”. If this be the case then today these would thus not exist anymore.

So, we appear not to have anything recorded on tape or video in where L. Ron Hubbard refers to NOTs. That which would positively confirm if something was really deriving from L. Ron Hubbard would be things like video recording or even better when he in person appears at events, but not so anymore since even the later ’70s. All what we actually have are some LRH EDs attributed as deriving from L. Ron Hubbard that are talking about NOTs and related matters. Further various notices appeared in the various Scientology periodicals where the Scientology parishioner is being informed about what L. Ron Hubbard had been up to and so on, often quoting from some newly (re)issued HCOBs or LRH EDs or something. I remember asking once the HAS of Amsterdam org so around 1983-84 about the whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard. She herself was satisfied with the information that he was researching the upper levels, so she told me. This was an usual answer that was given during these days. Various rumours in fact were going around during that time, but people were still asking questions and were wondering. These rumours would have stopped instantly if only L. Ron Hubbard would appear in person at some event or even appeared on a prerecorded video, but this never happened. Either way we may have to face the fact that anyone can publish or release something and say some other person wrote or devised it. It is amongst other this what makes the physical absence of the person L. Ron Hubbard appear very suspect indeed in regards to NOTs.

 
Go back Composer/typing initials as found on the ‘NED for OTs Series’ references

Could it be possible that someone other than L. Ron Hubbard would have been responsibility for the drafting of the NOTs materials? Well, this may not be so easy to positively certify. After all the Church of Scientology does claim that L. Ron Hubbard did write NOTs. In particular this is so stated by the present Senior C/S International Mr. Ray Mitthof. However, we are facing some indications that may suggest something different.

The rules for “Distribution & initials found at the end of references” are explained here (separate window).


Signatories for David Mayo

A name that immediately surfaces is David Mayo as a possible author or coauthor of these NED for OTs materials. This is not so surprising as at the time that the NOTs started to be written (mid-September 1978) he was the Flag C/S. A total of 28 references of the NED for OTs Series came about in that same month. An additional 12 of them were released in Oct/Nov of 1978. Dec 1978/Feb 1979 released another 6 of them. David Mayo had by October 1978 been promoted to Senior C/S International.
Besides the fact that David Mayo was the highest technical person posted under L. Ron Hubbard, another strong indicator for his involvement with the NOTs material is the fact that the bulk of them actually carried his initials. They were typing initials ‘dm’, as opposed to composer initials that would have been indicated as ‘DM’. One story that I used to hear within the Church itself is that L. Ron Hubbard send his research notes about the NOTs material to David Mayo, who then put them together in a usable form or simply typed them out. This may seem as a plausible explanation in regards to them being just typing initials, but is it equally plausible that his only function would have been that of a typist?
We should though also realize that all of the references in this NED for OTs Series carried a duplicate set of typing initials, most of them note ‘LRH:dm:kjm’. Per this L. Ron Hubbard would have been the claimed originator, David Mayo the 1st typist, and this ‘kjm’ the second typist (full name unknown) may have functioned as a finishing touch prior to publishing them as HCOBs. Why however would David Mayo have functioned as just a typist when he was the top tech dog after L. Ron Hubbard? This simply doesn't make very much sense!


Signatories for Merrill Mayo

Let's look at HCOB 15 Sept 78 I, NED for OTs Series 1 (Confidential) that carries the composer/typing initials ‘LRH:mm:kjm’. Now, who would/could this ‘mm’ be? We know that David Mayo later as being the Senior C/S International would have an assistant, which came to be his wife Merrill Mayo (also a Class XII Auditor). It is fairly safe to assume that this ‘mm’ denotes her.

We find this ‘mm’ also in HCOB 15 Sept 78R IV (Revised 13 Feb 81) NED for OTs Series 9R (Confidential) as follows: ‘LRH:dm:mm:kjm’. Here we are now facing three sets of typing initials, the first two, we can safely assume, denote David Mayo and Merrill Mayo. It has to be explained here that the Scientology organization has this Mimeo(graph) section who have to operate on a very strict set of rules (there is among other a checklist). Each reference prior to printing needs to be submitted for printing to this Mimeo section. If the person sending in the application missed something, Mimeo personnel would simply send it back to the originator.
In regards to this HCOB 15 Sept 78R IV (Confidential) an apparent error had slipped through. See, besides it saying ‘LRH:dm:mm:kjm’ it also prints: ‘Assisted by Senior C/S Int Assistant’, which we already know was Merrill Mayo. Then ‘Assisted by’ would, according to the signatory rules established by HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”, have been the compiler, and should thus have been indicated as: ‘MM’. Next you first would list the compilers/contributors in capitals, followed by typists in lowercase. So you can't have ‘LRH:dm:MM:kjm’. If David Mayo would have been a co-compiler it should have listed ‘LRH:DM:MM:kjm’ and if only a typist ‘LRH:MM:dm:kjm’. But if you list him as compiler or co-compiler you in addition also have to print ‘Assisted by Senior C/S Int’.


