The Unclear path to Clear

Before reading this blog post, please read up on my previous post on the Scientology subject of Clear – “Conclusion: There are no Clears

Be warned that this blog post contains advanced Scientology stuff.


I have recently done some further research into the State of Clear and its history. Let’s first recap some basics and then bridge over into a curious but fundamental inconsistency of Scientology:

  • In order for a problem to resolve or a “mental charge” to “blow”, one must get to the very basics, the root cause of it and then it will vanish.
  • An individual (a thetan) was originally almighty and Clear (no reactive mind)
  • At some point during at least the past 4 quadrillion years (as per the OT 3 material), the thetan started creating a reactive mind and became “unClear”
  • The very first traumatic incident (engram) holds the key to unlocking the reactive mind, and when inspected thoroughly through auditing, the individual can again become Clear
  • Individuals may become Clear on different levels of The Bridge to Total Freedom
  • Many go Clear on New Era Dianetics (NED), while those who do not will take the sure-fire way through the Clearing Course
  • The Clearing Course will handle the very basics that will unlock the person’s reactive mind and make him or her Clear
  • In the OT 3 material (“2nd note, point 8) we learn that the heavy traumatic incidents handled on the Clearing Course was in fact implanted as part of the OT3 incident administered by the late Xenu only 75 million years ago (referred to as Incident 2)
  • The chance for a thatan to have become unClear as late as during those few turbulent days 75 million years ago is much less than one in 4 billion
  • So why is the sure-fire way to Clearing a person handling some incident so extremely close to Present Time that there is virtually no chance that this incident could have been the cause for the individuals descent from Clear to starting mocking up his reactive mind?
  • Should we understand from this that every individual went unClear and started creating a reactive mind when Xenu got his fits?
  • Or should we understand that Xenu was so angelic that he skillfully administered an implant that when unlocked, it would unlock all earlier trauma until the beginning of time? Should we then praise Xenu?

I put this question forth to one of the wisest and highest trained Scientologists in history. And he could not sort out this interesting, perhaps disturbing inconsistency.

At the same time I have talked to many who have done the Clearing Course, and most have had great, even life-changing gains from doing that step on the Bridge. So clearly it does Something profound.

I believe Allan Watts got it right when he said:

Make the person do some sort of regimen that the person truly believe he will get great gains from and voilá.

209 thoughts on “The Unclear path to Clear

  1. I apologize for the length, but it seems relevant, this is an article I recently published in my own group:

    States of Clear

    I think its important to break open the subject of ” ‘The’ state of clear” for new and open examination. I’ve shared thoughts on this within my other Facebook group which is for my PC’s in particular, “Gateway to Answers”, and I’ll be adding to that material and updating it; but what I do want to broach here and now, is the following, as I see it: The description of this supposed singular and uniform “state” or “level” has been redefined several times, in Scientology; the description of the material composing ” ‘the’ bank ” that is “blown” has varied more than once; the description of the “way”, or specific processing technique(s) to achieve ” ‘the’ state of clear” has also changed several times.

    Some of my conclusions, (I will give a more in-depth analysis in a forthcoming article):

    (1) There can be, and are, any number of what may be described as “banks”, completely different from each other in structure and in material, for each individual, and these might better be called “universes” or “boxes” that in various ways, contain, influence and limit a being.

    (2) Each of these universes was constructed and/or adopted by the individual as a solution to something the being encountered, was diminished and felt threatened by, and thus felt a need to shrink away from, and, eventually became entrapping, debilitating and undesirable.

    (3) The spiritual liberation, through conscious deconstruction of any of these universes can be so wonderful as to rank as what can be, a “state of clear”, and perhaps, in Scientology indoctrination, becomes (mis) labeled as “THE” state of clear, which will create complexities such as cognitive dissonance, self-inval and doubt of one’s own adopted paradigm, when the effects of the material persisting in any one or more of the other entrapping constructed universes one experiences manifests.

    (4) There can be an infinite number of valid ways to successfully process and deconstruct the structure of any of these entrapping “boxes”, and this is according how one envisions and thereby shapes the “clay” that is their “case”; and their envisionments can be agreed with or adopted concepts of the structure, and “right way” to process case material.

    For these and other reasons, I think that we are best served by expanding our outlook beyond accepting the idea of one, other-defined, “bank”, one, singular, “state of clear”, and beyond the fixed idea of there being only “one true and correct method, bridge or path”. I think we should grant and recognize the validity of whatever anyone is having, or has had, success with, and always be willing to expand our viewpoint to allow for the possibilities of advancing through more expansive viewpoints, and infinite potential for finding new and better discoveries, in an enlightening journey in which we may never know in advance what we’ll find, and, along the way, grant, take pleasure in, and celebrate, each new spiritual liberation experienced by anyone, by any means.

    1. Very interesting. Indeed. First question; How does one define/compartment/distinguish one “box” from another? What er the delimiting characteristics?

      1. That is, more or less, the point; that these can be different for each of us, and for anyone to define these for us is to impose a paradigm, and we are best served by defining these for ourselves, although there certainly can be value in finding from any and all sources, whatever resonates for us. For me, there are aspects in what Hubbard shared (regardless of where he might have gotten it from) that ring true, as well as what Alan Walter, John Mcmaster, and others have voiced. In my view, we create our own “boxes” as solutions to problems arising from other other boxes and things that we create, so the characteristics of these boxes (or “bubbles”, or “walls”, or whatever says it best for you) can very infinitely, but I think that essentially, they consist of 2 things, a created world (and/or perception of the world) that is meant or considered to be pleasing, acceptable or experienceable, and a non-perception, or denial, of what has come to be considered unacceptable, or inexperienceable. I’m sure there are many other ways to say this, and other viewpoints of this, which can be equally valid, I’m merely sharing my viewpoint, as it is today 🙂

          1. Also: one, out of good will, wishes to please another with something one creates but the other invalidates it for whatever reason…..basically out of a form of dislike.
            DIS-LIKE. At its root is resisting a creation on the assumption that it is created by
            another and not also by oneself (in an unconscious way). So Life manifests in a physical form what is already being created to ‘please’ the individual to observe it, thus provides infinite opportunities for one to experience the infinite capability of the One-Source-Creator. It looks to me that it is all about ‘pleasing’. A valid ‘path/tool’ for me is which makes it possible for the individual to recognize and realize this capability. First as an ‘individual’ (seeing that one is creating one’s case)
            and next that others are also doing that and finally when the me-you duality is gone,
            one can clearly see for the first time what comes one’s way as-it-is without evaluating and invalidating it. That is the end of the individual’s distrust and
            invalidation of one’s beingness as well.

      2. This seems to me a great job by Dexter about the states of Clear. Regarding how does one define and distinguish those “boxes” or “universes” Dennis Stephens has a simple and beautiful model for it on his Games Manual:

        Each universe is the field of a game one is playing.
        The form and size of each universe is determined by the characteristics of the game.
        The structure of importances assigned to the components of the game determines its basic laws. What one considers important, beautiful, valuable, will generate an ethical structure, even a logical structure for the mind to follow.
        One´s own sense of integrity will depend on how well one sticks to the agreements one has made there.
        And then, of course, there is the subject of the goals for that game.
        Interesting, isn´t it? I strongly recommend you study that manual.

        1. Sorry one point missing: As for the boxes being created as a solution for a problem you can follow a path which may be similar to the GPM´s in which you have bigger boxes enclosing smaller and smaller boxes and they will be games inside of games, before each one of those problems you might find a goal, and goals inside goals, up to the bigger universe, the basic goal.

          1. I agree, Rafael, and upon reflection, rather than “boxes”, these are better described, and more clearly understood as “self-contained 3-D holographic projected environmental habitat universes” (quite a mouthful, but much more descriptive) 🙂

            1. I very much like it Dexter, you´re right, conveys the message very clearly 🙂

    2. Dexter, this is the most insightful overview I have read on the subject of “What is a Clear?” For me it makes it very “clear” :). I really commend you! It answers the confusions so many people have had on the subject – both subjectively and objectively, And it is highly credible, not only because it makes so much sense in itself (based on my own knowledge – again, both subjective and objective ) but because you have apparently based it on your training and, more importantly, your experience (I’ve watched a number of your video interviews, btw).

      I do have a question for you. In spite of all the personal flaws of LRH and his blatant “other-intentions” (to use his own term), do you think that he himself may have had the same grasp of what you have so articulately described? The reason I ask is that it seems to me his final definition of Clear – “a being who no longer has his own reactive mind” – could very well sum up the essence of the understanding you yourself have arrived at.

      In other words, the different “ways” that LRH developed (as described in your point #4) to achieve the as-ising of some uniquely individual “unit” (a very large one) of aberration would in fact achieve a significantly higher level of ability – especially if you consider that what would likely come up in sessions (for any uniquely individual pc) would probably involve the particular “box” that was most impinging on him, limiting his self-determinism and ability overall. And thus the handling of that particular box/universe/bank would indeed put him in a higher “state.”

      1. Thanks much, Marildi! I do believe that, as John Mcmaster and others came to observe or conclude, Hubbard built certain “curves” into “the tech” to keep adherents on the treadmill, contributing to Hubbard and his self-serving creations, I believe that he was aware of what I described in my article, but disguised things for that purpose. We all (or at least most of us) do have a tendency to be suckers for the concept of specific “levels”, “steps” or prepackaged, predetermined “universal milestones” of personal progress, especially when we feel lost or confused, its such a convenient, comfortable “stable datum”. 🙂 This is not to say that Hubbard was absolutely and only badly intentioned; I think he was very much the effect of his own conflicting drives and intentions. Like anyone else, he’s essentially an unlimited spiritual being, capable of creating, experiencing and dramatizing any and all attitudes, “beneficent”, “power-hungry”, “generous”, “vicious”, etc., and he succeeded only too well in building his own empire, and thus lost the restraints of a more balanced life in which checks and balances existed (“absolute power corrupts absolutely”), as well as suffering from the effects of the imperfections of his “tech”, that he so solidly committed to upholding as being “100% workable”. He lied blatantly about being “source” of all those techniques and approaches (disguised as some uniform, homogenous organized whole, which it was not; it is a patchwork of different contributions from many sources), but there is much within that collection that can be of great value enhancement and help to people, and I do think that this also was his intention. It is not, in my view, in the long term, so beneficial to buy into the whole “system” as it has been laid out, but there are many brilliant insights and wonderful techniques to be cherry-picked from within that package 🙂

        1. Another insightful post! Yes, any curves would go along with his other-intentionness. One of the curves I’ve read about is his turning away from the processing of actual GPM’s (rather than implanted ones). That omission (assuming it was intentional) might have been his biggest overt – even against his own benevolent purposes.And it may even have been the source of his own downfall if this area is as highly significant as some seem to think.

          You wrote: “I believe that he was aware of what I described in my article, but disguised things for that purpose.” With the first part of that sentence especially, I feel completely duplicated and acknowledged. Thanks so much for that!

          As for the tech and its workability, a while back I concluded from all the data I’m aware of that it isn’t 100% workable (but highly workable nonetheless). However, I haven’t seen anyone convincingly disprove or make a good case for the lack of relative truth in the axioms, scales and such basics as are in “0-8.” Maybe Ogger or Walters or someone has done so, I don’t know as I haven’t read that much of what they’ve had to say. Anyway, if you care to comment on this point, please do.

