The Sole Source Myth

[HelluvaHoax!]

CROSS POSTED ON THE STUPID THREAD

An example how Hubbard "developed" his tech:

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1967​

General
Non Remimeo

The following report from Yvonne Gillham is of interest:

“Dear Ron,
Coming from Hull to here I found that when I started to feel sea-sick and when I indicated to myself that I was PTS and had some SP on my sea track restimulated, it completely blew, and I never had it again.

When I indicated this to Pooky, Thok and Craig it had the same effect on them. I gave the info to Haskell, who was doing review at the time, and he had similar success.

All sickness is PTS, etc, so it follows that sea-sickness would come under this too.

Love,
Yvonne.”​

L. RON HUBBARD
Founder

.... and then it was issued as a result of Hubbards work.

It is fascinating that Scientologists only went PTS and got sea sick when they "...had some SP on (their) sea track restimulated".

It makes sense. But I am still working on the clay demo of why Scientologists don't always get restimulated when they are surrounded by the ocean.

Apparently, wholetrack SPs only suppressed people when there were waves.

That explains why Scientologists don't get sea sick in a calm sea.

 

[Veda]

Hey!!! What am I, chopped liver?!? :confused2: Harrrumph!

Check out these threads, too, Tag!

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?24303-Walpurgisnacht-Witches-Night-Origins-of-Scientology

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?25973-Are-Theosophy-and-Rudolf-Steiner-Ron-s-Sources

Thought it had been linked to this thread, but just checked, and don't find it, so it's been added. Sorry.

An area that is mentioned but not adequately covered in this thread is that of 'Abreaction', catharsis, "getting it off your chest," etc. (There once was a clip of the opening scene from the movie Star Trek V - I think it was no. V, thank goodness they're numbered! - which depicts the exploitation of the process of abreaction. Such exploitation was/is done extensively in Scientology. Unfortunately, this clip is no longer available on the Net.)

Oh, and one more item, that is probably redundant, having been already linked or linked within a link in the sea of links and links within links - and almost lost in pages of off-topic oobleck by Mark A. Baker, Scientologist - is a further examination of 'Batra', the antecedent for Hubbard's 1953/54 'Route One':

'Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia', published in 1913, by Aleister Crowley in the 'Equinox'. It's an exercise that includes spanning attention, visualization (mock ups), specialized mock ups, where a person attempts to place a mock up of the same size, etc., as a physical object, in the same space as the physical object, and projection of consciousness through the solar system.

It even warns about avoiding what amounts to "overrun."

(Note: "Nuit" - as used in the below link - means, essentially,"Infinity.")

http://www.the-equinox.org/vol1/no10/eqi10004.html

Permeating, as in filling/feeling ("Havingness") the heliosphere (solar aura) is, itself, an interesting exercise. Best done just before dawn, or just after sunset.

Handy navigational aid: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/voyager-interstellar-terms.html

"The Great Work is the raising of the whole man to the power of infinity."

From 'Magick in Theory and Practice'


Crowley's most concise explanation of Yoga:

"Sit still. Stop thinking. Shut up. Get out!"


Quoting from John Symonds and Kenneth Grant, who were editors of some of Crowley's writings. Regarding 'Batra', above:

"[It] deals with the magical practice of expanding consciousness to the stars and the planets.

"The word 'Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia' is made up of the Greek words for Frog Mind Ox World Battle, and is a play on the title of the Homeric mock epic, the 'Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia' or 'Battle of the Frogs and Mice'... The idea behind the use of 'Batra', etc. [the procedure] is that it is supposed to free the mind... from its ordinary bounds. Consciousness - so the theory goes - is exalted to infinity by this method."


The solar system does have its own atmosphere, of sort, and there would seem to be many interacting atmospheres. IMO, it would be beneficial to the human psyche to begin to see the solar system, and its atmosphere, as the immediate environment, rather than just the thin film of livable atmosphere of several miles in which we as human beings dwell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqRQ_93kFKs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqDtUG7RFmI&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNDIz1W6f0

One aspect of the solar system's atmosphere, which anyone can perceive from Earth, is that bright stars (being outside the solar atmosphere) become invisible at dawn and at dusk, while the planets (Mercury [sometimes], Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), while less bright than the brightest stars, remain visible.

