A growing breed of SP veterans

createBy Joe van Staden

If you are reading this you probably see yourself as an ex or independent Scientologist. Either way it is possible you have been declared a suppressive person by the Church of Scientology and no doubt have your own unique story to tell.

This ever lengthening list of SP’s began many years ago. It can be said that by now many of us on the list can claim veteran SP status. In other words, some of us “saw the light” two, three even four decades ago. We are a growing breed of SP veterans. And, as is the case in all fields of human endeavor, veterans often have some useful experience to pass on.    

I can’t imagine that what I have to say about the years following my break with Scientology will resonate with everyone who has left the C of S – in particular those who left not so long ago. Nonetheless, I do believe there are some who will benefit from my observations.     

Scientology was a chapter in my life, but, before I could really move on to the next chapter I had to reach the “End Phenomenon”, so to speak, indicating completion of the Scientology chapter. At one stage in the 1980’s, when I walked away, I thought I had moved on but there were hidden ties that kept me bound.   Only after I experience the EP – which I guess is not exactly the same for everyone – was I really released to happily pursue my exploration of consciousness.     

Using an auditing session as an analogy let me put it this way; the EP was accompanied by an FN on the subject of Scientology – no dirty or stuck needle, no TA below 2 or above 5. When considering the subject of Scientology it was just a wide FN and TA around 3.     

EP: Major experiential cognition: Consciousness (Theta) is creation. Whatever we perceive or experience, whatever is real or true for us, it is our creation. Be it time, space, matter or energy as well as feelings and thought. Most significant; we create the self or selves we think we are at any given moment.

 (In fundamental terms, this means the pc creates every aspect – event or incident – on his time-track right now in the present, including the time-track’s main constituent part – time itself).  

Semantics confuse the issue when using the word creation in this context. However, let’s just say we may not always be the primary creators of our reality but whatever exists for us we are at least a secondary creator.     

Leonardo De Vinci may have been the primary creator of the Mona Lisa, but the reason for her enduring popularity over generations is due to a host of secondary creators. It is her many admirers who immortalized her intriguing smile and beauty in song and verse.    

The authors of a nation’s constitution are its primary creators and the people who agree and support it, secondary creators, without whom the constitution (creation) can not be sustained.   Ironically critics and opponents of a creation also in some way contribute as secondary creators to its existence.  

L Ron Hubbard is the primary creator of Scientology but everyone who has bought into the philosophy and technology and then made it work for them, are secondary creators. The point being; the wins achieved by pc’s and students could not have occurred without the inherent creation capability of the student or pc. LRH, as primary creator of Scientology, provided a model to which people can relate and buy-into to become secondary creators.  

The argument that Scientology owns “The Ultimate Truth” is ludicrous. The only truth in Scientology is the “truth” created by LRH who then provided a context within which others could become secondary creators of that “truth”.     

I have no doubt that my Scientology chapter contributed hugely to me owning my consciousness – owning my inherent ability of creation.   Here is an interesting related observation.

During the development of the lower levels continuing through OT 3 and beyond I was on the SHSBC or on a tech post or in direct comm. with LRH.   Put simply, I had a ringside seat to the building of The Bridge. Long story short.   At each stage of The Bridge’s construction students and pc’s would dramatize (create) the section being put in place.   What was described in bulletins and LRH lectures at the time was what the auditor and pc found (created) as the cause of the pc’s aberration at that time.   Auditors, pc’s and students became willing secondary creators every step of the way – every level up the chart.   Who knows what The Bridge might have looked like today had LRH been around to work on it for another ten years or more? No way would it have been what the C of S is currently selling as the only way out for humanity.      

The point of this commentary on Scientology will be missed if it is interpreted as an attempt to discredit the material and related procedures.   If consciousness (theta) is creation in the fullest sense of the word why shouldn’t it be possible, at some level, to create a bridge to “total freedom”?   Actually there is essentially only one reason why not.  

Again, long story short.   Claiming that the “creation” of a primary creator, supported by many secondary creators, be it in science, philosophy, politics or any other sphere of human endeavor as the “absolute truth” – the final creation – tends to declare null and void any other efforts to create. This is a recipe for confrontation and counter creation – an invitation to be attacked.      

Getting people to believe that they have no choice but to go along with an “absolute truth” is when they buy-into the belief that if they don’t “get on the bus” their consciousness can be cancelled – their thetan will be doomed into oblivion forever. Sound familiar?      

The C of S is a classic example of getting people to buy-into absolute truths and disowning a most fundamental quality – that of independent creation. My motto is: own your consciousness – own your creation – own your reality.


53 thoughts on “A growing breed of SP veterans

  1. When I left the church in 1986 it was rather difficult for me at the time as Scientology was my truth. After a while I found there were many other truths all involved in spirituality including scientists. Scientology early on was like a crutch for me but I have moved on to pastures new and no longer need that crutch. But don’t get me wrong, Scientology was a great period of my life and I will never forget it which helped me at the time.

  2. Perfectly put into words, Joe! That’s as near to exactly my experience as one can get. Full ARC on this one! For anyone out there still feeling a sense of guilt or fear for having left the Church – heed Joe’s words. I couldn’t have said it better!