          In any case, you rock! 🙂

      2. I think that Dexter and Geir are saying pretty much the same thing. Clearing is a gradient process in which the absolute may be unattainable. When a big chunk of clarity come our way, we mistakenly call it the “state of Clear” withouit realizing that more such chunks of clarity may lie ahead in our path.


        1. I think the first part of Geir’s post is looking at it in a very different way from what Dexter had to say, and doesn’t include that “data.” However, I would agree with you that their conclusion seems to be very much the same, considering what Geir wrote here:

          “At the same time I have talked to many who have done the Clearing Course, and most have had great, even life-changing gains from doing that step on the Bridge. So clearly it does Something profound.”

          1. I think that Vinaire’s take of my view is a bit of a simplification, but a basically accurate one. Besides, I love his phrase “chunks of clear” 🙂 “Would you like to attest to the state of ‘Chunks of Clear’?” (Just rolls off the tongue, in chunks) 🙂 Marildi, as to Hubbard and GPM’s, yes, from what I know from a variety of sources who were in a position to observe, I haven’t any doubt that Hubbard’s fundamentally flawed approach to understanding and processing GPM’s (he failed to grasp that the violent opposition contained in what he called “GPM’s” had its energy and power over the being derived from what started out as a very highly positive energy closely shared existence- just as with “the magnitude of the ARC break can only be comparable to the initial ARC that got broken”, and his “GPM processing” actually didn’t involve processing the experience encapsulated in the GPM’s; it only, superficially, involved recognizing and spotting the beings (or beingnesses), goals and intentions. That lead to frequently severe triggering (restimulating) of all manner of extreme sensations, pains, attitudes and dramatizations. All these could be observed in Hubbard in frequent episodes for the remaining 20-plus years of his life.

            1. “chunks of clear”

              Yes, Vinnie is really cute how he expresses things sometimes. :0

              You wrote that GPMs “only, superficially, involved recognizing and spotting the beings (or beingnesses), goals and intentions.” Are you referring to the brief period in Scientology where the pcs’ actual (not implanted) GPM’s were being addressed? And if so, it seems that you do not place the ultimate importance LRH did on intentions/postulates. However, that importance has also been expressed by most other great spiritual thinkers in history, just differently worded. Agreed, or not?

              Or are you simply saying that the “basic basic” (to coin a term, LOL) is the fact of Oneness in the Beginning. I’ve thought about that and the Factor that “Before the beginning was a Cause” – and the Cause would have been the body of theta from which thetans derived. And have continued to derive.

            2. In the first sentence this ===>:0 was supposed to be this: 🙂

              And Vin, I got the clarification now on “chunks of CLARITY” – like it!

            3. I like simplification. Scientology is unnecessarily complicated in my view. For example, a GPM is basically an inconsistency that can much simply be addressed with a Data Series type approach if accompanied by mindfulness.


            4. Marildi, in answer to your questions, I am referring to the early 1960’s Saint Hill research period, focusing on the individual’s own GPM’s; and while intentions/goals have importance (this being a relative thing), they are, in this context, part of the package of falling away from shared existence/intentions/creating, and toward counter existence/intentions/creating, and if one is going to open up this “can of beans”, one had better be prepared to process all of it thoroughly (the undigested beans, as we all know, can make one quite uncomfortable!) 🙂

            5. Ah, I got it. Maybe that’s the real reason LRH abandoned this approach – he hadn’t figured out how to prepare and digest all those beans! (Yes, folks, we have yet another comedian in our midst with Dexter here. :D)

              Seriously, I get what you’re saying now. So, have you or anyone developed a tech for the actual-GPMs line of approach?

            6. Marildi, I doubt that anyone knows just how many approaches to processing GPM’s have thus far been developed, but the ones that come to mind for me are Jack Horner’s approach, which involved running help processes on each of the terminals and opposing terminals (opterms), e.g., “from where could you help a religious warrior?”, and Alan Walter’s Games Matrix Processing- the few people I know of who have had some of that processing rave about it. It has to do with plotting out 4 specific identities, “weak”, “strong” and 2 more, as I recall, and processing these. I have some materials on these, but have not made a thorough study, or experienced the processing myself. I’m sure there are also other procedures, each with their adherents.

            7. Oh yes, one more- there are some who feel that with enough Power Processing, GPM’s will emerge and be processed. I have experienced some of that, in a long series of co-audit sessions of Power Process 6 (the Conditions Process) with a good friend who was part of the team at Saint Hill in the 1960’s when Power Processing was being developed. It may be one workable approach to total resolution of GPM’s, and it is very rewarding processing, especially with the wrinkles he and I developed, but I don’t think it is the most expedient approach.

            8. Dexter, thanks for all that. It’s heartening!

              Again I think of what has occurred to me many times, which is that LRH minimally deserves great credit for the tech he himself came up with as well as having inspired others to join the movement he had begun – others whose good ideas he had the perspicacity to “adopt” and put them all together in a single body of data. And from there, the powerful tech offshoots came about and I’m sure will continue to proliferate. (I say we give the devil his due 😉 )

              Btw, I was impressed by an article I read a while back, written by Mike Goldstein on Idenics. As I recall, what I got from him was that Idenics is also identity processing and a refinement of what LRH had presented in CoHA.

            9. Marildi, I find great value in what Mike Goldstein shares. As I understand it, the entire “grade chart” was developed as an effort to resolve the barriers people ran into when trying to run Creative Processing (such as the processes in Creation of Human Ability). John Galusha determined that what gets in the way of running such processes to their full intended results is the unconsciously held in place identities one is absorbed in, because any identity one is operating as has its own limitations, and so the solution is to process out the unconscious manifestation of identities (important- it isn’t “running out identities”, which have value in the appropriate circumstances, it is rehabilitating one’s ability to consciously and causatively create and wear any identity, rather than having one’s own viewpoint submerged within the dominance of identities over one’s consciousness). That’s it in a nutshell, as I understand it. I haven’t actually studied Idenics, mostly because I find that Alan Walter’s Presence Three Identity Handling Procedure to work magnificently, and unlike Idenics, it isn’t at all expensive to train on (it is freely available) and to train in Idenics, one must sign a non-disclosure agreement. I prefer to be able to freely share whatever others may find useful and/or enlightening. My own preference is to parallel the mind by addressing whatever is manifesting for the client; I would run a creative process, and upon “hitting a wall” in running, I would then address and resolve that identity on the spot, beginning with, at that moment, “name the identity you wear”, per Alan’s procedure. I’ve used Presence Three hundreds of times, with truly great results regularly. Interestingly, very nearly 100% of the first time I run it on somebody, they will then say, either verbatim or very nearly so, “I can’t wait to see what my life is going to be like now!”. I am, however, quite certain, just from what I do know about Idenics, that it too is a remarkably effective procedure. 🙂

            10. Dexter, thank you so much. That is valuable data. Once again, you’ve done the best of anybody I’ve come across – in this case, by presenting a guideline for taking a look at the options that are out there. Awesome of you!

            11. Dexter, Marildi, Vinaire! Listen up! This has got to STOP! I’ve just about had enough of this Crap. You’ve just gone and re-clarified my clarity, in CHUNKS!! 🙂 What about leaving a little bit of room for obfuscation, discombobulation, mysticism, voodoo, hoo-doo and how do-you-do??? I mean this is ridiculous!! Undoing the intricate, aesthetic structures and wonders of the bridge & ever spiraling staircase?? To nowhere? Except straight up and vertical??? Have you no respect and reverence for the finality of “promises?” I do confess, though, that COB doesn’t!. He once confided to me, that (cash) “cows” can be milked interminably, if you keep ’em cleaned up by regular, thorough cattle-dipping in his state-of-the-art sec-checking, fear implanting, enslavement combo machine. Yes, and I can reveal this to you, (short of being seized and hauled back to the “hole” of course, for some gentle ‘reality-checking’ heart-to-hearts, and other unmentionable group ‘activities.’ )

              There’s a little more to the superficial physical structure of the newly opened SP building, than the ‘smoke & mirrors’ edifices that meet the eye. Be aware, that one is dealing with a classic 1.1. with painstaking deviousness and cunning.

              I’m reminded of another dictator, with once considerable real estate, who had a change of fortunes, when his ambitions exceeded his ability to predict the outcome! Yeah, he was eventually found hiding in ‘the Hole’ of his own design, a fugitive, who one had it all….. Do you remember him now? The guy who actually did have some REAL fire power?… One Saddam Hussain? And how his karma took him to the gallows? Recall too, that he was also defiant till the bitter end!!

              Oh, the total stupidity of those who just refuse to LEARN from history………!!!
              especially by going and building a “new bridge to total freedom” (translate that to empire for HIM) based on COMPLETE lies and fraud and then forgetting that it would collapse asunder, when shaken to it’s core, by an inevitable series of repetitive earthquakes, measuring an average of 9.9 on TRUTH & EXPOSURE Scale!!

              (This message guaranteed not to be well received by the COB and his cohorts in his heavily fortified Fortresses, btw! And that’s a shame! What a waste of great potential, when some deserving, intensive sec-checking, just may have altered the course of his future! slim chance of that now, though!)

              Insanity and seriousness, are IMHO, alike, as gross afflictions of the mind, and lead to a complicated, complex interpretation of significances, figure, figure and avoidance of present time & confronting.

              Lightening up, laughter at situations and self, definitely leads to increased sanity and a more balanced outlook, & always made sense to me, as a truly simple philosophy 🙂

            12. Wow, Calvin, I loved every line of your witty satire! And the sober yet light wrap-up at the end too. Great contribution! 🙂

            13. At the request of a member of my Facebook group who has been following this blog, I imported parts of this conversation to the group, which triggered further discussion, and so in turn, I’ll share those comments here:

              Per Schiøttz: Hi Dex, good points, interesting subject. But there is a problem. If we evaluate the term Clear by it’s own terminology (Scientologeze) then we get into a contradiction, which happens a lot on a research line i.e. that “Absolutes are unobtainable” and pr. the various definitions in Scn. Clear is an absolute state which can be attested to. I never heard anyone attesting to “Almost Clear” or “98 % Clear”, so as I see it, one of those 2 statements have to go… which one? Can they live side by side? In my universe(es) they can, but always with modifications…
              Per Schiøttz EverFun, Per, DK

              Dexter Gelfand: Hi, Per! I would answer thusly: One can be absolutely “clear of”, or absolutely “clear out”, SOMETHING, without absolutely clearing out EVERYTHING. “Clear” (as opposed, perhaps to “translucent”?) can thereby still be a concept of absoluteness. The kitchen can be spotless, while the bedroom looks like a yard sale exploded there. “Clear” of this, while not “clear” of that. One can fully deconstruct, resolve, permeate into total nothingness some vast area of dominant material, and thus achieving a “clearing” of THAT material.

              Dexter Gelfand: Hubbard did speak of a THEORETICAL state of absolute “clear”, in the State of Case Scale, which can be found in the book “Scientology 0-8”. At the hypothetical top end of that scale, is “40.00, No Track No Charge”. That, in Dianetic terms, would be, an absolute “state of clear”; but again, it is merely theoretical, with no implication that I’ve ever seen that anyone has been observed to have attained that state.

