Triangles in Scientology

Many years ago a friend and I started mapping out all the triangles in Scientology and started adding many more.

You may know the ARCU triangle where “Affinity”, “Reality” and “Communication” equates to “Understanding”. There is also the other triangle making up the Scientology symbol (the “S” with two triangles) – the KRC-triangle: “Knowledge”, Responsibility” and “Control”. Even though we didn’t find any references from L. Ron Hubbard as to what those three interconnected elements would equate to, we figured out it should be “Ability”.

Then there is the “BE”-“DO”-“HAVE” witch should equate to perhaps “Existence”. Then there are the three properties of a thetan described by LRH in the book “Science of Survival”: “Power”, “Intelligence” and “Tone” (equating to Beingess?). Thetan-Mind-Body equals a person. Past-Present-Future is time. And there are many more.

Let’s see if we can map more of existence in this fashion. LRH was onto something with this concepts of triangles – there are obvious parallels in the physical sciences such as three spacial dimensions and three quark colors.

Want to pitch in with a new triangle?

85 thoughts on “Triangles in Scientology

  1. I think an obvious triangle would be the “universe” triangle. Space, Energy, and Matter/Time. In ancient India, MEST was referred to as Fire, Air, Earth, and Water. And if you look at these definitions as they defined them it would mirror those of the component parts of MEST. The chakra system is actually organized along these lines. Very interesting stuff.

  2. A triangle “Strategy – Structure – Operations” could be used in relation to third dynamic issues where Be/Do/Have is focused towards the self in 1D.

  3. Always wondered if mind, body, thetan interrelate like ARC. Maybe thetan is the senior corner like communication ie it has a big influence on the other two corners if raised/lowered. If thetan decreases then mind and body do worse. If body is well, mind and thetan are in better shape. Seems true to me.

  4. Three branches of government: Legislative, Judicial, Executive = a balance of power

  5. I have looked into triangels and tone scales. I like them. I have jumped read from books and I have been pondering how to apply without interference. I have had lot of wins and I have put things together in perspective. I feel good what I have learned.
    I have worked so much on be, and I finally got tired of it. I have been on do for a good while. I am testing myself in different areas and to see how it works. I like to work with do list, that way I get things done better. It has opened up more growth of interests and curiosity. I see everything thing without borders and I refuse to put borders. I recommend application of triangles. They are basics.

  6. I don’t if the following makes a triangle or if it is just an increasing gradient of beingness:


    Now TIME is something very different. TIME is a dimension independent of the dimension of SPACE – ENERGY – MATTER.


  7. how about one for ecology and people’s responsibly.

    I suppose I am stretching it here for the purists but I feel there is something missing in the tech that is in the Venus Project and the tech is not in the project. Both together is complete to me.


  8. I remember that the KRC triangle = Success

    I don’t remember the reference though … hmm.

  9. Processing = Basic Auditing, Technique & Case Analysis

    Three Hats of An Auditor/ Successful Auditing = Basic Auditor’s Hat, Technique Hat, Case Analysis Hat

    Interesting note here: Ron mentions in reference to the Auditor Hat – ” This he never takes off”
    Now, wouldn’t that make life more palatable if that was applied.

    Ref: 26 Nov 1963 A New Triangle

  10. Interesting concept, Geir! I like “ability” being the result of KRC. Makes sense.
    As far as BE DO HAVE, not so sure those triangulate well. It seems more linear to me, ie, first you BE, then you DO and this results in HAVE. If triangulated, for example, does raising the HAVE also raise the BE and the DO? Isn’t David Miscavige trying to do this with the Ideal Org program?

  11. Here’s one from the book Science of Survival: “The theta universe is a postulated reality for which there exists much evidence. If one were going to draw a diagram of this, it would be a triangle with the Supreme Being at one corner, the MEST universe at another, and the theta universe at the third. “

    1. The Supreme Being could be the outcone 0f one’s curiosity about the unknowable. Supreme Being could just be a visualization.


            1. I am sure you could agree that considerations can be based on other considerations and hence a validity in “peeling an onion”, hence my statement.