  3. Joe, your name was well known in the early years when I was “in” which was 1970 to 2005…. I don’t recall why, except you were an important person… In any case, your post here was very well written and a lot of help to me. Thanks Joe. My best wishes to you in your trek through life.

  4. Joe, excellent article!
    Once we are up to owning your own creation, we are free to create our own paths to truth.
    When I realized that, I was free to examine the works of Hubbard, Mayo, The Pilot, L Kin. and A C Walter and see what they did that aligned with my personal observations and use that to build a spiritual healing technology that was uniquely my own.
    Others are doing that every day now, so there are services available in the field for almost every need. We have even created a forum where many of these independent spiritual technologies can be examined and discussed in a safe and friendly environment. (ist-forum.com)

  5. Excellent article Joe.
    I have a question for you; Do you believe that the e-meter works as explained by LRH? Would you say that even though we are the creators of our own universe that the e-meter does show when charge is being as-is’d? Do you believe that if charge is continually removed from the case that the thetan will continue to go into higher states of awareness?

    • Based on my experience with e-meters, I have certainly observed phenomena in session which support LRH’s explanations. In answer to your other questions; basically my views are as follows.
      Consider the phenomenon of H2O being transformed from steam to water and then to ice as the temperature drops. In a way, this transformation from steam to ice may be equated as steam collapsing into ice. Such a collapse would be dramatically evident if the temperature in a steaming sauna were to suddenly drop to minus 100oC.
      In science there are various theories regarding waves and particles. A comment by Stephen Hawking on the subject is revealing. He says, ‘Waves and particles are concepts created by humans which aren’t necessarily concepts which nature is obliged to respect by making all phenomena fall into one category or the other’. Nonetheless, the concept of waves and particles is conveniently descriptive of certain phenomena. For instance, the idea of a wave collapsing into a particle, works well to make the point of something insubstantial and beyond containment collapsing into something much more solid and locatable.
      (I personally prefer to use the concept of consciousness rather than Theta).
      Steam collapsing into ice and a wave collapsing into a particle are useful analogies to demonstrate how “pure undefined consciousness” collapses into a point of view – a particular identity, a sense of self, a fixed location, me, I, ego.
      What we essentially have is two fundamental states of consciousness; un-collapsed consciousness and collapsed consciousness. From the typical human perspective un-collapsed consciousness – un-oriented consciousness – is beyond experience. It is not oriented in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value – it can, to all intents and purposes, be considered a nothingness. Oriented consciousness, on the other hand, is measurable in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance and value – it is always defined within a particular context. And oriented consciousness can be measured on a scale of density. The more oriented consciousness becomes the denser it becomes.
      In Scientology terms one might say; the more enmeshed in MEST Theta becomes the more solid it becomes. Now here is the thing, as I see it, that solidity – density – is measurable on an e-meter
      Again as I see it, the idea of as-issing charge amounts to consciousness moving up the scale of oriented consciousness and becoming less oriented in terms of time, space, meaning, relevance, value and specific points of view.
      I believe that the most empowering life skill anyone can acquire is the ability to change one’s mind at will – self-determinedly. This enables one to blow any sense of self, identity, viewpoint that has become too oriented – too solid.

      • Thanks so much for the simple clarifications, Joe. Reduction to nothing(ness), is a concept that appears to scare the crap out of many seeking ‘enlightenment’. Yet, it is this active assumption (of nothingness), that leads to the actual emancipation from the entire ‘ego’ package, and all it’s frail ‘wantingnesses’, as you thoroughly covered above.
        A most inspiring and emancipating video, that can deliver one from that ‘fear’, and at the same time, demonstrate some incredible ‘beingness’ to boot, is worth checking out: “Adyashanti – the gift of wanting.”

      • Thanks for the answer Joe.
        I enjoyed your explanation. I guess one of my points was; do you think that if a person continued to get any kind of auditing, as long as it got charge of the case , would continue to make the “consciousness” more and more “light” or “un-collapsed” ?
        Do you think that a person can actually achieve the abilities described by LRH attributed to an OT?