              Dexter Gelfand: That being said, and as I’ve said before, while I’ve written to address the imposed concept of “the state of clear”, I prefer to recognize, and speak in terms of “spiritual liberations”, and thus sidestep all the misleading (in my view) ideas attached to “the” “state of clear”

              Per Schiøttz: Yeaa… Dex, that’s a good way of looking at it. But for all PRACTICAL
              reasons which is what really counts in my universe, I look at the person
              in HIS LIFE… and I will know.. and you see of course different
              persons/beings, but you still KNOW…
              EverFun… Pe-er, Dk

            14. Hi Dexter. Thanks so much for sharing that additional exchange. You probably know, there’s a reference where LRH says Clear is not an absolute but “about as close as one can come.” From HCOB 14 Dec 81 “The State of Clear”:
              “There has been some confusion lately on exactly what is the state of Clear.

              “The confusion was introduced by a statement, not mine, that the state of Clear had harmonics, which is to say there were different states of Clear.

              “This is not true. Although it is quite impossible to obtain an absolute in this universe, the state of Clear is, actually, about as close as one can come to it.”

              There’s also the following definition of Clear in the Tech Dictionary, which seems to be another reference to the theoretical state of an absolute state of Clear:

              “2 . a Clear, in an absolute sense, would be someone who could confront anything and everything in the past, present and future. (Abil Mag 56)”

              So with the above two references, I would say you summed it up well.

              Btw, in this same thread you mentioned that LRH had put some curves into the tech. Could you please note some specifics on that, maybe the more significant ones.

            15. Hi Marildi, in answer to your question about what I see as the “curves” built into conventional (“Standard Tech”) Scientology processing, this include (but are not limited to):
              (1) The imposition of a uniform cookie-cutter sequence of processes, to be run once each and in the proscribed order, on everyone.
              (2) Using “Ethics” to impose judgements (“evaluations”) on the client.
              (3) A host of procedures imposing the philosophy of disconnection and shrinking of one’s world, as a philosophical and applied solution to life (includes the concept of “SP’s” and disconnection as a “PTS handling”, and all the “upper level” procedures for “getting rid of BT’s”)
              (4) The forbidding of any form of examining/experiencing virtually any concept, technique, person or group even vaguely relating to spirituality or handling of mental/emotional issues other than from the C of S
              (5) Practices that, instead of empowering the individual, impose dependence on the the auditor for answers and conclusions, e.g., “I’d like to indicate that your item is ___”, “Your needle is floating” (which is a way of telling the client that they are now done with the process, instead of allowing them to arrive at that point for theirself- which I generally do, it works quite well, and is very empowering).

              And more 🙂

            16. Hi Dexter. Thanks!

              As regards the “cookie-cutter” tech, the value of that would seem to depend on what the goal is, and for whom. As you obviously know, LRH’s stated intention was to create a route that everyone could follow and benefit by, one that may not be perfect or ideal for a given individual – but beneficial nonetheless, at least to some degree. The idea was to move as many people upward as much as possible and as fast as possible. And the intended result of this could be described, in general terms, as lessening the factor of contagion-of-aberration – to everyone’s ultimate benefit. Basically, the idea was to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics in the most efficient way possible. And without other factors having intervened, that may actually have been doable. In any case, individual practitioners have other goals and purposes.

              I would definitely agree with you about the ethics tech and how it evolved. Looking at it in comparison to the principles and tech of the early years (which I think are totally valid), there was a complete turnabout. The same is true as regards forbidding freedom of thought and speech – on Scientology and any other subject. Even the Creed of the Church states “That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”

              As for your point about upper level procedures for “getting rid of BTs,” I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically. Can you please elaborate? I haven’t done those levels but have read the issues. (Btw, Geir doesn’t have a problem nowadays with posters discussing confidential levels.)

              On point (5), I remember reading in some bulletin that “Your needle is floating” is supposed to be said as if in agreement with the pc. Plus, as with any mis-acknowledgment, if that indication misses the mark, correction lists are there to handle. The same would apply to indicating an item if that went wrong. My personal experience as a pc is that such an indication serves to direct attention and/or blow the charge – and with that comes the KNOWINGNESS of the item’s validity. Here again, if it’s not valid (a rarity) a correction list would handle.

              Your court. 🙂 (Btw, I’ve been wishing we had more tech-trained and experienced auditors to have such discussions with!)

            17. Hi marildi, in answer to your reply: I have no issue with whatever anyone freely chooses, whatever resonates for you. If “standard grade chart” floats your boat, I’m happy for you- certainly, there are folks who seem to love exactly that. I only know that I’ve never had a client who didn’t find it more rewarding to be processed purely according to what was on their mind, the “charge” that is manifesting here and now for them. As to floating needles being indicated, of course I am familiar with the points you make; I can only tell you that, in all my experience, in allowing the client to continue experiencing and expressing the unfolding of what has opened up for them to their heart’s delight, until they tell me “I’m good now” or some such, or look at me in a way that expresses the same thing, the full benefit of the process is optimally experienced every time, with the added benefit of empowering the client in granting them the making that decision. In my view, that empowerment factor is vital. No PC should ever NEED to be told that “the meter says” anything. We are not here to empower the meter. Even saying it “as if to agree” with the PC should be downplayed, until the PC has first actually theirself indicated “I’m good, we’re done with this now”… the phenomena of the PC looking as if to ask (or asking) “Is my needle floating?”, as opposed to confidently taking the lead in expressing “I’m good now!” is a manifestation of too much empowerment in the wrong place, in my opinion. I want that PC not to feel they NEED that agreement to have their own certainty about it. Generally speaking, because I use this approach, my clients do TELL ME when they’re done, and then I acknowledge with indicating the floating needle or tone arm. It may seem like a subtle difference, but a counselor should be processing clients toward greater independence, rather than dependence on the counselor, for certainty about self. 🙂

            18. Dexter, I may have giving you the wrong idea of my viewpoint. I didn’t mean to give the impression that I was in opposition to anything your wrote. Not a thing, in fact. I am not just for “standard tech” and in fact am all in favor of improvements being made to it (as with anything). And in your previous comments, you made it more real to me that this can and has been done. As for processing according to what is on the person’s mind, I got a good reality on what you mean by that when I thought of the Life Repair auditing I got – fantastic. So I’m not at all in disagreement with that approach. My comparison to LRH’s “one size fits all” was just to point out the different goals and purposes he had as concerned a worldwide movement, and that individual practitioners like you most likely have a different approach – which, who knows, may in the long run actually achieve greater worldwide results than LRH’s would have even with more ideal organizational policies.

              Also, what you describe as regards letting the pc “take the lead,” so to speak, brings to mind an auditor I had (a Class VI) who often just waited, and thus invited me to “look” and communicate – which, as a pc, I was perfectly capable of doing and getting TA and case gain. So it seems to me that she and you too are simply very aware and non-rote as auditors. I think that’s the way it’s actually supposed to be! Even if it hasn’t generally been the case that it’s done that way.

              Your statement about “processing clients toward greater independence, rather than dependence on the counselor” seems to me to be what standard tech auditors are supposed to be doing. In any case, I think it’s great that you have made me more aware of all these points, and I’m sure you are doing so with others too. That is a great contribution in itself.

              One other thing. If your point about procedures for “getting rid of BTs” has to do with the idea of evaluating for the pc, I had an email exchange with a friend who is doing OT V with a standard-tech Independent auditor and I asked him about this. He wrote back:

              “Well, how about so many other things in life we do not see and others point them out to us, or suggest we try to see. Including sometimes our innermost issues. How about engrams? Pick somebody who never had therapy – telling him about engrams is an evaluation. He can’t see or even imagine them. The same with the whole ‘bank’ concept, usually only after education on it (and ‘evaluation’ that one has it) can it be discovered. Even teaching people about ser facs (not bank) is an evaluation about thoughts and attitudes they practice every day and…are not even slightly aware of. So evaluations and education are valid things. BUT, and a big but, as long as they are accompanied later by seeing, and by being workable.”

              That made sense to me – especially if you add to it the fact that only reading items are run. Anyway, if you meant something else and wish to comment on it, please do. (And this time I won’t end with even a kidding “Your court” 🙂 )

            19. Hi mirildi, I do understand, and, I have have often pondered that point about indoctrination myself, I agree with what your auditor friend said. As far as this applies to the subject at hand, one can also simply process what the PC himself mentions, i.e., if they express manifesting a feeling or sensation, process a feeling or sensation, if they express manifesting an incident, process an incident, if they express manifesting an entity, process an entity. I came to the same conclusion as Scientology researcher Dennis Stephens- he expressed it as “case takes on the appearance you expect it to take” (you can read into that the factor of indoctrination- but indoctrination COULD also amount to offering the client a way to envision and process their “charge”; to me the inspiration was “we create our own way in and we create our own way out”, and “perception and creation are inseparable, they are 2 sides of the same coin”. There are degrees of indoctrination- I would never have the client process their charge as an incident, identity, entity or whatever, merely because that was “the level they are on”, and direct them to do so for that reason; but when I perceive it as manifesting, I might ask “is there an identity that you assumed as a solution to that incident?” which is not imposing a paradigm on the client, but to some degree, it might be regarded as “a leading question”. If they instantly say “yes”, then off we go with processing the identity that pops right up for them; if not, we don’t pursue that avenue.

            20. Dexter: I might ask “is there an identity that you assumed as a solution to that incident?” which is not imposing a paradigm on the client, but to some degree, it might be regarded as “a leading question”. If they instantly say “yes”, then off we go with processing the identity that pops right up for them; if not, we don’t pursue that avenue.

              Chris: Awesome.

            21. Dexter: No PC should ever NEED to be told that “the meter says” anything. We are not here to empower the meter. Even saying it “as if to agree” with the PC should be downplayed, until the PC has first actually theirself indicated “I’m good, we’re done with this now”… the phenomena of the PC looking as if to ask (or asking) “Is my needle floating?”, as opposed to confidently taking the lead in expressing “I’m good now!” is a manifestation of too much empowerment in the wrong place, in my opinion. I want that PC not to feel they NEED that agreement to have their own certainty about it.

              Chris: Tremendous statement and healthy point of view. Thank you. I worked this out for myself solo’ing and would express it just as you have. I had to do both hats of auditing and pc’ing at the same time to see what you are talking about. I was amazed when I saw this for myself. I would not say that I wouldn’t use a meter again, however, my metaphor is that I look at my meter like an amputee who has grown back a leg would look at their prosthetic.

          2. Marildi, it seems that more basic is the fixation that is unfixed, the greater is the clarity. Clearing Course must unfix some basic fixation. I plan to look into it.

            Recently I looked at L-11. It unfixes the “intention to harm”. This can really clean up something fundamental. I have put together a KHTK process to unfix the “intention to harm”. One can do this process by oneself. It is perfectly safe.


            1. Vin, a while back I found a link to Tech “Volume XIV THE O.T. LEVELS.” It apparently has all the confidential issues about Clear and all the OT levels, both “old” and current, as well as the L’s. If you haven’t come across it, here you go Mr. Researcher:

              Click to access scientology-ot-levels.pdf

            2. Who is not plagiarizing, I would like to know.

              Is there originalityu in this universe, or does everything simply goes around in a circle.