          1. Sure. It is interesting to meditate on “beyond the onion” scenario.

            Supreme Being, self or selves are all parts of this onion.


  12. LRH was too much into “engineering”. Life is different.
    And sorry, but most of the written responses are perfectly covering the idea of squirrel.

    1. That is the problem of $cientology. I like to have freedom of thinking.
      I don’t want my C to be taken away and controlled by other people, especially by groups of invested interests.
      K R C = ability

  13. Dear All,
    There seem to be some questions regarding when a triangle is a triangle. To me a triangle, the philosophical (and practical) ones we discuss here, have a product, ONLY when all 3 corners are present. As an example, take the fire-triangle. In order to have a fire you need something combustable, heat and oxygen (air). 3 corners of the fire-triangle. Watch the firefighters remove one of the corners to kill the fire. Works every time. Add in one of the corners and the fire grows. This is how these triangles works in order to be triangles for our purposes.
    Have fun with your triangles, you are involved in many (more later).
    Per, DK

    1. The fire triangle is an excellent example of this – and a very good analogy when teaching someone about e.g. the ARC triangle.

  14. Maria inspired me to come up with the following:


    The outcome of this “fractal” is the UNIVERSE. 🙂


      1. Maybe say a bit more about this one. My definition of theta has it as static and outside a physical universe. Traditionally, be-do-have covers the physical universe as to my traditional understanding of existence in the physical.

        1. I believe that THETA and MEST are two different aspects of the same system, which woould be the definition of UNIVERSE (UNI = one).

          What is beyond universe is UNKNOWABLE.


    1. This one is so funny!
      I remember once in Stockholm many years ago. I wanted to travel to Israel the cheapest way as possible. How? I had no idea! and suddenly I got an answer. “I can get a ride in a truck “(not a maybe); “something must be transported to Middle East”. Nobody told me this alternative and nobody knew my newly created plannings. I took the yellow pages and I called my first trucking company. They referred me to another trucking company. Bingo! I found a driver and I hooked up with him and his friends in Ystad. I had to hitch hike down there first. I finally ended up in Jordan and then Israel. We went through all the communist countries and we all went by boat from Greece to Syria. It took 9 days.
      That is a good example how connect to UNKNOWABLE, DESIRE TO KNOW and VISUALIZATION.
      What is the outcome of this fractal?
      I made something out of nothing. Doesn’t desire have curiosity in it.

  15. Here’s a few more:

    start – change – stop
    be – do – have
    affinity – communication – reality
    control – communication – havingness
    control – knowledge – responsibility
    create – create – create

    I’ve organized them as they may possibly align but its just an idea I had while reading this blog.

    1. I am reading your post about LRH’s create-create-create being the “actual” cycle of action versus – as he says the “apparent” cycle of action is create-survive-destroy. Putting this together with “Per’s” comment above about “product” being necessary for the triangle to be “valid.” I see in this create-create-create a conflict. It seems to me that the “apparent” cycle of action has a consistent or basic formula (e.g. Zsub1=Z^2+1), while LRH’s “actual” cycle of action has no consistency of formula (e.g. create, then create again but possibly in a new direction) and though it might be “actual” (actually what we do) it is not itself a true triangle regarding this discussion. I am thinking that for our discussion a “true” triangle must re-iterate. It also occurs to me that “create-create-create” without constantly re-iterating might contain in it a definition of psychosis. It also occurs to me that create-create-create has more than one definition. What do you think?

  16. Hallo,
    I do get the idea that you like problems, even more so, solving problems.
    Here is a problem. We live in a world of dualities, good-bad, beautifull-ugliness, etc, etc, So let’s take for example ” hate versus love” and the coin is “emotion”. This would form a triangle. Now, emotion is not a floating concept all on his own, but an extract of another (more fundamental) concept. with other words, an other side of a coin, another triangle, and so on. If the most fundametal triangle is on top you may finish up with a large triangle theoreticaly, or not. I don’t know.

    Have a game, Be Theta the solver.

    1. This aligns with the drawings that my friend and I did many years ago, where we had a central triangle and expanded triangles out from that. I will see if I can reproduce this for a follow-up post.