  6. Joe,
    Please allow me to parse and critique your essay:
    If you are reading this you probably see yourself as an ex or independent Scientologist. Either way it is possible you have been declared a suppressive person by the Church of Scientology and no doubt have your own unique story to tell.
    D> Yes. I could write a good essay too.
    EP: Major experiential cognition: Consciousness (Theta) is creation. Whatever we perceive or experience, whatever is real or true for us, it is our creation. Be it time, space, matter or energy as well as feelings and thought.
    Most significant; we create the self or selves we think we are at any given moment.
    D> I disagree. You are parroting Hubbard and others. That is not absolute by any means.
    We are a product of genetics, a conception and an upbringing.
    If you have a problem with a product, you have to check with the factory or some factor within the factory for the cause of the problem.
    There are only two things in life lie and postulates, like Dennis Stevens author of TROM said.
    If we are implanted with negative postulates genetically, or and conception and throughout formative years, then those postulates will dictate who we are until, if we are lucky enough to come across a means to effectively change them. If we don’t come across such a means then we are victim to those postulates for life.
    PTSness, SPness, overts are caused by failed parenting, failed help. And on this topic, at least a book can be written to explain.
    (In fundamental terms, this means the pc creates every aspect – event or incident – on his time-track right now in the present, including the time-track’s main constituent part – time itself).
    D> That may or may not be true.
    Semantics confuse the issue when using the word creation in this context.
    However, let’s just say we may not always be the primary creators of our reality but whatever exists for us we are at least a secondary creator.
    D> This last sentence is at least closer to the truth.
    L Ron Hubbard is the primary creator of Scientology but everyone who has bought into the philosophy and technology and then made it work for them, are secondary creators.
    D> The subject of scn is filled with almost every kind of overt and deception and literary violation possible.
    That does not mean that I do not put a lot of value or significance on scn data.
    I would of been dead many times over if I did not come across scn and auditing.
    In general or in principle I love the data of scn.
    But it has to be done the right way.
    There is a wrong way and right way to do everything.
    Most people do everything wrong, incl scn.
    Scn is a gold mine of knowledge, wisdom and understanding and help and freedom for the wise, but a trap for fools and the feeble minded.

      • Cece,
        This world will screw you, and punish you until you smarten up.
        Ever hear the story about the guy who went to the doc and said; doc, I am kind of feeble minded and stupid, can you help me?
        Doc, says: here are some pills, take two a day for two weeks and then come back and see me.
        Stupid guy does as he is told and in two weeks comes back and doc says: how are you doing?
        Stupid guy says> gee doc, these pills taste like rabbit beans.
        Doc says; see you are getting smarter already.
        I suggest; for starters; that you should get some of those pills and do likewise.
        Then in two weeks come back and see me.

    • Rather than respond specifically to each point raised allow me to state a basic premise of mine which I believe will clarify my perspective in general.

      Firstly, however we approach the issues in question, the essential issue is; what is “The Truth” – what are the facts of the matter? Since I believe nothing is as it seems – nothing, any debate about what is the truth and what is real is pointless unless the mindset factor is considered – how we look at and see our world.

      Whatever our questions and answers about the universe, existence or the meaning of life; they will invariably reflect the prevailing mindset – the bias – of the person – the scientist, philosopher or mystic asking and answering the question. The idea that our observations may be subjected to a hidden personal frame of reference or paradigm is generally not factored into our quest for answers.

      It may be argued that what distinguishes the scientific approach from all the rest is that by “proving” its observations and conclusions science eliminates mindset bias. However, the flaws in this assumption become glaringly obvious once the mindset factor is better understood.

      • Mindset determines how we look at our world and consequently how we see it. How we see our world determines how we experience it which in turn determines our responses and behavior.

      • Whatever it is we are looking at it is possible to change our perspective and see it differently, opening the door to a different reality – different experiences and consequently different responses. .

      The premise here is that the value and validity of questions and answers can not necessarily be determined by the “proof” on which they are based. The real value and validity of answers depend on the extent to which they put us in touch with ever changing circumstances – the extent to which they are relevant in an ever changing world. This is what a functional mindset is – it is a mindset which keeps us in touch in a world in which today’s “truth” will not be tomorrow’s truth. Choices and decisions emanating from a functional mindset are optimum. A dysfunctional mindset puts us out of touch; it is inclined to hold onto truths which have passed their use by date. Choices and decisions emanating from a dysfunctional mindset tend to be wrong. .

      Based on this premise I say that the most empowering life skill anyone can acquire is the ability to change one’s mid at will and self-determinedly. I see my exploration into consciousness like ascending a ladder. Each rung a truth to be reached for and let go of when it has served its purpose. That’s been the way of progress since “for ever”.

      On the matter of; “nothing is as it seems” here are some quotes to ponder. .

      • “There is no independent evidence by which to decide between two different paradigms. All evidence is interpreted in the light of either one or the other”. (Thomas Kuhn)
      • “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning”. (Werner Heisenberg)
      • “We don’t see things as they are we see them as we are”. (Anais Nin)
      • “Science reflects the content of our consciousness”. (Ernst Mach)
      • “Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world”. (Albert Einstein)
      • “What we see depends on the theories we use to interpret our observations”. (Amit Goswami)
      • “Man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through the narrow chinks of his cavern”. (William Blake)

      • “It is in the nature of human beings to bend information in the direction of desired conclusions”. (John Naisbitt)

      • “It all depends on how we look at things, and not on how they are themselves”. (Carl Jung)

      • “Every man takes his own limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world”. (Arthur Schopenhauer)

      • “Reality is what we take to be true. What we take to be true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon our perceptions”. (Gary Zukav)

      • “Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. (William Shakespeare)

      • Reality is funny. Yours will always be different than mine. This turns the truth into an illusion. (J.S. Riley)

      • Joe,
        The list of quotes you post are quite low on the scale of intellectual evolution.
        For an example, I will only take one and explain:
        • “Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”.
        If some crazed lunatic broke into your house at night, and found his way around your house found and killed your children, then into your bedroom, then held you and your wife at gun point, then at gun point, had your wife securely duct tape you up to a chair .
        Then raped your wife while you watched.
        Then dragged you out side and lit your house on fire and then sodomized you, and then told you to have a good day while he took off into the night with your new car.
        Would you call that good or bad, or right or wrong?
        Or can you find any sane person to say that was good and right?