              A small section of an infinite circle appears as a straight line. What may appear as original may not be original.

              Nothing in KHTK is original.

  2. To start I have to say I also don’t think there are Clears. I just give here data I studied in Scn.
    There is a reference in the OT 3 Materials which states that the clearing crs implant was just repeated at the xenu incident. It. was actually the first time implanted 1 quadrillion years ago.
    Well, as incident 1 is still way earlier it does also not make sense that the clearing course implant should be the Basic Basic. But logic doesn’t matter when dealing with Clear and how it. is achieved in Scn.

    1. That would make the scene even more interesting as we would then have a Xenu with the exact knowledge of the unclearing of an individual. On the flip side of this logic, it would make it impossible for anyone to have become unClear later than 4 quadrillion years ago. This becomes curiouser and curiouser methinks.

      1. Yes, I agree. It becomes curiouser and curiouser. 🙂
        Because of such a mess of contradicting data and other things I started to be sure there is no such thing called State of Clear….
        I understand that people got wins from the clearing course but that is simply because of the mantra, concentration (meditation) on and making aware of opposite purposes. I assume a person would have also wins on e.g. To see – Not to see, to see clearly – to see blurry, etc. Because that are the plus and minus which makes life. You could also mantra it by sitting in a room without Emeter etc. And you would have wins or even improve seesight….

      2. Somewhat like a Noah who gathered up two of every animal, Xenu’s job was bigger. He collected up every thetan in existence, made a reservation for everyone of them on those DC7s, shipping them over the holidays and still getting them there to blow up in the volcanos on time. (Ok, haha you got me, I fabricated that part about the holidays. That would have made this whole story unbelievable!)

        1. Well except xenu supposedly dealt with a limited segment of the population of one sector of this galaxy, not “all thetans”….. Isn’t that the storyline? Unless he is the same individual involved in implanting the basic implants throughout the universes all the way back?

          An ultimate undoing of reactivity might have something to do with rarified states like the early-on postulated “Cleared Theta Clear”, which always seemed to me to be considered to be a theoretical state, not one on the Grade Chart itself.

          I seem to recall seeing an EP called “No charge, no case” somewhere. Anyone recall where that was?

          1. iam, you’re thinking of “No track, no charge”, the book Scientology 0-8, the book of scales. The State of Case Scale, at the theoretical top of the scale, “40.0 No track, no charge”.

          2. Val, you can find it in the Tech Dict too under “State of Case Scale.” From an HCOB of 1963, here are the two top levels, the highest being an OT and the next one down being “the clearest Clear anybody ever heard of” – quite relevant to this and other threads on Clear and OT:

            STATE OF CASE SCALE, 1. this is the state of case scale. All levels given are major levels. Minor levels exist between them. Level (1), no track—no charge. Level (1) is of course an O.T. (HCOB 8 Jun 63) Level (2), full visible time track—some charge. Level (2) is the clearest Clear anybody ever heard of. (HCOB 8 Jun 63)…

  3. Freedom is really interesting to look at. It describes a state which is utterly relative, conditioned, and impermanent. It seems that mankind makes up metaphors for this and then lives them.

    What to do about this? 1. Pick a metaphor. 2. Be free.

    My wife laughs at my angst about this. I asked her what she would do about it. Her answer? “Have a good time all the time.” Those of you who know her can vouch this is how she lives.

      1. Thank you Dexter! If I was gonna try and be a Scientologist, I would want to be a Scientologist like you. And up life’s road, when Scientology takes over the world, I hope those Scientologists are like you. I could live in that Scientology world.

        1. “When Scientology takes over the world” Oy vey, God forbid! I wouldn’t want anything to “take over the world”, much less a paradigm about how to see things- we’ve all experienced more than enough “taking over” as it is- but thanks for the kind words, Chris 🙂

    1. Great point on freedom Chris. You wife is a shining example of Nietzsche’s “Amor Fati.” “Have a good time all the time” and “Love (Engagingly Enjoy) Fate.” are pretty close in spirit.

      The core spiritual problem for me is the reality that absolutes really aren’t attainable. “Absolute Freedom” is an absolute therefore not attainable.

      This just pisses me off deeply – at my core.

      No matter how “enlightened” or “clear” or “OT” or “Liberated” or “Blown Out” or “skilled” or whatever I become, eventually (even if I attain a state of liberation for a gazillion bazillion eons), I am going to be overwhelmed and fucked all over again no matter what some guru (or myself) promises. This is regardless of whether my core reality is SPIRIT or MEAT or BOTH.

      This is very painful for me to accept, and I think my core sickness and cure. Since there is no “cure” I am more compassionate, as the loss of hope is painful.

      Please, someone, prove me wrong. Demonstrate it. Pick up an ashtray with your mind in front of James Randi. If you can do that, real freedom, absolute freedom, is possible.

      1. KG: This just pisses me off deeply – at my core.

        Chris: hahahaha! I know what you mean! Discovering and applying the metaphor of fractal maths beginning somewhat recently, say a couple years ago incepted this feeling of hopelessness in me. I use even more metaphors to compensate and deal with this. Though I am watchful, I have no expectation of purported god-like phenomena from within this life. One metaphor that I enjoy is “dead in Christ.” One dies to one metaphor so that they can be reborn to another. “Hope” is a metaphor that I am trying to move on from. Please judge me slowly. This may not be meaningful to anyone else, I grant that. My main religious practice involves letting go of mental attachments.

        Having said that and without any morbidity or apathy, no none at all, I have found the Kübler-Ross model to be helpful. I use it like an aspirin to calm the nerves. This engenders another vector and new possibilities that we should discuss. Stated briefly, I don’t think current religious models lay out life quite rightly and so I push for another and more counter-intuitive solution since people’s intuition, knowingness, and certainty have not heretofore unraveled the puzzle. In church, we would finish with “Let us pray.” However, I like better your metaphor and so finish with “Let us laugh outside ourselves.”

        1. I’m with you on the Kübler-Ross model. Here’s a good laugh this morning. It’s funnier the more I watch it. I love the bargaining phase of this bit. And I see Marildi as the mouse at the end leapfrogging over all our bullshit!

          I think he gets out – this time.

      2. Pick up an ashtray with my mind? Easy! No problem at all!

        I look at the ashtry, I decide it needs picking up. Co-incidentally, I just happen to use the easy way to do it – I tell my brain to send a signal to my muscles to move my hand, grasp the ashtray, and make it rise into the air.

        See how awesomely OT I am! Not only did I demonstrate my OT postulate powerz, I demonstrated cause over MEST and made an object move an object! Supa Powerz twice!

        Now, where’s my million bucks?

        1. LOL, that is how it works. Why is that not enough for us? Is that how the great stone temples and tombs of the ancient world were done? Or could there be physics that we still need to learn?

          1. I reckon the great temples of the ancients were built because in those days a 150 year construction project was no big deal. A mason could work an entire lifetime on a building and still only see the stones go up by two courses.

            Nowadays, we expect shopping malls to go up in 8 months so even thinking about what it takes to build an earth ramp to build a pyramid and then excavate it away is unthinkable to the modern mind (and it would never pass the Budget Committee).

            Which raises an interesting thought: 15 year to build the Supa Powerz Building? Why in such a hurry?

            1. SuperPower building: LOL, right!

              I’ve seen great school bus sized stones cut not just with straight edges but with many angles and many cuts fitting these great stones together perfectly and without mortar to fill any non-existent gaps. I know what you mean about the availability of manpower and of using greater lengths of time to produce these monuments, however, as one who has spent a lifetime involved in construction and also with a lot of old school knowledge of using contrived rollers, levers, etc. to move buildings, I am still amazed and baffled at how 1. These cuts were made, and 2. How these enormous blocks were moved precisely that final inch to their latest resting spot which has lasted for centuries. It is really is fun to contemplate and if I could be invisible and be a time traveller, I would so love to go watch these ancestors of ours work their magic.

  4. A little Occam’s Razor:

    There are no Clears. There are no OTs. There is no State of Clear. There is no State of OT. There is no Bridge. In exactly the same way as there are no garden fairies.

    This is the inescapable conclusion one comes to after a thorough study of Hubbard, his life, his motives, his deeds, and his results. Followed by a similar study of the results of others applying his Tech.

    Hubbard made shit up as he went along.

    All gains in Scientology can be more than adequately explained by one simple principle:

    Put a person in a safe environment where they expect to be able to figure shit out, ask them to figure shit out, and they will frequently figure shit out. However, this does not mean the Tech “works” for any real definition of “work”.

    Tech does nto work, but it does not soemthing. We do not know what it does, but it is not predictable and it is not reproducable. All but Kool Aid drinkers eventually cometo this same conclusion.


    1. sigh, typos. “Tech does nto work, but it does not soemthing.” should read:

      The Tech does not work, but it does do something.

      1. 🙂

        I like Geir’s comment above that Xenu must have known how unclearing works. That brings up an interesting angle to scn mythology:

        Perhaps Xenu was actually the good guy and the Loyal Officers were the bad ‘uns all along. Perhaps Xenu was actually trying to do right and hande the Loyal Officer’s nefarious plan, but maybe he failed and they won.

        1. And perhaps Hubbard really was Lucifer and that the boys of Christianity actually are the good guys…

          Or maybe it’s sci-fi.

          1. I believe she was off designing bronze breastplates that fit properly (man, those curves are wicked, you have to beat the sheet metal not press it).

            Anyhoo, a tad short of 75,000,000 years later she was found leading an armed band of ferocious ladies in Brazil, delighting the night-time dreams of teenage boys everywhere. How she got from battling Loyal Officers to being herself imprisoned on Teegeeack is not known and the subject of much speculation.

  5. And let’s Talk about Basic Basic … So many talk about Xenu but honestly incident 1 is far more hillarious and with OT 3 it has to be actually the Basic Basic and Thermometer the clearing course does Not make Clears.
    Oh, wait! I forgot! There is this Information that there are earlier incidents 1 and Even earlier universes … Wow … Maybe we start with new Time messures. One could say 15 universes ago I went unclear. An Apple Hit my Theta Head …. LOL

  6. I may expand on this later, but I have come to believe that the “basic-basic” or the “rock” on a case is the “attachment to self.”

    According to Buddha, the self is ever changing from one moment to the next. There is no permanent self.

    It is the attachment, which may make self appear to be permanent. But this may be classed as a fixation.

    If clearing means the clearing of all fixations, then the very fixation on self needs to be cleared up as well.


    1. But if you include the concept of karma, as Buddhism does, then it seems that there would have to be SOMETHING that was continuous and ongoing, from one “reincarnation” to the next – whether it is “permanent” or not.

      1. As LRH said, Alter-is-ness continues until it is as-ised. Karma is an incomplete cycle of action, or an unresolved inconsistency, which continues until it is resolved.

        Karma is not a being.


    2. Vinaire: If clearing means the clearing of all fixations, then the very fixation on self needs to be cleared up as well.

      Chris: It is hard to move beyond pure tautology when writing on this subject. I believe that clearing tends to remove fixations on the self when it is not adding conditioning that the self is more a certainty than ever. This is not clear to me here, on this question of self, what we should be trying to understand. Should we be defining and clearing up the idea of any type of “fixation?”