This is an effect worth observing, as it brings home the existence of the solar atmosphere. The planets, being inside that atmosphere are perceivable while the stars outside are not.

Strangely enough, people seem to have their own atmospheres - chakras and auras and such:

http://www.the-auras-expert.com/images/aura-and-chakras.jpg
http://realpowercoaching.com/images/Aura_Chakra.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2005/03/10/crumb_fri_seven.jpg
http://www.egos.co.za/ProdImages/aura-chakra.jpg

Happy atmosphere hopping

 

[Veda]

 

[Student of Trinity]

One aspect of the solar system's atmosphere, which anyone can perceive from Earth, is that bright stars (being outside the solar atmosphere) become invisible at dawn and at dusk, while the planets (Mercury [sometimes], Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), while less bright than the brightest stars, remain visible.

This is an effect worth observing, as it brings home the existence of the solar atmosphere. The planets, being inside that atmosphere are perceivable while the stars outside are not.

Wait, why does it matter about dawn and dusk? The 'solar atmosphere' is also there at midnight. It doesn't block starlight then, so why should it do so at dawn or dusk? In fact the only planet I've ever still seen when sunrise or fading sunlight was making stars invisible is Venus, and Venus is much brighter (as seen from Earth) than any star in the sky.

It is true that space inside the so-called heliopause is in some ways different from outside, but the difference is awfully tiny compared to the difference between Earth's atmosphere and even low orbital space. Rather than thinking of the whole solar region as a sort of extended atmosphere, I've recently been impressed with thinking that essentially the entire vast universe of outer space begins immediately at our doorstep, so to speak, just a couple of hundred kilometers straight up. Lots of places I drive to regularly are much farther away from me than that.

It's like living right on the shore of the Pacific, only a lot more so. Infinity is just up there. Wow.

 

[Veda]

Wait, why does it matter about dawn and dusk? The 'solar atmosphere' is also there at midnight. It doesn't block starlight then, so why should it do so at dawn or dusk? In fact the only planet I've ever still seen when sunrise or fading sunlight was making stars invisible is Venus, and Venus is much brighter (as seen from Earth) than any star in the sky.

It is true that space inside the so-called heliopause is in some ways different from outside, but the difference is awfully tiny compared to the difference between Earth's atmosphere and even low orbital space. Rather than thinking of the whole solar region as a sort of extended atmosphere, I've recently been impressed with thinking that essentially the entire vast universe of outer space begins immediately at our doorstep, so to speak, just a couple of hundred kilometers straight up. Lots of places I drive to regularly are much farther away from me than that.

It's like living right on the shore of the Pacific, only a lot more so. Infinity is just up there. Wow.

At dawn or dusk, with the approaching light of the sun, stars begin to become no longer visible from Earth, but, during that interlude, the sun's planets remain visible. It's a interesting time to observe the planets with the naked eye.

There are atmospheres within atmospheres. I've seen Venus and Mercury in the dawn sky, while stars brighter than Mercury are not visible.

I've yet to hear an explanation for this from any conventional scientist, but that's a topic for another thread.

Glad you're having some wow in your now.

 

[Student of Trinity]

Well, Venus is very bright, but Mercury isn't terribly. I don't know what would explain it if Mercury is really more visible at dawn than brighter stars, but the solar atmosphere seems like a poor candidate, since it doesn't change when the Earth rotates.

 

[Veda]

Well, Venus is very bright, but Mercury isn't terribly. I don't know what would explain it if Mercury is really more visible at dawn than brighter stars

-snip-

Neither do I. Fortunately, it's not the topic of this thread.

 

[Demented LRH]

CROSS POSTED ON THE STUPID THREAD




It is fascinating that Scientologists only went PTS and got sea sick when they "...had some SP on (their) sea track restimulated".

It makes sense. But I am still working on the clay demo of why Scientologists don't always get restimulated when they are surrounded by the ocean.

Apparently, wholetrack SPs only suppressed people when there were waves.

