Alteration & Evolution?

[Moderator Comment: Thanks to all for the great response on contributing articles. We will publishing them pretty much in the order they are sent to us.  Please be patient, if we told you we are publishing we will but we want to give each article a chance to be viewed and discussed. keep them coming!]

Tech evolutionBy Mantis

As I’ve made my way through the various blogs and forums around the world one sees how fractured Scientology actually is. Relative to most other things in the world the entire community is pretty small but intensely fractured nonetheless.

The various broad categories have been discussed on this and the others blogs: From those who want to be as close to KSW as possible to the other extreme of the haters and the nothing-good-has-ever-come-out-of-any-this crowd.

But for those who are still Scientologists and are practising is some form or another there is a new question which I’d like to address. This is in particular for those who are seeking a version of Scientology that is “exactly as Ron intended” or “that hasn’t been altered”.

A few days ago The Oracle posted a comment which is what finally prompted me to write this article which I’d been thinking about for some time. The comment reads, in part:

I am an X Sea Org Member and I think using the word “Scientology” to assess how people should or shouldn’t feel about it, is a leap into the unknown. “Scientology” is not the same for all people. It is not like using the word “water”.

The comment goes on to clarify this in more detail but the essence of this is very true. Whether it’s “Scientology” as a religion or organisation or as a philosophical subject everyone has a different interpretation that is filtered through their personal experience, viewpoint and so on. I have heard people describe the the Tone Scale as hypnotic, others describe it has mildly useful and still others as the best thing to come out of Scientology.

With this in mind I do not believe it is even possible to know what “Ron intended”. There has been so much obfuscation about his history, about his apparent intent and, 30 years after the fact, his entire life.

Add to this that a particular piece of writing may have been based on a bad day or an incorrect observation and I believe it is impossible to define what “standard” Scientology is. When someone has a win in auditing they believe it to be the result of standard auditing. Yet people have wins where the auditing was not 100% standard yet the individual will believe it was because they got the desired result.

When we discuss the technical aspect of Scientology we are talking about a fairly large volume of data.  This isn’t a cake recipe. This means variables or opportunities for different interpretation at so many intersections.

That’s my one point. The other is this: At the moment that a piece of writing becomes “religious scripture” you have at that moment retarded that subject irretrievably. At that instant the writing becomes divine and not subject to further discussion. This has happened with most religious texts.  No further development is possible because it has come from an entity greater than ourselves. The next natural consequence is that devotees of the religious scripture must now solve all the problems around them within the narrowing confines of their bible. Such people no longer see problems as they truly are but rather as they defined and described by the text. As the world changes this becomes harder and harder to do and eventually science has to be distorted so that the text continues to be right. Witness the bizarre Christian museum somewhere in the US that has displays showing humans riding dinosaurs. This has to be true, otherwise the bible is wrong.

2000 years ago it was no problem to have a religious scripture that encouraged the beating or killing of slaves as contained in the bible. The fact of slave ownership is just assumed as the natural order of things. The world of this millenium simply cannot be solved or answered by that text. Yet devotees come up with all manner of justifications and unusual solutions to do just that.

Official Scientology suffers from this terribly: Trying to solve their problems with a 1950s, 60s and 70s worldview and philosophy. Cold War, find an enemy, obliterate, quash dissent, restrict access to information. Just. Doesn’t. Work.

Where does this leave us with Scientology technology? How is it possible to apply a technology that’s 50 years old to a world that is so radically different? Right up to the end it seems that Hubbard was fine tuning, revising, updating. Surely if he had lived a further 30 years this would have continued.  I cannot believe for a moment that he would have got to 1990 or somewhere and said “no more development, ever. It’s done”.

What is the difference then between alteration & evolution?

I believe that If Scientology is to be a “technology” then by it’s very practice it must constantly challenge and update according to new observations and a changing world. The world is technological today and every advance is almost immediately surpassed, yet official Scientology still wants to use an analogue e-meter that looks like a 1960s Star Trek prop. This is what they thought a meter might look in the 2000s.

Speaking of meters what prompted my thinking on this is the video found at this link: A “digital” meter utilising modern technology. When I left corporate Scientology a couple years ago this would have made my skin crawl with its obvious deviation from “standard tech”. Yet, isn’t it the most natural thing in the world to take an observation or a technology and seek to improve it? This is how we have evolved world technology to the point where we are seeing the universe and beginning to travel beyond our celestial neighbourhood.

I would be curious to get views on this from people trying to pursue a standard Bridge. To clarify my position: After years of decompression and separation from practising Scientology I have made a few tentative steps toward taking it up again.  Not because I believe it to be the only answer but because I desire greater spiritual awareness and knowledge of myself and the structure of auditing makes sense to me and I understand it. But I want it to incorporate my progress with a millenial worldview and hopefully the technology to go with it.



92 thoughts on “Alteration & Evolution?

  1. Mantis, there are more and more of us who are transcending “standard Scientology tech” every month. As you point out, “standard tech” became whatever Ron said it was on any particular day and it evolved constantly.

    Some of us with many years of auditing training and experience finally twigged on the fact that in the beginning, there was an intention to help people achieve freedom in their own way and we have gone back to the earliest writings about auditing and created our own solutions based on those early intentions and not anything based on the rituals which sprang up over the years.

    I am just one of the people who have developed a technology derived from the earliest writings about Scientology and use it in a practice that bears no relation to the Scientology of today but it produces results that consistently exceed the expectations of my clients.

    If Ron were alive today there is no doubt that Scientology technology would have evolved from its relatively primitive 1980’s level and would have taken advantage of modern communication technology to keep up with conventional therapists and counselors in terms of providing sessions whenever and wherever their clients wanted to receive them.

    There is nothing wrong with a cozy face to face session with a therapist, but modern clients want help on the go when they need it and where they are at the moment. Counseling sessions over the internet have become commonplace everywhere except in the increasingly empty halls of Scientology Orgs. I have active clients on 4 continents who rely on me to deliver services to them on a schedule that they set and some of these clients have been with me for years.

    Sessions over Skype with sophisticated computerized meters the size of a flash drive are old hat in the independent field. I have clients who choose to receive video sessions on their smartphones because that is what enables them to handle a heavy workload and get enhancement when they need it.

    When a practitioner concentrates on providing service to his clients and listens to what they need and want, the practice and the technology evolve to meet the needs of clients and an auditor/practitioner is no longer limited to a field in any geographic area.

    There has never been a better time for those who sincerely desire to help their fellow man to set up a practice. I have several websites devoted to that proposition and a new Kindle book on Amazon that introduces the technology I use in my practice. You can Google my name if you want more information.

    I am merely pointing out that there is a future for those who wish to help others and they now have a choice of many avenues to pursue.

    David St Lawrence

    • I would request that the moderator seriously look at this type of response that uses the forum for marketing and self promotion purposes interwoven within the subject being discussed. I have no objection whatsoever to people expressing and discussing but there are endless other forums and methods available for this without subjecting us on this forum this. Its not what I want to see on this forum, I have enough of it in the everyday world.

      • And yet there are those of us who like to know what people are doing, how they are doing it and who to contact in certain instances. This is a decompressors’ site and other practices or services on offer are part and parcel.
        I, for one, would not like to see it stopped.

      • I also think it’s ok for people to talk about who they are and what they offer. Perhaps the Admins could put up a permanent link like the “Who’s declared” link and list out the various practitioners with a short blurb on what they do and links to their websites etc. That way people who do want to pursue this can find it easily and can do some research and homework before setting anything up.