      1. I think we can move beyond the tautology by comparing Theta-Mest Theory to Quantum Theory.

        (1) We note that wave motion breaks up into wave packets and acquires discrete form of a photon. The photon acquires a location to the degree it is discrete.

        (2) Similarly, we may note that THETA breaks up into thetans and acquires a distinct form of individuality. Of course, thetan is not something physical and so it cannot have physical mass, wave-length or location. But it has a discrete individuality in the theta dimension, and to that degree it has a location in that dimension.

        (3) Furthermore, awareness comes from relative motion (see KHTK AXIOM #2). Thetan as “awareness of awareness unit” shall arise from “relative motion” in theta dimension.

        (4) Each instance of relative motion may be regarded as a “vector” of awareness. A thetan may then be regarded as the “resultant” of a set of awareness vectors clustered at a location in theta dimension.

        (5) Thus, thetan is an apparency resulting from a set of awareness vectors, just like weight is an apparency resulting from a set of gravity vectors.

        This all is a conjecture at the moment, but this may lead to something interesting.


      2. Fixation may come about if we are not breaking down the thetan into its component awareness vectors for better understanding. The alignment of these vectors may appear as weakening or strengthening will of the thetan.

        1. So we are assuming that fixation is a product of component awareness vectors?

          I don’t think I know what we mean by awareness vector beyond a metaphor. What is an example of one? How do we apply this?

          1. When you visualize anything, you are becoming aware of that thing. So a complex visualization can be made up of lot of different things that can become part of awareness. Each small bit that becomes part of awareness may be regarded as an awareness vector.

            I am still working all this out. Awareness and what triggers awareness go hand in hand.

  7. The notion of a being “made” unclear is interesting in this mythos. It would indicate that a fully liberated OT STILL isn’t at one’s own determinism, but exists with the permission of others. This means that a being is eternally vulnerable even if they are in their own eternity. Cuz someone can counter-create your eternity with their own.

    After all, everyone was free ONCE. So …

    Eventually, you always can get eaten by a bigger fish or army of fishes out creating you. And eventually, even the biggest fish may get eaten up by a Ka-zillion tiny microbe thetas with attitude. Round and round you go with Full OT emerging and vanishing all the way down to 1.1 …

    THAT means that there is no ultimate free will in the story when you get into the gazillions of eons and you throw in great-grandly-grand sons of Xenu. There is no final freedom for anyone really.

    No gain.

    Remember, in this mythos all you need is a little ethylene glycol shot into the OT’s lungs (when they are in a body.) It’s guaranteed according to the big lips guy.

    MYTHOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Enjoy your lot and get pie when you can. Especially Key Lime. Or as Geir says…

    Like Everything! That means the up going and the down going …

    Or as the Lojong Proverbs Say …

    “Notice your attachments, aversions and indifference and love them all.”

    1. While laughing at your great humor 😀 I managed to find the following for you, which will at least give you LRH’s answer to your very good (implied) question:

      “Remember, you were clear once—trillions of years ago. Why didn’t you stay that way? Because the traps were well designed and you had no anatomy of traps. Well, Scientology does have the anatomy of the traps, the Axioms, the discipline and know-how necessary to handle and control the laws of the universe.” (from the Ability article, Does Clearing Cancel the Need for Training?”)

      1. And … THEN what happens?

        They adapt to your keen new supa-powers. You don’t think they are going to SIT ON THEIR HANDS DO YOU ?

        Remember Masada?

        ANGRY JEWISH GUY WITH BIG HAT: “Oh, we’re safe now with our high plateau tech here on Masada! Shee-uhtt With the rain water and good soil we can farm and support our ourselves surrounded by a fucking CLIFF! We’re too unimportant for them to build a huge fucking ramp with Jewish slave labor. Why, that would take years just to show up OUR little village. …!”

        You know what happened right?

        Assholes HATE people who live free. And then there are the carpet baggers.

        And WHO do you think is going to tip them off for the right price?

        My bet would be the Big Lips Guy. I know you think differently and that’s okay.

        And THEN he’ll sell you a NEW solution for all the NEW problems that will take a new billion year contract and even sillier uniforms and worse food! Yup, it’s BEANS ONLY this time- NO RICE! And they are KIDNEY BEANS!


        ….. UGH! Time for my trademark three words separated by periods. . .

        Key. Lime. Pie.

        “Solve All Problems by Accepting the Bad Energy and Sending out the Good.” – Lojong Proverbs.

        And what IS the good we send out? Key lime pie baby. Key lime pie.


          I’ll see you up the line. 😀

          (And when I do, I’ll be prepared to LMAO!)

          1. Why miss the laugh that is here now?!

            Remember, if there is reincarnation THIS is the afterlife!


            1. Oh, believe me, I haven’t missed the laughs!

              But rather than thinking in terms of “life after death,” I would prefer to say “life after life.” However, I guess that conflicts with your beliefs (you heathen you! 😉 )

            2. Have you laughed beyond all dharmas today?
              Have you laughed beyond OT Level Bazillion today?
              Have you laughed so transcendently today that you can laugh it ALL off and love it?

              Can you laugh such that LRH would never fathom it’s wealth because it goes so beyond him that his efforts are a pale laughingstock compared to it’s radiance?

  8. In reading the OP

    (1) I would question the datum, “An individual (a thetan) was originally almighty and Clear (no reactive mind).”

    (2) I would question the very fact of a “past track”. Past lives are recalled by living people.

    (3) All ideas of between lives existence are subjective only. Between lives existence has never been perceived objectively to my knowledge.


    1. Vin, this was my first thought, too: “(1) I would question the datum, “An individual (a thetan) was originally almighty and Clear (no reactive mind).”

      I would say an individual was originally POTENTIALLY (possibly) almighty and POTENTIALLY Clear. He could not actually have been “Clear” because he had nothing about him to be Clear of, until after he had acquired reactive mechanisms of some kind, that he could become Clear of. He had not yet experienced the school of hard knocks.

  9. Unclear seems to start with the beginning of Thetan and individuality. I am preparing a post for it.

    Just as a wave mutates into a particle, theta mutates into a thetan.


  10. This Michael Tsarion in the video says some interesting things. One is at 5.38.
    If it is close to some truth, can it be also so for Life as a whole of its ability to create
    illusions? Also, as part of the answer to the ‘existence of the three universes’?

  11. Dexter, I definitely got that you are very much “auditing the pc in front of you” – and that really sounds ideal.

    I’m kind of getting the idea of what you mean about degrees of indoctrination. Is it simply a matter of using the construct that “matches” what comes up in the session, perhaps without any, or minimal, indoctrination or pc hatting (as in a C/S 1) ahead of time?

    And I may have to work on “we create our own way in and we create our own way out”, and “perception and creation are inseparable, they are 2 sides of the same coin.” 🙂

    1. p.s. Just to clarify, the friend I quoted isn’t an auditor but he is I/P on standard-tech audited NOTs.

      1. Marildi: p.s. Just to clarify, the friend I quoted isn’t an auditor but he is I/P on standard-tech audited NOTs.

        Chris: just to be clear, I call bullshit on this tech degrade.

    2. Marildi: And I may have to work on “we create our own way in and we create our own way out”, and “perception and creation are inseparable, they are 2 sides of the same coin.” 🙂

      Chris: Awesome.

      1. Yes, I know Michael- He’s been one of my clients over the past year or two (since this video was made) 🙂 He’s freely shared about his processing with me, and wrote out a recommendation for me on Linked-In, so he’s already been public about it, and I’m not betraying any confidences in saying this.

        1. Whoa – I call that kismet! I’ve had several enjoyable blog exchanges with “OnceUponaTime” (his former posting name) in the past but haven’t seen him posting anywhere recently. “Something” made me think of him today. 🙂

          And I did find that his viewpoint seemed to align well with yours. 😉

          1. Specifically, I meant his viewpoint about Clear aligns well with yours – at least I think you would agree with that.

            As for his view of Scientology, that aligns very well with mine!

          2. Marildi: “. . . And I did find that his (Michael Priv) viewpoint seemed to align well with yours. ;)”

            Chris: I do not get that from watching the video. Why do you think this?

            1. Why don’t you start, by saying why you don’t think they align.

            2. Marildi, I write time sequential from my e-mail so I wrote that to the post it is under. After that you modified your post to say that your idea of Clear and Dexter’s is aligned and yours and Michael Priv’s align regarding Scientology which I found to be more consistent, so my challenge is withdrawn and I will let Dexter’s words on Clear stand on their own and yours as well. Michael Priv’s video was very well done and as I wrote, I found the video to show him to be intelligent, well-spoken, and thoroughly conditioned into the Hubbardian world view of Scientology. A man can believe what he wants to himself, that is his right. I do not respect the opinions he expressed of L Ron Hubbard, however, I do respect his right to have them as I am sure he and all Scientologists respect my right to mine.

            3. “…thoroughly conditioned into the Hubbardian world view of Scientology.”

              What could anybody possibly say in terms of a positive statement about Scientology that you wouldn’t automatically label as “conditioned”?

              It seems to me that this is your stock response no matter what is said about it – in other words, how are you any less conditioned?

            4. Marildi: What could anybody possibly say in terms of a positive statement about Scientology that you wouldn’t automatically label as “conditioned”?

              Chris: You’re not tracking with me . . . it’s not because it’s Scientology, it’s because it is a cult ideology. And now like the Marcabs, I am seeing them everywhere.(joke about the Marcabs) We, as Scientologists are conditioned to see a Scientology World. This is the both brilliance of the charlatan Hubbard and also his angst: To keep us from looking too closely to see the man behind the curtain. When we look closely at Scientology, it unravels as an ideology. Now with reference to Scientologists like Dexter, he seems like a man with a bag of tools who thinks on his feet and spends his days helping people. That’s a whole other thing than what Mr. Priv described in the video.

            5. “Now with reference to Scientologists like Dexter, he seems like a man with a bag of tools who thinks on his feet and spends his days helping people. That’s a whole other thing than what Mr. Priv described in the video.”

              I don’t see it as “a whole other thing.” As I said in so many words on one of my comments above, a good auditor who has full conceptual understanding of the tech also “thinks on his feet.” The difference with Dexter is that he is open to improvements on the tech and doesn’t limit himself to what LRH laid out. On the video, Michael didn’t talk about anything but standard tech, but I wouldn’t doubt he is now (if he wasn’t already then) open to it. And so am I.

            6. Marildi: I don’t see it as “a whole other thing.”

              Chris: I know that you don’t, hence the friction. I have to wonder whether we saw the same video. This discussion reminds me of the difference between Tom Cruise and John Travolta. Tom Cruise has this way of using Scientology to alienate people whereas John Travolta comes across as a warm, sincere, and caring person. Personally? I think Travolta’s grades are flattened. I have met him and he has a tremendous warmth and presence. I haven’t met Tom Cruise but his public antics and incestuously close association with DM is not endearing.

            7. My point exactly. You come across as the Tom Cruise of critics. 😛

              I don’t get that a discussion is intended.

            8. Merely being fancy with generalized name calling is why you and I can’t ever get a discussion going.

              Like with tonight – you haven’t stayed with a single line of discussion but instead throw out some generalities or else Red Herring.