Technically we are facing here indications of typists, that basically means people that only typed out something. We are not seeing composer initials which are indicated as capitals: ‘DM’. Sure, it will be hard to deny involvement of David Mayo with the NOTs Series, although may be not as an actual author or composer strictly according to the initials that we find in these references. Set aside an occasional slip that we find in some of the references.
We do actually find further inconsistencies in these composer/typing initials in for example 6 references as they appear in the Happiness Rundown Series (including its course checksheet, all released during Feb-Mar 1981). These 6 references are found to have indicated on them ‘as assisted by Senior C/S Int’, see table here (pop-up window). The inconsistency is that on these 6 references the Snr C/S Int (David Mayo) is indicated as ‘dm’ (‘LRH:dm:ljb’), where it clearly should have been ‘DM’. As explained in the previous ‘as assisted by’ does not match with ‘dm’. Some of the other references listed in this table correctly prints ‘DM’.


The court ruled...

Notwithstanding David Mayo that states in an affidavit dated 1 May 1987:
        
“10. ... Moreover, I am the primary source of NOTs and SOLO NOTs“
        
And court procedures from 4 Jun 1991 in where a motion was changed to:
        
“Plaintiffs [=RTC] ... ‘assert that the “work made for hire’ doctrine, as codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 (‘the Act’), necessarily imputes authorship of NOTs to Hubbard whether he or Mayo actually created the materials“
        
Note:  The court had rejected the original motion: “Plaintiffs previously moved for summary judgment as to the authorship of NOTs based upon the argument that the First Amendment prohibits judicial interference with the ecclesiastical determination that L. Ron Hubbard (“Hubbard”) is the author. The Special Master rejected this argument and denied the motion. See Order dated November 20, 1990.”
The court accordingly ordered, 4 Jun 1991, that:
        
(1) Mayo's substantial contribution to NOTs is a work made for hire under section 101(1) of The Copyright Act of 1976; and (2) as to Mayo's substantial contribution to NOTs, CSC is the author under the work made for hire doctrine.“
        
Which judicially is confirming (or at least not rejecting) the contribution of authorship of David Mayo for these NED for OTs Series of references. (consult full document here, pop-up window)


I have been informed by a Class XII auditor that these NED for OTs Series references had been de‘Mayo’nized in 1991. This will have involved removing these ‘dm’ and ‘mm’ signatories.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Clear and its relation with the NOTs materials and final notes

 
Go back Reflecting back on ‘SO ED 2344 Int’, 20 Aug 83 “The Story of a Squirrel: David Mayo”

In the section of the SO ED entitled SUPPRESSIVE ACTS it did say:
        
“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; ...”
        

So it says: “send pcs who had not achieved the State of Clear to attest to Clear, thus jamming these persons’ progress up the Bridge” by use of having “broadly published a misdefinition on the State of Clear”. How does this work?

The state of facts are that the definition of Dianetic Clear factually had been altered to mean a full-fledged Clear, and this was “broadly published” in various HCOBs issued since September 1978. Considering this we may have to face the possibility that you because of this that you may be are still sending “pcs who had not achieved the State of Clear to attest to Clear” and “thus jamming these persons’ progress up the Bridge”. See, we have a change in the definition of what is a Clear and what is not a Clear. A Dianetic Clear is not anymore just a Release, it is considered a (Scientology) Clear. A change that is accepted, implemented and in use ever since. It has never been questioned, given attention or has been analyzed. No person appears to have had some inkling or notion something may have been amiss there, instead we have David Mayo that is being judged for supposedly having been responsible for this very consequence! Isn't this all a bit contradictive and strange?

We are also facing that both the previous definition and the new September 1978 definition of Clear are scattered about in the ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes at various locations. What are we going to do about that?

 
Go back A brief summary of the technical changes

    Prior to September 1978 a Clear was someone who had run Dianetics and then the Scientology Grades, including Grades V, VA & VI and the Clearing Course (Grade VII). A Dianetic Clear at that time was just considered a Release, you still had to run Scientology Grades in order to become a full-fledged Clear, a so-called Scientology Clear or Theta Clear.    
  Then starting from September 1978 a Dianetic Clear was suddenly a (Scientology) Clear. Here the Grades V, VA & VI and the Clearing Course were only for those persons that had not gone (Scientology) Clear on Dianetics.  
  March 1979 in addition introduced so-called Natural Clears, meaning those that will not have any Dianetics run on them and never will have.  
  Since September 1978 still you first would run Dianetics, and then the Scientology Grades. November 1981 turned this around, now you first were to run Scientology Grades and then Dianetics (NED).  
  Since 1982 the Grade Chart displayed this Alternate Route to Clear (=Grades V, VA & VI and the Clearing Course).  