        Just a suggestion; I have no objection to people of good will saying what they do.

      • Hadawakeup – Well said. There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping people, explaining methods of doing so, and promoting that. “Pro” “motion” is pro-survival. The Association of Professional Independent Scientologists has an entire section specifically promoting auditors – something which is missing from this blog.

        If people have questions about what happened to the church, one thing is simply that suppressives – real ones – undermined individuals and invalidated, evaluated, and suppressed their good intentions, cast doubts, made good look evil, introverted, third-partied – all while holding themselves up to be unassailable paragons of virtue. Aberration which contaged and restimulated. It sounds too simple, but it happened.

        And an SP doesn’t stop. He screams out to be stopped. No one is unassailable, no one does not make mistakes. An SP “knows” everyone is attacking him as an individual. In a way, it is an ultimate conceit, to (wrongly) imagine everyone in the world is interested in him. In fact, the only interest is in identifying who he really is, so everyone can get back to production and doing what they were doing before they were rudely interrupted. “They” can refer to good people. You know … “this type” of response.

      • I think this issue has been unreasonably generalised. Anyone involved in a news publication (and I think BIC fits the bill) knows there is enormous importance attached to separating advertising from editorial. A publication very quickly loses its credibility if it fails to do so – if will become regarded as catering to vested interests. This is nothing to do with ‘SPs’ trying to stop auditing, if that’s what’s being implied – but pure moderation policy. There should indeed be a policy, as I have myself noted the individual concerned not miss an opportunity to market himself. Nothing wrong with that – just place a paid ad.

      • Sean – The name of the blog should tell you something – if you read, it says: “Scientologists back in comm.” Let me walk you through a thought process: A major activity in Scn is auditing, and as I already stated, Scn websites actively promote auditors. This is a Scientology website. Your disdain for Scientology and Scientologists is evident. You seem to confuse this blog with a newspaper or some commercial venture, you state that as an assertion of fact, and proceed to extrapolate based on your false assertion that it should run paid advertisements. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to attempt to cut communication lines or suppress freedom of speech.

        Nothing ‘personal’ of course, in communicating to you, but I really get sick of ‘smarter than thou’ comments which merely disparage Scn and Scns in uninformed, offensive, and really “stupid” manners – yet expect to be treated with respect? READ.

        And if someone thinks I’m being “fundamentalist” or “thought stopping” that’s their problem – you do not walk into a political convention as some sort of “a-political saint” and “inform” everyone that it is impolite to talk about one’s own achievements or give out contact information.

        A lot of people here are very happy to know who and where auditors are, and to hear of ways in which they can offer their own expertise and help. Scientologists talk about auditing, quality, and where to get it.

      • “Your disdain for Scientology and Scientologists is evident.” Wrong! If you look at my comment I never so much as mentioned scientology, so it is not evident to me (at least) where my disdain comes in.
        In fact, you are indeed so fundamentalist as to reject every perceived criticism that you fail to observe that in a roundabout way we are in agreement, when you say in your earlier posting: “The Association of Professional Independent Scientologists has an entire section specifically promoting auditors – something which is missing from this blog.”
        In other words, such ‘commercial’ activities are kept separate from editorial. That is precisely what I am suggesting. Sit on that!

  2. Great article Mantis!

    If you gave someone a book today that was written 60 years ago, the person reading it today is not having the time place form and event, as someone reading it 60 years ago. They are living in a different world. My way of going about exploring Scientology has been to keep what I think is an eternal truth. Much of this is not what I read from any book or policy, it is what I saw and felt that I learned from as an eternal truth. That came from my universe and had to do with knowing me, not L. Ron Hubbard. That came from my mind, it isn’t written in any books, you can trust me on that one. I was there to learn about myself, and through that understanding, know more about others. None of that came from L. Ron Hubbard, it all came from me. I didn’t give him any credit personally because he never audited me. It was someone else putting forth that effort and I was grateful to them.

    When I read a golden rod or a policy about “in baskets” or things like that, I just kind of moved it to the side as something I wasn’t interested in and something with a time stamp on it. Even the Scientologists in the Church now interestingly enough, are time stamped.

    Yesterday someone was clear, today there are back on objectives. Yesterday someone was a Class Xll worthy of commanding 2,500.00 an hour as an auditor for the base, today they are ordered to retrain on GAOT and all certs are cancelled. Yesterday Inspector of Tech, tomorrow the newest “bitter defrocked apostate”. So, there is a lot of TEMPORARINESS with all of that to sort through and I did not stick to that kind of particle. Even David Miscavige is a temporary fixture. He is not an eternal truth by any means.

    Issues like listing, knowing right items, knowing wrong items, identities, op terms, things I have experienced for myself , these are what I take, what I can carry forward and stand on 1,000 years from now. This is what mattered to me.

    People have different purposes and I think everyone could know their own. It seems to me that some people just ran through Hubbard’s wardrobe and raided it, whatever looked good on them. This is what I get from people that actually do not have their own vocabulary in play but recite scripture. And when they stop, and originate something of their own it seems like something freaky happened.

    We are pioneering into the super natural. It has never been easy for pioneers. People will always have identities though. People will forward false data and with hold vital data. There will always be certain conditions, goals, purposes, opposition and aesthetics, aesthetics which embrace the spirit as well in forms as loyalty, truthfulness, nobleness and perceptiveness. Humor, compassion, mercy and curiosity.

    Many people think we are near the end of the world. I think we are just climbing out of the cradle.

  3. In all my years of reading about Scientology I always wondered: Why can’t some of it become a part of the curriculum in psychology, education and philosophy departments in colleges? The notion of not invalidating or evaluating is very attractive and assuring; the study tech is genuinely useful for reading any book; the idea of Theta is a not-unreasonable way to define what life is. Some of the things that Hubbard wrote may be wrong or underdeveloped, but that’s precisely what universities are for – to improve on existing knowledge. There could be an academic “Journal of Dianetics” that would publish new peer-reviewed research in the field. There could be health insurance plans that offer auditing and objectives, at least as “alternative medicine”. TRs would be part of some clinical psychology internship programs

    Instead, it is all locked up in one organization and cycles around LRH LRH LRH. Does it really have to be like it? Do independent scientologist find the above ideas plausible or do they feel more comfortable with going forward with “Ron’s way”, whatever that is? Or maybe all of Dianetics and Scientology is totally incompatible with the academic world to begin with? I’m not saying that it is – I am just wondering.

      • We need to address not Scientology, but the superset of Scientology, which is Ontology, with the Scientific Method.

        The scientific method has been applied primarily in the field of Physics. We need to apply it now in the field of Metaphysics. Here the scientific method appears in the form of mindfulness.

  4. Maybe we can start by stop calling it “technology”. Technology is:

    •the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
    •machinery and devices developed from scientific knowledge.
    •the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences.

    Hubbard and Scnists would like you to believe that Dn and Scn are based on science. They are not.
    Using the word technology implies that a certain level of precision and predictability can be achieved largely due to a solid foundation in science. Since Dn and Scn are NOT based on science, they do not enjoy the same results achieved by legitimate technologies. So, really all this business about “standard tech” or KSW or squirrelling is rather meaningless.

    In my opinion, after studying and participating in the subject for 30 years, is that they are at best pseudo-science – a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    I agree that labelling something as “sacred scripture” is pretty much the kiss of death for that subject. Dn and Scn, as subjects, are dead, dead, dead. But, dead is not the end. I think it is still valuable. Much can be learned about their evolution and demise. As well, I think this line of research, as shoddy as it was, uncovered some interesting phenomena and warrants further investigation – real, scientific investigation.

