Scientology: L. Ron Hubbard about dictionaries

L. Ron Hubbard about dictionaries or
“Dinky Dictionaries” vs ‘World Book Dictionary’
(Includes annotations about ‘LRH notes’)

(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.

	“Word Clearing: L. Ron Hubbard found that the basis of any inability to study or apply what one has learned can be traced to one or more words not understood in one's studies. By locating and getting defined those words that weren't understood one can experience a remarkable resurgence in one's ability to study a subject and in actually using what one has learned. There are many forms of word clearing but they are all geared to finding the words misunderstood and clearing up the dull, sleepy, ‘don't want to’ feelings that people get when reading or listening to something.”
	(from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition), page 10)

Index:

A note about dictionaries

The matter of HCOB 19 Jun 72 “Dinky Dictionaries”

HCOB 19 Jun 72 “Dinky Dictionaries” vs ‘LRH notes’

- ‘World Book Dictionary’
- ‘Merriam Webster Dictionary’
- ‘LRH notes’
- Brief summary

The “Hidden Data Line” vs ‘LRH notes’

“Numbering of Mimeo Issues”

Closing words on the ‘World Book Dictionary’ & “The Integrity of Source”

Other dictionaries

Other vanished references to dictionaries and other as found in HCOB 13 Feb 81 “Dictionaries”

A note about dictionaries

When studying Scientology or for that matter when studying or reading anything at all, and to correctly understand that what you are reading, it is vital that you have a proper definition/concept of all the words used in the reading/study material. L. Ron Hubbard developed a technology that will help you to recognize the symptoms if or when you are going off the rails. He describes in a rather simple way how to study, and how to recognize the phenomena which one can be subjected to if one is not duplicating the text anymore. It could be a word you had no definition at all for, or it may be that you had the wrong definition of that word which does not seem to fit in the text you are reading. To be short about it, it is important to have the correct definition of the words used in the text you are reading if one is to have a concept and understanding of it!

L. Ron Hubbard does recommend some good dictionaries. A university student may want to use a more advanced dictionary than a junior school student. Can I trust the definition? Are all the definitions given? Then, which dictionaries will give you the derivation of the words, which is vital for a fundamental understanding of the word, and so on......

The matter of HCOB 19 Jun 72 “Dinky Dictionaries”

HCOB 19 Jun 72 “Dinky Dictionaries” vs ‘LRH notes’

‘World Book Dictionary’
‘Merriam Webster Dictionary’
“LRH notes”
Brief summary

‘World Book Dictionary’

In particular I would like to draw your attention on the following quotation. Please take notice of the very detailed description of this ‘World Book Dictionary’ by L. Ron Hubbard, this is the only dictionary where he even gives us the measurements of the volumes, both in inches and centimeters:

“The best dictionaries are the very large child's dictionaries like THE WORLD BOOK DICTIONARY (A Thorndike-Barnhart Dictionary published exclusively for Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, Merchandise Mart Place, Chicago, Illinois 60654 or Doubleday and Company. Thorndike-Barnhart has a whole series of dictionaries of which this is a special one. Field Enterprises has offices in Chicago, London, Rome, Sydney, Toronto. The World Book Dictionary is in two volumes, each 28½ cm [11¼ inches] by 22 cm [8 5/8 inches] by 5.8 cm [2½ inches], so it is no small dictionary!)” LRH

(from HCOB 19 Jun 72 “Dinky Dictionaries”)

To find this you will need to consult ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume VIII, 1972-1975’ (1976 release). A picture of this dictionary you will find on the illustration that I provided for in previous chapter.

A revision was made in 1981. The above quoted paragraph recommending the ‘World Book Dictionary’ was removed in its entirety. Its heading said the following:

	“HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JUNE 1972R* REVISED 15 FEBRUARY 1981
	(This HCOB has been revised to delete the recommendation of the WORLD BOOK DICTIONARY, as in 1976 it underwent a major revision so that it now contains many grammatical and other errors and the entry defining Dianetics was removed. In it's place this HCOB recommends some good dictionaries to use.)”

