Why is it important to some that Scientology doesn’t work?

Having waded through some 1100 comments on my OT 8 blog post over at ESMB, a question rose to mind:

Why is it so important to some that Scientology must not be seen to work?

Some seem hell-bent on proving that there cannot, must not be any shred of workability to the subject. Some goes quite nuts when another tells about gains they got from Scientology. As I happen to have gotten lots of gains from my 25 years of active involvement, I seem to tick off a few stuck records. Funny that.

344 thoughts on “Why is it important to some that Scientology doesn’t work?

  1. Well, I had lots of gains too.

    In answer to your question:

    1) Many of the posters on ESMB are not ex-scientologists, have never read a book or experienced auditing, and only parrot what others say

    2) Many have the need to make the subject wrong and will invalidate anything that is good

    3) Many who have had a bad experience fail to realize that was not Scientology, or, are still ‘stuck in the incident’ and their originations have not been acknowledged

    4) Lack of knowledge on the subject

    5) The inability to carry on a rational discussion and would rather just get in to a $hit-fest

  2. My answer would have been similar if not the same as Dennis’ (although differently worded) (1) lack of data and mere jumping on the band wagon, (2) false data (including Black PR) (3) MU’s, and (4) unhandled or mishandled case factors..

    But here’s LRH’s answer from from HCO PL “Purpose and Targets”:

    “The reason we are fought, where we are fought, is contained in its major part in purposes.

    “Purposes often fail and wind up in STOP.

    “Stopped purposes can then be dramatized.

    “In Scientology we use (quite correctly) FREEDOM. While not the most basic purpose, TO BE FREE is a common purpose to all thetans.

    “This tends to key in (restimulate) in some persons the stop of being free. They themselves wanted to be free. They were stopped, they dramatize the STOP of being free and try then to stop us. We restimulated (keyed in) their own purpose to be free or free others and where we are opposed the person or persons dramatize the stop or disagreement.
    “That it really CAN be done in Scientology is not only outside their reality but regenerated the failed purpose they have had to be free and free others and they dramatize STOP.

    “While this is not the total reason (interrelations also restimulate ethnic values, meaning customs), it is A BIG REASON FOR DEDICATED OPPOSITION TO US [emphasis in caps is mine on this last sentence]”.

    1. You *would* come up with the right reference 🙂 Failed purposes & outside their reality.

      Well done!

      There’s also the reference on our own inability or failure to apply standard tech … in other words – our own overts or ‘dones’.

      People in general want ‘freedom’ of one sort or another … in the old days we used to find a ruin or some area of a person’s life they wanted to improve. Failure to help them with that, and a failure handle their originations on some of the insanities within the church just compounded the problem.

      1. Right you are. I guess our own overts would fall under “case factors” on my list but probably should be stated specifically.

        As for finding a ruin and handling originations – as you know, that was based on the Dissem Drill, steps 2 and 3. Of course, nowadays (and for some years) the “handling” step doesn’t accept criticism of CoS insanities. Anyway, since you are appreciative of references (didn’t I say I’ve missed you!), here it is.

        “2. Handle: If the person is wide open to Scientology, and reaching,
        this step can be omitted as there is nothing to handle. Handle is to handle
        any attacks, antagonism, challenge or hostility that the individual might
        express towards you and/or Scientology. Definition of “handle”: to control,
        direct. “Handle” implies directing an acquired skill to the accomplishment
        of immediate ends.

        “3. Salvage: Definition of salvage: “to save from ruin”. Before you can
        save someone from ruin, you must find out what their own personal ruin is.
        This is basically-What is ruining them? What is messing them up? It must be
        a condition that is real to the individual as an unwanted condition, or one
        that can be made real to him”.

        (HCO PL 23 October 1965, DISSEMINATION DRILL)

        1. Good reference.

          Yes, that ‘handle’ step I think has been regurgitated to mean ‘get rid of it’ as in a problem or an origination that doesn’t toe the party line.

          Odd that some of the most important and worthwhile tech/ethics (and yes, even policy) have been bastardized into something pretty gruesome at times. Or one taking responsibility for a misdeed of some sort on post and having the decency to simply say ‘I f’ed up – I’m sorry for that’.

          The lack of being there and simply listening to another has really caused a lot of dissension amongst the public.

          Yes, I have missed you too 🙂

          ‘What is Greatness’, and, the ‘Manners’ PL could reduce this big-time.

          Did I mention I have missed you? 🙂

          1. I think you did mention it. 🙂 And likewise! (In case you didn’t get that. :))

            Your second paragraph gave me a somatic. ;(

            It is so true! There’s been a tremendous amount of utter “regurgitation”. But some of us got what Scn is really about. I hope you will be here (more) and communicate (more). 🙂

            OMG, that is so true – “being there and simply listening to another” is the most miraculous of all.

            1. ” Your second paragraph gave me a somatic. ;( ”

              Well, I *can* be a pain in the arse sometimes 🙂

              Thanks for the kind words …. back atcha.

            2. Oops, a typo where I wrote: ” Your second paragraph gave me a somatic. ;(

              There should have been this at the end: :(. But the sad face wasn’t directed at you – it was for the situation itself. It’s actually quite a good thing that we face up to the outpoints. You’ve always done a better job than I as I tend to want to de-stress those a bit too much. They should be aired. That’s why you are a breath of fresh air. (Okay, that’s enough compliments for a while. At least until my next comment. LOL :))

    2. Scientology is evidently not uniformly workable. One just cannot blame people when one claims to have solution to the common bank.

      Some seems to believe the justifications given by Hubbard. These are plain justifications to me.


      1. Yeah but how about we accentuate the positive? There are plenty of people emphasising the dangerousness of the church and slavishly following everything Hubbard said. Why not emphasise the parts of the tech that appear to help some people?

        1. Yes,I am doing that with KHTK.

          The good in Scientology will survive, but the word “Scientology” is badly tarnished with the history associated with it. That will continue to be tarnished per the usual rules.


          1. I like what you’re doing with KHTK Vinaire. I think helping others is a high purpose 🙂

            1. Thank you aotc. It seems that hose people who have issues with KHTK probably do not understand the very essence of Scientology.


    1… To justify why they’re not continuing.
    2….To make them self believe that where they sitting, no matter how large of crap and smelly that is still the right crap to be in and can’t bear to be wrong therefore they need to point out how wrong everybody is.
    But the 1 and 2 points is a very small matter and look very superficial because it is: Their reason to be here is a much more serious and their activities are very covert.
    There are BEINGs who went into Scientology in order to destroy Scientology.
    There are those beings from the track who will do and have done in the past everything in their power to destroy undermine spirituality by continually point toward mistakes, what is incorrect, insert negative, invalidate put those down who has gained and achieved spiritual reality, and these are the beings who will do anything to hold back destroy the knowledge and the TECH.
    These persons know that if SPIRITUALITY WOULD WIN than their control would be ever therefore they have much to lose.
    I know about these beings existence for sometimes since I understand their motives. I have come to this Planet to learn about these beings and to find out what are their motives…
    Since these being operate on a very low level energy- frequency they can collect agreement an those levels where they are at but they can hold back— effect those beings who are outside of that frequency..
    So those who understand and apply the Technology and continue with solo sessions… confrontations of the MEST universe cannot be effected and held back regardless how much evaluation-invalidation =black energy is directed toward one..
    THESE Slaves of the MEST this BEINGS ARE TOO HEAVY-dense TOO deeply embroiled entangled to understand the power of on Free Spiritual Being but they do their best to destroy undermine the work of those who advance by continually putting implanting DOUBT in their space.
    They seldom hold high position because that would bring them out to the open and DM is not one of them.. DM is there for the power and what that buys…
    The Church attracted these parasites like the smell of dead meat for the fly’s and here in this blog I could name half a dozen… They love it here in this Blog since here is free speech allowed and with that they can spread manure thick and heavy…
    Interestingly of course they carry opinions of so called “value” but these vultures never once acknowledge those who have gained from Scientology and auditing…
    Never, not once they post their wins-gains… never not once aired -put forward their cognitions they had since they never had one..
    I have noted sometimes back that the Blogs Tone level has dropped considerably and I am not the only one who noticed that and I have been asked to tell Geir, and me to do something..
    But Geir is not communicating with me with words that is… but he might read this post..
    Theta, spirituality- life-force always been targeted by the idiots who want to control what is Intangible!!!!
    First they need to understand what is Intangible means even if they would understand than they would at list learn that Life-force can’t be controlled.
    Elizabeth Hamre. SOLO Auditor who has attained the NATIVE STATE.

    1. Eliz, wonderful! We are on the same page here…..I put my comment first (ethics, read it) and has just come to read yours….”the enemy is within” ! Right!!! And also…
      ” The tide has turned…..” YES ! YES ! YES !
      In my reality the root of holding on to VALUES (that is more and more solid) comes from any kind of a consideration which says ” I am not able to create” and the accompanying emotions.
      When one practises creation, create-create-create……huge amount and fast, one KNOWS that one can create….like the fireworks……continuously…..and one doesn’t get stuck in a consideration like everything goes/ disappears/it’s all illusion/no permanency etc. and the attached to it sorrow/fear/boredom….whatever consideration is there, it must be seen through…..one CAN know that one CAN create MEST any time….with it all the fear of “won’t be MEST” is gone……as it seems to be the basic fear…..when one is COMPLETELY ready to BE/NOT BE then one is the Infinite….that’s what is on the “other side” … and then one knows that one IS that FLOW….which is turning the tide….my reality here…
      The tide has ! turned…..CHANGE is what is happening….one has to come to the point in ethics that one KNOWS that I AM….those who are still in confusion have a lot of fear…..the world they see is solid….the Flow is slowly changing that solidity….what is going to happen to those who got stuck in confusion/treason I don’t know…..perhaps you can explain it Eliz…..why you are saying (which is my reality too) that one must know from EXPERIENCE….that is from first hand knowing…

  4. I’ve had complains about the Church too, but I would never come up with such trash as some fanatic anti-SCN critics. They seem to do it on purpose, and I find their claims pretty often extremely whatever and ridiculous. In KSW 1 it is mentioned that ‘we’ are fought when ‘we’ don’t produce results, so yeah, it sort of seems natural to me that SCN is criticised in this fashion, because in the perverted manner that it’s delivered in the COS, it can do harm. It seems (too bad) that SCN and LRH are fought so that the COS will be finally over.

  5. I had plenty of gains in Scientology, but then I also had long periods of unworkability when I was thought to be a dog pc or PTS.

    I believe that those who are trying to convince others that Scientology does not work, probably had absolutely no gains in Scientology. I am not surprised, because Scientology is basically a shot gun operation.


        1. v… I dont have the same reality about that concept because I have fallowed one process since 76 and that worked for me just fine…

            1. V…. again that is your assumption…. opinion and nothing more than that.

            2. V . For that above statement I take that you have met every scientologist.. have interviewed them analised their response and from that you have come to that conclusion…
              Are you pulling my leg again??

            3. Elizabeth, even if their just one person who is dissatisfied with Scientology, it is evidence enough that Scientology does not work uniformly.


            4. I guess it also depends what you are looking through … hidden standards, ser facs, an incident created in present time, MUs … the list goes on & on.

              As was mentioned before, generalities really don’t hold water – like shooting fish in a barrel.

              If it is one’s opinion, it should be stated as so.

            5. Vin, that’s another logical fallacy, known as Straw Man.

              I commented just recently in an exchange with a former long-term tech staff member (2ndxmr), that there apparently is a very small percentage of cases that Scientology does not work on.

              If I don’t know something from personal experience, I try to base my viewpoints, at least tentatively, on reliable sources. Not on someones opinion based on someone else’s unsubstantiated opinion, etc..

    1. Vinaire, is this another example of you throwing out a generality for which you have no research or any statistics that you base it on? That would be a blatant logical fallacy.

      And don’t give me the unevaluated statistical data related to the CoS as that would be further proof of a poor scientific protocol on your part since it would be ignoring the many arbitraries that have entered in and would show your lack of knowledge about those and lack of understanding about variables in general.

      Maybe you are one of the “stuck records” as Geir put it, or “broken records” as I would put it.

  6. It is not a question of there being gains or not. We all known there are gains, even those that decry them.

    As has been pointed out, it is more about the ‘case’ of the individual who decries scientology than about eh philosophy itself.

    The philosophy and religion of scientology is as far from the official church (consisting of the private non profit company called Church of Spiritual Technology, the Religious Technology Center and the Church of Scientology International) as it is possible to get and still be on the same planet.

    When Hubbard was alive the church did indeed practice scientology and expanded and helped many people to become more aware as beings. The philosophy was promoted and people were welcomed into the church. Families and family life was promoted and the cost of the services were reasonable.

    After his death, however, a new regime took over and all that changed. The emphasis became money dedication to the exclusion of all else and a paranoiac obsession that anyone not with the church was against it. Church members were not allowed to look at the internet or anything the church management deemed contrary to church doctrine. A classic case of violating one of the basic doctrines of the philosophy.

    Many of the original followers that assisted Hubbard with his research were booted out. Scripts and books were changed and a very effective 1984 job has been done on the literature and auditing and training, the basic services the church was set up to deliver, is at a stand still.

    Even the wife of Hubbard, a tireless supporter, has become persona non gratis with the church.

    The philosophy of scientology is not practiced in the church. The church is now a vehicle for making money, not for “spreading the word”. It is a misnomer to say that that the church practices scientology because it does not anymore. The only scientology you will find practiced, is outside the church, in the Scientology Freezone.

    Most of the current critics are critical of the church, not the philosophy, the basic principles of which they are probably unaware. Many get confused of course and cannot, or do not differentiate between the message and the messenger. In this case it is the messenger that has turned sour.

    But what is of concern is that many critics, and the fellow in the street does not have a clue about what scientology is. All one gets is rhetoric and a diatribe of, “its bad”, “Scientology kills people” or “scientologists eat babies” and other such idiocies. No, the church may participate in dubious activities but certainly any self respecting scientologist will not as it goes against the very principles by which he or she subscribes. The bald ignorant statements of, “they be all bad over there” is not a sound approach for adjudicating the merits or otherwise of any philosophy, whether practices by critics or church alike.

    Ask people if they know what the ARC triangle represents, or what is a stable datum or what the eight dynamics are and they would not have a clue. How many people actually know what scientology is? Not very many! They do not even know the basics of real scientology.

    But their criticism of the church is very different kettle of fish, and very very understandable. In the eye of the freezone scientologist, the church has committed the unpardonable sin of suppressing the original philosophy and, instead, imposed an authoritarian dictatorship totally at variance with the original philosophy. So it comes as no surprise when the church gets attacked with such vehemence. It is a betrayal after trust. A failure to deliver what was promised. Indeed an active suppression of that which is supposed to be delivered.

    Unfortunately the baby often gets thrown out with the bath water and that is what is occurring here.

    By contrast, the International Freezone Association (IFA) is committed to keeping alive and practicing the original philosophy as researched and discovered by Hubbard. People participate and become members, supporting the IFA in its purposes of preserving, protecting and promotion the original philosophy.

    The International Freezone Association (IFA) is an independent scientology group consisting of scientologists who prefer to stick with the original philosophy and technology as researched and developed by Lafayette Ron Hubbard.

    The IFA has become an alternative for the seeker of truth and a second chance at freedom for the true scientologist. A safe haven for scientologists world wide. An alternative to the church that is scientology in name only and practices the original philosophy no more.