    2. I like your ideas.
      1. I like better making your “coin” admiration — reason being both love and hate are emotion.
      2. For all these triangles, I see the sides between the points as helically curved expanding and diminishing coils. In this model (in clay demo) I show myself my visualization of all parts of the physical universe.

  17. Geir, I’ve never posted on your blog before, but I just had to tell you:

    I love reading your stuff!

    It makes me look at things differently.

    Fellow OT

  18. With three colors (Red, Green, Blue) we can describe all visible colors to the human eye. Now, this could be the RGB triangle. However, take care with triangles 🙂
    “Reality” is more subtle…
    The colors we actually see are wavelengths in the range of 380-700nm and in our eye there are not three but four kind of perceptors. One sees only black and white, the other three reacts to the wavelengths, or colors and it is impossible to fully describe the human vision only with the RGB model.
    I think this is the same with other triangles. So be careful if you are searching for the “truth”.
    The ARC and KRC triangle in Scientology are much the same IMO. How these triangles work in Scientology? The entrance point is communication. You communicate in large amounts to adjust the reality of the audience and “fine-tune” for your needs. Finally they will accept, understand and follow your reality against wog and all other realities. Now with the KRC triangle you can say you get power but you can use the words authority, mastery or domination as well. With knowledge and responsibility to get through your will you can control your masses, so in the end you and your ideas will dominate.
    The missing element? Or the missing perceptor which gets so much attention in all other religions but not too much discussed in Scientology, dropped here and there but does not get the importance it should deserve are love and goodwill.
    Without these we get a perverted system as with all other purely mathematical (materialistic) approach.

  19. Here are some:
    The Christian Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Ghost. This seems very similar to Maria’s quote from Science of Survival: “The theta universe is a postulated reality for which there exists much evidence. If one were going to draw a diagram of this, it would be a triangle with the Supreme Being at one corner, the MEST universe at another, and the theta universe at the third. “ Father=Supreme Being, Holy Ghost=Theta, Son=MEST(Incarnation).

    The Hindu Trinity, Brahma(creator)-Vishnu(preserver)-Shiva(destroyer), who are usually viewed as manifestations of Iswara the ultimate source. They seem to represent the “apparent cycle of action” create persist destroy, while Iswara represents the actual cycle create create create cease creating.

    Per LRH, evolution of Life occurs by Lifeforms seeking to survive, encountering counter-efforts from the environment, and developing(evolving) new functions/forms to overcome those counter-efforts.

    In the Gurdjieff system, the triangle of Holy Affirming, Holy Denying, and Holy Reconciling forces, which is similar to the above, and also slightly similar to the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis formula of dialectical materialism, except that in Gurdjieff it is all about conscious evolution and does not happen through MEST forces alone.

    Seems triangulation is everywhere!

      1. Yes, very good. Consider plotting the points of this tetrahedron along the length (shape) of a conical helical spring. Tell me what you think.

        1. Whereas, a triangle has only three vertices, a circle may be viewed as having infinite vertices. So, I am a bit confused about what you are suggesting.


  20. Perfect triangle: Cream Tea with the family (am); watching Crawley beat Torquay in the FA Cup (pm); celebrating with a Korai Chicken and all the trimmings (eve).

  21. Sanity vs. Psychosis:

    I would like to propose that within this discussion there is a mathematical description of sanity vs. psychosis.

    Sanity: When the iteration of the “formula” (such as ethics formulas or mathematical formulas) is consistent, one describes the points of a symmetrical and expanding or diminishing universe. This shape might be demonstrated with the use of a conical helical coil. This gives both balance of symmetry and 3rd dimension. 4th dimension of time is provided by the consecutive iterations plotting of the points.

    Psychosis: When the formula for the iteration changes from calculation to calculation one describes a graph of asymmetrical (ugly?) shape or at least flying off into random directions.

  22. Here are some possible triangles from Buddhism:
    Morality (sila) – Meditation (Samadhi) – Wisdom (panna)

    Under “morality” we have:
    Right speech – Right action – Right livelihood

    Under “meditation” we have:
    Right effort – mindfulness – concentration

    Under “wisdom” we have:
    Right understanding – Right resolve – ?