All these implicate various changes, it changes position and your perspective on what next to do. Add to the above changes:
    July 1978 had introduced New Era Dianetics (NED) and was replacing the previous Standard Dianetics (StDn).    
  Since March 1982 the original OT levels IV to VII were dropped.  
Then we can safely conclude that between July 1978 and March 1982 the Bridge had undergone some rather drastic and intricate changes indeed. Various things were literally turned upside down.

In regards to David Mayo the conclusion can be drawn that he in fact was involved in the changes and new introductions since September 1978, and acted since October 1978 as the Senior C/S International. Various of these delicate and shifting changes and additions that were introduced and came about during his time of reign are in fact being upheld till this day!
True may be though that the Survival Rundown (May 80) was discontinued since. Although it may be looked upon as rather odd that this rundown nonetheless appears on donation lists at least as late as August 1984. Still in use are the Happiness Rundown (Nov 80/Oct 81) although in somewhat adjusted form, and also the Sunshine Rundown (Nov 81) remains in use today, both of which witness of an active and obvious involvement of David Mayo. This would actually indicate that David Mayo can not have been considered all that bad this even by the Church of Scientology.

 
Go back NOTs? What was David Mayo thinking?

Considering that there was never an issue within the organization technically concerning running Dianetics on Clears and OTs, then what was David Mayo thinking when he adopted the new data as if there would be an issue with it? If he was the top tech dog after L. Ron Hubbard then why did he not know about or referenced:

        
“When a person gets above Clear, oddities can be expected to occur when you try to run Dianetics on them. If they really haven't made all their grades, however, and are physically ill, the correct action is to do all possible to handle their case by Standard Dianetics and then rehabilitate or get done all the rest of the grades. What has happened here is that they were using Scientology to escape an uncomfortable body that should have been straightened out by Dianetics in the first place. The ‘out grade’ is in fact Dianetics, failure to use it before going on to Scientology.”          LRH
(from HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams”)
        

And...

        
Any OT who has somatics is auditable on Dianetics which he should have had in the first place as he was using Scn grades to get rid of his headache! Or some somatic.
        
 
If the ‘OT’ isn't auditable on Dianetics then he's a problem for a Class VIII and not a very tough one either.
 
 
To the HDG this is not very complex.
 
 
Audit the ‘OT’ on Standard Dianetics. If it works okay just carry on until he's rid of his somatics and turn him over to Qual when he's okay.
 
 
If it doesn't work, then cease Dianetics and turn him over to Qual who will get the thing straight by the usual Class VIII remedies.
 
 
That's all you have to know about OTs in Dianetics.”          LRH
(from HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”)
 

This omission all by itself casts a shadow of rather gargantuan proportions on his skills and knowledge of auditing procedures. Why did he miss all this, why did he not act against it?

 
Go back A proposal and warning
(a final notice)

The following was proposed to me by a New Class IX Auditor/NOTs C/S during 25 years:
        
“Without any proof, just suppose that the following is true:
        
 
1.NOTS is based on a lie, the lie being that it is NED or at least a form of Dianetics for OTs. Truth is that NOTs has nothing to do with Dianetics but served to knock out Dianetics from use by Scientologists. It was a covert attempt to undermine the world and effectiveness of Scientology.
 
 
2.People who keyed out on Dianetics and grades were told they were now Clear and that it would be very very very dangerous and destructive to their cases if they would ever be run on Dianetics. So on the lower bridge Dianetics was knocked out of usage as well.
 
 
3.Mayo blames LRH for confusing the definitions of Clear. Mayo leaves Scientology (currently).
 
 
4.They changed the definition of reactive mind in the tech dictionary even already in 1975 conveniently leaving out GPMs. This shows the whole sabotage of the subject was a planned operation. They left out GPMs and that is what Dianetic Clears, Releases and anybody should run on the Clearing Course in order to go Clear. Just compare to the Scientology Abridged dictionary def of Reactive Mind.
 
 
The confidential NOTs materials give the first data on Dianetic Clear and are the justification for it. The reason they give has to do with OT III material and is confidential but is contrary to earlier LRH HCOBs. The fact that Mayo wrote these issues makes him the prime suspect of having been the instrument to sabotage the tech.
 
 
Mayo wrote the NOTs stuff, this is the stuff where the whole idea of Dianetic Clear comes from or integrates with. So it is most likely Mayo who invented the new definition for Dianetic Clear as well as the NOTs stuff. There is also an obvious time coincidence factor.”
 