    There is no hidden agenda here and, although the church may own the trademark to the word scientology, they do not own the trade mark to the truth.

    1. Michael, the points you list out may not be the whole truth about each of them but I believe they contain the most truth by far. Thank you for going to the trouble of writing it up so thoroughly and so well!

  7. Why is it so important to some that Scientology must not be seen to work?

    Because they’ve made up their mind?


      1. Because what is true for you is true… is a 2-way street. And I also think that some see it from the perspective that the good doesn’t outweigh the bad since many of the reported gains in Scientology can also be gotten through other techniques and practices.

        1. Can you give specifics on that? What other techniques and practices give the same gains Geir reports to have gotten, for example? Sincere question.

          1. I will, in about a week… I have company visiting from afar for the holidays that has my time online spread thing and I want to put that answer together carefully and give it my full attention.

            1. Thank you so much! That’s appreciated.

              Enjoy the rest of the holidays with your company. 🙂

      2. I was kind of making a joke, (Dennis you got that right) but perhaps the joke does have a basis in reality — it is sometimes referred to as confirmation bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

        There are a number of explanations for it, and you can read them on wikipedia. The one that makes the most sense to me is cost-benefit analysis, which is an effort to avoid making costly errors i.e. the individual takes a position based on perceived threat or possible harm. Having taken the position, then confirmatory thinking (rather than exploratory thinking) comes into play, which accepts information that strengthens the position and refuses information that doesn’t. It seems logical to me that the higher the perceived risk/cost then the greater the consideration bias will be, especially so where there has been considerable anguish or damage. As the article points out, where there is extreme threat, antagonism or opposition, individuals stop thinking things through and simply assert their personal opinions without justification.

        AnonLover suggested that it is “what is true for you is true for you” — a two way street. I would think that this would contribute to confirmation bias or produce confirmation bias as selective thinking is employed to achieve consistency in what is true for oneself.

        So I guess it is a function of thinking and the effort to avert, avoid, prevent, attack that which seems to be dangerous — i.e. one has made up one’s mind about the risk / benefit of something and then the evidence aligns to that and reinforces it.

        1. Maria is brilliant as usual. I like to joke that we live in a tautological universe, thus a “confirmationally biased” universe — seriously though, we do.

      3. Geir, see the lower ethics conditions….my two comments….see the point? If you have different reality, please enlighten me…and also, why you made it to the “Top” is that YOU were PRESENT there all along…..is that right?

      4. I don’t think it is a made up mind. It is simply the enjoyment of negative emotions.
        Or, the betrayal experienced by the person being negative regarding Scientology is still an uninspected wound and the emotions are talking.

        And, some people just love to hate. Like going to cock fights, some people enjoy the darker side, the excitement of it.

      1. Noted! I like that date.
        Also like this discourse and your article. I have never gotten into the ESMB for one reason or another, but when link provided, I do read it, thanks.

  8. Here is my summary assessment of Scientology.

    1. Scientology consists of much ground breaking work by Hubbard.

    2. Scientology introduces a whole new plateau to addressing the problems of the mind.

    3. The work on this breakthrough is, however, far from complete.

    4. The success from the application of Scientology is far from consistent.

    5. Any lack of success gets blamed on the practitioner of Scientology.

    6. Unmanageable difficulties seem to exist in the application of Scientology.

    7. Correction lists have become a part of “Standard Scientology.”

    8. A closer look at Scientology shows a lack of application of the principle of poka-yoke.

    9. Looking is the key to successes in Scientology auditing.

    10. Scientology does not seem to put emphasis on Looking.

    11. Scientology takes up Looking on TR0 exercises and Obnosis, but it fails to treat Looking systematically, and fails to highlight its importance in auditing.

    12. The principles of Looking were first elucidated by Buddha 2600 years ago.

    13. Looking, when applied as mindfulness, seems to provide poka-yoke to Scientology processes.

    14. The principles of Looking are presented on this blog under the heading: KHTK Looking.

    15. KHTK incorporates Buddha’s original exercises.

    16. KHTK plans to take a look at the various processes in Scientology.


    1. I think that the immediate reason is huge polarization of those people.
      Their tendency to become polarized has never been handled in scientology and now only has the opposite vector. Those people usually suffered a lot of spiritual pain and treasons in relation to scientology one way or the other, so I would see that as the reason for turning of the vector.
      Are those factors handleable with scientology itself? Perhaps the pain and the treasons, but I don’t think that they would let a scientologist handle their case when they can’t trust scientology any more. And polarization? Just have look how extremely polarized some successful scientologists actually are! Scientology doesn’t seem to actually handle polarization.

  9. I don’t think it is important to some that Scientology must not be seen to work. That is the wrong question to ask.

    The correct question would be: Why are they so opposed to Scientology?


  10. That’s a VERY different question, Vin. There is no shortage of reasons for people who lump the entirety of scientology; Tech, Admin, Ethics, whacky cultic behaviour, oddball solutions to perceived problems adopted along the way etc into the catch-all descriptive label, “scientology”. I’m opposed to the craziness of the CofS but not to scientology (as I define it) per se. There seems to me to be a lot of what Geir is referring to in his question. I think it’s an unwillingness or failure to really see what one is looking at, an unwillingness to allow that anything good could possibly come from that thing labelled “scientology”. Some might even suggest it’s a fear. 🙂

  11. Marildi: Can you give specifics on that? What other techniques and practices give the same gains Geir reports to have gotten, for example? Sincere question.

    Chris: I think that it is safe for me to say that each and every religion, religious and spiritual and mental health practice give the gains that Geir reports to have gotten. Let me explain why I think so: It is a person’s desire for personal peace and harmony which drives spiritual “gains,” rather than technique. I can go on at length but I better leave my sincere answer short.

    1. I think the same way. But I also think that Scientology has something uniquely positive to contribute. I have incorporated that uniqueness of Scientology in KHTK.


  12. “Why is it so important to some that Scientology must not be seen to work?”

    Has this question been asked of people who are being accused of this behavior? what do they have to say?

    Otherwise, it is just a rhetorical question to get people’s reactions… or confirmation bias! 🙂


  13. The SCN tech is a very broad generality. I wouldn’t be surprised if people audited by some person who doesn’t actually intend to help, don’t have any gains. You see, even if that ‘auditor’ has parroted the words well and keeps some basic TRs, if he is not in actual ARC (above 1.1) and doesn’t want to help increase that person’s self-determinism, he will not. Without a Cause, nothing happens. And that is basic in SCN. If the auditor is not cause over the PCs case with the intention to help, it doesn’t happen. Auditors that yell to their PCs, or think ‘what an asshole’, while they run the process, don’t help. On the other hand, even without any tech whatsoever, a good willing person could find ways to help with the mind or anything else. Consideration is senior to the mechanics of MEST. And SCN tech is supposed (by Ron) to be used un-squirreled, and that implies understanding (of Ron’s materials not the RTC’s materials) and willingness to help, and also the rest of the KSW 1 points. If the above is kept, then you can really check if and how it works.

  14. In my reality the first lower conditions (confusion, treason, enemy) must be cleared first…..By clearing them you get what/who you are!! That’s the critical point!
    What I saw was that many start with non-existence…..in the new “group”…..still having their “Bank/viewpoints” they are still creating…….so there comes about the “unconscious” conlicts of viewpoints.
    When I studied, I was there….kind of ” I am here, I am present”…..this viewpoint, the ” I ” could
    see/study/audit what WAS THERE! I had continuous gains….up to power…..

    1. Per the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT, this is what you are:


      [All perception ends as knowledge. Knowledge has many layers, such as, experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles and axioms. Considerations arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge. As considerations become fixed, the perception point becomes a “center of consideration” analogous to the concept of “center of mass” in Physics. This is SELF.]

      THIRTY-SIX: Perception starts with a desire to know. Almost immediately it becomes experience.

      THIRTY-SEVEN: Over time, experience is converted into information. Information then leads to hypothesis. Hypothesis generates theory. From theory are derived principles. Principles are consolidated into axioms. Axioms are then condensed and incorporated as self.

      THIRTY-EIGHT: Thus, the spectrum of knowledge consists of experience, information, hypotheses, theories, principles, and axioms.

      THIRTY-NINE: Considerations arise as the perception point interacts with knowledge.

      FORTY: To the degree these considerations become fixed, the perception point becomes the “center of considerations” analogous to “center of mass” in Physics. This “center of considerations” is SELF.


  15. Yes vinaire, to look and as-is and be more responsible and self determined and aware and so on. Those are interconnected things. One brings another.

    1. Spyros, I have felt uncomfortable about the concept of responsibility in Scientology, as it seems to get used to manipulate people. I prefer a Buddhistic model as follows:

      (1) Considerations have properties of their own. They interact with each other like different atoms and molecules react with each other. I call this the chemical model.

      (2) “I” is simply the “center” of a cluster of considerations. It does not create or manipulate considerations. That is just an apparency. Considerations interact on their own based on their properties and vicinity. “I” is simply a portal to them.

      (3) Self-determination would be the ability of the considerations represented by the “I” to somehow modulate themselves. This is an area I want to look more closely at.

      (4) The resultant vector of these considerations appears as the purpose of “I”.

      (5) Most of these considerations in a cluster are very much fixed, just like the electrons in the inner shells around the nucleus of an atom is pretty fixed. Only the electrons in the partially filled outermost shell that interact with the electrons in outermost shells of other atoms.

      (6) So, I think that the laws that govern the interaction among these clusters of considerations are pretty much beyond “I”.

      (7) When a person advises another person, it is like one cluster of considerations interacting with another cluster of considerations.

      Anyway, this is enough for now. I am continuing to look.