  7. Joe, Thank you for your post this morning. What a wonderful way to start the day reading this. You made it very simple to understand and will even help the ones with the critical eye if they really take the time to understand what you are saying.
    It took me a while after leaving to realize that I didn’t need to address every engram and ‘handle’ to FN every flaw I needed corrected. All those things were not really me anyway they were things I caused or saw caused etc. It would be much bigger game to simply address me. My actual thought was to get out of this trap I’ve found myself in, I must get smarter then it’s creator. Well It is taking a while and I’m no where close to where I want to be but with posts like yours and Marty’s place with all his commenters and reading books and watching TED shows I’ve finally after 10 years come from fear my eternity would be taken away (kids also and PC files exposed) not very happy, to fully knowing that that can never happen. Sounds simple and maybe unimportant to some …. well ~ you should have been there! What a trip! Thanks again. May you have a wonderful life of creation

  8. Joe,
    I don’t know any reference I have read or lecture I have listened to where Ron says that Scientology is the “ultimate truth”.
    However he does say in Axiom 35 that the ultimate truth is a static which would mean to that the ultimate truth would be you, me and everybody here.
    Also in order for this truth to be “ultimate” it would have to be absolute and thus perfect.
    As we both know the Ol’man has said many times that absolutes in this universe in particular are unobtainable.
    Now as far as perfect. Any one who has read the HCOPL Safeguarding Technology should know that Ron says that Scientology isn’t perfect.
    In fact far from perfect but it works.
    How do I know?
    Well because I had good supervisors in the past who applied “Course Supervisor’s Stable Datum” and allowed me to do something other then the procedure as written and then allowed me to come to the realization on my own that following Standard procedure produced better and faster results.
    I actually went on to apply that datum myself in my short time as a course supervisor and made a few good auditors as well.
    So it’s all fine and good to tell us that there are truths beyond Scientology but do they produce a result?
    That is a PC who was well and happy or beyond that more able.
    Another thing.
    Personally I doubt that Ron would have changed the Grade Chart all that much from its original issue in 1965. If he was given an additional 10 years
    Why is that?
    Because he had over two decades to make these changes before that and all he did was reposition Dianetics to after Grade IV because he discovered in ’78 that NED was clearing people in greater numbers than in earlier Dianetic procedures.
    As you know or should know he was already aware of the possibility of the PC having the clear cognition while running Standard Dianetics which was R3R developed in ’63 or even earlier Dianetic procedures used since 1949.
    This is covered in the original issue of C/S Series 12.
    (How the RTRC and RTC sabotaged the Tech in my opinion was not just issuing the “Golden Age of Tech” but also by not publishing the original issue of HCOB in the newer Tech Vols as was done with the earlier Tech Vols along with its revision so that the student could compare the two. Just like it says in the HCOB/PL “How to Defeat Verbal Tech”.
    Instead we were forced to accept on faith that the revision as “correct”.
    Seems under RTC Scientology has become a faith based religion.)
    However this factor was even more evident after the “refinements” of NED and finding out he himself as an OT couldn’t run NED and figured other OTs were having the same problem.
    (Fact is that prior to NED ,OTs were being audited on HSDC’s version of R3R. I mean many of the cases audited on the original pilot were on OT III or above. Same with the Xdn pilot. In fact for the most part they were getting away with it but NED seemed to cause problems covered in NOTs Series 1. Before that auditing OTs on R3R was a dicey proposition and required a highly skilled auditor to pull it off.)
    Actually all the Ol’man did was cancel the BTB which had the PC scanning through the incident on the second run through based on old ’63 R3R tech only in this case omitting having the auditor re date and find the duration again , had the auditor ask earlier if the TA went up on the first run through the incident making the procedure faster and incorporate a preassessment based on old Prehav levels tech.
    Not much really “new” there with the exception of having the auditor go earlier on the first run if the TA rose but it pretty much follows what he says in C/S Series 2 about basics never changing.
    Thus with the chances of the Preclear going clear on Dianetics increased with NED. It would seem the next logical step would be reposition it after Grade IV to increase those chances since the Lower Grades still cover those factors that prevent clearing which have been known since at least 1965.
    So no I don’t think the Ol’man would have changed the Grade Chart all that much if he was given another decade since as you can see he hadn’t changed it all that much even though he had been given an additional 20 years to do so.
    What he did was add additional rundowns and actions to repair cases that had been quickied or overrun on the Grades which are covered in the C/S Series. Cases that were resistive to Grades. That is had other factors preventing them from attaining a Grade lower or upper which are covered in the GF+40 and the Class VIII OT IV RD.
    Chronic High TA due out int/ext or other factors covered in the C/S 53, LIX and C/S Series 37R. Again factors that would prevent the PC from running the Lower Grades or Upper Grades.
    Then of course there is Xdn which was designed to handle PCs who were chronically ill and/or psychotic.
    Other special rundowns or actions to handle such things as PTSness, chronic Introversion, Groups Engrams, etc. which are not even part of the Grade Chart. Including the HRD which I notice some know best moron added after the Ol’man departed his mortal coil.
    Never mind the plethora of staff Rds including Danger Handlings, Post Purpose and Product Clearing and of course Sec Checks which like the other actions covered can be overused and abused and instead of assisting the PC in moving on the Grade Chart can be used to park him in nowheresville.
    Especially when the Organization loses sight of why they are there and that is to move People up the Grade Chart on both the Left and the Right side of it.
    Yeah sure the Ls are great thetan boosters and all that but they were designed to make Scientology Executives more causative on their posts not as a money making racket like Super Power which was developed to make staff again more causative and as a parallel action to Power for those who can’t run power because they went clear on NED according to RJ 30.
    Again this is covered in the above HCOB I sited plus the RED “Why Something New?”.
    Anyway this is my own personal opinion of the scene and you can take it or leave it.
    But on what you posted let me say that we can agree to disagree.