              Try again another time.

            9. I may not. For one thing, I get tired of having my own personal troll.

            10. Having gotten to know Michael rather well, I can tell you that he is not so deeply invested in the C of S- proscribed Scientology mentality as you seem to think. He may have been more so at the time this video was recorded. The time index is always important. That video was done two years ago. My own perspective, over the last few years, has changed dramatically (and I look forward, expectantly to further change, without which there is no growth) 🙂

            11. Dexter, I didn’t get that he was talking about the “C of S-proscribed Scientology mentality,” which to me would include the kinds of things you listed as curves. And I agreed with you but noted that they were complete opposites of the original philosophy – and I get that Michael would too.

            12. I’m sorry, I failed to make it clear, but I was addressing Chris’s opinion of Michael’s mindset regarding Scientology, and not yours, mirildi 🙂

            13. Thank you Dexter. No disrespect to Michael Priv, I had to mention his name to make my comment relevant, however, I already took into account the thought that the video represented a point of view of his at one time and that was then and this is now. Even if someone is the biggest true believer in any ideology, I do not care so long as I get to have the same rights to my own thoughts and opinions. But Scientology is predatory and I get uncomfortable listening to people make sweeping and irresponsibly benign statements about this predatory by policy cult. To reinforce your point, I wouldn’t have written those words two years ago either. I have changed and expect to continue to do so.

            14. “I’m sorry, I failed to make it clear, but I was addressing Chris’s opinion of Michael’s mindset regarding Scientology, and not yours, marildi ”

              Thanks for the clarification, Dexter. 🙂

            15. Marildi: “It seems to me that this is your stock response no matter what is said about it – in other words, how are you any less conditioned?”

              Chris: I am curious whether you will post to “Pros and Cons” or whether you will give it a pass?

            16. Me: “It seems to me that this is your stock response no matter what is said about it – in other words, how are you any less conditioned?”

              Chris: “I am curious whether you will post to “Pros and Cons” or whether you will give it a pass?”

              That’s a classic Red Herring.

            17. No m’am, that is a challenge. I have 5 pro-Scientology remarks prepared. Do you have 5 contrary remarks ready? We’ve been a long time reading you write how you are not a Scientology Extremist and though you write it, you don’t seem to understand anyone’s beef with the tenets of Scientology, giving the Frenchman’s wave calling them mis-Us, confusions, 1.1 and the like. You’ve taken to “hold your position in space” as though it were an engramic command and I suppose you think the universe will tear if you back off from that, but it won’t, and I will respect you and I know that you want that!

            18. For me, knowing that you know that you know that you know with certainty that you are Clear, is similar to and has no greater basis in fact than a Christian who knows that they know that they know that they are saved and going to Heaven. This as clear as the path to Clear ever is and in fact is the simplicity with which it is certified.

      2. Good post Marildi. This is excellent video of “What is Scientology” as described from the point of view of a very nice seeming man, intelligent, and thoroughly indoctrinated into a single frame of reference of a single ideology. We can re-make this video using any person seeking to support and reinforce any ideology at all, and that video will be true to the person making it. We’ve come to the point where we should take an open and honest look at the depth, veracity, and usefulness of the tautological maxim, “What is true, is what is true for you.” On a scale of “what is true,” would we say that this statement is the highest possible truth, lowest possible truth, or somewhere in between? Is this a great statement of truth, or a small statement of truth?

        1. The “what is true” misquote is all over the place on the Internet in discussions of scientology and is always a straw man. Hubbard never said it the way it is presented. It is probably one of the earliest examples of alter-is of scientology and of what Hubbard was trying to convey. Here’s what he actually said, to the best of my knowledge: “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. And when you lose that, you have lost everything.”

          The tautology you refer to is the product of simple minds with their own agenda, or an implanted agenda. It is a contagion of abberation.

          1. I don’t see how that is any different in meaning from simply saying “what is true for you is what is true for you”, and I can’t help but notice that you are using Hubbard’s “contagion of aberration” phrase to characterize the “true for you” statement. Perhaps, Valkov, you are reflecting the “Keeping Scientology Working” paradigm, essentially being that one must exactly “duplicate” and apply exactly as stated by Hubbard?

            1. I don’t think they are the same at all. The one says nothing about having actually observed anything for yourself as a basis. Absent that, it leaves it open for one to think or believe something is true because the Bible says so, or Hubbard says so, etc. One can simply assert, “Well, it’s true for me” in response to any query.
              Granted English is my second language but I have a pretty good academic knowledge of it, and that’s how I read the difference between the two statements.
              And I don’t give a shit about KSW, which would be meaningful if the Bridge was a complete and perfected system, which I don’t believe it is. I think Hubbard was close when he said it is a workable system; but that workability seems to depend on the ability and intentions of the practitioner, as to how well s/he is able to work it. Comparably to psychology and psychiatry, good therapists seem to be largely born, not so much made by education. I think KSW was intended to hold the line on even inept therapists with little or no natural ability, to be able to deliver some benefit by using the “tech” without necessarily understanding it very well.

              I think it is an error to conflate the two statements. The ultimate result of doing so can be a cult of true believers, something like the CoS, or fundamentalist Republicans, in which whatever they believe is “true” because it’s true for them, regardless of observable evidence.

              Thanks for jumping in, but I am still interested in what Chris thinks about it…..

            2. We’ll agree to disagree, I guess. “What’s true for you” is true through whatever means of observation, experience, consciousness, knowledge, deduction, etc, you arrive at deciding about something being true. “What’s true for you” doesn’t imply or state that there were no logical or intuitive means through which the truth was arrived at. To me, your Hubbard quote is simply a more detailed way of saying the same thing.

            3. Hey Dex. I thought I would add my 2 cents worth, partly for the fun of having some comm with you guys after so long, 🙂

              Below is the context for the line “What is true for you…” which, as you know, is from the essay “Personal Integrity.” This isn’t one of Hubbard’s best pieces of writing, IMO, but I think it does have something of value to say. I’ve put in all caps what I personally think is significant.

              “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. And when you lose that, you have lost everything.

              “What is personal integrity? Personal integrity is knowing what you know. What you know is what you know and to have the courage to know and say what you have observed. And that is integrity and there is no other integrity.

              “Of course, we can talk about honor, truth, nobility—all these things as esoteric terms. But I think they would all be covered very well if what we really observed was what we observed, that we took care to observe what we were observing, that we always observed to observe. and not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude, a critical attitude or an open mind—not necessarily maintaining these things at all – BUT CERTAINLY MAINTAINING SUFFICIENT PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND SUFFICIENT PERSONAL BELIEF AND CONFIDENCE IN SELF AND COURAGE THAT WE CAN OBSERVE WHAT WE OBSERVE AND SAY WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED.”

              Pretty cool, eh? Observe for yourself – and then say what you’ve observed.

            4. Hiya Marildi! Yes, both very cool, and a common principle. If only Hubbard hadn’t violated that pronouncement with the rather severe penalties imposed on those who dared to say anything critical of Hubbard or Scientology, or, even more so, his emphatic statements in “Keeping Scientology Working” that he, and only he alone could develop a “workable technology” of the mind, and that others’ ideas would only be ruinous. Not exactly in the spirit of your quote above. Hubbard had many of his most valuable friends and researchers cast out, declared “suppressive”, vilified and hounded for following the paths of their own observations, and threatened others with disconnection if they dared associate with them. That part was less cool.

            5. You say it’s a common principle? The only similar one I can think of is “To thine own self be true and it follows as the day the night, thou can’st not then be false to any man.” But the quote of Hubbard’s says HOW to be true to oneself. It comes down to “observe what you observe,” and then say what it is. Ya know, sometimes I think most people are reluctant to give Hubbard any more credit than they have to – that is, as reluctant as I used to be to deny him credit. 😀

              Oh, and they also like to exaggerate, especially with the KSW card. I don’t recall that he said “…he alone could develop a ‘workable technology’ of the mind, and that others’ ideas would only be ruinous.” You left out all the qualifications on those points! Makes a difference. 😛

            6. Hi Marildi, :”

              Oh, and they also like to exaggerate, especially with the KSW card. I don’t recall that he said “…he alone could develop a ‘workable technology’ of the mind, and that others’ ideas would only be ruinous.” You left out all the qualifications on those points! Makes a difference. :P”

              Perhaps you’re pinning your defense of Hubbard on his not having precisely made that assertion verbatim, but in his “Keeping Scientology Working”, his imposing that assertion is virtually unmistakable. And to drive it home, he ordered that “KSW” be included on every single course checksheet in Scientology.

              Surely you’re not denying that he made that claim, emphatically and vociferously?

            7. Yay! One of my favorite sparring partners is back. 😛

              “Perhaps you’re pinning your defense of Hubbard on his not having precisely made that assertion verbatim…”

              Not at all. If you had paraphrased it this way: “…he alone DID (instead of “could”) develop a ‘workable technology’ of the mind,” I would have agreed with you. The word “could” conveys the idea of “would be able to” and thus would mean that no one else was or would EVER be able to develop a workable technology. No, he only said that in the past no one else HAD been able to, and he cited the technologies that had been developed (brutal psychiatry, etc.) Btw, I think he was probably right that there was no other workable technology at the time. Don’t you? (It’s different now, however.)

              As for what you said about ideas that “would be ruinous,” to me, it would have been a more correct paraphrase if you had said that “a GROUP’s (instead of “others'”) ideas would be ruinous.” It seems to me that Hubbard’s whole point was that (to quote) “constructive ideas are INDIVIDUAL…The decent, pleasant things on this planet come from INDIVIDUAL actions and ideas that have somehow gotten by the Group Idea.”

              Now, don’t take any personal offense to this, but I honestly think that for the most part the criticisms of KSW1 are…group think! As ironic as that is, it truly seems to me that someone (actually, more than one) started interpreting different parts of KSW in certain ways and these interpretations caught on and became “obvious fact.” Why? Because of repetition – and because people WANTED to see that PL in negative ways.

              I should know – I have done the same thing, except in the reverse – I have wanted to see Hubbard and Scientology in positive ways and have tried my utmost to see how they were right. BUT, I like to think I’m better now at not just looking through my own pre-established filters.

              In all honesty, with regard to the core essence of KSW – which is “do things the standard way – our way” – I think most organizations and companies would and do take the exact same approach. So what’s the beef?

              (Hope ol’ Roll-o-Dex can roll with the punches. 🙂 )

            8. Oh Marildi my dear, you do frame things as you prefer to see them some times 🙂 ..”the core essence of KSW – which is “do things the standard way – our way” – I think most organizations and companies would and do take the exact same approach. So what’s the beef?”