    1. From Tech Dictionary:
      L-12, the Flag OT Executive Rundown. (CG&AC 75) See also L-10M .



      Name: ______________________________ Date: ______________________________

      01. GOOD

      Good ________ Right ________

      Virtuous ________ Moral ________

      Nice ________ Kind ________

      Ethical ________ Polite ________

      02. BAD

      Bad ________ Wicked ________

      Naughty ________ Sinful ________

      Unethical ________ Immoral ________

      Unkind ________ Impolite ________

      03. SANE

      Sane ________ Rational ________

      Sensible ________ Logical ________

      Analytical ________ Reasonable ________

      Lucid ________ Clear minded ________

      04. INSANE

      Insane ________ Irrational ________

      Not sensible ________ Illogical ________

      Reactive ________ Unreasonable ________

      Crazy ________ Foolish ________

      05. STABLE

      Stable ________ Reliable ________

      Sturdy ________ Dependable ________

      Uninfluenced ________ Unmoveable ________

      Sure ________ Certain ________

      06. UNSTABLE

      Unstable ________ Unreliable ________

      Weak ________ Undependable ________

      Easily influenced ________ Swayable ________

      Unsure ________ Uncertain ________

      07. CALM

      Calm ________ Cool ________

      Collected ________ Not dispersed ________

      Fast thinking ________ Clear thinking ________

      Aware ________ Concentrating ________

      08. DISPERSED

      Dispersed ________ Rattled ________

      Confused ________ Ruffled ________

      Slow thinking ________ Unaware ________

      Scattered ________ Unsettled ________

      09. HAPPY

      Happy ________ Cheerful ________

      Glad ________ Contented ________

      Cheery ________ Euphoric ________

      Merry ________ Light hearted ________

      10. DEPRESSED

      Depressed ________ Unhappy ________

      Cheerless ________ Discontented ________

      Sad ________ Disappointed ________

      Heavy hearted ________ Upset ________

      11. COMPOSED

      Composed ________ Together ________

      Calm ________ Peaceful ________

      Contented ________ Unastonished ________

      Satisfied ________ Comfortable ________

      12. NERVOUS

      Nervous ________ Distracted ________

      Unsettled ________ Peaceless ________

      Not contented ________ Astonished ________

      Surprised ________ Dissatisfied ________

      Uncomfortable ________ Turbulent ________

      13. CERTAIN

      Certain ________ Guaranteed ________

      Sure ________ Assured ________

      Positive ________ Definite ________

      Firm ________ Decisive ________

      14. UNCERTAIN

      Uncertain ________ Questioning ________

      Unsure ________ Doubting ________

      Impositive ________ Indefinite ________

      Wavering ________ Indecisive ________

      15. ACTIVE

      Active ________ On the go ________

      In motion ________ In action ________

      Lively ________ Energetic ________

      Vigorous ________ Mobile ________

      16. INACTIVE

      Inactive ________ Stopped ________

      Slow ________ Lazy ________

      Sluggish ________ Lethargic ________

      Lacking energy ________ Immobile ________

      17. AGGRESSIVE

      Aggressive ________ Attacking ________

      Warlike ________ Antagonistic ________

      Outgoing ________ Overt ________

      Enterprising ________ Causative ________

      18. INHIBITED

      Inhibited ________ Defending ________

      Retreating ________ Defeated ________

      Withdrawing ________ Covert ________

      Restrained ________ Holding back ________


      Responsible ________ Causing ________

      Causative ________ Caring ________

      Open ________ Willing ________

      Trustworthy ________ Reliable ________


      Irresponsible Uncausing ________

      At effect ________ Uncaring ________

      Unwilling ________ Negligent ________

      Untrustworthy ________ Unreliable ________

      21. CAUSATIVE

      Causative ________ Doing ________

      Influential ________ Powerful ________

      Making things happen ________ Dynamic ________

      Effective ________ Strong ________

      22. UNCAUSING

      Uncausing ________ Doing nothing ________

      Uninfluential ________ Weak ________

      Feeble ________ Powerless ________

      Ineffective ________ Useless ________

      23. PRAISING

      Praising ________ Validating ________

      Respectful ________ Granting beingness ________

      Worshipping ________ Observant ________

      Factual ________ Acknowledging ________

      24. CRITICAL

      Critical ________ Nagging ________

      Condemning ________ Disrespectful ________

      Fault finding ________ Unobservant ________

      Disparaging ________ Berating ________


      Appreciative ________ Warm ________

      Friendly ________ Sympathetic ________

      Loving ________ Grateful ________

      Kind ________ Tolerant ________


      Unappreciative ________ Cold ________

      Unfriendly ________ Cruel ________

      Unloving ________ Ungrateful ________

      Unkind ________ Intolerant ________


      Communicative ________ Outgoing ________

      Friendly ________ Sociable ________

      Talkative ________ Outspoken ________

      Forward ________ Unreserved ________

      28. WITHDRAWN

      Withdrawn ________ Introverted ________

      Unfriendly ________ Unsociable ________

      Shy ________ Retiring ________

      Reserved ________ Embarrassed ________

      29. IMMORTAL

      Immortal ________ Surviving ________

      Enduring ________ Lasting ________

      Undying ________ Ageless ________

      Timeless ________ Living forever ________

      30. MORTAL

      Mortal ________ Dead ________

      Dying ________ Growing old ________

      Aging ________ Tiring ________

      Wearing out ________ Expiring ________

      31. RIGHT

      Right ________ Correct ________

      Accurate ________ Infallible ________

      Faultless ________ Perfect ________

      Precise ________ Exact ________

      32. WRONG

      Wrong ________ Mistaken ________

      Inaccurate ________ Making mistakes ________

      Faulty ________ Imperfect ________

      Erroneous ________ Blundering ________


      Owning everything ________ Possessing ________

      Rich ________ Having ________

      Taking ________ Greedy ________

      Seizing ________ Grasping ________


      Owning nothing ________ Deprived ________

      Poor ________ Couldn’t have ________

      Giving ________ Losing ________

      Wanting ________ Bereft ________

      35. EVERYONE

      Everyone ________ All encompassing ________

      Embracive ________ Permeating ________

      Reaching out ________ Everywhere ________

      Always ________ Infinite ________

      36. NOBODY

      Nobody ________ Nothing ________

      Very little ________ Retreated ________

      Shrunk ________ Nowhere ________

      Never ________ Tiny ________

      37. TRUTHFUL

      Truthful ________ Faithful ________

      Trustworthy ________ Honest ________

      Honorable ________ Decent ________

      Loyal ________ Steadfast ________

      38. LYING

      Lying ________ Faithless ________

      Dishonest ________ Treacherous ________

      Untrustworthy ________ Deceitful ________

      Disloyal ________ Unscrupulous ________

      39. REAL

      Real ________ Actual ________

      Factual ________ Authentic ________

      Down to Earth ________ Realistic ________

      Genuine ________ Sincere ________


      Hallucinating ________ Unreal ________

      Dreaming ________ Imagining ________

      False ________ Illusory ________

      Psychotic ________ Disassociated ________

      41. BELIEVING

      Believing ________ Trusting ________

      Accepting ________ Dependent ________

      Convinced ________ Swayed ________

      Unquestioning ________ Gullible ________

      42. SKEPTICAL

      Skeptical ________ Distrustful ________

      Suspicious ________ Questioning ________

      Doubting ________ Dubious ________

      Discrediting ________ Challenging ________

      43. EXISTING

      Existing ________ Substantial ________

      Solid ________ Unshakable ________

      Definite ________ Firm ________

      Self confident ________ Sturdy ________

      44. NON EXISTENT

      Non existent ________ Insubstantial ________

      Tenuous ________ Flimsy ________

      A non-entity ________ Shaken ________

      Annihilated ________ Wiped out ________

      45. RIGHTEOUS

      Righteous ________ Pious ________

      Good ________ Virtuous ________

      Saintlike ________ Decent ________

      Moral ________ Godlike ________

      46. SINFUL

      Sinful ________ Wicked ________

      A devil ________ Evil ________

      Wrongdoing ________ Corrupt ________

      Criminal ________ Immoral ________

      47. HOPEFUL

      Hopeful ________ Expectant ________

      Confident ________ Assured ________

      Optimistic ________ Cheerful ________

      Looking forward ________ Positive ________

      48. DESPONDENT

      Despondent ________ Hopeless ________

      Pessimistic ________ Despairing ________

      Forlorn ________ Negative ________

      Cynical ________ Desperate ________

      49. KNOWING

      Knowing ________ Omniscient ________

      Understanding ________ Enlightened ________

      Learned ________ Educated ________

      Profound ________ Wise ________

      50. UNKNOWING

      Unknowing ________ Ignorant ________

      Unacquainted ________ Green ________

      Simple minded ________ Empty headed ________

      Dumb ________ Uninformed ________


      Intelligent ________ Smart ________

      Bright ________ A genius ________

      Brilliant ________ Quick witted ________

      Fast thinking ________ Adept ________

      52. STUPID

      Stupid ________ Unintelligent ________

      Dull ________ Moronic ________

      Retarded ________ Slow thinking ________

      Brainless ________ Robotic ________


      Exhilarated ________ Lively ________

      Animated ________ Invigorated ________

      Stimulated ________ Inspired ________

      In action ________ Excited ________

      54. BORED

      Bored ________ Sluggish ________

      In limbo ________ Enervated ________

      Dulled ________ Dreary ________

      Numbed ________ Slow ________


      Enthusiastic ________ Eager ________

      Earnest ________ Intense ________

      Zestful ________ Ardent ________

      Ecstatic ________ Vivacious ________

      56. APATHETIC

      Apathetic ________ Weary ________

      Lethargic ________ Uncaring ________

      Unmoved ________ Untouched ________

      Unaffected ________ Unconscious ________

      57. INTERESTED

      Interested ________ Curious ________

      Intrigued ________ Fascinated ________

      Attentive ________ Enticed ________

      Lured ________ Awakened ________


      Not interested ________ Disinterested ________

      Bored ________ Repulsed ________

      Fatigued ________ Tired ________

      Wandering ________ Aimless ________

      59. CHEERFUL

      Cheerful ________ Cheerless ________

      Joyful ________ Delighted ________

      Bright ________ Sunny ________

      Jovial ________ Mirthful ________

      60. CHEERLESS

      Cheerless ________ Dismal ________

      Sad ________ Gloomy ________

      Wan ________ Weary ________

      Sorrowful ________ Woeful ________


      Antagonistic ________ Hostile ________

      Opposing ________ Aggressive ________

      Attacking ________ Spiteful ________

      Hating ________ Snarling ________

      62. FRIENDLY

      Friendly ________ Kindly ________

      Welcoming ________ Helpful ________

      Amicable ________ Amiable ________

      Neighborly ________ Peaceful ________

      63. ANGRY

      Angry ________ Annoyed ________

      Furious ________ Displeased ________

      Ill tempered ________ Vexed ________

      Violent ________ Peeved ________

      64. CONTENTED

      Contented ________ Calm ________

      Pleasant Pleased ________

      Gracious ________ Forgiving ________

      Tolerant ________ Mild ________

      65. AFRAID

      Afraid Fearful ________

      Cowardly ________ Terrified ________

      Petrified ________ Apprehensive ________

      Anxious ________ Intimidated ________

      66. COURAGEOUS

      Courageous ________ Brave ________

      Fearless ________ Confident ________

      Self assured ________ Bold ________

      Dauntless ________ Death defying ________


      Embarrassed ________ Ashamed ________

      Chagrined ________ Meek ________

      Contrite ________ Repentant ________

      Debased ________ Mortified ________

      68. PROUD

      Proud ________ Arrogant ________

      Brazen ________ Rude ________

      Self respecting ________ Ambitious ________

      Dignified ________ Stately ________

      69. SAD

      Sad ________ Griefy ________

      Tearful ________ Regretful ________

      Grief striken ________ Sorry ________

      Repentant ________ Making amends ________

      70. HAPPY

      Happy ________ Carefree ________

      Careless ________ Uncaring ________

      Unrepentant ________ Incorrigible ________

      Unrecalcitrant ________ Unbending ________


      1. You toss these coins as if to nullify. You waste. You waste meaning. These words have no meaning in of themselves. Not even meaning to me. I am sure you have made no meaning out of L12 to SOMEONE! But not me. This is not part of any L12 I did. I confronted PURPOSES, not words. Vinaire you challenge Hubbard on a continuous purpose. You are an op term of his. I don’t have any problem with that. I have challenged him myself as an op term, and even won! But that was over business. And that was over magic. You seem to know better on other levels. I wish that just once you would come out and state it. How you rose above the Hubbard madness and why. All you have to do is reveal your better bridge. We will all be at the opening party.

        1. I quoted L12 because you mentioned it without any explanation and it was a mystery to me. So, I looked on Internet and this is one of things I found.


  16. Who / What would ensure / insist whatever..Scientology doesn’t work? _____________

    What would be the purpose of the who / what? _____________

    etc. etc.

  17. Those guys who never agreed, that SCN works will of course not have gain. Therefore
    they insist that SCN doesn´t work. It is their right to insist, I think.
    I also have been thinking about it and tracked it back to the first day or book I read.
    When you hear about SCN, in a lecture a promo piece, or in a book, one of the first things Hubbard does is that he continiously is hammering (TR´3) into your mind that
    “SCN works”. All promo and PR for “WOGS” is made up this way. “SCN works”
    And the day, YOU AGREE Scn will work FOR YOU. And for those who never agreed
    it won´t.
    “WE ALL KNOW” we can´t levitate physical objects by toughts” WE AGREED WE CAN `T. But the guy who CAN who is able to do it, he NEVER AGREED (with the inability)
    VERY simple
    The guy who insists that SCN does not work is RIGHT. One should grant him beingness. From his view he is right, and therefore the discussion wether SCN works
    or not is useless.

    1. That’s right Spongebob, and to quote Maria, “Scientology doesn’t work, people work.” (Keeping in mind that it is a tautological universe.)

  18. Spongebob,
    WHO is it that agrees in the first place? Could be mama/papa/friend…
    any valence…..the I AM is that can give a true agreement….actually from that I AM on it is only exploring..that’s how the DOUBT formula starts….inform YOUR! – SELF….

    1. Marianne,
      A Thetan agrees.
      Look what happens in SCN when you do not agree with tech or policy.
      There is a bunch of correction tech available, like qual or ethics in order to get YOU
      in agreement with red or green. The allowance is that policy or tech is always right and functioning and when an individual does not agree the person will be corrected
      NOT policy or tech.
      The purpose of all the corrections is to get You in agreement, regardless how stupid
      a rule is.
      for example, I never agreed with SCN justice policy because it creates a cult frame
      and it knocks off every “WOG” justice, which cannot be applied. Its a justice free area
      where management CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT with their members without fearing consequences from out or INSIDE.
      And exactly this is the basis of all slavery and Hubbard can stick his justice policy in his ass. I disagrred and left and I insist that Justice policy DOES NOT WORK.
      Thank you for listening.

      1. Spongebob,
        Thank you for trusting me to tell me about your experiences. I got YOU and what you SAID. Lots of things came to mind but honestly, I can’t resolve what you are writing about
        in a short way, for now. Still, some questions:
        1. Does the word “thetan” appear in any of the Axioms?
        2. What’s your definition-understanding of a “thetan”?
        3. Why do you say that a “thetan” agrees” ?

        1. I don´t get your point, sorry.
          Sound to me a little bit nit-picky.

          All I say is: When one agrees, regardless the subject,incident,theme…etc then it becomes true for HIM! And usually its the person, the thetan the spirit, the soul, who agrees.

  19. The question is not if you have gains.
    The question is, dose Scientology deliver what its promise?
    and if what you pay for your gains V. promises justify the cost?

    1. I didn’t much mind if Scientology delivered what was promised as long as I got what I considered value for money in abundance.

        1. Me too, Dennis. This relates to one of the ways people try to make less of Scientology – they say that any benefit that occurs is a matter of one’s expectations or one’s faith or some such. Whereas, the actual thing that can and does occur is a gain that you never even thought about or imagined, much less expected. That’s because it really isn’t all a matter of one’s considerations (at least not the ones you are aware of in PT) – there is also the matter of what is inherent in the capability of the tech itself.

          p.s. Did I mention I’ve missed you? 😀

    2. I’m curious …

      How would you put a dollar value of ridding oneself of a major inability?

      A personal gain?

      A dream realized?

    3. I think that the gains many people have had from Scientology can also be gotten from other methods if those methods were organized and focused for today’s world. Scientology was unique in putting out a very organized and focused regimen.

      I have organized Buddha’s exercises in KHTK using mindfulness instead of e-meter and it is just as powerful if not more.

      I shall soon be reorganizing Scientology processes to run with mindfulness instead of e-meter, and putting them on my blog with proper instruction. These would be just as powerful as in Scientology if not more.


        1. I have no concept of any bridge. The only idea I have is that spiritual help should be free. So I am simply presenting what i have learnt from Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology and Idenics. It is in a form that people can benefit from it by themselves.


    1. Might be interesting…..(Geir says he was a single-minded technical expert = nerd when he started).
      Single (definition 5) : honest, wholly attentive, root def.: one, as one
      Mind (root def.) :spiritual activity

    2. Scientology is simply a word

      The practice & application of Scientology processes have always involved ‘looking’ in one form or another.

      Trying to create some chasm or difference between ‘looking’ and the subject is a non-starter.

      What is the def’n of ‘wall’ ?

      What is the def’n of ‘that’ ?

      What is the def’n of ‘at’ ?

      What is the def’n of ‘Look’ ?

      1. Scientology should have positioned itself with ‘looking’ but it did not. It positioned itself with ‘e-meter’ to appear scientific. It positioned itself with Christian religious terminology to evade taxes. And it positioned itself with Buddhism to appear authentic. To me, this is marketing as a business. It is far from having the purity, compassion and sincerity demanded of a sky high goal to help mankind.

        KHTK is positioned with ‘looking’ and it has absorbed all the good aspects of Scientology while actually being closer to Buddhism, which the subject of Scientology only pretended. It is very farcical to say that Scientology produces spiritual states far above those which were ever attained in Buddhism.

        Buddha was a noble person who was highly developed spiritually. Hubbard is said to be screaming in delusional states before he passed away with psyche drugs in his system to calm him down.

        I am not saying that Scientology is all bad. It has some ground breaking aspects to it that make the subject of spirituality more accessible to general public in modern age and time.

    3. I am a little suspicious. As you have discounted so many’s attestations as to Scientology work ability. Do you look at that? And if so many say it worked for them. how do you arrive to declare they are all wrong? All I have done in Scientology is LOOK. I don’t know what the fuck you were doing in your auditing sessions Vinaire. but it wasn’t what I was doing.

      1. Saying “Scientology works” is a generality. Seeing so much opposition to Scientology how can one say it works? One needs to look at what is it that works in Scientology and what does not.


  20. It is my opinion that Scientology doesn’t work at all, all by itself. It’s a body of data which doesn’t do anything, doesn’t work. You have to add a being who doers something with this body of data. THEN, maybe it will WORK. Some are able to make it work for themselves and with that they can change conditions in life. Some are not ABLE to make it work for themselves. They are made wrong compared to the promotions. Their Ser Fac’s starts up and they have to make Scientology wrong, not working. There is also the question of hidden standards which is basically the same. “Scientology did not handle my job situation or my hammertoes, therefore it doesn’t work”.

    1. Exactly. It is a two terminal Universe. A farmer grows a potato. You buy it and cook it. It doesn’t come out very tasty. Maybe the farmer used too much manure. Maybe the cows got into some garlic that made the milk that got poured onto the potato. The cook bears all the responsibility. The ones who come to eat are permitted platform to criticize. You get into a relationship. You make one person jealous another one feel more assured. You bring a child into the world. He doesn’t like the world. You bring four more they love the world. All in life is a sharing matter and co create. Three of us did L11 together. Two of us were blown out of our mind. The other, 40 and still living with his mother, said, “I expected more than this because of the promo.” Turned out he had lied, said he was an OT3. He was I guess, only OT3 was the only thing he had ever done in Scientology! Looking for a quick fix. Someone says the a word. “Judge”. eighty people blow charge and 10 get fired up as if they have been attacked. It is the person who spoke the word that becomes the target or the savior. The fact that is a two terminal universe escapes so many Scientologists. I think that auditors are the most courageousness people in the world. Everytime they sit down for a session they begin a marriage, only to discover, often, they are the only one in the relationship. The other is in “Must be contributed to” because they paid dollars. Not acknowledging what the auditor has paid in terms of time, expense, and trust, and love for humanity, just to be in a position to help. Sometimes they find a partner who is in it for both to win. In my entire life I have only set one auditor up for a loss. He was too drunk two days in a row to audit me, after I showed up and listened to him for 24 hours. Even then I forgave him, and told him to keep the money and have a vacation on me. He had been auditing for decades. He had been used. He was tired. he was lonely. He had been run into the ground by p.c.’s. I could not add to his burden. Some of us can make the best of a marriage. An auditing cycle is a marriage. So many contracts are made with only one having to perform. It is usually the one that does not have to perform, that feel they must be contributed to. A p.c.’s results are like everything else, in accordance to their performance. I know it looks like they are “customers”. But you have to rise to meet the occasion. The auditor wants to help you. Let him. Help him help you. A p.c. or student can people up for losses too. There is a natural justice that is holy. Things always turn out in a just manner. A workable technology was placed here. Some contribute to that workability and others nullify. It’s O.K.. Better to have a no exclusion. Every person makes his own way in glory or defeat depending on who he is. These are laws of nature. And Scientology simply could not rise above all of that. And you know what? Perhaps that is a justice within itself. Thank You for being here and making the very best of this magic.