As it seems to make up for the loss of the ‘World Book Dictionary’ recommendation we find in this revision an extensive referencing to HCOB 13 Feb 81 “Dictionaries”. This HCOB 19 Jun 72R (Revised 15 Feb 81) says:

	“HCOB 13 Feb 81 DICTIONARIES contains considerable data on the subject of dictionaries and their use. There is no one dictionary that is perfect for all; on the contrary, each person must find a dictionary that is the correct gradient for him.
	Following are the dictionaries recommended in HCOB 13 Feb 81, Word Clearing Series 67, DICTIONARIES as being the best dictionaries available. From these one should be able to find a dictionary that suits him.”

Then it goes into detail about all the 9 recommended dictionaries as found in HCOB 13 Feb 81 “Dictionaries”, in condensed form with only some rephrasing done here and there. It made the HCOB more than twice as long. This seems superfluous as HCOB 13 Feb 81 “Dictionaries” is predating the “Dinky Dictionaries” revision from 15 Feb 81 with just 2 days!

‘Merriam Webster Dictionary’

LRH his discontentment with the ‘Merriam Webster's Dictionary’ –following directly after the ‘World Book Dictionary’ recommendation– was also still to be found in the 1981 revision. However in the original release first it was referring to the ‘World Book Dictionary’ and in the revision it is referring to those 9 listed dictionaries:

“(Also it –referred is to the World Book Dictionary– defines Dianetics correctly and isn't determined on a course of propaganda to re-educate the public unlike Merriam Webster's dictionaries.)” LRH

(from HCOB 19 Jun 72 –original version–“Dinky Dictionaries”)

This information is still left in the 1981 revision, it is only rephrased. It is directly following the listing of those 9 recommended dictionaries:

“I have found these dictionaries listed above to be better than most. (And they –referred is to those 9 dictionaries listed in this revision– aren't determined on a course of propaganda to re-educate the public unlike Merriam Websters and World Book dictionaries.)” LRH

(from HCOB 19 Jun 72R (Revised 15 Feb 81) “Dinky Dictionaries”)

‘LRH notes’

Alright we are not done with revising yet! In June 1986 it was corrected once again. This time all based on something that is referred to as “LRH notes”. The heading of the original mimeo print-off said:

	“HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JUNE 1972 CORRECTED AND REISSUED 3 JUNE 1986
	(This issue was illegally revised in 1981 without LRH approval. Therefore, HCOB 19 June 72R, Rev. 15 Feb 81, Word Clearing Series 37R, DINKY DICTIONARIES is hereby CANCELLED. The original HCOB of 19 June 72 is now reinstated, with one correction: deletion of the recommendation of the World Book dictionary. Per LRH notes, this dictionary underwent a major revision in 1976 so that it now contains many grammatical and other errors.)”

So it informs us that it was “illegally revised in 1981 without LRH approval”, alright. This may explain why it was repeating those dictionary recommendations in full, when this information was already given in HCOB 13 Feb 81 “Dictionaries”. It was rather useless to have this at 2 places, and we do not find any of these anymore in this 1986 revision. It appears though that together with these we also lost the information about L. Ron Hubbard's discontentment with the ‘Merriam Webster's Dictionary’, it has simply vanished from this 1986 revision!

Remind that it said: “Also it defines Dianetics correctly and isn't determined on a course of propaganda to re-educate the public unlike Merriam Webster's dictionaries.” LRH (from HCOB 19 Jun 72 –original version–“Dinky Dictionaries”)

Then HCOB 19 Jun 72 (Corrected and Reissued 3 Jun 86) “Dinky Dictionaries” says:

“The original HCOB of 19 June 72 is now reinstated, with one correction: deletion of the recommendation of the World Book dictionary.”

Strictly taken this is incorrect, as this recommendation was already removed from the 15 Feb 81 revision!

We knew already about that “this dictionary underwent a major revision in 1976 so that it now contains many grammatical and other errors”, new is that it specifically states that this was done as “per LRH notes”. Now what are these LRH notes for something? (this is discussed in detail later on this page)

There is an additional reference commenting on Merriam Webster & World Book dictionaries. It is found in the previous 1976-80 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes, and was part of the Word Clearing Series:

“The so-called ‘Merriam Webster’ dictionaries in the U.S. are almost useless and give out more misunderstoods in definitions than they clarify in clearing, don’t bother with them. The World Book Dictionary available from Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, Merchandise Mart Plaza, Chicago, Illinois, 60654, U.S.A. is a huge and very good child’s dictionary. In the U.K. the 18 volume Oxford series are good.”