      • Hi Forrest,
        Thanks for your ack.
        How ya doing Bro?
        Haven’t seen ya in years.
        You can get in touch with me at archangel88(AT)hushmail(DOT)com.
        Good to see you and Chris commenting here.

    • Very good points made, Remoteviewed. Agreed. I agree that LRH said constantly that it wasn’t perfect, that there could be better ways. However, what there is, works. That’s the isness of it.
      I also relate to Joe’s point about having EPed. That’s what I feel, that I’ve EPed. I had a surge of release on that cognition. It was wonderful.
      I believe I’ve got what I came into Scn for. I’m mistrustful of the OT levels as they are delivered in the church. I may well explore the OT levels further later in the Free Zone. For now, I’m happy. No regrets.

    • Neither have I come across LRH saying Scientology is the ultimate truth. But as I said in another recent post; Scientology is a system comprised of a management model, a philosophy and a related technology. In simple terms, the system, as a whole, asserts it as being the only way of achieving spiritual freedom.
      Re truths beyond the truths of Scientology, on this I need to clarify my perspective on truth. Truth isn’t what can be proven as would be claimed by the scientific community, for instance. The only truth and reality we live by and respond to is a mindset construct. So from my perspective the validity and value of a truth is the extent to which it can keep us in touch in an ever changing world – a world in which today’s truth will not be tomorrows truth. Nonetheless, if the pc is making gains in accordance with his or her criteria then they have “The Truth”
      Re saying that LRH would probably have kept working on the grade chart had he been around a bit longer; I base my view on my experience of his drive toward constant renewal and constant creation.
      Re agreeing to disagree, this view may or may not surprise you. As I see it the most empowering skill anyone can acquire is the ability to change one’s mind at will and assume other viewpoints. This in combination with my view that consciousness is creation and that anything is possible results in minimal rejection and judgment of other viewpoints. I won’t claim that I am capable of assuming every possible viewpoint in an ocean of infinite points of view – not close – but it is a worthwhile pursuit. So I probably agree with you more than you imagine.

      • Joe,
        My POV it is not the “system” as in the actual subject which are just written words and recorded lectures but fanatical individuals who assert that Scientology is the the “ultimate truth”.
        Regarding agreeing to disagree.
        I have my viewpoint and you have yours and yes at times I myself have assumed other viewpoints what we used to call “wearing heads”.
        That said.
        One has their own unique viewpoint or POV and this is what makes individuals individual.

      • Thanks Ronnie,
        Actually Joe made some good points on the truth and such which were probably way too philosophical for lil ol’ me
        The thing that got me into Scientology was the fact that it was an applied philosophy which is why I signed up for auditor training. So as I could apply it to help others and maybe get a lil’ recompense for doing so

  9. “Getting people to believe that they have no choice but to go along with an “absolute truth” is when they buy-into the belief that if they don’t “get on the bus” their consciousness can be cancelled – their thetan will be doomed into oblivion forever. ”
    This is such a tragedy. Today on the Bunker there is a tribute to Brad Halsey, who took his own life because he believed.

  10. Joe the owning your consciousness bit I agree with fully! The intimation of us co-creating OT case because LRH put it there initially, stretches it for me though. Case is case. If it exists and doesnt key in does it mean that case is non existent completely? When runnig out the advanced level stuff you do see how corruptive that case was on you and the other dynamics. Too obvious for me. I dont think LRH could have dreamed all that up and then have us happily parrot his primary creations and become his willing secondary creators to problems as these. Unless of course at the inception of MEST universe we got together and decided the following:

    LRH: Right ladies and gents this is the deal here. Aller us ere are gonna go through the meat grinder. This bub over there in the black cloak is gonna mess with you in EVERY way possible. Just when you think you cant take any more hes gonna hit you with it a trillion more times after! Welcome the MEST universe people! Then muuuch later on I (LRH) will be around to remind you that you are all doing this to yourselves. I will throw you a few hundred or more techniques to help with the whole awakening..enjoy!

  11. Really well stated. Never thought of that before, so thanks. By the way, my brother, Tom Koon, Clear 88, remembers you well and would probably say Hi if he knew you were around.