      1. Hi Oraclemysticism,
        “Things always turn out in a just manner”.
        “There is a natural justice that is holy”.
        Thanks for writing it! Joy to read it! I liked your personal examples! Wish you the warmth of the
        forthcoming wins! Magic, that is!

          1. Oraclemysticism,
            Thank YOU oraclemysticism ! I wish you the joy of YOU creating each instant wherever You are in that instant! Come more often to the blog as in this way YOU and your Creations reach far….write about personal wins…..as they are….the one that you wrote about the auditor showed true compassion….as truth has this quality….the “reader” in this way can “touch into” this flow….that is find that flow in oneself…..it helps get the solid get softer…..live com. affinity,
            that’s the “name of the game”.

      2. Great write up oraclemysticism,

        I liked the various examples you gave.

        It’s like a dance – the auditor & pc , or, student & supervisor work together for gain. Be it charge off the case or concepts fully realized so they can be applied in life, the Auditor & Supervisor are not in it for themselves but in it for others.

        If a student or PC does want to discover, they can. If the student or PC is there for another purpose then the results will be the tale. It is an evolution and a path to discovery and takes honest participation of all concerned.

        Interesting you brought up the example of a ‘quick fix’. Many PCs at the time were buying L’s (heavily promoted by Flag) as a quick fix to what they perceived as their troubles. Some did well, but many bombed when they returned. Similarly, Freewinds or Flag only courses were being sold to ‘handle your money’, or whatever – all promoted as a quick fix ride to OT.

        Unfortunately, I haven’t found it works that way.

        For me, One is as OT as he can Cause things (and I don’t mean taking advantage of others). An individual may be OT in certain areas but terrible in others. It doesn’t make him any less OT in those areas he excels in. But, this can also be used by the ‘anti’ crowd of which we see a few on this and other blogs/boards, and used to nullify the whole subject or the person himself.

        It’s people like these that I really don’t have much time for – they are short-sighted, continually have to assert themselves, have to be right/above it all, and crave attention.

        It’s the difference between being ‘interested’ or being ‘interesting’. The former is that of an Auditor or Supervisor; the latter … well.

        Are or have there there ‘auditors’ that chew(ed) up their PC’s? Sure.

        But were they really auditors? I think not.

        By their actions …

        Overall to me it is a grand evolution of the spirit and a heck of a game.

        1. Thank you for the kind acknowledgement Dennis. We certainly have been amused by the entire magical theater. Happy New Year.

      3. Yes, it is a two terminal universe. That means that a concept and its opposite may be presented as two ends of the same scale. Thus, good-bad may be presented as two ends of the same scale.

        This shows the relativity of such concepts. Thus there can be infinite degrees applied to any concept. Good to bad on a scale have infinite number of relative values of goodness and badness in between.

        Criticism is spotting the correct value on a scale. Thus criticism is always relative. It is never absolute.

        Criticism has to do with spotting inconsistencies. Inconsistencies are always relative. It is one value relative to another. But the two values don’t seem to make sense against each other.

        So, Dianetics claims engram to be the single source of all aberrations. Later research shows that there are other factors involved, and maybe the concept of engram needs to be expanded upon. The absolutist statement “engram is the single source of all aberrations” no longer holds water. Yet the Dianetics theory is promoted as before. This presents an inconsistency. And this is pointed out by the critic because criticism deals with inconsistencies.

        Thus, criticism is a valuable function. It allows a new look at inconsistencies so they can be resolved and further progress can be made. Another inconsistency comes about when the critic is attacked for pointing out inconsistencies.


        Sent from my iPad

  21. Scientology is for the ABLE, to make him more ABLE, but if he is not ABLE to make it work, then it isn’t for HIM.

      1. Have you gone hallucinatory? No Qualifications? There is an ENTIRE division called QUALIFICATIONS. There are check sheets and attestations for qualifications. Vinaire you are TRIPPING! Sorry brother you are TRIPPING! Go tell that to someone who spent six fucking years getting through the B.C.. How dare you invalidate the credentials of the effort and study put in here by others! No credentials? Have you gone MAD?

        1. What I meant was that Scientology claims to work pretty much with all cases (ref: DMSMH). That hasn’t panned out. We see so many people dissatisfied with Scientology to the point of opposing it strenuously. How much of it can be justified?

          One must look at Scientology as a whole, and not just defend bits and pieces of it. There has to be some basic reason for all this opposition to Scientology.

          Swearing at me would not help raise approval ratings of Scientology.. Your behavior violates Discussions and what needs to be avoided.


          1. By simply flying off the handle, and not getting into a proper discussion,.oraclemysticism is not setting up a good example for a Scientologist


            1. Oh you were a tricky thing to get that protest read from me. Very well, I am only a guest in this house. You are correct, I set a bad example. But since you mentioned there were no qualifications, in Scientology, I took you at your word. Why should I care to qualify as a good example? A “good example” would suggest standards with qualifications would it not? So you agree you yourself have qualifications for what a “good scientologist” should behave as. O.K. let me ask you this, what kind of example for good behavior are you setting, when you sit at the table with a culture and invalidate that culture? Because there is a culture within this arena my darling sweet. My lovely Vinaire, you do know you sit amongst those that have made great study in Scientology arts and perfected their craft. And you discount it all by suggesting it does not meet any significant qualifications. It’s just that, I see a very lovely but subtle form of social abuse you visit upon others and it makes me want to intervene. Not because I am any fanatic of Scientology. But because I tend to have an intolerance towards crafty abuse. Scientology matters to those that think it matters. And that is a thing you are capable of granting. People have a right to decide what matters to them, and what is important to them. You are not in doubt about Scientology, clearly. So I am thinking your condition is around enemy. If you are parked in an enemy condition, you will of course visit social abuses upon those in your midst. The point is, it’s your condition Honey. Not theirs. Maybe they don’t want to be parked at doubt or lower. Now, I ask, why? Why are you in a lower condition of enemy? Is it because you want to mean and violate people? No. These only accumulate as continuous overts on those who only really want to care for you. Then why? Because you are busy op terming. You go onto forums where people attack Scientology, and then you defend it! It’s this obsession to op term that keeps you in this enemy condition. And this is exactly the case that gets handled on L12. Can you imagine living without the compulsion to op term? Of course, as you do the L you have to take the education with you out into the world and think with it. But this could dramatically change your life, and for those that know you, you could become a pleasure to co exist with. I have to run now and I will be off the grid for a while. So, have a happy new year and please consider my recommendation. Humbly and politely submitted for your contemplation. And meanwhile I will fix my op term issues with bullies. If you decide to get your L12, I recommend someone hugely experienced, and sober: Trey Lotz trey@relaypoint.net or Glenn Samuels. He was trained by Hubbard. glennsamuels@gmail.com and is the creme de la creme . Then there is always your good friend Karen. All the best, T.O.

          2. vinaire 2012-12-28 at 19:07

            ” That is simply a justification. Scientology claims to work without qualifications. ”


            vinaire 2012-12-30 at 13:45

            ” What I meant was that Scientology claims to work pretty much with all cases ”


            Hard-line statements (in reality – YOUR opinion) tend to get one caught up especially if they are not stated as ‘opinion’ as in ‘I think’, or ‘ The way I see it …’. Discussion is much better.

            It’s great to hear that you feel you have surpassed Hubbard and have organized some of Buddha’s writings although continuing to assert this may convince some, but can also attract the naysayers.

            This may be the difference between a sheep and one who can differentiate and observe.

            I don’t know … just rattling on here 🙂

            1. I have no such viewpoint that I have surpassed anybody. It is knowledge and knowledge evolves.

              Knowledge evolves by spotting and resolving inconsistencies. Anybodt can do it.

              That is the simplicity of it.


    1. Happy New Year Per. I do hope you go over and put yourself on the Scientologyreview forum as an auditor. , it would be such an asset to that site. You are a sure constant. Always as asset to the groups you support. And frequently there for the damsel in distress. Thank you for the choices you have made and for the people that you have helped. I know that is a multitude. XXOO

  22. The confusion comes because INDIVIDUALITY (being) is taken for granted in Scientology. It is not defined. Here is what I have added to the PHILOSOPHY PROJECT:


    [There is manifestation. There is perception of that manifestation when the perception-point separates from the manifestation. Thus, space is introduced. Space consists of a layer of considerations generated with the perception-point. This layer of considerations acts as a filter through which perception takes place. The filtered perception becomes the UNIVERSE. This perception-point looking through the filter becomes SELF. The self develops individuality through the generation of unique considerations.]

    FORTY-SIX: There seems to be a level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.

    FORTY-SEVEN: Then we have a level of considerations generated with SELF. This provides another level of knowledge.

    FORTY-EIGHT: The second layer is generated in reaction to the first layer of knowledge. It acts as an interpretative layer over the original knowledge.

    FORTY-NINE: Thus comes about a FILTER unique to the self, which modifies perception.

    FIFTY: This filter defines the SELF. It also defines the UNIVERSE for the self. It is made up of considerations generated with the self.


    1. Vin,
      YES!!! To the whole what you write! Questions to this observation: “There is perception of that manifestation when the perception-point separates from the manifestation.”
      1. What’s the “PURPOSE” of that manifestation’s “coming” about?
      2. What is the “SUBSTANCE” of that manifestation?
      3. Is THERE a perception-POINT? (THERE is perception………WHEN…….SEPARATES – can you clarify this THERE/WHEN/SEPARATION ? – what you get from your observation).

      1. Marianne, the answers to your questions are as follows:

        1. What’s the “PURPOSE” of that manifestation’s “coming” about?

        I have no idea. The manifestation is simply there per my observation.

        2. What is the “SUBSTANCE” of that manifestation?

        I have no idea; but it is generally considered to be matter, energy, space, time and considerations.

        3. Is THERE a perception-POINT? (THERE is perception………WHEN…….SEPARATES – can you clarify this THERE/WHEN/SEPARATION ? – what you get from your observation).

        All I get is this:


        [Philosophy still hasn’t sorted out fully what EXISTENCE is. There are many different views about it. In other words, different philosophers mentally perceive existence differently. It all boils down to perception. The problem of existence sorts out nicely when we define it in terms of perception.]

        ELEVEN: Self, space and manifestations are thought to be present.

        TWELVE: Thus, there is the consideration of EXISTENCE.

        THIRTEEN: Existence is made up of manifestation and its perception. When manifestation is present, it can be known only through perception. There is no perception when there is no manifestation.

        FOURTEEN: All that appears to be persisting is perception of manifestation because there can never be perception of non-manifestation.

        FIFTEEN: : What is being perceived is changing constantly. And that is the actual reality.


    2. You are suppressing information Vinaire. I realize you have a point to push but suppressing information and spreading false data falls into superstition and illusion. You are into abracadabra now. Our ride with Scientology has not taken you to any new town. You were right Vinaire. Hubbard had nothing new to offer you. Burt you will never convince me there is no value is there. Because I am not your prey. I am not a doubter of myself. Somehow you are coming off to me like a little Grim Reaper. Why don’t you just come and blurt YOUR own disagreements instead of trying to tell others what is true or not about Scientology. This is about YOU and HUBBARD. Don’t make it about me and HUBBARD.

      1. I am not trying to convince you or anybody of anything. I am simply presenting my observations.

        I am not interested in accusations. I am only interested in a discussion.

        If you want to discuss, you are welcome.


  23. Geir asks:

    Why is it important to some that Scientology doesn’t work?

    Simplistic, generalized answer to a simplistic, generalized question: To provide the information necessary for others to make informed decisions about their own involvement in Scientology, which information you will not be told my other Scientologists, or the Church.

    Simplistically, and generally: Informed decision-making is the goal and the intent of making sure that when someone promotes the benefits of Scientology, someone else makes sure to provide the times when that benefit did not occur, as well.

    I believe that Scientology both works and does not work. It is both beneficial and destructive. That’s because Scientology is made up of lots of little pieces, and each of these pieces tends to produce a particular result: a result particular to that piece.

    FOR INSTANCE: One piece, The PTS/SP Tech, once adopted, over time, tends to produce a person who sees evil everywhere. Just as Marty Rathbun pointed out in his blog post yesterday, the book “The Psychopath Test” seems to show this. Here’s a quick movie by the author that gives an overview:


    Another piece of tech, “Order vs Chaos” is truly a wonderful concept which can be applied quite beneficially by just about anybody.

    The problem is that these two pieces are under the generalized umbrella of “Scientology”. You get both when you become a “Scientologist”.

    So when somebody points out that “Scientology is very beneficial”, it is socially responsible to provide the additional information that “Scientology was not beneficial for me” and “Scientology is not beneficial for everybody.”

    For me, providing the additional information of the UNworkability of Scientology is an important public service activity which forwards the goal of providing the information necessary to others to make informed decisions about one’s involvement in Scientology. Once one has all the information they need to make informed decisions about Scientology, there is no need to warn them of the dangers in it.

    Are you sure, Geir, that what you were experiencing was really this: “Some seem hell-bent on proving that there cannot, must not be any shred of workability to the subject. Some goes quite nuts when another tells about gains they got from Scientology.”

    Or was it simply people who, when faced with someone who seems to be promoting Scientology’s benefits, without also warning people about its destructive traits, simply putting those destructive traits there, too, to ensure everyone had all the information they needed to make an informed decision about it?

    One could characterize the “pro-tech” crowd with a generalized mischaracterization, too. And it would be just as inaccurate and denigrating as you have been to some ESMBers here.


    1. It is quite obvious that almost any subject could be used to harm or help.

      It is also quite obvious that within any group of people, there will be those of good intent willing to help, and those with evil covert intentions bent on harming or self-interest.

      The Church is no different.

      The subject by itself does nothing.

      1. Actually, no. The subject by itself does quite a lot.

        When you study the 12 social and 12 anti social traits of people, and you accept those ideas from L Ron Hubbard as true, you will begin to see other people as he defined them “social” (per his definition) and “anti-social” per his definition.

        Seeing people this way has a very bad effect on a person because people do not exist this way. You begin to see the world and other people through a false filter, and you make decisions and take actions based on these falsities and cartoonish mischaracterizations of others which can have, and has had, very catastrophic results in peoples’ lives.

        The subject, once accepted and internalized, does do things, both good and bad.


        1. Exactly what I said …

          It takes a person to read and agree/disagree, interpret, etc for anything to occur.

          Why after reading tech materials would David Miscavige whack his pc?

          The written words he read made him do it ???


          1. Yes, the written words he read, as well as his experiences growing up at Int Base and seeing people treated with violence by LRH, as well as his own decisions about how to be “ethical” and “effective” within the Scientology Sea Org culture, made him do it.

            ALL the pieces existed to produce that result in David Miscavige’s training.