              Firstly, now word Hubbard ever uttered was about “our way”- which would credit a number of contributors to the system. It was all, per “KSW”, about Hubbard and nobody else. Many major contributors- John Galusha, Dennis Stephens, Jack Horner, Alan Walter, John Mcmaster, David Mayo, et al were all thrown under the bus, and the (false) message was, “this is all a product of me, and me only (a lie), and that proves (which it wouldn’t, even if it wasn’t a lie) that nobody else is capable of contributing a single worthwhile idea”, and he coined a derogatory usage of the word “squirrels” to vilify and ridicule anyone who would change or disagree with a word Hubbard uttered (hey, that rhymes, “Hubbard uttered”, I like that!).. anyway, deny as you feel you must, but I don’t know of any organizations other than cults that reject or deny all contributions other than that of one man, so the attempted relating to “most organizations and companies” just doesn’t hold water.. just hot air. 🙂
              Best, Roll-o-Dex

            9. Okay, point taken about no one being able to disagree with a word “Hubbard uttered” (I like it too! 😀 )

              That said, my basic point still stands: If a company does develop a specific tech (regardless of which person or person’s did the developing) and promotes that particular tech to the public, I’m sure it would want the company employees – and the execs/leaders too, for that matter – to follow the tech that was developed. And to my mind, THAT is the main theme of KSW1, Hubbard’s flaws notwithstanding.

              Seriously, dear Roll-o, why must we put so much attention on his flaws, and as little as possible on his contributions? That’s what I get from so many people. Yes, he had flaws! He was a sinner! Okay? But, somehow, I would expect the Roll-o-Dex to evaluate importances and to look beyond the flaws to the incredible developments that were brought about, even if Hubbard mainly gets credit for “directing” it all. Or maybe I’m ignorant of how much those guys you listed contributed. Can you be somewhat more specific about that too? I’m sure we can resolve these parallel universes. 🙂

            10. To each his own. I think the phenomena of hypnotism belie your viewpoint. A hypnotized person can be told what is true in the face of all observable facts, and it will be “true for him”. It will not be what he has observed for himself, but it will be true for him.
              However, this has been a good illustration of what I call “the tower of babel” phenomena – in which the meaning of words is so idiosyncratic that understanding between people is limited by the common denominators, if they can be found.

            11. I’m always amused at the hullabaloo around that phrase and the various ways it can be bent. To me, it’s always been completely obvious what it means:

              Don’t accept something as true unless you tested it yourself and verified it.

              Or put another way, don’t accept something on authority alone.

              Simple, easy. None of this other crap like having a delusional belief in pink fairies, never having tested the existence of pink fairies, but pink fairies must therefore be true in your world because it’s true for you.

            12. That’s where it gets complicated, and I was also trying to not be too wordy.

              “Verify” doesn’t have to be direct, supporting evidence plays a role, as does trust. People working in the field of sub-atomic physics take it as demonstrated that electrons and quarks do exist, although no-one has ever seen an isolated one directly. The supporting evidence ties in with the theory so well and so consistently that we take the theory as proven.

              I can’t verify personally a man called L. Ron Hubbard once lived, the critter is dead. But there are photos, other people who met him, birth and other records and it’s highly unlikely a complete record like that could be fabricated.

              So I can do some looking into these two things and satisfy myself they are true.

              Now take something most Scientologists swear is true – exterior with full perception. Many people claim it is possible and yet after 60 years no-one has yet demonstrated objectively they can do it. When people claim they can see the world in total clarity without the body’s eyes then it is trivially simple to read a card on top of the cupboard out of sight. Or tell me how many fingers I’m holding up behind my back. Considering what exterior is described to be, those two things can be assumed to be skills the exterior person would have.

              That’s why I say exterior with full perception is bunk – if it existed a whack of supporting evidence would be present. But in real life this evidence is spectacularly noticeable in it’s complete lack. And holding to the belief that it is true is a case of not doing “true for you” right.

              I’ve never seen a nuclear weapon, I consider their existence highly likely – everything else about nuclear physics leads to it being possible. And our species does have a tendency to weaponize anything with a remote potential of being weaponizable

            13. Good reply, Splog.

              On the point about the “complete lack” of evidence for exterior perception, there is actually a lot of evidence. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be so many police departments and federal government agencies who hire “clairvoyants” and remote viewers. You as a science type seem to be too heavy on the skeptical and too light on the open-minded requirements of true science.

            14. Please cite this evidence.

              Real, honest to god, factual evidence – no hearsay, no vagueness in the results, no attestations. The requirement here is indisputable evidence, the sort of thing you’d get if someone exterior with full perception was in the same room as me and could tell me how many fingers I was holding up behind my back, and get it right 20 times out of 20.

              I’ve looked, this evidence is not there.

              Why do I demand this level of evidence? Because that’s the level that makes progress, that is how science works. In science, no-one gets a free-pass on vagueness – the result is either as predicted within correct measurement parameters or it is not.

              Early in the 1900’s many folks thought Albert Einstein was bonkers. Huge cracks in the Newtonian universe were appearing but many still held to the old idea, so the open-minded folks went looking for the evidence (we don’t count the first one with a total solar eclipse – the researcher’s methods were faulty) so the real clincher was completely explaining the perturbations in Mercury’s orbit caused by relativistic effects from the sun, and subsequently verified many times over. Do you know that the GPS satellites that help your phone tell you where you are must account for relativity due to the earth’s gravity to give you that accuracy of less than 1m? Without it, GPS couldn’t give you turn-by-turn directions. That’s what we can evidence, the math works out.

              You know what? Real evidence is hard. Clairvoyants get it easy – any fool can say there’s water near the murder site. If you say it every time you’ll be right 2 times out of 3.

              Another example – evolution. Darwin didn’t just say one day “hey! we all have monkeys as ancestors!”[1] and biology took his word for it. It was 10 years or more of observing before he published, and even then he still had reservations. What’s the evidence? The fossil record, the geological layers, local speciation and real-time observations of fast-reproducing species. Nowadays we have the complete clincher – molecular biology from sequenced DNA.

              That’s what evidence is – so much data all pointing towards a common principle, leading to a workable theory that produces observable predictions. Not vague wishy-washy assertions like “Oh there’s a lot of evidence” but when you go looking none of it is credible.

              I’m not giving you a pass on this Marildi, I’ve seen you too long defending Hubbard’s crap and backing up none of it.

              So, you claim things like exterior with full perception are true. I demand it be demonstrated. Put up, or shut up.

              How many fingers am I holding up? That’s the question, can you answer it? Can anyone?

              [1] He said nothing of the kind, that’s an old, old, creationist strawman. What he said is that all primates are descended from a common ancestor.

            15. Well I still have all 10 I was born with…

              Anyway, I’m actually holding up 7 fingers on one hand (Bruce Almighty – one of my favourite films of all time)

            16. Splog, if you do a google search, you can read about the evidence from many, many studies. I just googled and got an article hot of the press – dated tomorrow! (Ha ha – today for you Setheffricans.) The article is titled “Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that ‘out of body’ and ‘near-death’ experiences may be real” Here’s a paragraph from it, and the link:
              Speaking to The Telegraph about the evidence provided by a 57-year-old social worker Southampton, Dr Parnia said: “We know the brain can’t function when the heart has stopped beating. But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes. The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for. He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened.”


            17. p.s. Here’s another good one, from an article titled “New Evidence Suggests that the Near-Death-Experience is the Spirit Leaving the Body and Not Just a Dying Brain”
              “First and foremost is the research of Dr. Ken Ring, one of the deans of Near-Death research. In one of his books Mindsight, Dr. Ring investigated 31 blind people who had near-death-experiences and or out-of-body experiences. 80% of the respondents claimed that they were able to see when out of their bodies, even those who were congenitally blind (blind from birth). Congenitally blind people don’t even have a concept of sight; they only dream in audio. Many of these people had flat brain waves and were in cardiac arrest in hospitals. Five of them saw things that could be verified independently. I will ask one question of the scientific community. Without eyes, in cardiac arrest and with flat brain waves, what did these people see with? Unless all the participants in this study are lying, this particular phenomenon cannot be explained from the current scientific theory of material reductionism. The theory of Occam’s Razor would suggest that this is a real event.”



            18. It is also true that the absence of the kind of evidence you specify does npt mean something does not exist or has never existed. For example, if 100 people do a particular rundown, and some of them experience exteriorization apparently (to them) with “full perception” (whatever that means), you have no way of disproving that. At best you can do the rundown yourself and see whether or not you have that experience. Further, the experience may be short-lived and not repeatable. That does not mean it didn’t happen.
              For conceptualizing the relationship and interplay between subjective and objective knowledge, I recommend Ken Wilbur’s book A Brief History of Everything.

            19. iamvalkov: It is also true that the absence of the kind of evidence you specify does npt mean something does not exist or has never existed.

              splog: That’s very true as lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

              I’m being careful not to make that mistake, my challenges are about a complete lack of evidence where evidence should be there according to claims.

              But Hubbard was rather specific in his claims about OT powers and exteriorization, those claims can be tested and to date no-one in the scientology-watcher community has come up with credible evidence. So until someone produces the smoking gun, safe money says we treat it as not true or at least unproven

            20. I don’t disagree with any of that, but it’s pretty much unrelated to my original comment about the difference I perceive in the meaning of the two statements.

            21. My comment was not actually about “that phrase”, but about whether or not two phrases were equivalent and meant the same thing. I do not think the two statements are the same and carry the. same meaning. Saying “it’s true if it’s true for you ” states nothing at all about any objective basis for believing something is true. Ben Carson may believe God created the world in literally 6 days 6,000 years ago, but that doesn’t make it true in any objective sense.

              Hubbard’s actual statement calls for verification (of something unspecified) by your own observation.
              It may be he is calling for verification of subjective realities or changes in such, as opposed to objective realities.
              The phrase in question is at best a misquote of Hubbard, and is loosely used by some scientologists to create a mind-fuck. It misrepresents what Hubbard said and I believe, meant.
              That was the point of my comment.

            22. I’m with you on this, at least on the objective reality.

              Subjective reality is something else, and Hubbard was always big on that, starting with the factors and 3 universes. As to what he really meant, I have no idea. He was never especially exact in his utterances; wordy – yes, exact – no.

              And then he went and turned the whole principle on it’s head, even with objective realities with such beauties as KSW1 and Standard Tech Defined.

            23. Very interesting statements, Dex and Valkov. (Hi btw, after some absence! 🙂 )

              Btw, — pertinent to the entire “true for you” bit (‘stable datum’ of much ridicule and contention, since first proffered by the Ol’ man), I recall a still valuable ‘truth’, given to me, by a (now departed) friend, many years ago!

              — “Trust ?? — I trust EVERYONE, 100%! — To do, EXACTLY, what they WILL do!

            24. Dexter, Hi there. Of course we’ve never ‘met’, (until now) That is to say, I have managed to essentially take on board, the essence of your views, and how YOU go about helping others.

              — Gratefully accomplished through simply making the time to watch some of your videos and especially “Paralleling the Mind”, clearing away an ENORMOUS quantity of vagueness ( for me), just INSTANTLY! Then replacing it with a genuine appreciation of your remarkable, incisive abilities. I sincerely mean that, too!! 🙂

              I would love nothing more than to link up with you for personal auditing, regarding myself and members of my family. Your degree of ‘non judgementalism’ and sincerity, is THE quality, I have been searching for, which makes the plan, possible! 🙂

              And thanks too, for your gentle, ‘no-nonsense’ revelations! I can think of a whole bunch of troubled beings, by which your ‘guiding style’ of auditing, would instantly shatter their presently OVERWHELMING self-created cases’!!!!

              The action plan will likely occur in the latter part of 2016, with my current large project firmly established and then running smoothly. Will discuss details when ready, from my side. 🙂

              Keep up the brilliance, Dexter. Your shining light dispels many shadows of myth, untruth and outright BS, in attaining the simple goals of freedom ‘from’ and ‘to’

              – Calvin B. Duffield.