  12. This post made me think of how a group that seeks monopoly is responsible for creating its own rival group. If Jesus would have been embraced by the then Jewish leadership rather than persecuted, there would be no Christianity today. If Pope Leo X would have come to terms with Martin Luther rather than excommunicate him, Catholicism could have remained the only purveyor of Christianity. But, as Ron said: “What you resist – persists”. Including the SPiology movement which had been brought into existence from scratch by the Church of Scientology.
    So far, the only route to be accepted into SP ranks is solely in the hands of the Church – They have to issue one a declare. But maybe in time, the SPiology movement will break free of the dependence on the CoS which controls its membership and will start issuing its own independent declares to people who want to join… Just a thought

  13. Good post, Joe. After reading it, I get the sense that you’re merely expressing what’s real to you. I’m all for that.
    Like RemoteViewed stated above, I don’t recall LRH ever saying that Scientology was a perfect system, or that it was the ultimate truth. What he did say, is that it’s a workable system, and that (to his knowledge) man had never developed a workable system to free a person from their mental/spiritual ailments.
    Underlying the techniques of Dianetics and Scientology, are the Axioms and Logics, from which the techniques are drawn. If anything in Scientology can be considered an ‘ultimate truth’, I suppose those would qualify, as they are common to all people (thetans) everywhere.
    ‘Graduating’ Scientology seems to be all the rage these days. For those who’ve traveled to the ends of the Bridge on both sides, I wish them well in their further explorations into terra incognita. I would hope for all who follow this path to one day reach the point where they become their own Source.
    As for me, I have never found a single thing in the tech of Scientology that has proven to be untrue or unworkable for me. It’s actually been my experience over the last few decades, that every time I disagreed with LRH, I eventually stumbled upon a personal observation that proved him correct. I’m completely unashamed to say that I trust Ron implicitly where it comes to the spiritual technology/philosophy.
    Perhaps someday I’ll ‘graduate’ Scientology too. In the meantime, I’m happy to stay inside the ‘white taped path’.

  14. Hi Joe, nice to hear from you again.
    I read your post and made a long reply which vanished into cyber when I wanted to attach something regarding case handling and Bridges, therefore I will copy it into this post. Along with this I can refer to my own modus operandi as an auditor which is HANDLING THE CASE IN FRONT OF ME, and finding out how that case is stacked based on a 150 years old essay by a Danish philosopher called Søren Kierkegaard which can be seen on my homepage Pingovino.
    Case evaluation
    Per Schiøttz
    There is ONE aspect of Ron’s and Bill’s tech which has been coming up now and then. Both of them “found” their tech working with their own cases and then assumed that since they found what
    they found on their own case, they would find it on every other case. This is an actuality, not my idea. I have seen quite a few cases that were NOT stacked the way Ron or Bill suggested. They were different. Some tended more in the direction of the description in other theory issues like A History of Man for instance.
    Then again I have seen cases where similar stuff to Ron’s and Bill’s ran very real because the person had mocked it up himself first. And yet again I have seen cases where nothing like it could be found, but other stuff handled made the PC – Pre-OT attain very similar states to those
    Ron and Bill had predicted could be obtained, when those case phenomenon were handled.
    This shows various degrees of suggestibility. Persons, also those who has a higher level of awareness, has a high level of ability to create whatever you ask them to create, directly or via a solo C/S instruction. That they can do this is not an invalidation but an observation of an ability
    demonstrated in order to obtain a promised level of freedom/ability. I have seen this at a very subtle level too where the client would create it unconsciously at my suggestion (evaluation), just by asking if it’s there. Being a very “nice” and obedient client, again without invalidation, creating
    what is being asked for, right away, consciously or subconsciously. It was NOT there before I asked for it, and would NOT come up if I ran whatever the client offered to run.
    So there are all kind’s of levels of reality based on these observations. I find it therefore to be my most important job to find out what to run on each case without ANY evaluation as pr. the auditors code. This can be quite a task, but so far, to me, it has been the most valuable task.
    Some clients come from the Church or from elsewhere and have heard about these case phenomenon’s and got them so solidly mocked up already, and with such a wish to run it, that it is not possible for me to negate it in any way, but they also get great gains running it the way they have already mocked it up.
    Therefore it is my experience after all these hours in the chair and C/Sing (40.000 hours) that you really have to observe and handle cases individually and not assume anything beforehand. This means auditing the case in front of you and not some postulated or imagined case which you assume is there, just because the previous one was like that.
    Why are there so many technologies or practices? Why aren’t there just ONE? One which all cases would follow and gain from? In my opinion this is because different cases unfold and open up in different ways. Different clients need different approaches to their cases.
    The biggest gains obtainable pr. auditing minute I have found by using PTS-handling, Power Auditing, NOTs and Op Pro by Dup. (Book and the bottle) for different cases.
    Everlove, Per
    October 2008

      • Hi Per,
        Remeber me? January 1979. I was at AOSHEU&AF waiting for the nots auditors to arrive. I subsequently started nots with Jonie.
        I really like your observations, said like a true pro, and I agree with what you say.
        Rodney Corbett.