            Quite often, because LRH denigrated people as “victims”, Scientologists look away from the environment and the acts of others as causative pieces contributing to one’s own actions. A person responds to problems in his environment. If those problems weren’t there, or the environmental pressures were different, a person’s responses would mostly be different, too.

            Remember, there are four flows, PLUS an environment, for a human being to respond to through his actions. One must take into account ALL those factors if one is to truly understand one’s fellows and not fall for the Fundamental Attribution Error:



            1. Little bit of a tangent there, Al

              You were talking about someone reading and then acting in a poor manner.

              I saw a lot of crap over my 45 years studying this subject? Do I act in this manner? No

              You also mention the traits of a social & anti-social personality … do you remember the figure
              2 1/2% … how about the vast majority being well-intentioned?

              I’m sure you have your own personal gauge of personalities around you … or is everyone you meet good? Bad?

              Twisting a conversation or trying to accentuate what you consider poor points without also mentioning the 80% who try to make this little mudball a better place just does not wash.

            2. Dennis –

              My point is that Scientologists generally operating under the PTS/SP Tech, tend to condemn people utterly, such as David Miscavige. This utter condemnation of an individual leads to no understanding – “he’s just an SP!”

              I think Marty wrote a very important thing yesterday when he made the comment that “In many ways, David Miscavige is a product of the system.”

              This represents a sea change in the thinking that is taught in Scientology, by the teachings of the PTS/SP tech and the false teachings of “Total Responsibility”, and I believe that it opens the door to being able to see the real internal causes for the destructive things in Scientology.

              Beliefs lead to behaviors. Ideas lead to actions. If one is unable to or forbidden from inspecting the flaws in the subject of Scientology itself (which came about from LRH’s writings in KSW) then one will become the effect of the dangerous parts of Scientology.

              Just pointing out information which allows people to make more informed decisions about their involvement in Scientology, Dennis.

              I hope you had a good Christmas, and trust you will causitively ensure that you will have a Happy New Year.

              I know I will!

              Alanzo :>

            3. Got it …

              Like I said, it comes down to one’s own agreement/disagreement & considerations. Words by themselves do nothing but they sure can be used in a destructive fashion if one is bent on that sort of thing.

              Personally, I look for people who communicate well in an up-tone fashion, have a wild sense of humour and those who don’t attack others but attempt to better conditions for him/herself and those around him.

              Yes, i had a great Christmas with the kids visiting.

              I hope you had a great one too!

            4. Al, Marty made another comment too, regarding what he had posted and regarding literalness:

              “I think because while I can find dozens of similar LRH references for the proposition I forwarded I could just as easily find dozens that contradict it. In that scheme, insistence upon literalness then creates a form of schizophrenia”. http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/12/27/judgment/#comment-245808

            5. Yes Marildi –

              The contradictions in LRH’s writings in Scientology can lead severe blindness. “Schizophrenia” is not the word I would use. You can walk into an org like Int Base and see Scientology being applied all around you, perfectly standardly, and still say to yourself “This is not Scientology”.

              That’s because LRH wrote books in the early 1950’s, which he negated and contradicted in policies and tech from around the mid-1960’s on. Orgs, and especially the Sea Org, run on a very different Scientology than LRH depicted in his 1950’s books.

              So Scientologists, thinking with the books they read when they first got involved, can look at someone applying 100% standard KSW Scientology right in front of them, and still say to themselves “That is not Scientology”.

              They can do this for YEARS.

              Scientology is BOTH good and bad, destructive and beneficial. The dual, contradictory nature of LRH’s writngs – which can be generally separated by 1950-1965 or so, and 1967 – 1984 or so, must be comprehended in order to make sure you keep the good parts and throw out the destructive parts.

              Unless a person is willing and able to critically examine LRH’s writings in this way, they will end up mistakenly adopting destructive parts of Scientology and dramatizing it on others.

              Marty is a great example of a person like this.

              He seems to be coming up out of that now though.

              We’ll see.


            6. Al, the key phrase in his comment was “insistence upon literalness”. THAT’s what creates the schizophrenia.

              A person will have a problem with LRH materials if he’s too literal in their interpretation. The characteristic of literalness is taken up on the Chart of Human Evaluation.

            7. Marildi, “insistence upon literalness” is part of the foundation of Scientology ever since LRH created the Bridge, and the Sea Org, and Standard Tech, and Word clearing tech with HIGH CRIMES for passing a word that was not understood, false data stripping, High crimes for not applying 100% standard tech, etc, etc, etc.

              If by “schizophrenia” Marty meant “able to hold two contradictory ideas in one’s head and to not feel any dissonance from this” then, I’m sorry, I still have to disagree. It is a blindness – an ability to hold and to know two contradictory teachings on a subject and NOT SEE the one you do not want to see at the time.

              This is one of the ways the dissonance is reduced, actually. You simply ignore one of the contradictory teachings, and see only the other one.

              So I still have to say that it’s a blindness. It is a blindness that is rewarded by the feeling of consonance which comes from teaching yourself to be blind to the contradictions in LRH’s writings.

              Marty might mean many different things by the word “literalness”, I don’t know. I do know that “YOU ARE BEING TOO LITERAL!!!” was a common service fac used on others by Sea Org members in order to make people wrong for their interpretation of Scientology, and to dominate them, and to get them to introvert and to drop the way they see things.

              LRH literally meant what he wrote, when he was not using an analogy, or a metaphor in his writing. And he literally made it an ethics offence to not understand what he wrote literally, or to have a different idea, or interpretation, or application, than he wanted you to have.

              In fact, Marty’s use of the word “literalness” can be another example of the blindess that I am talking about: When Marty cautions people that they should not take LRH’s writings literally – when LRH is not writing metaphorically – Marty is blinding himself to all the LRH teachings and ethics offences LRH put into Scientology which contradict this.


              This kind of blindness, or self-deception, is a common human trait, by the way. It is not unique to Scientology, or to being a Scientologist. To spot this tendency in one’s self and to try hard to operate in a way that remains on the look-out for the contradictions on one’s thinking, and to seek to resolve them, rather than to simply ignore one side of them, is a good step up.

              And being able to do this with LRH’s writings themselves is a vital part of making sure Scientology remains as beneficial as possible for as many people as possible. Only a person who has consistently demonstrated this ability to spot the contradictions in LRH’s writings should be trusted with Scientology, in my opinion.


            8. Al, you wrote: “LRH literally meant what he wrote, when he was not using an analogy, or a metaphor in his writing”

              The point you’re missing is that literal people aren’t able to correctly discern what is and isn’t an analogy or a metaphor.

              Or else they are too literal to take context into consideration. Context: “the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc”. (Random House)

            9. Marildi:

              “Literal people”.

              You are thinking too much with Scientology here. There is no such thing as a “literal person”. There is the mistake in taking something literally when it was meant figuratively, but to say that there is a “literal person” is like saying there is a “figurative person”. You are referring to a mistake in understanding. This is not a person.

              And if you want context, this is one of the few times that I actually ever saw LRH establish an actual context for how his writings should be interpreted:

              Keeping Scientology Working Series 1

              Note: Neglect of this Pol Ltr has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out International effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. “Quickie grades” entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this Policy Letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not “entirely a tech matter” as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it.

              SPECIAL MESSAGE





              ALL LEVELS

              K E E P I N G S C I E N T O L O G Y W O R K I N G

              HCO Sec or Communicator hat check
              on all personnel and new personnel
              as taken on….

              That’s a pretty broad context for a fundamental policy in Scientology that is in the front of every course pack of every major course in Scientology.

              Are you not seeing this context when you are complaining about “literal people” who take LRH out of context?


            10. Al, you are taking my phrase “literal people” too literally. 😀

              Kidding you but you’re probably right. It would be better to phrase it “people who are being literal”. That way, it doesn’t fixedly label them and grants them the potential of raising their tone to a less literal level.

              As for KSW 1, I don’t think it negates what I said about context. That particular context is explicitly stated, but as you know most writings do not do so. Thus, it often takes some intelligence (the antithesis of literalness) to determine it.

              However, people do misinterpret KSW 1 otherwise, IMO, by taking certain parts of it too literally. Or by doing just the opposite – they extend the meaning beyond what the words actually state.

              There’s no getting around it. Intelligence – ability to differentiate – is required in the understanding of Scientology (and many other things). And I believe the intelligence to correctly interpret it comes from a broad conceptual understanding of the whole.

            11. Wow!!

              Great comment Marildi – that last paragraph is a great one.

              Have I told you ….


            12. Thanks, Dennis. Your return has raised the level of theta and from there everything else goes up. 🙂

              (You have, but not lately… :P)

            13. Marildi wrote:

              There’s no getting around it. Intelligence – ability to differentiate – is required in the understanding of Scientology (and many other things). And I believe the intelligence to correctly interpret it comes from a broad conceptual understanding of the whole.

              I was going to leave our conversation where it was until you said this. I spotted this old, well-worn touchstone that you hear Scientologists repeat back and forth to each other, usually upon some news that Scientology failed to produce results, or was in some way destructive.

              I actually don’t think many Scientologists have examined this comforting idea they use to blind themselves to the true results of Scientology. When you really look at this, it does not make much sense.

              …”the intelligence to correctly interpret [Scn] comes from a broad conceptual understanding of the whole.”

              I have a friend, a very pro-tech person by the way, who is re-listening to all the tapes in chronological order, beginning in the very early 50’s. He is somewhere in the BC now, around 1964. He said that he is definitely beginning to see a tendency in LRH to blame his students for the unworkability of some processes. He is, more and more, beginning to not tolerate ideas that a process should be revised if it didn’t produce results, and he is starting to develop the “instant attack” tech he released a few years later in KSW #1.

              All right, there’s an all too typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: “That Process X didn’t work.” Instructor A: “What exactly did you do wrong?” Instant attack. “Where’s your auditor’s report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TA when you stopped Process X. What did you do?” Then the Pc wouldn’t have come close to a spin and all four of these would have retained certainty.

              In a year, I had four instances in one small group where the correct process recommended was reported not to have worked. But on review found that each one (a) had increased the TA, (b) had been abandoned, and (c) had been falsely reported as unworkable. Also, despite this abuse, in each of these four cases the recommended, correct process cracked the case. Yet they were reported as not having worked!”

              Now, here’s the thing. Have you ever had a Pre-Havingness Assessment run on you, or SOP Goals run on you? Probably not. Yet these were the incredibly complex and unwieldy processes he was coming out with during this time period – while he was blaming his students for being too stupid to understand Scientology well enough to get results with it. These processes did not stand the test of time – not because people were too stupid, but because they were unworkable.

              LRH had a hard time with criticism. But he could say that he knew more about Scientology than anyone else. Do you think it might be possible that L Ron Hubbard created a service facsimle about the workability of Scientology, and he expressed it, and taught other Scientologists to express it, by saying:

              …”the intelligence to correctly interpret [Scn] comes from a broad conceptual understanding of the whole.”?

              Because, really, what exactly is this “broad conceptual understanding of the whole” which is required to make Scientology work when it didn’t? Can you see that this is simply a way to get a person to look away from the thing that just happened, right in front of his own eyes, to explain it away, and to put off a decision until he has reached this mythical state of a “broad conceptual understanding of the whole.”?

              “We’re just trying to make the Introspection Rundown work here on Lisa McPherson, but it’s not working – not because it is the exact wrong thing to do to someone who is having a psychotic break – but because we have not yet achieved “a broad conceptual understanding of the whole.” yet.”

              Can you see how dodgy and manipulative this is?

              Talk about “moving the goal posts”!

              There are plenty of people who have studied Scientology and gotten all the way to the top, and realized that the subject is mostly contradictory and unworkable.

              Do you think that it is possible for these people to have achieved “a broad conceptual understanding of the whole” and still to conclude that Scientology is too unworkable to waste their time with any more?

              Or is having achieved “a broad conceptual understanding of the whole” the only state where someone would NEVER conclude that Scientology is too unworkable to waste their time with?


            14. …”the intelligence to correctly interpret [Scn] comes from a broad conceptual understanding of the whole.”?

              The broad conceptual understanding of the whole is much better expressed in KHTK. KHTK investigated <b"Factor #1 and Axiom#1 of Scientology and found inconsistencies in them. You can see the details on Vinaire’s blog.


            15. Simple, Al. That friend of yours who is listening to lectures and nattering about LRH has gone past a misunderstood word!!

              😀 Ha ha, messin’with ya again. (Although an MU is a distinct possibility… ;))

              You know, it isn’t that there aren’t things that can and should be questioned and things that deserve to be criticized. You are right about that! Just the same, there are people who do question and criticize who nevertheless swear by Scn and the tech and continue to practice it and continue to be happy with the results.

              Why is that? Well, my observation is that for the most part they (1) have grasped the basic philosophy of Scientology, and (2) they have had a fair amount of experience in its application, and (3) as a result, they are able to differentiate between the essence of the philosophy/tech and instances where LRH and whoever else went off the rails. Marty is just one of them; there are many others. That’s the short and sweet of it, IMHO.

            16. Al, why do you bother? It is completely, totally, 100% FALSE that David Miscavige “grew up” at Int base. According to Wikipedia, he was going to a public high school in Philadelphia when he was 16 years old, and decided he wanted to join the Sea Org. I’d call that already more than half “grown up”, before he even joined the S.O. Then, he did not work with LRH right at the beginning of his S.O. “career”.. He was at least 17 when he began working as one of LRH’s cameramen.

              It is misrepresentations like this, by you, that lead me to question all else you post. I think, “If Al lies about this, what else does he lie about?” You have done this kind of thing in many many posts – insert bits of outright false information, false history,false associations, when you think it will support or emphasize your point.

              Didn’t you ever read that LRH said don’t use lies in PR? They will come back to bite you. They are nothing but footbullets.

            17. Hi Valkov,
              Nice to read your comment…..nice to have you “back”. Warmth is coming from under your comment to Alanzo…..how are you doing these days? Care to come over to the Life thread if
              you like? Care to write a poem, or music?

            18. Typos sure make you MAD, Val.

              Even with all that Scientology you say you’ve studied, you still blow up like this at a typo.

              And here I was, finally thinking about getting back on the Bridge. I was going to ask you to be my auditor. But if a typo makes you react like this, think of what would happen if I told you about my farm animals!

              No way. Looks like I’ll just have to wait till next lifetime to finally get through my OTIII.

              Implant station, here I come!


  24. The desire to be acknowledged indicates presence of ego. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with having an unwanted condition either. These things are the way they are.


  25. For me, the auditing worked great. The admin tech was on and off. There were some great ideas there, but also some unworkable stuff, like the point system for getting paid, which violated USA labor laws, but this couldn’t be enforced because the org I worked in was legally a church.

    Now, on the other hand, I got most of my auditing after I was out. The staff members were there to act as practice dummies for students studying auditing; the students had been quickied, especially the Training Routines, and there were some spectacular screw-ups. I didn’t want any of that. But the one paid intensive I got was great, even if the auditor did initially louse something up. And the auditing I got after I was out was great.

      1. Vin,
        From one perspective……point 2.
        As IT (the ONE) is already “perfect”, “permanent”, “full” and “substantial”…….that ONE substance has the inherent abilities of perceiving and creating ….when a manifestation (one) appears, it also has these qualities and abilities….by reversing the process, the created manifestation (one) disappears….one gets perfect/permanent/full/substance of NO-THING/ONENESS…..one can “stay” AS THAT…..or start the cycle again…..this is the experience here…
        One “problem” with a “fixed” viewpoint could be the fear of change….the fear of the cycle itself…

        1. You might find this interesting:

          ABSOLUTE REALITY = There is nothing absolute
          BASIC REALITY = Everything is in a flux.
          BASIC DESIRE = To bring order
          SEXUAL DESIRE = To bring order at genetic level
          BASIC INCONSISTENCY = Inability to tolerate random motion.

