The Sole Source Myth

[jerryf25]

One of the big lies spread by Hubbard and David Miscavige was that LRH was the sole source of dianetics and scientology.

The sole-source myth was useful in creating demigod status for Hubbard; an image of a towering genius, an image that could be used to extract obedience, reverence and money.

We have an abundance of documentation and testimony on LRH’s plagiarism from sources inside and outside of Dn and Scn. For example,

LRH biographies by Bent Corydon, Jon Atack, and Russell Miller

Possible origins for Dianetics and Scientology by Jon Atack
http://home.snafu.de/tilman/j/origins6.html

Hubbard and the Occult by Jon Atack
http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/atack_occult.html

Alan’s summaries of development of auditing and study tech on this message board:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=33

John Galusha’s technical contributions as described by Mike Goldstein:
http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/26600/2872.html?1096663876


David Mayo’s affidavit dated 1 May 1987:

“10. The technology of Dianetics and Scientology is a product of the efforts of many people, including myself, and among others, Melanie Murray, Julie Mayo, Merrill Mayo, Dona Haber, Brian Livingston, and Phoebe Mauer. . . .

“11. During my affiliation with the Church of Scientology, I only attributed discovery and authorship of the tech to L. Ron Hubbard because I was compelled to do so as an article of faith of the Church. It is the policy of the Church to require all tech to be attributed to L Ron Hubbard”

Did Hubbard plagiarize admin procedures to the extent of the technical?


A related topic from Wikipedia: Altered texts in Scientology doctrine
(including altered taped lectures)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_texts_in_Scientology_doctrine

Is there any testimony regarding DM coordinating phony revisions of HCO PLs?


In 1979 I intuitively sensed that some of the issues attributed solely to LRH that I was receiving as a staff member were not written entirely by him (Product Debug series, for example).

I did not occupy any senior posts in the Sea Org and left in 1979. I have no personal knowledge of who wrote PLs and HCOBs.

Does anybody have additional info or links to share regarding falsified authorship of HCOBs or HCO PLs?

 

[Emma]

Thanks for posting this. It's information like this that really helps break down the illusion of Hubbard as "Source".

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Yes. One thing Hubbard did and that CofS does is constantly contradict himself/itself.

So first he says he got a lot of this stuff from other sources, then he implies he's Buddha, Source, etc...

Then, also, it comes out that Mayo wrote a lot of his stuff...

I don't have any problem with Mayo or anyone else writing PLs and then the PLs were reviewed by Hubbard or maybe some or all of 'em weren't.

I think they should just be upfront about it. Which they are not.

Great thread.

 

[chipgallo]

This site has several discussions on true authorship of things that Hubbard claimed he developed. Look in the links clustered at the top of this page:

http://www.algonet.se/%7Etourtel/interests/hubbard.html

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Thanks, Chip.

 

[Veda]

Here's an interesting collection of processes of which L. Ron Hubbard was aware.

Derived from ancient sources, and re-written by Aleister Crowley.

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib536.html

 

[Emma]

Interesting stuff Veda. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Alan]

Here's an interesting collection of processes of which L. Ron Hubbard was aware.

Derived from ancient sources, and re-written by Aleister Crowley.

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib536.html

The Bhuddists have a similar process that is more than 2000 years old, it is called Muhamudra - basically they are spacation processes.

Which I ran even as a small boy.......I only found this out yesterday.

Alan

 

[ron's hat]

Ron was never, ever the 'Source'. Just thought I'd share that.

 

[Veda]

Here's an interesting collection of processes of which L. Ron Hubbard was aware.

Derived from ancient sources, and re-written by Aleister Crowley.

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib536.html

Scroll down to see Patricia Waldygo's painting of the Kabbalistic Tree of life:

http://www.cosmiclight.com/oflightandlife/geometry.htm

Scientology's "Four Conditions of Existence" can be found on the "Tree," and correspond with the "Tetragrammaton," the four key components of the "Tree."