  23. you have all these triangles… ARC, KRC, green blue red, mind body thetan… well I have made this cool chart. I’ll post it in my next comment.

  24. You guys are talking about the very thing I’ve been thinking about and trying to figure out. Maybe you guys can help me out and add to it, or find the ultimate triangle.

    In physics and electricity you have the positive and negative polarities. It’s + and – with an electric current in between. I’ve done some work in relating that to everything. I don’t know how accurate this is, but I’m sure it can be improved. I want help with adding to this or using it to explain other things.

    + current –
    cause distance effect
    start change stop
    create survive destroy
    birth life death
    be do have
    space energy time (since mass is only condensed energy)
    know look mystery
    thought emotion effort
    +infinity zero – infinity (
    differentiation association identification
    white color black
    blue green red
    outflow ? inflow
    right ? wrong
    interested ? interesting
    affinity communication reality
    freedom purposes barriers (these make up a game)
    serenity action ?
    order ? chaos
    people funds service

    everything in the left would be +, everything in the right would be -. The middle is the most important, but you need all three… If anyone has a question about the zero, please look at the website next to that triangle. I would highly recommend that. zero has a very specific meaning here. another interesting thing is the chaos theory, which is pretty popular.

    I have a feeling that present time would be in the middle. maybe future is to the right and past is to the left. I don’t know. And I could be wrong on some of those relations. I think if we work at this we might get to an ultimate triangle.

  25. There is the finance triangle used in the finance office in the scientology orgs. It is even printed in the front cover of the finance references pack, compiled for the staff of the finance office. it is the Viability, Solvency, Reserves triangle . The lrh reference used to draw it in the front cover of the pack is not quoted ( may be is an lrh advice to the church leaders ? ) . Anyway , it seems after 20 years I first saw it, that it is an important triangle in the current practice of the scientology managment .

      1. Chris, it is not stated in any lrh reference I know but it is supposed to bring about the most optimal economical conditon for a person or group. I can see utility in this triangle but as experience has shown the economical enfasis can be exagerated to go against the real purpose of such person or group in the interest of having more money for viability purposes. ( I mea, how much money is enough or what are you willing to do to get more of it )

        1. But I think that viability, by “natural laws”, would have to involve purposes.

          1. Marildi, yes you are right, by natural laws. The problem is ( and excuse me for this gross expression but it is necesary ) the prostitution of the person´s purposes for economical justifications.

            1. Oh I know, Rafael. And since the viability corner of the triangle has been lowered by the perversion of purposes, the solvency and reserves corners will crash too. Especially now with Debbie Cook accelerating matters by shining so much light on actually all three corners. O happy day!

  26. Geir, especially; Rons research and development of Scientology for sure confirms his engineer viewpoint in all books and lectures. And, as one above mentioned, this is not enough when it comes to the subject of life (and dynamics). The triangle you refer to; Tone – IQ – Power cannot be true as real power for sure is dependent on Integrity, which Ron has never had – of course he has lost it on a gradient since he as the first thetan in the universe – selfinvalidated, which of course is the worst mistake/sin you can possibly do. It’s just an example of Rons many squirrelling activities. Another is the definition of Responsibility on pro tr’s. It is also a total fuckup. Another one is the famous start of KSW 1, which has been his way of explaining something he could not and will not admit. Another one is the definition of Happiness – another lie. If you change Power with Integrity you get Tone – IQ – Integrity = Power/ Beingness. They are practically the same. That might work, or what do you think? It makes more sense. The thing here is that Ron was out Integrity continously while he researched and developed the tech we all call Scientology. In the immediate future you will see him getting what he and the product he made really deserves as Scientology goes into history books. Truth hurts only for those who are out Integrity. My Integrity has never been stronger than right now.

    1. I really like what you wrote. I have been saying all the time that integrity is very important; knowing you are honest makes me happy. It gives you a drive with good intentions and curosity. I can feel my power/beeingess. If I wouldn’t have integrity I would pull in evil and go downhill on the tone scale and my body will deterorate faster to that degree. L. Ron Hubbard could probably have lived longer if he had his integrity. Why did he die at 75? What did he do to his body? Fuck it up! He didn’t take care of it.