      • Thanks Rodney,
        I am sorry to say that I do not remember you just by your name, a photo might do the trick though. Having audited 40.000 hours by now there are many names to remember, but I do not forget to remember faces. Have you any idea of what happened to Yoni?

  15. I believe that if it aint broke, why fix it.
    There are so many things in Scn that work for me, I couldnt begin to list them all, from TR0 to creating and cleaning dirty needles on the meter, to seeing f/ns as a part of the ep. To Nots and the cleaning up of ones own universe. Even to the point where on Nots, I was verbalising the very next concept of the next step without being told that step. No one had told me what to think, so I then created what I was told. I had no idea about it from anyone else!
    I havnt seen any of those things anywhere else and if they were I would never have taken any notice of them.
    It took Ron to either come up with it or evaluate its importance and put it under my nose and say, “hey buddy check this out, you might get something out of it.”
    So Joe, it was an interesting article, and for you, you may have completed the Scientology chapter and I wish you well, but I know damn sure Im not there, and I know of nothing else that will do the job as well, regarding getting my family, friends and Bob Bloggs down the road up to the point of actual self determinism as Scn in the form LRH meant it to be used.
    To be brutally honest, when there are so many people who could get a great deal of benefit from the Bridge, and I am talking Rons bridge, not daves bridge, I do resent others attempting a sort of side tracking from that, some even jumping on his coattails.
    For myself, when evaluating the benefits of Scn I look at myself prior to Scn, prior to the TRs, Grades, Ned, Pre ot levels etc and compare then me to now me and I would have to be the biggest friggin fool not to give LRH the pat on the back he so rightly deserves and say “well, its working for me, why mess with it!”

    • Well said, Cotch! Could not agree with you more.
      It seems to be a regular message these days from a few, that the best way to resolve the confusions of the C of S, is to go beyond Scientology and end cycle.
      I wish them well — but my journey with LRH’s Bridge aint ended, and I am having the time of my life personally, and helping others achieve the same.

    • Cotch on: For the record, in case I have given the impression that to move on from Scientology means to discard it. There have been times when I have been truly unconditionally in love with a woman. This is when I could look into her eyes and honestly say “I see you” (recall the movie Avatar). Then, when moving on to a new relationship, for whatever reason,, it never felt like a break – no regret – no grief – no blame – no need to “fix it”. The love we had was timeless, it did not recede into the past, it made me a better person which, is part of who I am today. Unconditional love of whatever kind is not time-bound – it sustains the spirit beyond the change brought about by passing years. .
      In a way this is comparable to my Scientology experience in that the awareness I gained is also timeless. In the simplest of terms, should I come across someone having an epileptic fit in the street I will immediately apply simple hand squeezes as I have done on many an occasion with great success.
      Yes I agree, if it ain’t broke why fix it, but I must add, when one comes across a “portal” and a peek into it reveals an awesome “new adventure” not having the courage at the time to step through it is bound to come back and haunt one later. .

      • Thanks for the reply Joe!
        My way of looking at this is that I have done the Bridge up to a point, luckily before dave messed with it too much. I got the gains to be had from those individual steps and recognize and appreciate and enjoy that. So I know to this point, Ron has been pretty well spot on. There is more to do on this Bridge for me according to LRH. Sticking with him has worked for me this far. Why would I try something else at this point.
        There is stable exteriorization to come and a host of games associated with that. There is expansion of the Dynamics, etc. These are all things LRH has spelt out for us, time and time again and has been the goal for us in doing Scn, to wake us up and be able to play bigger games.
        If you have made it beyond Scn, thats great! But what I object to in your post, and this may be my misinterpretation, is that you are advising a new “portal”, and some may go looking for that portal when the damn thing is right in front of them if the tech is correctly applied and they are allowed to have self determinism on their own dynamics.

  16. Remoteview, re your comment – “one has their own unique viewpoint or POV and this is what makes individuals individual”. Totally agree and if I may go the distance on this one. Not only is variation, change and difference what makes individuals of us it is also the basis of consciousness – awareness. Look around your environment, examine your past; in the absence of variation, change and/or difference of any kind whatsoever, of what will you be aware – of what will you be conscious? Try and describe anything in existence without reference, in some way, as to how it varies, changes or is different in comparison to something else. Total sameness amounts to as-issness. Consciousness (theta) is an experience – the experience of variation, change, difference, fluctuation, transformation. And “what or who” is having that experience? ,It’s questions like this that have made me peek into different portals. But that’s me, maybe I have yet to discover the merits of “good enough is good enough”. , .

    • Hey Joe,
      Really I’ve got nothing against exploring other realities and asking questions about it. I actually think its a good thing.
      For me it was study tech that helped me broaden my horizons and gain an better understanding of subjects in the past that I had interest in but never had a grasp of like Science,Religion, Philosophy, Politics, History, Music, Art, Literature, Psychoanalysis, Psychology, Psychiatry and even Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

    • This might be off topic, but the concept of “good enough is good enough” reminds me of a joke about an engineering student in a math class.
      The teacher was trying to get the idea across of you can always divide by two, and you will not reach zero.
      The engineering student was having a hard time with this, so the teacher decided to make a practical example – “Imagine that there is a beautiful naked girl 5 feet in front of you. You can approach her but at only at half the remaining distance each second. You will never drop the distance to zero, so you will never get her.”
      The student replied that “maybe not, but I will get close enough.”