    So, Scn is NOT the road out; I’m okay with that. It can still be the spark that ushered in a new age of enlightenment.


      • The definition of science or Scientology?

        While Scientology claims it means “knowing how to know”, I think in practice it means “knowing how to fool yourself into believing and think it is knowing.”

      • Vinaire –

        I know something about you and realize that you love to think – to reason. What makes me trust a dictionary definition of science is simply that it fits fairly well with my own definition. I’m actually beginning to wonder how lexicographers work, and how much they get paid. So many people rely on them, and language changes all the time. How would you define “science?”

      • I thought that you were talking about the definition of Scientology.

        What makes you define Scientology as science?


      • Vinaire – What makes me define Scientology as science, is the definition of science. Like I said. Look up the definition of definition, and think about the purpose of definitions.

      • Scientology is a good organization of previous data in a way that it is better understandable, but it is not scientific in that it does not follow the scientific method, and many of its hypothesis, including Scientology Axiom One, can be shown to be false or inconsistent.


  5. Mary Freeman, a Class 8 auditor trained by LRH, gave a talk and quoted what LRH stated was meant by “standard.” From there, she elaborated on what standard tech is, explaining how it is based on the fundamental principles of the tech.

    To my understanding (correct me, anybody, if I have wrong data), Mary and Frankie Freeman not only deliver the standard Bridge but they also deliver “Excalibur,” which is a freezone development and is presumably “standard” in terms of being based on the fundamentals LRH derived.

    Here is the link to a 10-minute youtube video of her talk:

    • Marildi –

      Good question from a very respected scholar and historian. Answer: I don’t know. I assume you have watched this 12 minute vid as well, in which Mary reads a letter in which Max Hauri explains a bit about Excalibur, and most importantly, its philosophy.

      I have no experience or data on Excalibur, except for the above, and that it was originally one of LRH’s first shots at what evolved into the Bridge. But it seems to me that the idea of developing one’s own abilities requires that one have some of one’s own formulations of what one’s goals and purposes and ideal scenes are in life. That FZ Convention of 2010 had a LOT of very interesting speakers and topics, and one of those topics was ethics; Trey Lotz gave three 15 minute lectures on the use of admin scales, and implications thereof.

      • Trey Lotz is a great auditor, my auditor and the auditor for four of my family members. This is the perfect example of a person that can use Scientology to help others with out a string of dead bodies laying in his path. Why? His purpose is to help people, and he fits Scientology along his purpose line. His purpose is not to use it to dominate. He has had a field practice over 40 years. I have done two L’s with him and I can tell you this, L12 was worth it all. This is someone who audits over 40 hours a week for decades and makes it work to be a win win situation for everyone.

  6. Mantis.

    Hubbard changed the playing field when he wrote Keep Scientology Working and insisted that everyone do steps 7,8,9 and 10. This halted free thinking with in scientology and formed the basis for religious dogma. From this point in time, nobody except Hubbard could evolve HIS subjects. This was the beginning of the end and we all happily shackled ourselves to the organisation. Fortunately, those that visit these blogs have begun to emancipate ourselves from the restriction which we agreed to.

    Scientology will not evolve but thankfully,people will see the shortcomings within it and develop(evolve) into existence new technologies which will advance spirituality. The C of S is still relevant and can be seen as a stepping stone along the road to spiritual enhancement.

    Thank you for your insightful article.

    • “Hubbard changed the playing field when he wrote Keep Scientology Working and insisted that everyone do steps 7,8,9 and 10. This halted free thinking with in scientology and formed the basis for religious dogma. From this point in time, nobody except Hubbard could evolve HIS subjects. This was the beginning of the end…..” – spot on, Old Timer!

  7. This is the perfect example of what I am talking about when I say that right now, Scientology is different things to different people. The Church has a list of items they throw out, about what Scientology really is, to different people.

    This is from an interview with actress Juliette Lewis (Scientologist)

    “You’re a Scientologist. What do you think are the biggest misconceptions about Scientology?

    I’ll get all conspiratorial on you, and I’m just going to throw this out: The mainstream media is funded by pharmaceutical companies, so when you have the biggest movie star in the world at the time—Tom Cruise—coming out against anti-depressants and Ritalin and just saying, “Hey, why don’t you put a warning label on there?” The thing about Scientology is it is anti-drug in that you’re seeking relationship or communication tools—simple basics on how to live better.

    So, when Tom came out about that, I’ve never seen someone get torn down so hard, and they still brutalize him with Scientology pieces to this day. It’s a religious philosophy and self-help movement. And you’ll never see a truthful word written about it in mainstream media.”…e-clooney.html

    The Church asserts that is a religion to the I.R.S., they assert they are self improvement group in Hollywood.

    She says, “Tt’s a religious philosophy and self-help movement. And you’ll never see a truthful word written about it in mainstream media.”

    She doesn’t see a truthful word written, because there are so many words written, and they are all saying different things depending on the issue the Church address’!

    And this is what I mean about people not really knowing what other people are doing. Juliette Lewis goes on about how it is anti drug and Tom is anti drug. These people are not staff, they don’t know when a P.C. goes type 3 at the base or a staff member goes type 3, the first thing the staff do is DRUG THEM UP.

    Do you think the Sea Org staff mention to Tom Cruise or Juliette Lewis that they themselves use drugs to solve problems and they will quickly drug up anyone if it solves a problem for them?

    No. And here you have this movie star making statements to the press about what Scientology is, because she is a public at Celebrity Center and she feels she knows everything there is to know.

    Right here you have an organization that with holds vital information on a constant basis to it’s members and staff, and a customer who is forwarding false information.

    • If what you say is true it pisses me off more than any other single thing in scn that I’ve come across. I had a relative who went, for want of a better word type 3. He spent a fortune on auditing at an AO (well, someone else spent it) only for him to return in even worse shape. For the next many, many years the only handling by RCS was make-wrong and hinting at massive overts. On finally leaving the RCS, there was a long, long journey of self-recrimination and doubt before he ended up on psych drugs and even today there is nothing but massive disapproval from anyone connected to scn either RCS or Indie – and yet that medication is the only damn thing that has brought about meaningful change. And you say it ought to have been the first thing tried!
      To get to the point of taking psych drugs, we in fact referred to LRH. I was shown references where he says in such a case you refer the person to a doctor – NOT any natural therapy – and keep sending the person to a doctor till something is found. This is what we did and what we found was a mental disorder. This doctor referred him to a psychiatrist who promptly diagnosed and prescribed the medication. As far as I’m concerned – pure LRH.

      • “And you say it ought to have been the first thing tried!”

        No, I didn’t say that. But I don’t see why anyone that has handled their case on drugs, would have a problem with it. I don’t have charge on drugs but apparently the Scientologists, and Tom Cruise especially, has a lot of charge on it.

        See. I think that is weird for someone that does not have any case on drugs, to be so violently anti. That is kind anti Scientology in my mind. The purif was a wrong item for me and a wrong indication. It was the same as telling me me as a thetan, was the effect of my body.

        This was where I first departed with Ron Hubbard. This was where we parted ways with seeing eye to eye with the tech.

        Thousands of people had already gone clear with the sauna. Not he writes people can’t make it with out sauna? Seriously? People are the effect of the body all of the sudden?