Now, if David Mayo really was the bad dude one deems him to be, would it not be advisable to seriously investigate any and all of these processes, additions and changes that were introduced during his time of reign? Another consideration may be if he really can be deemed being this bad person, in case various of these changes are found being upheld to this day.

A simple realization unfolds that the Bridge as it was after David Mayo had left was not the same as how it was before he arrived at the scene. In fact before and after are very different indeed! Here David Mayo is deemed the bad dude, he is thus excommunicated, they thus kick him, but the changes in the Bridge are fully upheld. How about that as an inconsistency?

Here we may also have to start to reflect on the possibility that we do not actually need NOTs. What is the actual validity of NOTs? Simply define ‘somatics’! Somatics spring from and are seated in the reactive mind. A Clear has eradicated this reactive mind. Then how come a Clear or OT would have somatics? This is already adequately and confidently explained by L. Ron Hubbard in among other HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams” & HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case”. That what you got here is a simple skipped gradient, something that had been passed by. So, you go back! You don't invent some other new remedy!

Ask yourself if previously established basics have been violated!


Here I also have come to the end of my thesis about Clear and NED for OTs. My findings may urge some person(s) to have a closer look into this. It was my purpose and intent to point out any possible incongruities to myself and now, by releasing this, also to others. There is no other purpose then stated here. You have to find out for yourself what to think of all this. The things that I write may disturb some persons although they are directly based on factual findings. The blind should not be leading the blind as in the literal context.

 

Vocabulary:

     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.
     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.’
     Dynamics:
The urge, thrust and purpose of life – SURVIVE! – in its eight manifestations. The First Dynamic, survival of self; the Second Dynamic, the urge toward survival through sex and children; the Third Dynamic, the urge to survive through a group. The Fourth Dynamic, the urge to survive through all mankind; the Fifth Dynamic, the urge to survive through all living things; the Sixth Dynamic, the urge toward survival as the physical universe; the Seventh Dynamic, the urge toward survival through spirits or as a spirit; the Eighth Dynamic, the urge toward survival through infinity. (Marriage Hats booklet)
     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).
     Free Zone:
Free Zone generally is regarded being those groups (as in plural) that practice Scientology outside of the control of the official Church of Scientology. Various of these groups may have their personal approach about how to use the Scientology technology. See also my note here (separate window). 
     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)
     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).
     lock:
1. An analytical moment in which the perceptics of the engram are approximated, thus restimulating the engram or bringing it into action, the present time perceptics being erroneously interpreted by the reactive mind to mean that the same condition which produced physical pain once before is now again at hand. Locks contain mainly perceptics; no physical pain and very little misemotion. (Science of Survival, p. 112)  2. A situation of mental anguish. It depends for its force on the engram to which it is appended. The lock is more or less known to the analyzer. It's a moment of severe restimulation of an engram. (Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, p. 84).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     Mimeo:
Mimeograph section. The section within the Scientology organization that takes care of all the printed references, printing, storing, organizing, filing etc. Since the ’80s however the printing is not done anymore with a mimeograph machine (or ‘Roneo’), it became off-set printing. However the name Mimeo is still the name used to address this section.
     NED:
New Era Dianetics’. Officially released to the public on 30 July 1978 (ref.: ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78). It replaced and abolished the previous in use Standard Dianetics (St Dn).
     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)
     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)
     R3(R):
Routine 3 (Revised)’. Consists solely of finding a goal, then finding a terminal that matches the goal and running the terminal, and then finding another terminal for that goal, and another terminal for that goal, till that goal disappeared. And then finding that the goal had probably disappeared, and finding another goal, and finding a terminal for that goal, and so on. ... And eventually you got into the situation where you'd find a goal and it would blow up and you'd find a terminal and it would blow up, and then you just couldn't find anything, and you got a free needle. What you've done in essence was to pick off a number of pieces of the goals problem mass so the pc was floating free of the goals problem mass. (SH Spec 139, 6204C26)
  Goal: The prime postulate. It is the prime intention. It is a basic purpose for any cycle of lives the pc has lived. (SH Spec 160, 6206C12)
  Terminal: An item or identity the pc has actually been sometime in the past (or present) is called a terminal. (HCOB 8 Nov 62)
     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)
     RTC:
Religious Technology Center’. The highest echelon within the Church of Scientology.
     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.
     squirrel:
Going off into weird practices or altering Scientology. (HCO PL 7 Feb 65, Keeping Scientology Working)
     St Dn:
Standard Dianetics’. Reissue of 1950-Tech, as such established and released in April 1969 (ref.: HCOB 24 Apr 69 “Dianetic Use”). It was finalized in December of that year. Abolished and replaced by New Era Dianetics (NED) since 30 July 1978.
     ‘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