      1. Talking about integrity of fundamentals in Scientology, one expects most integrity to be associated with axioms. Here my critique of Scientology Axiom # 1 in this regard.

        Scientology Axiom # 1

        Hubbard rejected Buddha’s observations about the impermanence of individuality, and made individuality the ultimate reality in Scientology through Scientology Axiom # 1. See Hubbard’s rejection of Buddha here:

        Identity versus Individuality


        1. Very interesting, vinaire. I figure Hubbard went astray right there! Why not? Oneness vs. individuality is a tricky thing, if you ask me. We will come back to that one – for sure.
          I am writing a practical guide to the deeds of life right now. While I worked on it this morning I have the feeling I have discovered a new triangle: The COW: Creation – Opportunity – Wisdom. The triangle causes Change (, for the better – constructively). (Opportunity is reduced control/ taking a real chance.) What do you think? Any constructive comment is mostly welcome.

      2. Crab: I was extremely direct and honest in my post above. I really needed to be, maybe even more than you grasp. The Scn philosophy/religion is all too difficult for the average person to understand. It could all be so much more easy to understand if only the researcher did not have what he had to fight with. .)

  27. LRH in OODs 6 Aug 70) Third Dynamic Triangle (People-Service-Funds) (from Admin Dict):

    “THIRD DYNAMIC TRIANGLE, I wonder if there isn’t a third dynamic
    triangle like the ARC Triangle that goes:

    people service funds

    Maybe People are A, Service is R and Funds is C. Sort of a solid
    ARC triangle. Seems to work that when you drop out people you drop
    out service you drop out funds. An org that dismisses staff to save
    money drops service and winds up with a high debt. In an org when I
    manage one directly, I always push up numbers of staff, push up
    service and the money rolls in. There is a contrary fact.
    Governments use tons of people, absorb tons of funds and give no
    service and are largely out of ARC. So it isn’t just numbers of
    people that made the A. “People” probably needs a special
    definition. It may be “beings” or “productive individuals” or
    people in affinity with each other.”

    1. “So it isn’t just numbers of people that made the A. ‘People’ probably needs a special
      definition. It may be ‘beings’ or ‘productive individuals’ or ‘people in affinity with each other.'”

      I think you are on the right track, Andreas. It works the same way with the ARC triangle. The amount of Communication, for example, isn’t the point – it’s the tone of the Comm. And it isn’t just any Affinity, since Affinity is expressed at all levels of the tone scale, negative as well as positive. As for the Reality, it has to be in agreement for the ARC triangle to rise, and disagreement would lower it.

  28. @marildi: I can only agree with what you said.
    But I have to make clear, what you quoted “from me” was still an LRH-quote directly from Admin Dict. I did not comment anything in above posting. Pure LRH the whole text.


    1. Ah – thanks for clarifying. No wonder it seemed to be on the right track. 😀

      JFYI, next time, put opening quotation marks before each new paragraph, as well as the closing quotes at the end of the last paragraph, which is the standard tech of punctuation. 😉

  29. ok, got it. I am German and we have a different standard on quotes: we put the quotes only twice at opening and closing, not for every paragraph. But here is an English forum, so I will abide by English standards. I just mention that, to explain my error. Can you or an admin edit my 1st posting accordingly?

    1. No need – with these replies, it is well explained. Correcting your original comment would make the two next comments oddballs 🙂

    2. Oh, wow – I didn’t know that about the different way quotes are done in your language.

      Not everyone on English-speaking forums does it the way I said either, but that is according to the rules I learned, and I think it’s easier to see what is being quoted anyway.

      No, I wouldn’t be able to edit your post as I am just a poster too. And I don’t think even Geir can do it on this WordPress blog. But no worries – you’ve cleared it up.

      One other tip for you as a newcomer: When you are replying to a particular comment, you can click on the “Reply” button at the bottom of it and your reply will come right under that comment. If there isn’t a reply button there, just use the one that’s on your email notification of the comment.

      Cheers. 🙂


Leave a Reply to Chris Thompson Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s