        Listen I don’t doubt that sauna has therapeutic value. But to say a person can not make it spiritually with out a sauna? I weighed 105 pounds at 5’5″ when I was C/Sed for that. I didn’t have any fat cells for drugs to be lodged in! Seriously? I couldn’t have weighed more than 95 or 90 pounds when I was taking drugs, like 15 years earlier! What druggies have fat cells? How many fat druggies have seen?

        Seriously? Auditing doesn’t work with our a sauna?

        He was the one packing on the pounds and turning into a fatty.

      • Not to imply others didn’t have spiritual gains through sweating. Maybe others felt they were effect of toxins.

  8. You know what is funny about all of this?

    The Sea Org is supposed to be “the most ethical group on the planet”. We have seen their highest executives lie on national television and purger themselves in court. Take money from people and refuse to give it back when caught defrauding the public. Abuse people, lie to people, stalk people, dabble in domestic terrorism. False arrest, keeping people as kidnap victims. Drugging unruly staff.

    You know, these guys were charged with “putting ethics in on the planet” and they run the sec checks. They decide when the people that are the highest up the bridge have to get a sec check every six months because they are so untrustworthy. They decide who goes to the M.A.A. and “who is good standing”. Every flap out here is a result of something they put they fingers in.

    The funny thing about all of this, is that they are the most out ethics group among all of us.

    • Two decades of Narconon never bought a death or a law suit. They were Independent.

      The Sea Org of all people, of all people, took over management of that and put in under A.B.L.E. and look what happened. I think there are 20 law suits and several deaths.

      They don’t know anything about drug addicts. Nothing!

      But they made SO MUCH MONEY, Millions upon Millions getting donations for Narconon through A.B.L.E.. The Church kept every dime. It never once went to help a kid off drugs. And they took money from the Narconons. The E.D. Narconon was sent on reg tours! To get the money (donations) from them! They make new student pay 2500.00 for some paper back books. It was just the MONEY MONEY MONEY. They thing the Narconon staff and drug addicts are all DB’s!

      Now look. Look what they have done. The kids are DYING in there.

      Everything they have taken control of they have ruined.

      They have even put the burden delivery on the public.

      “We can’t give you OT8 until you buy us a ship.
      We can’t give you super power until you us a building.
      We can’t deliver Scientology until you buy us buildings.”

      I mean, seriously. Having to have before we can do.

      They are down to selling status’ and identities.

      This has to be the most Fkd up group of Scientologists on the planet.

      A perfect example of how what could go wrong does go wrong.

      They now view themselves as “apostates”. It isn’t me that is tripping, hallucinating, out ethics, off the rails, out of control, being an unholy liability to society. And it isn’t anyone out here!

      It’s THEM. They don’t even see it. And Miscavige is the head on that body.

      Hope this blows some charge for someone else! It did for me! That was a right item!

    • I agree Oracle and have expressed my view of the Sea Org in a number of posts. Personally, I feel the Sea Org should be disbanded and abolished. Hands-down, the worst decision Hubbard ever made (followed closely by KSW #1).

      I came to the conclusion that “Nothing is what it seems” with regards to Scn, and this could not be truer than with the Sea Org. If you believe in Hubbard’s Group Bank theory detailed in KSW, you could not find a more suitable example. The group is all, the individual nothing should be their motto. As well as these fine characteristics:
      Self-Importance – take a high school drop-out and put him in a faux naval uniform and tell him he is the upper 10% of the upper 10%…well, you get the picture.
      Not quite bright – just take a look at their communication through emails, promo pieces, etc.
      Never really understood Scn – no where on the Bridge, very little training, no enhancement, don’t apply basic Scn principles in life or on post.

      However, there was a time when the Sea Org attracted many fine, educated individuals. I’ve known quite a few. But, you will also find they have left after decades of service.

      What’s left is a gang of thugs.

    • Exactly: “Most out ethics group”. And, that IS the way the world views them too.

      Only inside the ever shrinking bubble do the members give them a “pass” on their never ending lies, exaggerations and extortions.

  9. Great Article.

    Scientology is the way it is because of the great distrust Hubbard had for others to evolve the subject for the better. This means, he distrusted his subject to improve others so they could do it. In short he distrusted himself.

    That was his case.

  10. Scientology represents a subject that is evolving. The evolution is inevitable. Only it won’t be called Scientology.

    The best of Scientology shall be part of the evolved subject. There should be no fear that the best of Scientology will be lost.

  11. This is a very well written and thought out article, Mantis.

    I congratulate you on finding real help for your family member, and on your report that psych drugs and psych treatment were the only things that helped him, while all the Scientology you tried just made him worse.

    This is important information for people who have been involved in Scientology to know. Scientology is not real treatment for mental health. Trying to use Scientology this way has created disasters, and has actually turned out to be very dangerous in many cases.

    I do want to comment on a portion of your article, not because it is really important to your excellent message, but because I see it repeated here a lot.

    “The various broad categories have been discussed on this and the others blogs: From those who want to be as close to KSW as possible to the other extreme of the haters and the nothing-good-has-ever-come-out-of-any-this crowd.

    I think “those who want to be as close to KSW” is an accurate description of their position.

    But I don’t think that “the haters and the nothing-good-has-ever-come-out-of-any-this crowd.” is an accurate description of that position.

    The reason I stress the importance of accurately describing a position is because the only way to effectively argue against a position that you disagree with is to duplicate and to understand that position so thoroughly that you can see it’s actual flaws.

    Otherwise, it’s like trying to audit a pc who you continually misunderstand, misduplicate and misrepresent what he says in auditing: No progress will ever occur.

    How can you “as-is” something that you do not thoroughly view?

    Also, “Hater” is a pejorative label that suggests the person is motivated by hate. It is not possible to duplicate and to understand an idea if you are viewing it through a pejorative label of the person who is presenting the idea. The pejorative label blinds you to the idea that the person is presenting.

    The idea is the target.

    Not the person, right?

    “nothing-good-has-ever-come-out-of-any-this” is a way to describe some peoples’ positions who have little or no experience with Scientology and don’t want to take the time to experience it. I understand why you may use that description for them, but again, it still is not really their position on Scientology, just their lack of energy to do something they themselves do not see how they could possibly benefit.

    I also understand that you were presenting a range of ideas, and maybe you just didn’t want to take the time to describe the range accurately because you wanted to move on to the point you were making.

    So I’ll just say this: I’m not motivated by hate. There is no way that you can do what I have done, for as long as I have done it, and be motivated by hate.

    It has never been my position that nothing good has ever come from Scientology. I could not have been in Scientology for 16 years, and worked 7.5 years of that time for free as a staff member, if I ever thought nothing good has ever come from Scientology.

    So what is my position, exactly?

    Scientology was created, continually refined, and maintained by L Ron Hubbard as a spiritual deception and used to exploit the spiritual vulnerabilities of people so that he could extract everything of value from them that they had.

    My purpose is to expose the information necessary on Scientology so that people can make informed decisions about their own involvement in it.

    That’s my position, and my purpose.

    And it is the position, and the purpose, of a lot of people who have been involved in Scientology, seen the harm that it has done, left it completely behind, and still remain on the internet so as to warn others so that they may not be harmed.

    Thanks for listening.


    • Right, you always start with this as your calling card. You have a purpose to “protect and warn.”

      But then you get very personal with attacks.

      Scientology is harmful? Look at your most recent (that I bothered to read) post to me on another blog:

      “Your interpretation of what I post is your own. It is like you are grabbing an arrow out of the air that was not aimed at you, and piercing your own heart with it.