The "Know to Mystery Scale," and other scales, also can be traced to the "Tree."

Crowley's 'Naples Arrangement' inspired Hubbard's 1952, 'The Factors'.

Crowley's insertion of the Yogic triad of "Bliss, Knowledge, Being" into the 'Naples Arrangement' corresponds with Hubbard's placement of "Affinity, Reality, Communication'" in 'The Factors'. (This link is not the best description of the 'Naples Arrangement', but it will have to do for now. Remember, the Google search engine is your friend.)

'Yoga for Yellow Bellies', second lecture:

http://hermetic.com/crowley/eight-lectures-on-yoga/8yoga6.html

About the 'Naples Arrangement', excerpted from the 'Book of Thoth'

http://www.etarot.info/naples-arrangement

Some more Aleister Crowley - 'Little Essays Toward Truth':

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/littleessays/man.html

One of Crowley's last works, 'Magick Without Tears', features - in some editions -a collection of illustrations of the 'Tree of Life', with both Kabbalistic notations, and their correspondences with ancient Chinese Cosmology's "Eight Trigrams."
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__d48GnwHn...PfIBTk/s320/Sephirot+and+I+Ching+Trigrams.JPG The building blocks of the "Eight Trigrams," known as the "Four Digrams," http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=18947 correspond both with the "Tetragrammaton," and the 'Four Conditions of Existence'.

http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/mwt_contents.html

Crowley's 'The Book of the Law' (including its 'Introduction'), and, perhaps, his best known text, 'Magick in Theory and Practice', contain many correspondences with Scientology. 'Eight Lectures on Yoga', by Crowley, is another interesting text.

And there is also Crowley's ten volume 'Equinox'.

One final note, in this brief - and unavoidably incomplete - outline: The Scientology Symbol, "The S with the Double Triangle," is an expression of Crowley's Motto: "Love is the Law; Love under Will."

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Well, he was the source of Scn and Dianetics....I always thought that was what this meant.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Scroll down to see Patricia Waldygo's painting of the Kabbalistic Tree of life:

http://www.cosmiclight.com/oflightandlife/geometry.htm

Scientology's "Four Conditions of Existence" can be found on the "Tree," and correspond with the "Tetragrammaton," the four key components of the "Tree."

The "Know to Mystery Scale," and other scales, also can be traced to the "Tree."

I couldn't find them. Could you explain a bit more?

Paul

 

[ron's hat]

Well, he was the source of Scn and Dianetics....I always thought that was what this meant.

Fluffy, ron was not the 'source' for Dianetics. As for scientology, even he admitted source material of probably a dozen or so different people back in 1951 in 'Science of Survival'. You are quite possibly the biggest apologist for Hubbard who I have ever come across. You seem to have even made it something of a lifetime purpose. Why is that? The guy was a megalomaniac spaced out on drugs.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Ron's hat wrote: Fluffy, ron was not the 'source' for Dianetics .

So, someone else came up with R3R and running chains and getting to the basic incident and basic basic and getting off the postulate to blow the chain? Really?? News to me! Now, see, here I thought, with all I've studied over the years, that Hubbard was the one who came up with it. Book 1, Standard Dianetics, NED, repair lists, the Ls, the OT levels,...someone else wrote them? I can find them in other ologies or isms? Really? WHERE?


As for scientology, even he admitted source material of probably a dozen or so different people back in 1951 in 'Science of Survival'.

Every Scientologist knows that. He said he had other sources and influences.But the concept of Incident II, auditing, auditing processes, repair lists, the tone scale, ethics conditions, study tech including demo kits, clay demos, lack of mass phenomena, MU phenomena, concepts re theta, the time track, FREIGHT TRAINS ON VENUS, well, gee, Ron's Hat, I'm pretty sure those are all Ronnie-baby's. Show me someone else blathering about the frigging freight trains.

You are quite possibly the biggest

Oh, now, I'm doing just fine on my diet. I'll email you a picture of my ass sometime.


apologist for Hubbard who I have ever come across.