  17. Joe, I admire your willingness to put your reality out there and discuss it. It’s the kind of thing I wish would happen more often on the various blogs.
    About your article itself, some of these things are not real to me.
    For example, the idea that people didn’t have any engrams till they read DMSMH and then they became secondary causes and mocked up engrams to be run. I see a lot of people suffering from engrams who have never read the book. I’ve audited many of them with no r-factor at all and there is no doubt in my mind – they have engrams. Yes, they created them but they didn’t do it because of Ron or any book he wrote.
    Also that theta is a static is very real to me. Anything at all theta can be aware of is a product of its own creative ability. There is not a single thing that a person can know or perceive that wasn’t created by theta.
    So if you take any reality at all and follow it back to its source, the ultimate source is theta.
    The only other possibility is that there is something out there that can create theta itself. That would be a higher truth. But it’s getting a bit too philosophical for me at that point. If there is a higher or more basic truth than theta, than what is it?

    • I think the following quote is appropriate in opening my response to your comment. “The contradiction so puzzling to the ordinary way of thinking comes from the fact that we have to use language to communicate our inner experience, which in its very nature transcends linguistics.” (D.T. Suzuki)
      Regarding your question – “if there is a higher or more basic truth than theta then what is it?” – for what it is worth, I can tell you what I have come across in my exploration of consciousness thus far.
      The challenge of describing the ultimate source of existence has probably been the single most notable endeavor of religion, philosophy and science. Using terms like un-oriented consciousness, the unifying field, infinity, supreme-being, Brahma, God, the ultimate singularity or 8th dynamic, may bring us closer to getting a handle on “the indescribable”, yet the question remains; what is IT?
      As I see it, based on my experience, the domain of IT can not finally be approached through logic and reason – through thinking and the head. At some point one has to move beyond “information” about IT and turn to intuition and feeling – the heart. The latter will bring one much “closer” to a sense of IT than being “clever”.
      Consider all the factors, elements, issues, viewpoints, characteristics – mind, body, soul, experience etc. which define a typical individual. It is all this “stuff” that separates him or her from IT. The basic endeavor, past and present, to achieve higher states of being – greater spirituality – has been to get rid of the “stuff” separating us from God, the 8th dynamic or however IT has been labeled.
      In the simplest terms, imagine one particular ordinary brick and then list all that defines it – weight, purpose, size, location, age etc (the list will be longer than you might imagine). Next, start deleting each item on the list, in turn, by imagining the brick without that particular deleted characteristic. For instance, start by imagining the brick without weight and continue from there. Obviously this will require an extremely liberated imagination.
      Some interesting questions now arise. For instance, what will we wind up with after having deleted, say 90% of the items on the list that constitute the brick? Is it possible to imagine a brick after having deleted 100% of that which defines our brick? Certainly not while relying on logic and reason – thinking and the head. We have a far better chance of imagining a brick stripped to the point where it exists only as a possibility – potential – when relying on intuition and feeling – the heart.
      This simple little exercise can get really interesting by replacing the brick with a person and start off by listing all the “stuff” of which a typical individual is comprised. (This can turn out to be a really long list). Then follow this by deleting items on the list one by one, each time imagining what the individual might be like without the deleted item. What are we likely to end up with toward the end of the list? Again, we won’t get there while relying on logic and reason.
      Now here is the thing, the basic idea of auditing is wonderful in deleting items on the list of “stuff’ which define a typical human being. But, and this is probably an over simplification of the matter, the system of Scientology, after deleting some “stuff” adds a whole batch of new stuff: that separates us from truly approaching IT.
      Consider for a moment the intensity with which some people have taken on the identity of being a Scientologist, of being an OT 8, a “humanitarian” or any other identity of status – particularly in the C of S. Being a Scientologist is not the same as experiencing Scientology – being an OT is not the same as experiencing OT. Being a particular identity is information and head based, while experiencing a particular orientation is feeling and intuition based. The former is a case of Be – do – have, which is inclined to locate us in terms of space, time, matter, energy, logic and reason. The latter is a case of feeling – in touch – create, which is inclined to bring us closer to “IT” or “God” if you wish.
      Not an easy subject to put one’s views concisely and the language factor does not make it easier. Where people are involved language is invariably on that list of items that define what constitutes the individual. For instance, if language were deleted from the list how might one imagine the relationship between two people to be different?
      Long story short. At some level the scientist’s view of existence differs quite a bit from that of a metaphysician. A metaphysician might say that “awareness” exists between subatomic particles or that a rock “knows” that it is suppose to fall toward the center of the Earth. On the other hand the scientist will use terms like entanglement and gravity rather than awareness and knowing. However, should the scientist and metaphysician be asked how they FEEL about existence, not what the THINK about it, thus deleting the logic and reason inherent in the language factor, surprisingly the two individuals will move “closer” to each other as well as closer to IT.
      Joe van Staden

  18. An interesting concept considering the preclear as a creator, makes sense from a cause viewpoint and made me re-think my role as a pc.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s