(from BTB* 4 Sept 71R (Reissued 20 Jul 74) “How to Use a Dictionary”)

The present version of this reference is HCOB 4 Sept 71RA (Revised 9 Feb 89), still having the same title, and still being Word Clearing Series 22. Both versions of these references are pretty much addressing the same issues, but the HCOB version has been almost completely rewritten. When compared both the references only match a couple of sentences. You will look in vain however for the information given in the above quoted paragraph from the BTB, this information has also here vanished!

Brief summary

Now let's look over all of this. We are informed that the 1981 revision was done without LRH approval, and the 1986 revision tells us about some things that are being done because of some LRH notes. From this we get the understanding that L. Ron Hubbard was not personally involved in any of these revisions done on this HCOB 19 Jun 72 “Dinky Dictionaries”. So how do we know how he wanted to have things done here? L. Ron Hubbard himself dit not advice to have it removed in its entirety! Someone just interpreted it like that! Do in actual fact LRH notes justify changing this HCOB so dramatically? We'll have a look at that in the following chapters.

The “Hidden Data Line” vs ‘LRH notes’

The term LRH notes pretty much came into being in the year 1986:

“What we are doing is checking them against LRH's taped briefings and conferences, those writings that come directly off LRH's typewriter, the research notes and despatches which were written in his own hand, and notes written up by Commodore's Messengers which can actually be verified as accurate — to completely sort the wheat from the chaff, the truth from falsehoods.” Mr. Pat Broeker
(Edited from a talk given at the Hollywood Palladium in Los Angeles, California on 27 Jan ’86; as printed in periodical ‘International Scientology News 8’, [ca Feb/Mar 86])

Here above are thus listed the sources for the texts commonly referred to as LRH notes.

Since that time we may encounter references that carry revision notices something in the line of: “‘Per LRH notes’ we got this and that information and therefore we have done so and so ...”. The question is how this would stand up against the rule of “hidden data line” and such? Well, let's have a look at some issues!

	*“The whole* of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and Tapes I do and release.**
	All the lower-level materials are in the HCOBs, PLs or on tapes.
	The data line isn't hidden. It's there for anyone to have. That there's lots of it is possibly a source of trouble in releasing it. But it's all on courses on Academies or Saint Hill. You could have a copy of everything in the tape library if you wanted. It might cost a lot, but you could have it.
	*There is no hidden data line.” LRH* (from HCO PL 16 Apr 65 I “The ‘Hidden Data Line’”)

The question is if some LRH notes are to be considered or not to be considered a “hidden data line”? Let's read that sentence again: “The whole of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and Tapes I do and release.” LRH.

Now what does that actually mean in reality? Well, there is not much one can add here, now can we?

HCO PL 4 Mar 65RA* II “Technical and Policy Distribution” says:

“When rereleasing an old policy letter, always blue pencil out everything gone old and contradicted by later policy letters.” LRH

Well, LRH notes are not some “later policy letters”, now are they? Later policy letters also have been issued once as being policy and all this is in alignment with: “Only Policy Letters may revise or cancel Policy Letters.” LRH (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders”).

This HCO PL 9 Aug 72 “Seniority of Orders” further says:

“No Aides Order or Flag® Bureaux Data Letter or Executive Directive, Directive or Base Order of any type, written or verbal, may alter or cancel any policy letter or HCOB. These remain senior.” LRH

Now what about some LRH notes then? Do they in reality have any authority? True is that any of the above issue-types have not been solely used by L. Ron Hubbard, but a variety of them have been. In my opinion we should revert back once again to: “The whole of technology is released in HCO Bulletins and HCO Policy Letters and Tapes I do and release.” LRH.