You must not get out much. And you must be redefining "apologist" quite handily, since I criticize Hubbard quite often and there are many Freezoners and CofS members ON LINE in forums YOU'VE READ who do not do so or do so less than I.

My post was not one of apologetics. I merely said that AFAIK, Hubbard came up with Scn and Dn. Which he did. Show me another group with HCOPLs, HCOBs, billion year contracts, freight trains on venus, Gorilla goals, the tone scale, creative processing, CCHs, Dianetic processing (book 1, standard and NED), the know to mystery scale, clay demoing, clay table processing, the TRs...Really. Show me.


You seem to have even made it something of a lifetime purpose.

This is a discussion group. I am discussing things here. That's what people do on discussion groups. I am a Scn'ist. I discuss things from that viewpoint. I am also a critic. I discuss things from THAT viewpoint. It ain't exactly rocket science.

Were we discussing cooking lima beans, I would be discussing that from the viewpoint of one who does not like lima beans. Again, it's not exactly rocket science.

Why is that? The guy was a megalomaniac spaced out on drugs.

Why are you bitching me out about Hubbard? I've written far more posts criticizing him than you ever have or will. In fact, there're a whole lot of Freezoners who don't care for yours truly for that very reason.

Try doing your homework.

 

[ron's hat]

Note: everything in bold below is not Fluffy. It's from me...ron's hat...I'll figure out these damn computers sooner or later.

Ron's hat wrote: Fluffy, ron was not the 'source' for Dianetics .

So, someone else came up with R3R and running chains and getting to the basic incident and basic basic and getting off the postulate to blow the chain? Really?? News to me! Now, see, here I thought, with all I've studied over the years, that Hubbard was the one who came up with it. Book 1, Standard Dianetics, NED, repair lists, the Ls, the OT levels,...someone else wrote them? I can find them in other ologies or isms? Really? WHERE?

'Source' does not mean putting something in writing. The universe is a little bit bigger than you possibly thought. Anyway, calling oneself 'source' is probably the biggest egotistical thing one can imagine. I can assure you....there is not one person who ever lived on this planet who is the 'source' of anything...............well,.....possibly hypocrisy.

As for scientology, even he admitted source material of probably a dozen or so different people back in 1951 in 'Science of Survival'.

Every Scientologist knows that. He said he had other sources and influences.But the concept of Incident II, auditing, auditing processes, repair lists, the tone scale, ethics conditions, study tech including demo kits, clay demos, lack of mass phenomena, MU phenomena, concepts re theta, the time track, FREIGHT TRAINS ON VENUS, well, gee, Ron's Hat, I'm pretty sure those are all Ronnie-baby's. Show me someone else blathering about the frigging freight trains.

There are no freight trains on Venus, Fluffy. Sorry to disappoint you.

You are quite possibly the biggest

Oh, now, I'm doing just fine on my diet. I'll email you a picture of my ass sometime.

I saw it already.....not to my liking. And it's not even up to Kate Winslet standards...not to mention that Veda Guerra babe...or whatever her name is.


apologist for Hubbard who I have ever come across.

You must not get out much. And you must be redefining "apologist" quite handily, since I criticize Hubbard quite often and there are many Freezoners and CofS members ON LINE in forums YOU'VE READ who do not do so or do so less than I.

My post was not one of apologetics. I merely said that AFAIK, Hubbard came up with Scn and Dn. Which he did. Show me another group with HCOPLs, HCOBs, billion year contracts, freight trains on venus, Gorilla goals, the tone scale, creative processing, CCHs, Dianetic processing (book 1, standard and NED), the know to mystery scale, clay demoing, clay table processing, the TRs...Really. Show me.

You're right....I don't get out much.....oops...s'cuse me...it's 'med's' time


You seem to have even made it something of a lifetime purpose.