      Such a tragic beauty. Such a forlorn and sad victim.

      Is your suicide a political statement? A drama-filled PR stunt?

      Yes. I think it is.

      One of many.


      You are not exactly highly beneficial in social intercourse your self.

      You are way far left and begin to attack anyone personally who even hints they are not out of arc with who they are, or the life they have lived if it involves some evenly weighed view of their Scientology experience.

      How I would describe Scientology for myself?

      Some people pay for drugs, some people pay for sex, some people pay for drinks, theater, holiday. What did I pay for? I paid for the conversations. It was just that simple for me. That was my thing. Not only me, but a lot of people. That is what auditing is, a conversation.

      When the conversations got downright abusive and accusative, I stopped wanting to buy them.

      And your personal conversations go in that same direction, they get personally abusive and accusative.

      It begins polite and swiftly turns into an interrogation similar to what a Scientologist might find themselves in an M.A.A. interview.

      Your stated “purpose” is to put ethics in on the Church of Scientology.

      Which I see is as mad as their purpose to “put ethics in on the planet”.

      You are both in the same bag.

    • Well stated Alanzo. I experienced some of the same and agree with you and am in the same position with purpose. You have the excellent ability to put thoughts into words, thank you.

    • WOW!
      “Scientology was created, continually refined, and maintained by L Ron Hubbard as a spiritual deception and used to exploit the spiritual vulnerabilities of people so that he could extract everything of value from them that they had.”

      A very accurate statement indeed. Scientology is a paradox. It is a subject filled with truths and similarly lies too.

      “Thanks for listening.”

      Thanks for commenting.

    • Alanzo: 1. “It has never been my position that nothing good has ever come from Scientology. I could not have been in Scientology for 16 years, and worked 7.5 years of that time for free as a staff member, if I ever thought nothing good has ever come from Scientology.

      So what is my position, exactly?

      2. Scientology was created, continually refined, and maintained by L Ron Hubbard as a spiritual deception and used to exploit the spiritual vulnerabilities of people so that he could extract everything of value from them that they had.”

      You don’t really see your statements 1 and 2, stated one right after the other, as a glaring oxymoron? If something is created as a deception and used to exploit…
      how then can anything good come from it? Sorry. you are saying exactly that.
      And The Oracle is right, you are always saying the same as your final message. And it is that “nothing-good-has-ever-come-out-of-any-this”. A created, refined and maintained deception, cannot, I’M SORRY, cannot do any good.

      It is sad for me to see this. Because it seems to be an extreme
      “unchangeable no matter what” view. And forgive me, but it does sound and feels exactly the hardcore scientologists approach of “we know it all and will never listen nor evolve to or into anything else.” It is ok with me. Through real and wise and free auditing, I am tolerant to your approach and to the other extreme (though sad and disagreeing with both), but being so extreme you do not observe that you are acting that way.
      And it all fits beautifully with what Mantis says, that you relate to a particular “scientology” and not to other way of it being done. AND THERE ARE OTHER WAYS. And they are based on the main body of tech you call deceptive.

      These total extremes: (Scient is all Gospel and totally right and beneficial, so I will work for free and dedicate my life to it) to another extreme: (it is all nothing but a deception, has no value, I will fight to expose it) – both, or at least one of them indicate somewhat an hypnotic state. IMHO both are. OR, that many years of total non-observation, turned into totally correct observation. May be, you only know.

      But lets look at this, how could an intentionally created deception also produce so many miracles too? As so many people report. I was going to write here an amazing life changing win as a book one auditor when I was only a few months in Scient. checking it, not believing anything yet. And the huge win to my PC and close friend occurred right in front of me because I applied fully Ron’s begging (he was actually begging) to always ask for earlier similar if PC does not go really uptone after a heavy incident. 1st session, me new to the subject, my PC 1 week in Scient. Earlier similars at my gentle insistance, all the way to past lives…not even mentioned in the short course. Heavy incidents, right in front of me, finally HUGE win. PC really up-tone now, major part of his life has changed, he says.

      Where is the deception? Well may be here it is:
      Later that day, when I was not present, a reg, tried forcefully to sell this PC, after his amazing win, the whole bridge, pushing him real hard, including selling his house…and PC caved in and went home crying and in grief, never to return to Scientology ever again. That Reg, I nearly killed him. OK but here’s the thing:

      That win the PC had was so real inspite, of that heavy suppression, that this area on which he had the win changed drastically with results in reality, something he couldn’t achieve in many years of other (fairly good) previous therapy.

      So, you wish to close your eyes and make life easy, and call it all a bluff, go ahead. Or you might say it is doing good, freeing people, then trapping them, sure, go ahead. It might be the case. So, not being hypnotized, smile, take the good, use it if you wish, and throw the rest to hell.

      That’s my take, having LOOKED long and hard at what has been done to me by the church to trap me and harm me, and so, made me free of charge on that and able to choose freely what, when, and if I wish to do anything with this tech. And my choice is: this tech has a lot to give. So I take, and I am a better man, I am! Doing it freely as an INDIE, at “Dror Center” Israel, with love and care all around me, Nots and OT levels look and feel totally different compared to the CoS. The emphasis here is on TOTALLY. Ha.
      Now, when that won’t be the case any more, I will be out in a blink of an eye. I will.
      Can we shake hands, man, or do I need to understand now how totally wrong I am. Alanzo, listen to this: Since being an Indie I make my dentist crack with laughter, saying I am his funniest patient, with me hardly even able to speak in his chair. understandably…
      How wrong and harmful can that be?

      • About the miracles of Scientology auditing – I’ve seen a lot of great success stories after a session or process is completed, for sure. But then, a little down the road, that same person’s life has reverted to what it was before with its struggles and hardships. Or sometimes, it’s even become worse – they’ve screwed around, changed their sex, bankrupted themselves…..
        I look at the people around me, the Clears, OT 3s, OT 5s, those on OT 7 and the OT 8s. What do I see – hardship, heartbreak, financial uncertainty, illness, deaths. Sorry to be the bearer of these tidings but it is what I see.
        And how do these people, the same ones who wrote of the wonderful auditing and its affects, “the new me”, “I now know who I am”, or “what I need to do” – blah, blah. It often sounds like they’ve been programmed.
        And how do these same “New Me” people reason it? They’re told and believe it because they must, “It’s your next case level that is impinging on you. You need to move up onto and through your next level. Please see the registrar.”
        Some haven’t said anything but have drifted away.
        Apologies again. It’s what I’ve observed. I don’t listen to success stories anymore. I see the person’s life…..

      • Hemi –

        You make excellent points, and we agree far more than you realize.

        Scientology has genuinely good things in it. I myself was truly helped when I first got involved in it.

        But in the same way that the spiritual vulnerabilities of your pc were exploited after the excellent session you gave him by the reg, LRH’s Scientology takes everything good in it and uses it as bait for something bad.

        It is probably possible to delete the bad in Scientology and leave only the good. But I do not know any person who still calls himself a Scientologist who is capable of Spotting Source, admitting the bad in Scientology from L Ron Hubbard, and actually deleting it.

        I’ve never been to the Dror Center, and so maybe that’s where heaven has met with earth.

        I hope so.

        And yes, the exact kind of scenario you mention of your dentist being unable to work on you because you have become his funniest patient and he is laughing all the time would be an indicator that just such a thing has happened.

        Your advertisements for the Dror Center give lots of hope, Hemi. I truly do hope they are true.