          The thought came to my mind that the above conjecture may be tested by examining the effects of sexual stimulation.

          For example, it may easily be inspected what kind of neural impulses are sent to the brain with, for example, the rubbing of the tits (nipples on mammary glands), not just in humans but also in animals. One may then examine what kind of commands are sent from the brain to rest of the body as a response. One may then look for the confusion it creates at the genetic level. Probably, the parts that are most sensitive to this confusion are the sexual organs.

          One needs to define the parameters by which to measure confusion at genetic level.

          I think this is a very doable experiment. 🙂


          1. Great!!! Already tested!! That is sex! It has to do with the electric make-up of the body. Others who read it – test! The second dynamics is creation-sex. Electric impulses can be felt from the human bodies. These impulses may be the result of what I got when I had the question in my MIND what their source is….. this is what I got: two “empty”, yet rich in a kind of energy different from mest energy, “spaces ” collided which resulted in “lights” appearing….these “lights” retain the “remains” of the first collision. Can explain field, boson, gravity, electricity….

            Creativity, ” In-tuition” to me is “going” with the Flow….there seems to be an “underlying” CREATIVE ability of that ONE FLOW. When there is no ” I ” , the Flow Creates for the person…..that is when the “person” has a question, keeps it there, the Flow just “pops” up the “answer” …..actually all it takes is not to resist that flow….as the “person” is the creation of the
            Flow in the first place, the person asking the question already knows the answer as the person, the question and the answer are from the same SOURCE, CONSCIOUSNESS itself.
            This can be experienced….first-hand experience is knowingness and certainty….experiencing further is joy….I don’t know if there is an absolute….that flux, desire for order, inability to tolerate random motion can be experienced……..what yet to be explored……is……..what yet to be explored!!!…….to me it is out of FREE WILL itself…….this is the reality here now….
            Vin…..thanks for being with me now…..I love co-existence, co-thinking. co-creation!!! PURE JOY!

            1. Awesome! Your “works”, when I read them have an as-is-ing effect too! That’s why earlier I advised you the “pebble” game! I don’t know how you look at what you write …..that is let
              one “propositon” “observation” “drop-sink” through your mind and body…..then you will know from “experience” their TRUTH……for some time I wouldn’t turn to any other source….then again can come Plato, Aristotle, whoever you like…..

            2. Thanks, Vin! True! What I got from looking at the root of “need” and the “chain” root of concepts was ……tight/focused……. solution: less focus…..not in the least meaning to evaluate…….if it’s true for you……

            1. But how are you going to relate what happens with “confusion at genetic level”? That part needs to be worked out.

              One needs to look at what happens at the genetic level.


  26. Right Vin,
    Also, there is nothing wrong with “being” a human….having a body and mind…..’ I ‘ ” we ” created the genetic entity in the first place……’ I ‘ participated in creating ” my ” present body too…..there is nothing “wrong” with bodies, neither with the seemingly “solid” ones, nor with the
    “light, fluid ones” at the beginning of the track……the “body”, given the right/true view, is a beautiful creation……that right view can CHANGE the creation….can be “used free” as a tool in all sorts of games….and so can the “mind” at different “wavelenghts”……..I find it a mis-leading
    consideration that being a human is WRONG (any variation of this consideration). In my experience when one accepts/stops resisting being a human (that is one IS the body, IS the mind), the view/perception that ONE IS THAT VIEW that has/is creating the body/mind reveals itself. That moment the sense of ” I ” ceases to be created and what remains is just a FLOW. Fluid….which from then on “operates'” by different “rules”…..one can “get, create” a human viewpoint or not “create” a point of view…..that is “function” or “not function” as a human…..it’s a CHOICE point…..when one CAN and IS WILLING to BE and OPERATE like that, one is ON or OFF the wheel of life…..that’s my experience here. Rejection/resistance of ANY kind is a trap…it includes being a human….when one says that one IS a spirit/soul/theta, it is true….but when one says at the same time that one stops LOVINGLY creating the body/mind just beCAUSE !!! (cause !!!) they are ” human”, “robot” “a consideration is bad = has no valid function”, one gets into the “trap” of being the “unconscious”!!! “effect” of one CREATING those considerations and also the underlying created considerations of WHY one thinks that being a human is bad/wrong/not desirable/lower than etc.
    In my reality when ONE IS a CONSCIOUS LOVING CAUSE of creating ONE’s humanness, it is THE doorstep to any further exploration……

    1. Marianne, I don’t think in terms of right or wrong. So, I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a human. On the other hand, there is nothing right about being a human either. Right and wrong are alike secondary considerations, They are not fundamental to IS-NESS.

      My latest thoughts on the subject of identity are as follows:

      (1) Looking starts with unwanted condition. An unwanted condition makes one look.

      (2) An unwanted condition is Dukkha per the first noble truth of Buddha. It results from ‘imperfection’, ‘impermanence’, ‘emptiness’, and ‘insubstantiality’.

      (3) The physical and mental forces and energies are always changing. It is the desire to bring them into an enduring form that is enjoyable, pleasing and satisfying, which brings on the unwanted condition.

      (4) This is so because none of the desirable forms created out of physical and mental forces and energies can endure forever. What then persists is the desire for pleasing forms to endure. This brings about fixed attention, and that produces fixed considerations.

      (5) Self, as perception-point, is the perceived center of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies. As it starts to fix considerations about it in response to desires, it develops into an individual being.

      (6) Unwanted condition comes about as these desires and considerations starts to get wound up into complex configuration.

      (7) A tightly knotted set of considerations may appear as an “identity” with a certain purpose. But that purpose is simply the resultant vector of the desires embedded in those considerations

      (8) It is the fixedness of these considerations that creates the unwanted condition. Thus, an unwanted condition is a pattern fixed in space. There seems to be no way out of the unwanted condition.

      (9) Plato starts with the Ethical problem. This then leads to the Political problem. This, in turn, leads to the Psychological problem.

      (10) Plato then comes up with a solution to this Psychological problem. His solution is to indoctrinate people into believing in a personal God who can judge, reward or punish people.

      (11) Plato’s solution provided the groundwork for bringing about a system of faith that could make people behave themselves. We see this solution in action in Christianity and other faiths.

      (12) Here we are trying to resolve unwanted conditions by manipulating the desires and considerations, and fix them in “desirable” configurations. But as long as there are patterns fixed in space there would always be unwanted condition.

      (13) Resolution of unwanted condition would entail loosening of tightly knotted complex configurations of desires and considerations. It requires unfixing them, and not fixing them in some “desirable” pattern.

      (14) Considerations become volatile during intense confusions. Any decision made then fixes them as patterns in space. Such patterns are difficult to spot because they become part of the identity. One then uses them to look at everything. The identity then becomes the unwanted condition.

      (15) In short, an unwanted condition seems to be associated with a fixed identity that a person has assumed to handle some confusion.

      An unwanted condition could be the identity as a cult member. The person entered the cult to handle some confusion. The ideology of the cult helped handle that confusion by instilling a fixed pattern. A religious ideology could generate the identity such as that of a terrorist. This identity would be associated with a lot of unwanted conditions.

      A cult member, a terrorist, or a religious fanatic may not consider their identity to be the root of their unwanted condition because it is so much stable compared to their original confusion. But they would not be totally at ease and they would be looking for targets to blame.

      An unwanted condition seems to be associated with a fixed identity that a person has assumed to handle some confusion. No wonder many people are usually obsessed with the question, “Who am I?”


      1. I think you need a retread on Book 10 of the Republic, specifically the Myth of Uhrr. Probably an MU there (like a REJECTED DEFINITION!!!)

        But I would not want to evaluate for you.

        In the Republic, Plato says we choose our own lifetimes, and their fates. And it is our free will which determines our own destinies.

        Just because the East is on one part of the planet, and the West is on another, does not mean we are a different species, Vinaire. Maybe it’s all your lifetimes as a failed Christian Missionary which make you so bitter.

        But again, I would not want to evaluate for you.

        Like every good Scientologist, I follow the Auditor’s Code.


        1. LOL! Alanzo. What inconsistency in (9), (10), and (11) above you are pointing to?

          I am in the middle of studying Plato right now, and I don’t want to miss anything. 🙂

          Please don’t send me on a wild goose chase. Just put your understanding of Plato right here and I shall look at it totally non-judgmentally.


          1. Well this is specifically in Book 10 of the Republic. And it refers to the Between Lives Area that Plato recounts through the soldier who laid on the battlefield for three days, then caught up with the rest of his unit and told them where he went as his body laid there.

            This story, recounted by Plato, comes from an earlier Greek Homeric poem called “The Myth of Er”.


            For me, as a fervent Scientololgist now, it is a little woggy, but it seems to indicate.


            1. Plato was not trying to get people to behave themselves, he was trying to get them to reason. Plato believed that the faculties which make up the reasoning parts of us were the most valuable, and those who were trained to use their reason, philosophers (as in lovers of wisdom) should be the benign monarchs who ruled all men and ran governments.

              This is one of his main arguments in The Republic.

              Plato believed that the use of reason and the love of wisdom would lead men to happiness.

              That may or may not be true. Plato allowed many other arguments to counter his own, spoken through other characters in his dialogues. He was not necessarily the biggest Democrat that ever lived, and much of the medieval structure of kings and royal families came from his and Aristotle’s writings in the West.

              But in the Between Lives Area, his explanations have made the most sense to me than any other.

              To Ron!

              Hip Hip!!


            2. I am going by what I am studying from THE STORY OF PHILOSOPHY by Will Durant.

              Let us confess, too, that Plato has in sufficient abundance the qualities which he condemns. He inveighs against poets and their myths, and proceeds to add one to the number of poets and hundreds to the number of myths. He complains of the priests (who go about preaching hell and offering redemption from it for a consideration—cf. The Republic, 364)-,- but he himself is a priest, a theologian, a preacher, a super moralist, a Savonarola denouncing art and inviting vanities to the fire. He acknowledges, Shakespeare-like, that “comparisons are slippery” (Sophist, 231), but he slips out of one into another and another and another; he condemns the Sophists as phrase-mongering disputants, but he himself is not above chopping logic like a sophomore. Faguet parodies him: “The whole is greater than the part?—Surely.—And the part is less than the whole?—Yes. — ‘-. . . Therefore, clearly, philosophers should rule the state?—What is that?—It is evident; let us go over it again.”

              More will follow if you dispute me.

            3. He was pretty smart for a wog. Just think what would have happened if he had some auditing!

              He could have run out the incident of his teacher, Socrates, getting put to death and he would have never needed to write all that aberrated crap in “The Apology” and all that other stuff. The HCOPL “Ethics Justice and the Dynamics” is really all we ever neeeded, as well as “The Basics of Ethics” HCOPL. So much simpler!

            4. Here is Plato’s approach to teaching wisdom:

              ”Plato believes that a nation cannot be strong unless it believes in God. A mere cosmic force, or first cause, or Slan vital, that was not a person, could hardly inspire hope, or devotion, or sacrifice ; it could not offer comfort to the hearts of the distressed, nor courage to embattled souls. But a living God can do all this, and can stir or frighten the self-seeking individualist into some moderation of his greed, some control of his passion. All the more so if to belief in God is added belief in personal immortality: the hope of another life gives us courage to meet our own death, and to bear with the death of our loved ones ; we are twice armed if we fight with faith. Granted that none of the beliefs can be demonstrated ; that God may be after all only the personified ideal of our love and our hope, and that the soul is like the music of the lyre, and dies with the instrument that gave it form: yet surely (so runs the argument, Pascal-like, of the Phaedo) it will do us no harm to believe, and it may do us and our children immeasurable good.”


            5. Plato sound’s somewhat like Hubbard, doesn’t he? Or, maybe, Hubbard took some of Plato’s advice.


            6. Between lives explanation, so far, have come from live people and not from dead people. That is an inconsistency.


    1. Surely you can come up with something better than that …

      Comments such as the above are beneath you Vin.

      You’re better person than that.

      1. It was a follow up from my previous post to Marianne. It would make more sense to you if you read that post first.


  27. Vin,
    Congrat! I get what you are writing about! Why I have brought up the issue of being human is that some draw a line between human and spirit, in favour of spirit, thus separating themselves from “humans” at different degrees. Any separation is less responsibility.

    1. Actually, congratulations to you, Marianne.

      It doesn’t matter what you think that other people think. What really matters is what you think.

      People use other people’s thinking to actually express their own thinking. This gives me a wonderful perspective on who or what “center of considerations” that I am conversing with. 🙂


  28. It’s one thing for people to not see any benefit from Scientology but when they rabidly insist that YOU couldn’t possibly have gotten any gains either, there’s something else going on and it looks to me like missed-withhold phenomena.

    For many people, their first contact with the subject is from someone trying to “find their ruin” which can easily miss a withhold. Or just by reading about it they realize that somewhere along the line in practicing Scientology their deepest darkest secrets would be found out. And this before they’ve ever set foot in an Org.

    Thus for some, it’s not enough to just avoid it. The practice of Scientology must be utterly destroyed, or they feel they will never be safe.

    1. I totally agree. As a fervent, trained, and loyal Scientologist, I am aware of the case that makes other people have the views they have. Whenever you see a critic undermining Scientology, you can bet the only reason they think what they are thinking is because of their case. There’s no more to it than that.

      Which is a relief, actually. Because of they had valid, pro-survival reasons which came from their analytical minds, and were backed up by LRH tech and policy, then we would have to listen and think about what they say.

      But they don’t. It’s just all case. So we don’t have think about anything that they say.

      Thanks for striking an effective blow for theta, Aeolus. If you keep putting the truth on the line that it’s just their missed wittholds talking, soon the critics will cognite that they are simply dramatizing their cases, and they will drop everything and come into orgs to get their wittholds off, and get themselves cleaned up, and take the rocket ride to OT!

      So theta!


      1. Alonzo, there are plenty of people with analytical, pro-survival objections to aspects of Scientology or to various actions of the organization, and in spite of your reductio-ad-absurdum reply I think you know I wasn’t referring to them. In fact, I agree with many of them. In case the adverb “rabidly” didn’t tip you off, I was talking about the ones who insist that Hubbard never had a benevolent impulse, never originated a beneficial idea, and if you claim to have gotten some benefit from Scientology it can only be because you are brainwashed. These people are not being rational, and I have even seen some of them turn on you, Alonzo, when your dismissal of the cult was not strong enough for their liking.

        1. A discussion which points fingers at personalities (self) is useless. Usefulness comes only when one looks at the process. It is easy to see what process is correct and what process is not.


        2. Natter is natter, Aeolus. The critics who you speak of are crawling with it, especially if you use the adverb “rabidly”. Right there that nails it for what it is.

          The use of the word “carping” and the word “rabidly” are all the evidence I need to know that a critic’s views are nothing but bank, stemming from their missed wittholds.

          Thank you, Aeolus, for nailing it once again.

          People who can’t think with Scientology can’t use judgement. That’s all there is to it!