This is a discussion group. I am discussing things here. That's what people do on discussion groups. I am a Scn'ist. I discuss things from that viewpoint. I am also a critic. I discuss things from THAT viewpoint. It ain't exactly rocket science.

Were we discussing cooking lima beans, I would be discussing that from the viewpoint of one who does not like lima beans. Again, it's not exactly rocket science.

I haven't decided if beans or potatos are the perfect food....perhaps it's bananas

Why is that? The guy was a megalomaniac spaced out on drugs.

Why are you bitching me out about Hubbard? I've written far more posts criticizing him than you ever have or will. In fact, there're a whole lot of Freezoners who don't care for yours truly for that very reason.

Try doing your homework.

(shit...i haven't even figured how to review my post yet).....OK I got that far.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

"Doing just fine on my diet" is phrased in present tense. The picture you are cunting and whining about is 8 months old. And, no, I'm not asking you for anything.

I didn't say there were freight trains on Venus. I said that this was a concept unique to Hubbardism.

Which it is.

I didn't say "source" meant putting something in writing. I said Hubbard came up with those concepts and procedures and that they cannot be found elsewhere.

You've done nothing to rebut my point. Just complained and followed me from thread to thread, dropping little pellets of ad hominem hostile shit here and there.

 

[Veda]

I couldn't find them. Could you explain a bit more?

Paul

Well, the texts listed are a start.

The Falcon Press edition of Crowley's 'Magick Without Tears' (orange cover, paperback) has an 'Appendix' section which includes some schematics of the "Tree of Life." These may be helpful, but - as of now - while I can find the earlier version of 'Magick Without Tears' on the NET, the later edition with the 'Appendix' has been elusive. (You may just have to buy a copy.) Here's one: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__d48GnwHn...PfIBTk/s320/Sephirot+and+I+Ching+Trigrams.JPG



The schematics might help, as seeing - in a kind of map form - these ideas expressed, sometimes is useful.

There is more material, and if you were to do a search on "Naples Arrangement" in the NG, alt.clearing.technology, that would turn up some things.

As for now, all I can suggest is that you read the listed materials.

Study Patricia Waldygo's painting of the "Tree of Life" and look at the placement and the colors. These provide clues. The 'Tree' is a "Map of the Constitution of Man," and also a "Map of the Cosmos."

The "Tree of Life" - putting it into Scientology lingo - has, at its top, the "static" (Kether) and on either side, slightly lower down, are what, in Scientology, are called "as-is-ness" (Chokmah), and, on the other side, "alter-is-ness" (Binah).

Chokmah and Binah are the first two letters (expressions) of the "name" or manifestation of "God" (called the "Static" in Scientology.) There is more above the "Static" in the Hebrew system, but that's another topic for another time.

Below that are a collection of "points" or "levels," which, combined, constitute, "Is-ness."

At the bottom is the world of mindless matter - or "Not-is-ness."

The "Tree of Life" depiction is a 'Know to Mystery Scale', and also contains aspects of the Tone Scale.

Look at Waldygo's painting again (third row down) - the blue king, seated (Chesed), and red chariot image (Geburah) correspond with "Sovereign Space," and with "Goals" of a most dynamic nature. Shades of the upper regions of the expanded Tone Scale.

I don't have any easy answers to your questions at this moment. And there are drawbacks to attempting to squeeze (equate or limit) these ideas into Scientology theory, but it can also be revealing to compare systems.

(Of course, this philosophical and magical system long preceded Crowley, who added his own twist to it, and then became a major influence for Hubbard.)

I'll post any interesting links as I come up with them.

Getting a copy of the 2nd or 3rd edition of 'Messiah or Madman?' may be useful, as it examines both the "dark side" of Crowley in the chapter, 'L. Ron and the Beast', and the less sensational areas in the chapter, 'L. Ron and the Beast Revisited'. (In the shorter, rush-to-print, 1987 version of 'Madman?', some of this examination can be found attached to the end of the chapter, 'Clay in the Master's Hands', which mainly examines - in a balanced way - the Scientology 'Lower Grades'. Latter editions have more material.)