HCO PL 18 Oct 67 III “Policy and HCOB Alterations, High Crime” says:

“Lines for the amendment of Policy already exist as per other Pol Ltr* and until an amendment is legally and completely passed the old policy must be followed.” LRH

Alright then “Lines for the amendment of Policy already exist as per other Pol Ltr”. These “lines” are all listed here (separate window). But none of these guide “lines” make any mention at all about some LRH notes.

Now if in fact some LRH notes are to be considered or not to be considered a “hidden data line”, well decide for yourself! But anyhow the LRH recommendation for the ‘World Book Dictionary’ and his discontentment about ‘Merriam Webster Dictionary’ became “hidden” indeed!

An example of how very easy things can get very wrong:

	“The other evening, on a request, I said members of the company could do part-time study on the Dianetics Course. This became an absolute order, an arbitrary which was put in full force. Not only that, but nobody would handle it.
	Why not?
	If anyone had bothered to trace the order that ‘all must study’, they would have found it was a false arbitrary.
	Almost every outness around is of this breed of arbitrary.” LRH (from HCO PL 22 May 69 “Order Versus Arbitraries”)

Again this summons us to reconsider about how are we going to deal with LRH notes? It's not that we actually are being shown these LRH notes either! We only get the message that: “Per LRH notes this is so and so ..., and we have done so and so ...”.

So, “Hidden data line” or not “hidden data line”?

“Numbering of Mimeo Issues”

“When an HCOB or Policy Letter is revised, its original date is preserved. The word Revised follows the date. If it is cancelled again and substituted for, it would be ‘RA’.” LRH
(from HCO PL 2 May 72RA “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”)

The original mimeo print-off* of the 1986 revision of HCOB 19 Jun 72 “Dinky Dictionaries” said on its heading:

“HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JUNE 1972
CORRECTED AND REISSUED 3 JUNE 1986”

Now, following the rules and to standardly handle such the 1986 release of the HCOB should have looked something like this:

“HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JUNE 1972RA
CORRECTED AND REISSUED 3 JUNE 1986”

As per:
	HCOB 19 Jun 72 HCOB 19 Jun 72R HCOB 19 Jun 72RA	–Original Version– –Revised 15 February 1981– –Corrected and Reissued 3 June 1986–

L. Ron Hubbard explains: “This brings a standard to reissues and helps the reader trace back earlier issues.” (from HCO PL 2 May 72RA “Numbering of Mimeo Issues”)

Now, you would still be able to trace back something as the information is given that it has been “CORRECTED AND REISSUED 3 JUNE 1986”. Unfortunately the version of this HCOB as found in the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes this LRH guideline has not been applied as all information to earlier revisions have completely vanished. It simply states:

“HCO BULLETIN OF 19 JUNE 1972”

And that's it! No mention of any World Book Dictionary, or Merriam Webster's, or that any revision has been made at any time! Please consult the new HCOB Volume X, page 174 (1991 release).

One side of the story is that I did a course years back which included the original unaltered version of this HCOB. For years afterwards I have been wondering where I had seen this World Book Dictionary reference. I double after double checked all the references in that course (and more), but I just could not find it anymore. Would it have had the ‘RA’ designation following the date, I would have been able to “trace back earlier issues”. Now I wondered if I had been dreaming? Finally I asked some old-timer Scientologist about this and he informed me that I was not dreaming so he explained. This is indeed a very solid reason why this should not have been done this way. Scientology is in the business of clearing misunderstoods, thanks to this traceless removal I got one instead!

Closing words on the ‘World Book Dictionary’ and “The Integrity of Source”

Well, now you know why you find this vanished paragraph on this website! In my opinion this whole removed paragraph should have been left in there. One should only then add the comment that this recommendation for the ‘World Book Dictionary’ only goes up for the pre-1976 edition. It is my hope that this will return in there some day. Until such time, it will be here on this website.