    2. The concept of withhold as applied in Scientology leads to inconsistency.

      Withhold deals with hiding something from another. But the truth is that gains come from LOOKING and not from talking to one’s “therapist”. I recently helped a person with KHTK without even knowing what his problem was. I only guided his LOOKING and he handled it. See the details here:


      So, if there is a withhold, then it is a withhold from oneself because the “therapist” has no business knowing about it. And if it is a withhold from oneself then it has to do with confliting considerations that one is holding. The KHTK solution is to get the person to look at this internal conflict more closely.

      It is Scientology’s failure to handle internal conflicts without violating one’s privacy, which is the key problem here. In the view that Scientology is prone to misuse one’s private data, Scientology is looked upon with apprehension.


      1. Talk to the hand, Vinaire!

        You just don’t want anyone to find out your wittholds, and you know that Scientology has the most effective, highly trained and dedicated sec checkers on the planet – and this drives you wild! You have a wild animal reaction from just thinking about it!

        In this way, your whole criticisms are totally invalid. They are simply you dramatizing your wittholds and Ron says I can safely ignore them and talk about your crimes, instead.

        This superior reasoning, direct from Ron, is what gives me my analytical power as a thetan and is why I strike such effective blows on the grassy knoll of the Internet.


        1. How fitting, Alanzo. Snipers are often found in a covert and concealed position in a grassy knoll. 😀

          1. Yes, the Denizens of the Internet are all 1.1.

            They have to be because the Internet is the Reactive Mind of Mankind. COB said so. And so did Ron.

            So it’s true!


            1. Just want to insert here while reading this thread that: I am Lovin’ this!

      2. Vin,
        Congratulation on the WIN !!!! Wish others would come up with WINS ! Results, whatever! It has a sweeping effect…..generates awareness….love….

  29. The Lawrence Wright book, which is due out on January 17, 2013, and is available for pre-order here on Amazon:


    is going to be nothing but a gothic tour through the Reactive Mind of one of the planet’s biggest Pulitzer Prize winning SPs. If you want to know how an SP thinks and acts, buy this book. COB and his lawyers have an advanced copy of it and they have determined that it is filled with nothing but the same old tired lies that have been around for decades, and dead agented time and again, long ago.

    Like the idea that LRH was insane at the end of his life.

    My God, he was the greatest OT that ever lived! Sure he wasn’t perfect, and the Old Man had his case, too, just like we all do, but there ARE so many BTs around that I don’t think anyone has ever realized how many, and LRH was just shouting out at a horse field about it, trying to warn the horses, as he did with everyone all his life. He was just wearing his hat.

    Anyway, don’t pre-order this book on Amazon at the link above.


      1. It’s what Geir called a stuck record. And what I call a broken record. ;And I can understand why you would have ARC with it. 😉

            1. The one you were resonating with.at the moment you were resonating with it. I felt the flow. 😉

            2. If you are responding with the same tone level as mine then you are squirreling Scientology.


            3. That’s right, I am. I’m trying to duplicate you and help Marianne as-is you. 😛

            4. Axiom 10: The highest purpose in this universe is the creation of an effect.

              Thanks for the fun. Gotta run out now but carry on. 🙂

            5. Marildi,
              Thanks! You have helped me earlier too!!!! Awesome! Love your Flow!
              It’s really time for you to “experience” in your “whole system” (sorry I can’t find a better phrase for that) the TRUTH/VALUE of your works!!!!

            6. TRUTH/VALUE is irrelevant. What is relevant is CONSISTENCY and I am monitoring that all the time.


            7. Right Vin, I get it! By saying that I meant that what you write, most of it ” I ” can verify from experience…..the most of means what I read from your works…..and the experience I have so far……experience and reading continues……

        1. Marildi wrote:

          It’s what Geir called a stuck record. And what I call a broken record. ;And I can understand why you would have ARC with it.

          This is 3rd Party. Geir never told ME that I was a stuck record.

          I know that Geir has been going down tone lately – his Pain and Sex implants are in heavy restim right now – but this is no reason to try to 3P Geir to me on the blog, Marildi.

          I realize that I my tone 40 might be out and blazing right now, but Buddhism died out of India because of sexual promiscuity and out-ethics and someone has to slam in ethics to keep the stats up around here.



            1. I knew that. My knowingness told me we were coming up on 25,000 posts and that’s why I posted that.

              I know that my abilities might not be real to you but, I’m sorry, I just got out of an FPRD session and I am no longer going to suppress myself or my knowingness as a thetan because of planet Earth!



            2. Al…some got enlightened by going totally nuts……did you know that?

            3. That would include all the spam comment that was not caught by the Askimet spam filter and that ended up in yhe moderation queue – and those I have deleted manually.

            4. Marika, It looks like this tool has 5% tolerance. 🙂

  30. Scientology works, no doubt about that. Any religion gives the qualities you are saying you gained. I promise you, throwing your hands in the air shouting and screaming how much you love God, will remove any shyness you have. Also following the 10 commandments will give you integrity.

    The thing is that scientology’s method cost a lot more, and I don’t think they work as good as good as giving your full devotion to God.

    Handeling upset people is easy as a true christian, besause you know that God loves them.

    Giving you love and devotion to God is a hard thing to do, and I can not do it because I don’t beleve in God.

    Giving your money to scientology church is allso quite hard, and I can not do that either. Espesially since what you gain in scientology is also a some qualities I don’t whant to have.

  31. The bottom line is, some people are up to need of change, and others resent it. That does not make anyone wrong. Comfy where you are? Great! You are not everyone. And not everyone wants change! Great!

    1. Opposing authority would not be an inconsistency. For example, when I oppose the authority of L. Ron Hubbard, that doesn’t qualify as an inconsistency.

      But supporting authority for authority sake would definitely be an inconsistency. 🙂


    2. One inconsistency is that you reduce Scientology to nothing more significant than having put forth the idea of “looking”; and at the same time, you yourself spout some of the many breakthrough discoveries of Scn (as if they were your own).

      Another inconsistency is that you make statements (Hubbard was wrong about… or Hubbard missed the boat on… or KHTK is superior to Scn) without having any statistics or research data or other substantial basis for such claims. Mere opinion is inconsistent with a rational discussion.

      Look over this thread alone (and many others) for examples of the above.

        1. I am newly inspired and encouraged by a couple people’s comments and you are one of them!

          1. Awwww … thanks!

            I too enjoy being sparked by your comments.

            I think this is the greatest asset, other than the good friendships, of this blog.

            Oddly, I love reading a comment which sparks me to change or prove a current or long held consideration is wrong.

            Always moving towards greater truth

            1. Wow, Dennis, you got me thinking about something. Several months ago someone I knew well died. This person in his younger days had done a few Scn courses and got some auditing and read a few basic books. But after that, he got heavily into a strong purpose line and dropped out any further participation in Scn although he continued to feel very positive about it.

              After his death, an interesting thing came to light after a while. A surprising number of people who knew him at one point or another over the years – non-Scientologists who didn’t even know about his former Scn involvement – all said a very similar thing: That he had helped them so much and that he had actually changed their life. And for the most part this was simply because of the conversations they had had with him.

              After I heard so many comments like that, I realized something from the specifics they gave: The main reason all those people were helped was because of this man’s use of TRs and a real comm cycle, as well as passing on to them some of the Scn principles that he had learned (although he did not usually say it was Scn). In other words, the results he got from Scn were indirectly passed on to others and were thus spread about and multiplied – to a degree I wouldn’t have expected.

              And now, reading your comment, I’m thinking that a similar phenomenon occurs in these blog discussions and that maybe this is one of the reasons we have so much ARC with each other and why we gain from one another. Most of the participants – critics and proponents alike – have done at least a certain amount of Scientology and got gains, both in their beingness and in knowledge about life, even if they don’t fully recognize it. And those gains get spread and multiplied and our ARC grows, for them and for life. (Hey, I’m VGI’s on that! :))

            2. Chris, you were one I thought of, for real. We disagree about many things but I have benefited from you and from who you are, and (now get ready for this) I think one of the biggest reasons for that gain is because of your gains in Scn..If that’s an incorrect evaluation for you, then I apologize. But the ARC stands anyway! 🙂

      1. Marildi: “One inconsistency is that you reduce Scientology to nothing more significant than having put forth the idea of “looking” and at the same time, you yourself spout some of the many breakthrough discoveries of Scn (as if they were your own)”

        Inconsistency is somethin that doesn’t make sense. About the above statement, it doesn’t presentanything that can be discussed. It is an accusation and not an inconsistency. It violates the discussion policy that I have quoted here several times.

        However, there are distractions that can keep one from discussing a subject. Such distractions may be introduced in the following ways:

        1. Defending a viewpoint instead of looking at the inconsistency generated by it.

        Some people literally view God as a person who has created this universe. They completely ignore the inconsistency that a person has a form that occupies space, and that form and space are also things that are created as part of the universe. So, God cannot be a person and the creator of the universe. But such people, who believe that god is literally a person, would not like to discuss this inconsistency. They would simply insist that their viewpoint is right. They would reject others who think differently.

        2. Focusing on participants instead of tackling the data being presented in a discussion.

        This is what happens in the situation described in (1) above. But otherwise too, any focus on participants rather than on the subject of discussion causes much distraction. Such an action may involve commenting on the perceived behavior and characteristics of another participant; and/or becoming accusative, emotional and combative.

        So let’s not deal with accusations. Let’s take up inconsistencies.


        1. Vin,

          The ‘discussion policy’ link you gave in the thread points to your OWN blog’s policies.

          While some policy may be the same as Geir’s, Geir reserves the right to determine policy on HIS blog, which comments are okay or not, and who may post.

          I think that Geir would step in if he deems some comment or conduct out of line.

          1. Knowledge matters for its consistency. It does not matter who writes it or mentions it.

            If there is truth in the Discussion Policy. it would work.


        2. “Inconsistency is something that doesn’t make sense”.

          What doesn’t make sense to me is statements that have no basis in fact.

          My comment wasn’t so much an effort to discuss with you as it was a suggestion that you LOOK at it yourself.

          1. I learn through discussions and not through indoctrination. If you are not up to discussing then that is OK.

            Sent from my iPhone

            1. It seems to me that you are the one who isn’t up to discussing at times, when you make statements without giving any basis for them – which is a logical fallacy. Pointing that out is about all someone can say in reply, and that’s what I did say.

              Indoctrination? That seems like another logical fallacy, Straw Man. All I suggested was that you take a look at certain claims you are making.

            2. Geez, Vin. Just follow the exchange back to the original one, where I used the word “claims”.

      2. Marildi wrote:

        Mere opinion is inconsistent with a rational discussion.

        Excellent point!

        Break out all the factual evidence we have on Scientology’s effectiveness and let’s use it against these critical opinionated antiScn bastards!

        Alanzo 2.0

        1. Hey Al, we’ve already had this discussion, you and I. To summarize, I base my viewpoint that Scn is effective on the fact the great majority of those who who have trained and audited quite a bit find it to be very effective. And the vast majority of critics have little training and little, if any, experience in application. On one thread, you came up with a whole lot of links of critics but on inspection, very few of them had training and experience in application of the tech.

            1. Yay! I’ve got the girls with me today! And we all know that women should rule the world. 😉

              Elizabeth, Happy New Year to you too! 🙂

            2. “Yay! I’ve got the girls with me today! And we all know that women should rule the world. ;)”
              Don’t we? 🙂

            3. Dee, I stand corrected! And She is smiling down on us (God, that is :D).

          1. Exactly.

            The only reason anyone would ever walk away from Scientology is because of MUs, and at least a huge number of overts as well.

            Ron said so, and its true.

            Anyone who has ever really learned what true Scientology was all about has remained a Scientologist all their lives.

            I think that’s clear.

            Alanzo 2.0

    3. Here is presented an inconsistency in Factor #1. I got no response from a Scientologist. How come it is so difficult to have a rational discussion with a Scientologist? Here is another opportunity:

      The very first Factor of Scientology states:



      Let’s examine this Factor.

      1. “Beginning” implies the beginning of any manifestation. This includes the universe as an overall manifestation.

      2. If Cause is postulated to be there before the beginning then the question arises, “Can Cause be there all by itself before its effect manifests itself?” An overall effect would be the creation of the universe.

      3. If the answer is “yes” then Cause will be a manifestation on its own right, and the question then becomes, “What is the cause of the Cause?” This logic inevitably leads to an endless chain of causes, and the beginning keeps getting pushed back earlier and earlier.

      4. If the answer is “no” then the Cause must occur simultaneously with effect. “Cause-effect” would then be part of the same manifestation at the beginning. One may say that God and Universe must have appeared simultaneously as a pair.

      5. One tries to fix the dilemma in (3) by postulating “Uncaused cause.” But this postulate appears to be self-contradictory and simply a device of convenience.

      6. Thus, CAUSE seems to be part of the created considerations. This seems to be consistent with the idea that TIME itself would start at the beginning.

      7. Thus, there would be no such thing as “before the beginning.”

      8. Thus, CAUSE is part of a system of interdependent considerations. It is part of the creation like anything else. There is no linear chain of considerations as implied by the factor above.

      9. The idea “before the beginning” would then be a projection that is created after the fact of beginning. Thus, the idea of God as the Creator would appear after the fact of Creation.

      10. The assumption that CAUSE, a consideration in itself, can be separated from, and can be extended beyond, the system of considerations it generates, seems to be the basic inconsistency.


      Thus, it appears that beginning is simply there. We do not know how the beginning of creation comes to be. We may try to explain or justify it with arbitrary postulation, but the fact remains that we do not really know the answer.

      This conclusion is uncomfortable to face. That is why we get postulates like “Uncaused cause,” “God as the Creator,” and Scientology Factor #1.


          1. v …”Thus, it appears that beginning is simply there. We do not know how the beginning of creation comes to be. We may try to explain or justify it with arbitrary postulation, but the fact remains that we do not really know the answer

            1. You are just repeating what I said. What is the point you are making? Sorry if I appear dense, but I would like to see it clearly spelled out.

              Sent from my iPhone

            2. I love it when you act you dont understand something..

            3. Of course, I can assume many things, but I don’t want to. Care to explain yourself!

              Sent from my iPhone

            4. V… you own me tooooooo many answers, it seems you only answer what you feel like answering and the rest you just ignore.. Answer my last question…

            5. I only look at inconsistencies and do my best to resolve them. Did your last question pertain to some inconsistency?   Vinay

              >________________________________ > From: Geir Isene >To: vinaire@yahoo.com >Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:36 PM >Subject: [New comment] Why is it important to some that Scientology doesn’t work? > > > WordPress.com >Elizabeth Hamre commented: “V… you own me tooooooo many answers, it seems you only answer what you feel like answering and the rest you just ignore.. Answer my last question…” >

            6. I have no idea what is incosistency to you.. so I simply dont know if there was any..

            7. OK, so what was your last question? I hope it was not personal or something accusative, because it is better to ignore such questions. I hope your question was a genuine one to resolve some inconsistency with general knowledge.



            8. it was… a very good question and nothing personal, a question which needed somw sorting out by the reality of the one who asked …looked fof knowledge… and i will not write it again… you have ignored one too many.

        1. Ever talk to a wall? Ohps, where was I? Just some covert fun at the end of the year. Luv ya Liz.

          1. Yes that is a very interesting activity.. I do get on answers, but I have to hang them up on the wall first..
            No dear we never be old… but again who cares about the body? that thing has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with it. hehehe.