      • I’ll get a little bit more specific for you, Hemi, so you know exactly what I consider the problems to be – even in the Indie Field:

        1. Scientologists can not recognize hypnotic states which have been recognized for 100s of years in the field of the mind. They can not recognize them, and do not understand them, because LRH lied to them about what those states are. I have seen very few Scientologists question LRH on this, or study any other practitioner in the field of the mind – even when given references for them to study.

        2. Scientologists are generally ignorant of even the basics of psychology and psychiatry and do not keep up with their advances or the issues discussed in these disciplines. No professional can ever hope to operate this way in his own field (the field of the mind) and be anything but a charlatan.

        3. Because of this insular arrogance that LRH instilled into Scientologists, even after they get out of the Church, very few even consider the question that because the Church of Scientology has completely failed, this may be an indicator that something is wrong at the core of Scientology. They simply say “Scientology was applied wrongly” and NEVER see what actually caused the Church to fail.

        4. Actually, very few failures of the results of Scientology are ever discussed amoung Scientologists, but hidden and dismissed as “entheta” in this same way -” if Scientology failed to produce good results, then Scientology was applied incorrectly”. Too few Scientologists ever notice this circular illogic to ever confront what is actually wrong with Scientology so it can be fixed.

        These are some fundamental yet very specific problems that I see with Scientology and Scientologists that do not bode well for its future. If Scientology is to be a valid technology in the field of the mind, these cultural and individual values must be confronted and changed.

        But LRH never said to do that. In fact he said the opposite: You are to apply an instant attack on any person who mentions any aspect of unworkability in Scientology.

        Maybe there are some few,like David St Lawrence and others who are doing this, but look at the attacks they get even here on this blog from the majority.

        So it’s not really looking good for the future of Scientology if a Scientologist can not rise above his programming and look at Scientology as a member of the human race, right here on planet earth and have a non-ideologue approach to its development and application.


  12. Good stuff Mantis, your views really resonate with me. Considering the essence of this post and related responses it should be self-evident that consensus does not exist on “what comes next” in terms of Scientology’s status as a philosophy and/or technology. To many, both OUT and IN, the future of Scientology is a matter to be taken extremely seriously. Perhaps because I have been OUT longer than most and perhaps because of certain “inexplicable” life experiences, letting go of Scientology has been relatively easy.

    Interestingly that that which resulted in me reaching for Scientology in the first place is what contributed to the ease with which I walked away. Here is the thing; I have had some “inexplicable” experiences before, during and after Scientology, beginning at a very young age. At age 8 on a summers evening while sitting outside all alone with nothing much on my mind I suddenly found myself “outside of time and space” The sense of self I was familiar with was gone, in its place was a sense of infinity – of total connectedness. In later years while looking into certain eastern religions I discovered that my experience wasn’t all that uncommon. There is even a name for it: “The Ecstasy of Union”.

    I hardly want to make an issue of these events other than to say they seem to be a constant reminder that nothing was as it seems. It’s more a case of pointing out that, worldwide, a kind of spiritual renaissance is taking place. A common theme around consciousness is emerging amongst metaphysicians, philosophers, mystics and scientists. The internet is saturated with developments in this regard. But it’s not something one who believes he or she already has all the answers to life and existence will take the time looking into – as is the case with many Scientologists. Yet, I believe those who have been exposed to the unique training and disciplines associated with Scientology, are in some ways, well positioned to make a contribution to this inevitable spiritual renaissance.

    I never bought into the idea that LRH had the final say on how things work. As far as I am concerned nothing ever remains the same, everything is in a constant state of flux. Look at the universe and everything in it, all is constantly evolving, mutating, changing and transforming. To think that the subject of Scientology and its structures are exempt from this universal dynamic is pure folly. As I knew LRH, and as Mantis implied, as long as LRH was around the subject would have evolved.

    • Joe, it is not just a matter of letting go of Scientology. It is a matter of understanding certain aspects of life and oneself. One will easily let go of Scientology when one finds the answers to the inconsistencies in life that one is looking at,

      You are correct in your observation there seem to be a renaissance taking place worldwide in the area of spirituality; and that those exposed to Scientology are well positioned in some ways to make a contribution to it.

    • Joe, I walked away with relative ease as well. I never stopped referring to “the stars” and other practices. I never let go of them entirely – had accupuncture, went off to do hatha yoga. I love all things spiritual and take some truth from them all. Now, I’m enjoying looking at these again with good feelings and with a free spirit.
      To people who I’ve told about my leaving, familiy or friend, I defend Scientology. I explain that I got what I wanted out of it and reiterate how much I benefitted.
      It’s partly true – even mainly true – but also I do not want to be deemed a total idiot for taking so long to realise it is a cult! I have to preserve a semblance of rightness for being caught up in it for as long as I was before cottoning on to it.
      I’m reluctant to denegrade Hubbard much because it just makes me look such an fool when I was warned by so many in the first place not to get involved. All the time I was in, I defended Scn, the church and Hubbard until I was blue in the face. That I needed to do this, even, should have got me thinking…..
      I’ve no need for that anymore, of course. For the main part, it’s as though I never belonged and am now just a ‘normal person’ like everyone else! That’s funny, isn’t it…..
      I use what I got out of it, have an awareness I may not have had prior to it; and there’s lots of stuff I’ve gained. But…..there is much I scorn as well. And I don’t want to be associated with any of it.

  13. Mantis,
    The technology obviously evolved while Ron was alive and there is no reason it cannot evolve further. But certain points need to be kept in mind. When you read the Class VIII materials, you will find that Ron defined standard tech in terms of what the pc needed handled – not in terms of hcob’s or set procedures. He says in there that at any given time, there is one and only one optimum approach to a pc. So if the pc is arc broken, then you need to resolve the arc break before you can further audit him.

    If you look over the materials of Scientology, you can see there are a number of techniques to handle arc breaks. Ron said once that you could handle anything in a case simply by 2wc. And of course you can use the modern rudiment assessment approach. Whatever you have in your kit bag that you know can handle arc breaks and you are confident with. The point is that standard tech says you need to resolve that arc break.

    So standard tech is built on a gradient approach to the mind which in turn is based on the discovery that some things need to be handled before others. You see this most clearly in the C/S 53 which outlines the relative sequence of handling things.

    All this boils down to the fact that Ron was devoted to achieving certain results in the pc and never to any particular technique – proven by the way he kept changing the techniques to better achieve his intent. I believe this answers the question about what Ron really intended. It has little to do with the type of e-meter or technique you are using but everything to do with what the pc needs. It would be very poor form to start running grades on a pc when he is sitting in an arc break and this is definitely not what Ron intended.

    This goes along with another very important point. The techniques that Ron did evolve are adequate to the job and people only rarely come up to that realization because their basic comm cycle fails them. I worked in a Class V HGC for a couple of decades and I saw time and time again people using the given techniques, failing and reaching for new and drastic solutions.

    The problem here is that pc’s usually have an awful ability to communicate and are only comfortable in “social” situations where nobody ever says what they really think. People get very nervous about letting it all hang out and I can tell you that I have seen pc’s burn up auditors like crazy all because the auditor didn’t have sufficient skill to get in communication with them.

    One of the big wins of my auditing career was one very unhappy pc who had failed to get gains with three other auditors. I resolved the case and made her very happy indeed simply by getting a question answered which all three of the other auditors had asked repeatedly and failed to get the needed information. This is all explained in the Basic Auditing Series where Ron explodes all these myths about techniques. He said clearly that it is communication that makes auditing work – not technique. And my experience is that this is very true.