              Durban, South Africa.

            25. Hey Dex, I don’t blame you if you aren’t interested in continuing this long worn-out discussion! I just thought that if you actually were interested, the two of us might be able to clarify some things for ourselves or for the other one – or both – all in the spirit of camaraderie that Calvin referred to.

              Anyway, just wanted to add one last bit, for the record. The statement in KSW 1 that is most relevant to our exchange was this one: “Willing as I was to accept suggestions and data, only a handful of suggestions (less than twenty) had long-run value and none were major or basic…” And it appears that one major player back then, Otto Roos, would agree with that. Here’s a portion of a letter he wrote to Ivy in 1999:

              There have been quite a number of people who claim to have discovered items “Ron
              overlooked”, “Ron missed”, etc. Having been among the first of the supposedly “illustrious people”, referred to [in a previous Ivy article], and having worked on a personal basis for years with LRH , I unfortunately have to admit to have always recognised him as a man without peer. He certainly did not “miss”, “overlook”, or what have you in his auditing technology, regardless of the things which happened at a later stage in the church itself.

              This does not mean that others have not contributed to the development and later updating of the technology. However, to in any way make less of the work of LRH is a very unwise disconnection indeed. THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS, EVEN THOSE OF LRH HIMSELF, ALL STEM FROM THE BASIC TECHNOLOGY AND DATA HE PUT TOGETHER.

              In an earlier Ivy I described him as a gatherer and relay point of data even more than as a source. The data was always there, but HE CREATED THE WORKABLE WORKING TECHNOLOGY ALL THE LATER DEVELOPMENTS ARE BASED ON. So it doesn’t really behoove any of us to invalidate that or his earlier work. Especially those who did successfully complete the Upper Level Auditor Courses, and who did achieve the skills of mastering the flawless auditing of these levels, (and the altitude!) are not likely to invalidate that data or those who deliver it.

              All the best, Otto J. Roos, Holland

              Click to access IVy43.pdf


  12. Dear marildi, excuse my intercepting your comment, but I would like to know if you have ever experienced such exterior perception.

    1. Hi Rafa. Yes, I have gone exterior – and usually with full (body) perception. 😀

      That’s actually true, but on one occasion when I was a child, I moved around the house and could clearly see and hear everything.

      How about you?

      1. Ahhhhh. some much appreciated, ‘relevant’ comm again, Marildi, so thanks for the breather, kindred spirit. (You had your own quota of ‘enemy fire’, directed at you too!) After finally having the non existent (but presumed) ‘welcome’ mat (silly me), unceremoniously yanked away by Mike, I just did the honorable thing. – Left!

        I don’t believe in taking enemies, so say my piece and just, move on! 🙂

        Then lo and behold, — some “activity” (that I’m able to ‘follow’), again! 🙂

        — And it’s right here at Geir’s place — whooopee! 🙂 ….one certainly IS made welcome, no mysteries, or sulking refusals to acknowledge involved! LOL!

        And thank you Geir, for keeping YOUR integrity, balance, and values, from decent into a cesspool of vitriol and snipers ruling the day. You see, I have no option but to deal with “that” extensively, in my working environment on a regular basis.

        Naturally, still somehow remaining (part) human 🙂 I find myself seeking relief from that kind of existence, where one has to keep a constant look out for the next ACTUAL/stray bullet heading one’s way. (Oh, i never hesitate to shoot back, (literally) if attacked, btw!) LOL!! Only problem with that, is finding yourself targeted by THE ‘Authority’ deciding who is responsible! …. (invariably, YOU, of course!) 😉

        — Now for the positive stuff: — “Geir’s Place” I find to be lively, stimulating (not without it’s fair share of disputes and debates) and possessing your unique ‘freshness’ of spirit, and openness, that attracted me here in the first place. …………… in one word………. sane!!!!!!

        Jeez, man/woman. The way I see it, life can be cut short in an instant! … So why waste any of it, in pursuits that just unnecessarily sap your creative energy and/or meaningful activity??

        Looking forward to resuming the genuine comradarie again. 🙂

        Thank you,

        — Calvin. 🙂

        1. Btw, Geir, still punting for a plug re; “working your magic” over on our spot on the planet (as discussed with you earlier)

          –Just waiting for the ‘new broom’ to settle in / do the usual ‘sweeps clean’ protocol. which invariably takes place! 🙂

          Will keep you posted on any developments. (if any)


            1. Thanks, Calvin/Racing and Geir for the kind words, I appreciate your appreciation. I’m happy to give a free sample session, you know how to find me! 🙂

        2. “After finally having the non-existent (but presumed) ‘welcome’ mat (silly me), unceremoniously yanked away by Mike, I just did the honorable thing. – Left!”

          Hey Calvin, my friend. I saw that reply to you from Mike, but I didn’t interpret it the way you did. You just happened to be at the tail end of a string of complaints to him about the nasty comments by some people there. IMO, he needed to save face, that’s all – and he took it out on you. But I’m sure he wasn’t saying you aren’t welcome. And I do think he got the message – and so did some of the worst posters, who have lightened up a bit. So, well done! 😉

          1. Thanks Marildi. The ‘relationship’ just never clicked from the beginning, for reasons unknown to me, (over a very protracted period) My leaving was just a natural consequence of my ‘innate’ nature: — I refuse to prevaricate, or take shit from anyone, without giving it back with interest. I greatly respect the man for his crusade, so had little choice but to put a lid on my seething anger. I quit on my determinism not to waste ONE more moment of my attention in a situation/space clearly beyond my control. You are entitled to YOUR own views too!

            A blog, to me personally, should represent a sort of club, (‘pub’?) where one is free to pop in after a heavy day’s grind at work, among a bunch of pals, who understand the ethos of and respect the comradery at hand and enjoy themselves accordingly! 🙂

            People who try to disrupt that, are usually asked to leave. If they persist, they get thrown out! Decisiveness, very often requires one to act forcefully! No Mr.”Nice Guy” needed!

            One needs to stand up to and defeat bullies, long BEFORE they seize control of an area.

            That takes guts, you know? 🙂

            The great news? –You can relax now.. For we have a superbly ‘balanced’ host here, who simply has no need to cart around ‘the baggage’ of other exe’s and their assorted axes-to-grind. Great hey?

            Hey, Sunshine 🙂 Just smell the air around here. … It’s fresh! … clean!… No ominous toxic atmosphere, either …Just my kind of space, me heart! .. For you to enjoy, too! 🙂

            Calvin, — r-r-r-rrracing!!.>> > > > > > > > 🙂

            1. Good post, Calvin—r-r-r-rrracing!!.>> > > > > > > > 🙂

              I respect your approach and see nothing wrong with it, even though my own is different. We all have our own views and our own style.

              I don’t participate in most of Mike’s comment threads, but once in a while a topic will interest me. The recent thread about the use of niacin on the purif got a number of posters who, one by one, spoke up about the nasty ad hom of some of the regulars there. And I think their comments on that point influenced other posters – and probably Mike too. I liked Cindy’s post especially, where she told Mike his “demographics” have changed from what they used to be, and that it was too bad that the guys who used to post there were no longer around to inject “a breath of fresh air” like they used to do. I had noticed that too, a while back.

              Anyway, I agree with you about Geir’s blog. It’s the one that most feels like home, and Geir deserves credit for maintaining that. Hail to the Geir!

              Cheers, me heart. 😉

      2. Well, may be, when I was a child too, at the age of five. But out of control and useless.
        I don’t understand why it so important the exterior state for a scientologist anyway but it is good to share experiences with you marildi, thanks

        1. Rafa: “But out of control is useless. I don’t understand why it so important the exterior state for a scientologist anyway…”

          Even out of control, though, a person can get certainty on not being a body. As for being stably exterior to the body, the idea I got is that a thetan would then not be influenced by the body and all the restimulations that go along with it.

          If my understanding is correct, at one point the ultimate goal of processing was to make a stable theta clear. Here are a couple interesting definitions of it:

          THETA CLEAR…7 . this is a relative not an absolute term. It means that the person, this thought unit, is clear of his body, his engrams, his facsimiles, but can handle and safely control a body. (COHA, p. 248) 8 . in its highest sense, means no further dependency on bodies. (SCP, p. 3) 9 . an individual who, as a being, is certain of his identity apart from that of the body, and who habitually operates the body from outside, or exteriorized. (PXL, p. 16)

          And below, is the definition of “theta clearing,” in which exteriorization is equated with “emancipation.”

          THETA CLEARING, 1. to create a theta clear it is only necessary to bring the being up to a point where it can leave and return upon a mest body. (HOM, p. 59) 2 . the emancipation or exteriorization of a soul. (PXL, p. 26)

          EXTERIORIZATION, 1 . the state of the thetan, the individual himself, being outside his body. When this is done, the person achieves a certainty that he is himself and not his body. (PXL Gloss) 2 . the phenomenon of being in a position in space dependent on only one’s consideration, able to view from that space, bodies and the room, as it is. (PAB 125) 3 . the act of moving out of the body with or without full perception. (HCOB 22 Oct 71)

          Good to share experiences with you too. I hope you and others will share more! 🙂

          1. Yup marildi, to share experiences is a good thing. Thanks God there is a cyberspace place where this still could be done. Ho, and by the way, I am certain of my spirituality in the same sense stated by the first christians within the roman coliseum, not exteriorization needed. 😀

            1. “I am certain of my spirituality in the same sense stated by the first christians within the roman coliseum, not exteriorization needed.”

              I believe you! If my own path in life had been different, I might have come to the same place you’ve arrived. In any case, I’m happy for you, my brother. 🙂

  13. The internal illogics in scn are because the “OT”, space opera, etc. parts were made up and not a result of research. In short he was sloppy and didn’t keep his fiction internally consistent. This is but one example. Trains on Venus is another type of illogic Hubbard was prone to.

  14. I have just realized that I have been always creating my reactive mind. I have also realized that I have been creating all the pictures of my mind. I have just also realized that I know who I am not and I am prepared to know who I am. So will they admit I am a clear and/or OT8 or not? (Just hypothetical question). What do you thinK Geir they would say to me if I come to them and tell them that I had that realizations? 🙂

      1. Dex, great video about Clear. It would be quite valuable for anyone who has questions.

        Another one of your videos popped up when that one was finished which I also watched, the one titled “Energy Ownership Technique.” I played it a second time as I did the process – and it worked very well! Bless you for doing what you do.

          1. I was just about to add a p.s. – that I think a person should probably be an experienced pc before trying to run the process “solo”. Otherwise, they should go to an experienced auditor/practitioner like you.

            1. I think it is not the principle that should be set in stone. Every individual and process is in my opinion different. Somebody could by gradient need firstly practice the process with other person, but other person can be on the higher responsibility, confidence and ability level and can run the process as solo. It simply depends on the person and on the type of the process. I think that if somebody has enough confidence, abilities and responsibility, he should not sabotage himself because some arbitrary principle somebody said or wrote somewhere 😉

            2. “I think it is not the principle that should be set in stone…”

              Agreed. That’s why I included the word “probably.” 😉

Have your say

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s