        2. To Eliz,
          “even if you would read the answer you would not believe it..”
          One CAN confront any datum when it arises from truth. One can even confront that there is in fact no datum at all. ONE simply CAN ! To put the datum there in a way that “another” can
          see it is called, in my reality, TRUST. It can dissolve any reality differences.

          1. Eliz,
            I can go on with this….the auditor KNOWS that can PUT another into session…..if it doesn’t happen so, the auditor clears all the considerations in her/himself WHY s/he doesn’t know that…so auditing starts in ONE-self…..and gets to the point when the auditor PUTS another into session……that is the auditor is RESPONSIBLE for the person and that the session takes place….any other way is irresponsibility……that’s my understanding of it here.

            1. Vin,
              You say ” Eliz is self-centered”. Isn’t it a consideration?
              Axiom 32: Anything which is not directly observed tends to persist.
              What I wrote to Eliz can be true for each of us! Including me/you too! To help each-other play a better game or get to a no game condition! True for you?

            2. No. It IS not JUST there. You are participating in creating it! Example: I have a consideration ” I am angry”. It is an identification – “me” identifying with a “sense/wavelenght” of Anger.
              So what do I do ? The “me” lets that Anger Be/gives it a COMPLETE right to exist. When it happens so, an interesting thing happens: Anger stops to exist and the “sense of me” is gone too. What remains is no-me-no-anger-no-thing. That is the meaning of seeing something
              AS – IT ! – IS ! That IT in the middle is actually a no-thing in its core. To appear as a THING=IT I have to create the IT into a Beingness of a Thing.

            3. It much more simpler than that. “I” is the “center of considerations,” Considerations interact with each other just like chemicals interact with each other. There are considerations as inputs, there is interaction among those inputs, and then there are considerations as output.

              The idea in Scientology that “I” is the creator of considerations is false. “I” is simply the “center of considerations.” These considerations are there interacting with each other continuously. Some considerations get locked into each other and so we have fixed ideas, viewpoints, identities, etc.

              Scientology does not understand what individuality of “I” is. The whole concept of THETAN in Scientology is a misunderstood concept. Hubbard flunked here.

              Buddha is more accurate in his understanding here. Hubbard never understood Buddha and was critical of him.


            4. Ok, simpler. YOU say that Eliz is self-centered. YOU agree that it is a consideration.YOU also say that it is what is directly observable. It is just there.
              Conclusion: YOU are directly observing a consideration that is just there. Aside from its creator questions arise : 1. Who is that YOU observing this consideration? 2. Is that YOU while observing this consideration observing “Eliz” at the same time?

            5. What I say here about “I” applies to all “I’s” including mine. I am the center of my considerations which act as a filter for what I observe. You are the center of your considerations which act as a filter for what you observe. Eliz is the center of her considerations which act as a filter for what she observes.

              These considerations interact with each other according to the laws beyond “I”. “I” does not create these interactions. Whatever considerations result, “I” is simply the center of them. What “I” observes also follows the laws beyond “I”. For example, the observation filters through the considerations that make up the “I”.

              That’s how I see it. I have my filters, you have your filters, and Eliz has her filters. These filters make up the individuality. This filters determine how one interprets what one observes.

              So, observation are summation of what is out there plus filter.


              [There is manifestation. There is perception of that manifestation when the perception-point separates from the manifestation. Thus, space is introduced. Space consists of a layer of considerations generated with the perception-point. This layer of considerations acts as a filter through which perception takes place. The filtered perception becomes the UNIVERSE. This perception-point looking through the filter becomes SELF. The self develops individuality through the generation of unique considerations.]

              FORTY-SIX: There seems to be a level of knowledge before SELF comes into being.

              FORTY-SEVEN: Then we have a level of considerations generated with SELF. This provides another level of knowledge.

              FORTY-EIGHT: The second layer is generated in reaction to the first layer of knowledge. It acts as an interpretative layer over the original knowledge.

              FORTY-NINE: Thus comes about a FILTER unique to the self, which modifies perception.

              FIFTY: This filter defines the SELF. It also defines the UNIVERSE for the self. It is made up of considerations generated with the self.


            6. Any one who see me as self centered… that I would call idiotic consideration on their part. Their filter needs to be cleaned or changed, I highly recomend the nearest gas station… dirty filters dont do the job…

            7. I got this huge picture of a sign, let’s make it a billboard, “Dirty Filters Cleaned Here” LOL

            8. LOL LOL 🙂 and it is cheaper than have sessions! 🙂 Bloody Hell, Dee To bad I did not think of this before… just imagine if had my filter changed regularly than I would not needed all these auditing . Hell I could have been sitting in the bar some place and be drinking burbon and brach water 🙂

            9. My reality is: there is manifestation and this manifestation first “locates” itself, that is “becomes a point” before it perceives “itself” . This “locates itself” is a “separation”. This gives the illusion of an ” I ” or “center”. When the illusion !! of location ( the I , the center ) is gone, there is a “fluid flow” which just views and perceives. It can view a consideration but seeing it, it doesn’t “use it as a filter”. It just neglects it and flows on. What you say as a “filter” can exist in certain degree for some time but it can also be “viewed through” by the flow. Sorry, ” I ” don’t have a filter. And if you ” look inside ” , you won’t find “yours” either.
              My reality is that that “so called” location has never taken place. That is there has never been an ” I “. It’s all VIEW , PERCEPTION , CREATION . Out of an infinite potential.

            10. Marianne: When the illusion !! of location ( the I , the center ) is gone, there is a “fluid flow” which just views and perceives. . . My reality is that that “so called” location has never taken place. That is there has never been an ” I “. It’s all VIEW , PERCEPTION , CREATION . Out of an infinite potential.

              Chris: Ah! Our minds meet…

            11. A filter exists to the degree one is attached to considerations. If one is attached to the consideration of “I”, as is the case when one can’t tolerate any criticism, then one is self-centered.

              .Hubbard was very self-centered, and so is David Miscavige, and so are most Scientologists.


            12. Chris ! Not our minds meet, ” we ” meet ! There has never been a real separation ! The CORE is the same ! Eventually our bodies/thoughts etc. are the same substance too ! Writing this down ‘ I ‘ feel no separation / oneness…..get the feel?

            13. A person who is not self-centered would not react to the remark that he is self-centered in a negative way. He would just shrug it off instead of sulking over it.


            14. I just wonder why the ‘self-centered’ comment about a specific individual was made in the first place …

              Really, personal attacks are uncalled for.

            15. Oh… he hates miss-behaving females who has no manner and whos mouth should be washed out with some strong home made soap at least once a day… I drive Vinay nots… And I enjoy every minute of of.. he can call me anything he likes.. happy new year to you!

            16. hehehe my writing alway have confused you because I do not behave… talk like an avargde person you know therefore you believe I am sick in the head…. whatever pleases you I am OK with that but go fly a kite… I promise the fresh air will do you good..

      1. Vin,

        What you will get if you find the ROOTS of the concepts which appear in the definitions of CAUSE is: extending, bringing forth, placing….EFFECT: filling out, completing. Could be more precise by me but I ” see ” it.

          1. I find the fourth point the closest. Cause/effect the same process, which is extending and making itself complete by putting there a beingness.

          2. V…”Thus, it appears that beginning is simply there. We do not know how the beginning of creation comes to be. We may try to explain or justify it with arbitrary postulation, but the fact remains that we do not really know the answer”
            You could recall the answer in session. but of course you do not have reality what aditing can do and can accomplish…

    1. Vin,
      Lust or just?
      Lust definition 2: an intense eagerness or enthusiasm.

      1. Freudian slip Marianne …

        You’ll get used to seei
        Actually, *this* is the definition that was being used:

        “Lust is an emotion or feeling of intense desire in the body. The lust can take any form such as the lust for knowledge, the lust for sex or the lust for power. It can take such mundane forms as the lust for food as distinct from the need for food. Lust is a powerful psychological force producing intense wanting for an object, or circumstance fulfilling the emotion.[1] Many religions separate the definition of passion and lust by further categorizing lust as type of passion for something that does not belong to oneself. ”

        Good ol’ Wiki 😛

        And here (when the denials are put forth) is the Lust Test


        Don’t worry … we’ll get this word figured out

        1. Vin,
          I love it when you write on this flow….live, personal….that is You….
          Yes, the body is a “truth meter”. Any and all forms of desire can be traced back in it to the SOURCE. While tracing back, one gets some form of energy (in / not in the form of an emotion), then thought, then the source/potential itself. The existence of any desire is a blessing! It points to something that we “think” we don’t have, so we need it. So we set out to
          get it. When we get it, we are happy. BUT! Not because we get what we wanted, but because the feeling of desire stopped! For a second, there is no desire! Depending on how “solid” one
          is, desires solid, less solid and even less solid things. The least solid can be just creating “illusions” in one’s mind. ” Dreaming ! Just a little Dreaming-Creating” – one feels when one is
          almost in a “no-thing” state. And when one traces that back – one finds that Desire originates
          from Source/Potential itself. A kind of “quality” of this potential is “creation” and also “to do”
          so. If now you look at the definition of LUST=enthusiasm (root: IN GOD) we see that actually whatever we do, experience come from that God that is no-thing/potential itself.

          1. Vin,
            Also…being a little personal here…. ‘ I ‘ am in a “no-wanting” state here most of the time….kind of positive aloneness….still, the desire that is still here with me is “co-creation”….creating with another with speed….you then get “potential” and a “magic” manifestation in the UNIVERSE…
            could be that “other parts” of the Self “tune into” the “state” I am then….and “give/present”
            something which “reflects” the “state of my being” that instant…..LIFE as a mirror.

            Eliz tells you to go in session…..I tell you to STOP….get the feel of Silence/Potential….read what you have written….just one line……you already have that “knowledge” that you get from others….

        1. Vinay…. because we both say that words, thoughts, are considerations and nothing more, than I ask how come you are so hang up about my behavior, how I talk-write, express my thoughts? They are expressed considerations!
          It seems that In YOUR CONSIDERATION…IF Something is not express as you were taught than those expressions -way of talking DO NOT MEASURE UP TO Up to your STANDARDS, so you downgraded it even if the content of the writing is what it need to be.
          I ask what standards are those you going by: where they thought your nanny, your parents or in the university you have attended.
          We did not have the same background you and I and IF we would have than I too would be a intellectual snob like you.
          And as you do I too only would look at what MANNER IT WAS WRITTEN and nothing more. you never go beyond that point…. So knock it off about my behavior..
          My childhood was spent working, hauling water, summers barefoot we had no shoes and seldom enough to eat but we still were thought what was right and what was wrong and I am very pleased that what you think is the right manner that is not mine!!!

        2. Vinay…. I HAVE A COGNITION!!!!!
          what you really have a PROBLEM IS NOT MY “MANNERS” I have realized THAT IS THE SURFACE Item only

          What you have a problem that you cant accept that somebody a “”WOMAN” can write about the the MEST universe and The spiritual universe as I do…. as I know…WoW… I got your number… ha.. 🙂

          Vinay…. yours knowledge is still a assembled knowledge: scraped together from what long dead people said… who know when… and your hangup is that I happen to have female body and I dont have university education .etc… and what you can figure out—understand how come I know!!!!!!!

          I do know…. because knowledge attained through sessions and because those cognition’s from confrontations are superior to any book learned knowledge,

          1. Elizabeth, your conclusion on this doesn`t match up with my experience with Vinay. Vinay knows perfectly well that I am a woman and the truth is that I am the one that makes jokes that I am the superior because I am female – LOL – about how he cannot possibly expect to prevail against the more powerful gender — both he and Chris admit (jokingly, of course) that they are somewhat wary of messing with their wives!

            I have had very lengthy and comprehensive discussions with Vinay (on his blog and on Chris`blog) and not once did he respond in any but the the most respectful (although somewhat terse) manner, often acknowledging what made sense to him, conceding points that he found illuminating and taking up immediately into his own view what he found valuable in what I said. This was very much a reciprocal exchange, not one sided at all. I did not experience any hangups from Vinay based on my gender, my ethnicity or my educational level, rather he simply was not willing to accept anything that he could not personally conceive of or find to be true. I would rather he do that than say he agrees just to be agreeable.

            I should note that most of our discussions were not based on book learned knowledge but on what we saw from our own individual viewpoints – I never once felt that he was dissing me even when he absolutely did not agree with something I said or claimed.

            1. We have different reality you and I… And we been through about book learned knowledge,,
              By the way I also believe that Vinay is very-very intelegen person..
              Maria… every topic have a dozen or more viewpoints… I have expressed 2 of them only…. Vinay and I we have an agreement….

            2. Maria…. Vinay wants inconsistencies… so do I…. we are confronting…

            3. Maria one more thing about V….. he put together a workable fomulat his Blog is incradible… I have not seen any other Scientologiest doing something like his work… nothing even close to his…. He is a very special being and I believe that his work is brilliant… and to be able to do such a work the man has to be brillint and He is not given cradit for his work…. But I do acknowledge his work because that acknowledhement is long overdo..
              So I tell him to go fly a kite.. nothing wrong with that, Far East that is considered a sport.. and not even just a little. but very competetive… and those kite are magnificent..

            4. That is an interesting feedback. Thanks Maria.

              The feedback from others, such as, Elizabeth, Marildi and Dennis, is no less interesting. 🙂


          2. The dirty trick of life
            Whatever we write down, we write down because our attention is on it. Pure attention is just “pure” it desn’t have a “deliverable” (just to use this nice word from Geir). So the case could be, now to you Eliz, that there are some “items” to confront in what you write to Vin. And also,
            as life is a mirror, what you get Vin in the mirror when you “read Eliz” is for you to as-is. It’s equally true for me here too. And of course we don’t want to as-is everything because what will we “play” with then? (nice consideration, isn’t it?) Well, could be that true spirituality starts from HERE. To create some-thing out of the no-thing which is “fresh new”.

  32. Well Geir, Thank you for the blog you keep and for sharing your heart and thoughts and knowledge and even favorite music. You are hugely generous with the gift of yourself. Thank you for the times you have come to my rescue and even an endorser of my Urban Scientology ways. You grant huge beingness and manifest the very purposes strived toward in all religions. I have always had my own code of ethics. I ask myself for I act, “What if every person on the planet was like you? Would this be a good world to live in?” And that is how I decide to move forward. I can state without a doubt, if every person in this was like you in social intercourse, this would indeed be a fine world to live in. All the best wishes for your New Year. I see a book coming from you in the New Year. And I see it as highly beneficial. XXOO

  33. Geir, I read a few pages of comments on your ESMB thread and what I saw was many of the same old people trotting out their same old fixed ideas. Many seem to have developed a “schtick” which they post over and over again. It just seems so ….. mechanical, of them.

    They don’t really seem interested in what anyone else thinks or experiences, only interested in their own evaluations and perhaps they want acknowledgement of something? Isn’t that bpc?

  34. Brendan,
    bpc: by-passed charge. In simple language a charge is something/some area which a person is “touchy” about. When it is “touched” by another person and that other person doesn’t see what s/he “touched” and so leaves it there (by-passes), different emotional reactions can come
    about whose source neither of them are aware of. Misunderstandings, arguments bla, bla….are
    the results. Solution: to know that any irrational emotion in a situation has an earlier “cause” and by being peaceful in this way and letting the other person communicate is “healing”. Equally, if you are very aware, you can ask “the question” to which the person gives you “that thing” which s/he was touchy about. The end is smile/laughter, peace.

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s