    So the point here is that people are always looking for new techniques to make up for the fact that they cannot achieve good communication with the pc.

    I’ll add one further comment to this about the Bridge that Ron put together. You have to understand the history and how it was derived before you start changing it.

    For example, it was found fairly early that pc’s couldn’t duplicate process commands and would be running something else than what the auditor asked. Various objective approaches were devised that recovered the ability of the pc to duplicate and accept control. It would be a brave auditor that would dispense with that.

    Another example. The grades were developed to dispense with the primary liabilities of auditing (rudiments). Auditors used to be plagued with ARC breaks and problems and would be constantly handling these things. Running grades got these largely out of the way so the auditor could concentrate on what he wanted to achieve. Of course, not only was the pc stabilized in session but also in life where he becomes less susceptible to these rudiments issues.

    Yes, many pc’s could bypass parts of the Bridge and possibly get away with it because the Bridge is built for the lowest common denominator. But if auditors start to take shortcuts without understanding what they are doing, their percentage of failures will rise and auditing will get a lot rougher. It’s far better in my mind to have an approach that can work on any accessible pc.

    I hope these comments give you some more perspective on the questions you have asked.


    • Nice job, Steve!

      if i can make some rudimentary comments in support, please?
      (Incidentally, Scnafrica are due to run a submitted article, I put in a few days ago, which also cut to the bone, on some ‘fashionable trends’.)

      To me, KSW, is simply a practical, and sensible approach, to getting a positive result delivered, to any given pc. It is NOT ‘a sacred ritual’ on the one hand, nor devil worship, or ‘the ravings of a madman’, on the other, or any such twisted claptrap, intended to push ‘the tech’ off a cliff!

      Is Keeping Scientology Working, any different, for example, than keeping your ‘Delivery Vehicle’ WORKING? Or keeping your machinery, tools, management systems, employees, household, relationships, etc, etc, working??

      A reversion to commonsense, provides the truth to this much maligned ‘system’ (for that’s all it is!) of increasing awareness, IMHO!

      LRH, provided a wealth of tools, for USE, in helping the individual, solve the riddles of existence.

      That many would be inclined to throw sand into the Scn ‘delivery engine’, along with clueless attempts to dismantle said ‘engine’, and maybe alter it, without reference to the actual ‘axiomatic’ reasons around which said ‘engine’ were actually developed and operate. (ARC, the Auditors, Code, refined processes, and yes, KSW, etc, etc) smacks of at least, 4 possible causes.

      1) misduplication.
      2) ignorance.
      3) destructive intent, 4) undisclosed harmful acts (overts)

      For God’s sake, why would you trust a motor mechanic, described by 1,2,3,4 above, with your very own ‘delivery vehicle’? (used as an analogy to trusting some one in handling your mind, or case.)

      And yet, that is precisely, where we find ourselves today, with a growing number of ‘know bests’, who are overtly doing their utmost, to convince us, that the use of practical tools of the mind, spirit, and life, are to be shunned in favor of (their) current service facs, and guru posturing.

      Yawn, how patently bigoted can these ‘know bests’, get? Hmm?

      Sorry, I don’t give a flying fugg, what these new ‘saviors’. are about.

      I am simply a practical guy, who uses ‘tools’ that work, and do so effectively, when used as intended. (BTW, this includes the awareness gained through the likes of Adyashanti, a former Buddhist, who teaches an approach to actually ‘letting go’. and thus realizing one’s ‘egoless’ self! 🙂 )

      Thanks for reading my 2c. 🙂

      – Calvin.

    • Steve: “The problem here is that pc’s usually have an awful ability to communicate and are only comfortable in “social” situations where nobody ever says what they really think. People get very nervous about letting it all hang out and I can tell you that I have seen pc’s burn up auditors like crazy all because the auditor didn’t have sufficient skill to get in communication with them.”

      I do not think that is the problem. Auditing works when the pc’s attention is directed at the right area of his case, He than looks at it and resolves it by realizing what the confusion actually was. He doesn’t have to talk about all that he is looking at in detail to the auditor. He doesn’t need to let it all hang out.

      Here is the problem as I see it.

      (1) Hubbard assumes that preclear’s reactive mind is greater than the preclear’s analytical mind. So the auditor needs to lend his analytical mind in support of the preclear. Basically, this amounts to auditor assisting in analysing preclear’s case. This is simply another form of pschoanalysis.

      (2) Psychoanalysis requires collection of information about the preclear’s case in detail. Auditing is designed to do that. This gets into the violation of the privacy of the preclear. This has many other problems. The profession of Psychoanalysis has professional oversight. Scientology auditing in the field does not have that oversight.

      (3) As I see, Hubbard’s assumption (preclear’s reactive mind is greater than the preclear’s analytical mind) is applicable only in the situation when pc is tackling his case on a wrong gradient. When the pc is looking at the right area of his case, he can handle it easily without the assistance of the auditor.

      (4) The right area of the case is determined through D of P interview. C/S then determines the right processes. Auditor than applies those processes.

      (5) The wrong action is to collect data during auditing session for continuous C/Sing. Auditing should be limited to getting the pc look at the right area of his case. No further analysis is needed. If the pc is not winning than the C/Sing did not determine the right area of the case. Simple.

      (6) No communication from the auditor is required other than TRs.

      (7) No communication from the pc is required other than that in the D of P interview.

      There is something terribly wrong with collecting a blow by blow account of the preclear’s case. That is ok in a research phase, but not in normal auditing where C/Sing has already determined the correct process to apply. This is the BIG OUTPOINT that I see. Otherwise, auditing is not much different from psychoanalysis.


    • Steve – Brilliant. The Grade Chart is referred to as the Master C/S. Your explanation led me to see how it works. “I can get comm going, I just don’t have the training” is what I’ve thought for years, not realizing that 2WC is what I’ve been doing, and that when someone tells me they understood something, or realized something, they weren’t just “being social.” Thanks much. You explained a lot. – Carcha.

  14. Mantis: “But for those who are still Scientologists and are practising is some form or another there is a new question which I’d like to address.”

    If written by LRH, then its Scientology. If an alteration, then it’s not, its something else. “Versions of Scientology” are someone’s figment of their imagination. Whatever Ron intended is on tapes, books, HCOB/PLs, and if it’s not, it’s something else, not another version.

    Mantis: “Add to this that a particular piece of writing may have been based on a bad day or an incorrect observation and I believe it is impossible to define what “standard” Scientology is.”

    Merely evaluation of someone’s fabrication. “… may have … ???”. Why would anyone generate such a speculation? Why look to mock up possible events to invalidate the tech?

    There were lots of cancellations and revisions of HCOB/PLs. Obviously “Bad Days” or “Incorrect Observation” were on his radars. But nope, some folks not happy unless their intention to ‘invalidate’ finds outlet.

    Mantis: “When we discuss the technical aspect of Scientology we are talking about a fairly large volume of data. This isn’t a cake recipe. This means variables or opportunities for different interpretation at so many intersections.”

    Yet when study tech has been properly applied, no discussion or different interpretation is required to perform any given auditing action.

    Mantis: “At the moment that a piece of writing becomes “religious scripture” you have at that moment retarded that subject irretrievably. At that instant the writing becomes divine and not subject to further discussion. … No further development is possible because it has come from an entity greater than ourselves.”

    LRH is the source of Scientology, and it is what he says it is. If you want to develop it further and do something else, then just don’t call it Scientology. Scientology is LRH.