In case you would agree with me then it may be worthwhile if you yourself would express your viewpoints towards the Church of Scientology. This would be Religious Technology Center (RTC). We should not forget that we all have the responsibility to see to it that we are “having the correct technology” (Keeping Scientology Working 1, point #1)

The address is:

Religious Technology Center
1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1001
Los Angeles, California 90028
USA

	“THE INTEGRITY OF SOURCE
	It's hereafter firm Church policy that LRH ISSUES ARE TO BE LEFT INTACT AS ISSUED. ...
	No one except LRH can revise his issues whereby changes are incorporated into the text and then reissued. ...
	..., the original LRH issue (regardless of type) shall remain intact so that the original wording is kept. In this way his writings retain their integrity and there is no mystery as to what he wrote and what the revision stated and why.
	The only occasion for any revision of an LRH issue is if a typographical error was found in the original.
	Already existing issues stand intact and valid. ...
	*This policy will allow the integrity of Source to be reinstated.”*
	Signed: “WATCHDOG COMMITTEE”

Other dictionaries

Other vanished references to dictionaries and other as found in HCOB 13 Feb 81 “Dictionaries”

HCOB 13 Feb 81 “Dictionaries” was revised on 25 Jul ’87. The issue became much shorter. Two chapters “Some useful dictionaries” & “Synonyms” and a few additional paragraphs giving us interesting information were deleted. It is possible that these chapters have been moved to other HCOBs, but I haven't had this verified as yet. Much more serious is the disappearing of 2 recommended dictionaries, leaving only 7 of the original 9 recommended dictionaries.

On the original mimeo print-off it says the following:

	“HCO BULLETIN OF 13 FEBRUARY 1981R REVISED 25 JULY 1987
	(Revised to update the list of dictionaries recommended for student use and to add a list of reference HCOBs. Revisions not in script.)”

We don't learn so much from this. It does not explain why these 2 dictionary entries have been removed or that the other information has been deleted. It basically only tells us that the list has been updated. What exactly does that mean? We can only speculate here. From someone who was involved in these revision projects I have been informed that these had been added by someone else than L. Ron Hubbard. This may be or may not be so. At least this information is not being conveyed to us from these revision notes. One should actually know about that I have seen a variety of revisions, and on these it did say at times that data was added by some other person, which now had been removed. But then again, if that was the case here, it should have said this also in the revision notes.

An additional matter I happen to notice is that it said at the end of the original 1981 version, directly following the L. Ron Hubbard signature:
	“As assisted by Research and Compilations Unit”
Do we have to interpret the above with that this *Unit* in fact added information to the HCOB not deriving from L. Ron Hubbard?

If you look at the 1987 revision it says something similar:
	“Revision assisted by LRH Technical Research”

Anyhow I have provided this vanished information here in full for your consultation (pop-up window). It is pretty hard to come by a copy of the original version these days.

The dictionary recommendations that have vanished I have listed below:

	“Funk and Wagnalls New Comprehensive dictionary of the English Language International Edition:
	This dictionary has been previously published as the Brittanica World Language Edition of Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary (published by Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., Chicago) and then the Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language International Edition (published by J. G. Ferguson Publishing Co., Chicago). It is currently available from the Publishers International Press under the name Funk and Wagnalls New Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language International Edition. Publishers International Press is located in new York City at 9 Madison Ave. and in Los Angeles at 1543 West Olympic Blvd., 90015. (This most recent edition is sold by the Publishers International Press, not in bookstores, and can be obtained by writing or calling the above locations.
	This is one of the most grammatically correct dictionaries there is and it is probably the best American dictionary available. It is a two-volume set and is a fairly advanced dictionary.” LRH

And the other one is:

	“Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary:
	This is an English dictionary printed in Edinburgh, Scotland. It is quite thorough, containing most of the English idioms and slang. It is a fairly high-gradient dictionary however and is recommended for the more literate students. The definitions are quite thorough but few examples are given.” LRH

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.
     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.
     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’.
     original mimeo print-off:
Individually printed issues and distributed from the Mimeo Section of the Scientology organization as opposed to those collected in volumes. These are the issues that you may regard as the real first prints. As a rule these are typed out, mimeographed and distributed as soon as possible after having been compiled or written. They are always legal-sized, 8½ by 14 inches (approx. 21,6 x 35,6 cm). If the issue had 3 or more sides, the pages were collated and stapled together in the upper left corner. More detailed information about this is found here (separate window).
    Pol Ltr:
‘HCO Policy Letter’. See at entry ‘HCO PL’ in vocabulary.
     ‘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).