So, do the best you can. I think the pieces of the puzzle will come together in time.

An then you can tackle Alfred Korzybski and his 'General Semantics'! And then....

 

[Dulloldfart]

Thank you for the explanation, Veda.

I am not interested enough to spend hours doing research, but I do have enough interest in Hubbard's sources to compare things that he wrote to things that others had written previously. For example, someone provided a link to some of Crowley's writing (in English), itself taken from earlier work, and it was plain that some of Hubbard's processes were similar. It was plain to me because I am very familiar with Scn tech.

But I am not familiar with Crowley's tech. If, instead of providing a link to the text, someone had merely stated that Crowley had published the forerunners to various Scn processes years before, it would not have had the same impact at all. And it would have been very irresponsible of me to just lazily accept the assertion at face value.

With that Tree of Life illustration, I could recognise a similarity to a thetan, but all the rest meant next to nothing to me. The bland statement that Chokmah and Binah = as-is-ness and alter-is-ness needs more evidence, in my opinion. Especially when I peek on the Net and find at http://www.spirit-alembic.com/chokmah.html that Chokmah = Wisdom, How to accurately act in one's current situation (which is not the same as as-isness at all). And at http://www.spirit-alembic.com/binah.html Binah has something to do with a crisis in understanding the facts (which is not the same as alter-isness).

Paul

 

[Veda]

Thank you for the explanation, Veda.

I am not interested enough to spend hours doing research, but I do have enough interest in Hubbard's sources to compare things that he wrote to things that others had written previously. For example, someone provided a link to some of Crowley's writing (in English), itself taken from earlier work, and it was plain that some of Hubbard's processes were similar. It was plain to me because I am very familiar with Scn tech.

But I am not familiar with Crowley's tech. If, instead of providing a link to the text, someone had merely stated that Crowley had published the forerunners to various Scn processes years before, it would not have had the same impact at all. And it would have been very irresponsible of me to just lazily accept the assertion at face value.

With that Tree of Life illustration, I could recognise a similarity to a thetan, but all the rest meant next to nothing to me. The bland statement that Chokmah and Binah = as-is-ness and alter-is-ness needs more evidence, in my opinion. Especially when I peek on the Net and find at http://www.spirit-alembic.com/chokmah.html that Chokmah = Wisdom, How to accurately act in one's current situation (which is not the same as as-isness at all). And at http://www.spirit-alembic.com/binah.html Binah has something to do with a crisis in understanding the facts (which is not the same as alter-isness).

Paul

Chokmah and Binah are the first and second condition (of pre-existence really.) These would correspond with what most people know as Yang and Yin of Chinese Cosmology.

However, "correspond with" and "=" are not quite the same.

Scientology uses the "Four Conditions of Existence" in a simplified and mechanical way. How to explain the roots of the "Four Conditions of Existence," "The Factors," "The Know to Mysyery Scale," and so many other things?

I've provided a bunch of links and sources, and a few clues, and, as I come across more, I'll post those. That's all I can do.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

There are lots of things Scn takes from other belief systems. Hubbard admitted to doing that, though he didn't disclose everything he borrowed.

But that doesn't mean that the things in Scn are identical. Basing an idea on an earlier idea and extrapolating from there and creating a method that one cannot find anywhere else is not the same as lifting the whole thing bodily with no changes whatsoever.

I haven't seen the combination of ideas that's, say, in the CS series, on the Academy levels, etc, anywhere else.

I don't know of any other ism that runs chains and considers an incident resolved when you get the postulate.

I know of isms that belief in spiritual infestation and possession, but only Scn has (for good or ill) the Xenu story.

As I pointed out to Ron's Hat, I haven't seen anyone else talking about (or joking about- take your pick) freight trains on Venus. His reply was that there were none. Well, ok, but we had been talking about whether or not Hubbard came up with Dn and Scn, not whether it was true.