    Too much re-parotting what has been posted elsewhere a zillion times.

    Mantis: “Surely if he had lived a further 30 years this would have continued.”

    Possibly. But he never did much after 1984. And if someone wants to continue it, go ahead, but it’s not Scietology, it’s something else. People keep talking about further developing it, but the only result so far of that has been “Talk” … or alterations that do not actually improve anything, although they “believe” it does. I chalk this kind of talk up to MUs, FD and disagreements (Qual Remedies). Oh, and some folks not happy unless their intention to ‘invalidate’ finds outlet.

    Mantis: “I believe that If Scientology is to be a “technology” then by it’s very practice it must constantly challenge and update according to new observations and a changing world. The world is technological today and every advance is almost immediately surpassed, yet official Scientology still wants to use an analogue e-meter that looks like a 1960s Star Trek prop.”

    LRH had always been utilizing the most advanced devices, and was never afraid to go for the latest mimeo, reel-to-reel, solid state, computers, etc. whatever became available. The Mark VI he authorized was 1977, not the 60s. Further, it contained computerized electronic components, the most cutting edge of the day.You seriously need to get your facts straight.

    LRH has left a lot of instruction behind that only management is privy to, so it’s a little hard to comment on it. I would be surprised if LRH instructed them to limit meters to analogue/electronic varieties. At this writing most screens for digital digital meters have not hit true 75hz refresh rates, and thus not on par with the best needle movements yet. In fact some of the most hi-tech industries still rely on them to this day.

    If you have such a hard on for altered or “re-developed” tech, just go and do Capt. Bill’s squirrely OT levels. Problem solved.

      • Ok by me.

        But where is this “better and improved technology” they’ve been yakking about for the last 50 years that supposedly even has some scientific basis continuously heralded about to invalidate the supposedly non-scientific nature of Scientology.

        All nothing more than hot-air PR posts of blogs. Just talk …

      • Apparently Vinaire, You should not mention a potential or a possibility, unless you can produce it. If it can not be contributed, it can not be possible. One wonders how we have fax machines or cell phones or jet airliners.

  15. Chiacchere. chiacchere. chiacchere…………….son tutte chiacchere (its all hot air)
    The world is BURNING…….. and what do we do????? ………. CHAT !!!!!…………. PLEASE,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SOMEONE ….!!!!! ITS GETTING BORING……… can we talk about SOMEONE / SOMETHING who IS DOING something to HELP life here on planet earth and making an IMPRINT ON IT ???????
    Actions speak louder than words and UNITY is strength.

    • I volunteer at a thrift store that benefits the hungry.. Does that count?

      Before you answer I must announce that I am a mere Wog who worked for 30 years in the Mental Health Arena..

  16. I’ve been involved in this for a long time,, twenty years in the field. There are many people out here that are even in their 80’s that have had practices for half a decade and have had no flaps on their lines practicing and delivery Scientology.

    And one for one the storm troopers that come out of the church (usually thrown out) that are violent about the Scientology and how it should be policed, have a long list of stories behind them of how they have already blown people out of the game, ripped people off, and have been the first to alter the tech for a buck. All the while presenting themselves as “K.S.W.”. It’s these storm troopers at 1.5 down in the enforce band that are the first ones to hand someone else the OT materials with out doing OT preps or clear checks. Put a student through training with no check sheet, then attack everyone else loudly and viciously for being “out K.S.W.” or for even thinking outside of the box.

    Scientology does not work in the enforce band. If it is not used all the way up at the top of the CDEI scale where a person is curious or is desire, it does not work.

    Anyone who wants to get biblical about L.R.H. has read S.O.S. and knows that a 1.5 uses tools to dominate, stop and harm. That person will find a way to make Scientology a painful experience. Even a conversation about it will become a whipping tool.

    Just saying.

    • And comments like, ” LRH has left a lot of instruction behind that only management is privy to, so it’s a little hard to comment on it. ” are very tricky. Suggesting you are privileged and on higher ground with your know.

      Hubbard lied when he said there was no hidden data line?

      Or are you speaking about OSA memos? As if you are privileged to a Scientology the rest of us could not understand? You were blessed with Hubbard words because you were part of management? Like what, Flag Orders and Sea Org tapes? That had nothing to do with the tech of auditing people and I’ve seen it and people out here don’t been to know about bilge water in the ship to think for themselves.

      I worked out of the Flag Command Bureau and I would not run this shit one anyone “I know things that you can’t know, I know more than you do, you couldn’t possibly understand.”

      Seriously, people understand this type of hype very well and they are rising above it.

      It makes the rest of us that left the Sea Org cringe.

      • “And comments like, ” LRH has left a lot of instruction behind that only management is privy to, so it’s a little hard to comment on it. ” are very tricky. Suggesting you are privileged and on higher ground with your know.”

        You are making the suggestion I have an opinion or position in respect to this. That is false, thus nothing to respond to, bad curveball past the strawman. Plenty of data exists that the public has no access to, ie. not broad public issues. No one suggested it wasn’t written, I stated we have no access to it any more than you have access to, or privy to the OT VIII C/S course materials. Rather simple, no need to pencil in condescendences or questionable considerations where there aren’t any.

      • “You are making the suggestion I have an opinion or position in respect to this.”

        Because you wrote it on the blog you are right, I thought you were voicing your opinion and were taking a very strong position. I still do even with your denial.

    • By the way, Hubbard wrote the policy THERE IS NO HIDDEN DATA LINE, exactly for this reason.

      The people that were running around in an attempt to dominate others with mysterious superior “know” were running this on people and it pissed him off.

  17. Current seniority seems to be a major issue with some people. If one is get biblical about Scientology, there is no current seniority between us.

    Hubbard said, there is the maker of the game, the players, and broken pieces.

    Scientology is a game. The maker has gone away. The players and broken pieces lay on the board. Everyone still in the game is a player or a broken piece.

    Anyone that is a player in the game is still here on equal terms. There is no seniority.

    That is, if you are looking at it from Hubbard’s view. That’s Scientology bible. Those of us still in this theater are all on the board with the same status.

  18. Perhaps a good way to navigate through these rainbow of opinions is to find that which simplifies.

    Orthodox pure LRH, “mindfulness”, David St. Lauwrences methods and the Rons org way may all work to a greater or lesser degree. The criteria for me has been and will always be, did it make shit better and simpler? MEST complicates, Theta simplifies. Oversimplification? Probly. People who thrive on complication after complication seek a more challenging game. How bout getting ourselves outta the sticky stuff? MEST I mean. Now theres a challenge and a half! Who cares how you do it – but CAN you? Can I? What a game to end all games. So we play.

    We do like arguing and debating while doing it dont we. Makes it more fun.

    • Good point! One criterion to judge a philosophy is whether it leads back to simplicity, or down into greater complexity. The other criterion – does it work, does it help anyone – can eliminate the falsely simple or oversimplified routes.

    • I see Scientologists talk about ARC but they do not apply it in their conversations on blogs.

      Maybe because ARC can go downhill too, but aren’t they supposed to handle such situations instead of going effect?

      It seems that Scientology is thought to apply in sessions only and not broadly in life. From the Church right down to a Scientologist, I do not see Scientology principles being applied broadly in life.

      That tells me a lot about Scientology. It has failed completely. It is a total failure.

      A Scientologist very easily goes effect to any criticism. That tells you how much of a spine Scientology principles of trust, honor, ARC, etc. have.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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