That explains why Scientologists don't get sea sick in a calm sea.

They are underfed, that is why the waves do not affect them -- one cannot get sea sick if his stomach is empty.

 

[Orglodyte]

At dawn or dusk, with the approaching light of the sun, stars begin to become no longer visible from Earth, but, during that interlude, the sun's planets remain visible. It's a interesting time to observe the planets with the naked eye.

There are atmospheres within atmospheres. I've seen Venus and Mercury in the dawn sky, while stars brighter than Mercury are not visible.

I've yet to hear an explanation for this from any conventional scientist, but that's a topic for another thread.

Glad you're having some wow in your now.

Hi Veda, SoT, sorry to continue the off-topic conversation, but I've been an amateur astronomer most of my life and I think I can help with this one.

I believe the answer lies in the fact that Mercury is surprisingly bright. It's elusive mostly because it's so close to the sun and gets lost in the glare. When Mercury is in a good position for viewing (farther from the sun), its magnitude will be anywhere from 0 or so (brighter than all but a handful of stars) to -1.5, brighter than even Sirius. It looks dimmer because it's always in the twilight and horizon haze.

For example, here's a diagram of last month's dawn apparition, from Sky and Telescope http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/ataglance/165734416.html:



At this one, Mercury was at +0.2, which is 50% brighter than nearby Procyon at +0.34 (magnitudes are logarithmic, and lower values are brighter).

You can check me on this next time you see it, by looking up the magnitude of Mercury at: http://www.fourmilab.ch/images/3planets/elongation.html and comparing with star magnitudes.

There's a good page on Mercury-viewing at:

http://www.space.com/14621-planet-mercury-2012-skywatching-tips.html

BTW, best regards to both of you. I've been following this board since 2008 and you are two of my most-respected posters. Your intelligence and unique analytical perspectives (and Veda, the wealth of documentation seemingly at your fingertips) are much appreciated. O

 

[Student of Trinity]

Huh — that makes sense to me. Thanks very much, Orglodyte.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Well, Venus is very bright, but Mercury isn't terribly. <snip>

Venus is a woman. Mercury is a man.

 

[Veda]

Hi Veda, SoT, sorry to continue the off-topic conversation, but I've been an amateur astronomer most of my life and I think I can help with this one.

I believe the answer lies in the fact that Mercury is surprisingly bright. It's elusive mostly because it's so close to the sun and gets lost in the glare. When Mercury is in a good position for viewing (farther from the sun), its magnitude will be anywhere from 0 or so (brighter than all but a handful of stars) to -1.5, brighter than even Sirius. It looks dimmer because it's always in the twilight and horizon haze.

For example, here's a diagram of last month's dawn apparition, from Sky and Telescope http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/ataglance/165734416.html:

View attachment 5183

At this one, Mercury was at +0.2, which is 50% brighter than nearby Procyon at +0.34 (magnitudes are logarithmic, and lower values are brighter).

You can check me on this next time you see it, by looking up the magnitude of Mercury at: http://www.fourmilab.ch/images/3planets/elongation.html and comparing with star magnitudes.

There's a good page on Mercury-viewing at:

http://www.space.com/14621-planet-mercury-2012-skywatching-tips.html

BTW, best regards to both of you. I've been following this board since 2008 and you are two of my most-respected posters. Your intelligence and unique analytical perspectives (and Veda, the wealth of documentation seemingly at your fingertips) are much appreciated. O

Thanks.

I've been an astronomy buff since I was a kid, and am familiar with the various explanations. The effect occurs with the outer planets also, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. I had deleted the reference to it in another version of the post on Crowley's exercise for extending consciousness into the cosmos. The topic is already extremely strange as it is, without the additional comment by me re. what seems to be an inclusiveness/exclusiveness to the space surrounding our star. However, I happen to re-post the unedited version, so here we are.

As a way of continuing the discussion, so as not to derail this thread any more than it's already been derailed, I began a probably ill-worded threadhttp://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?28637-Is-the-sun-alive which is even stranger, inasmuch as it includes a link and video to content by and about Wilhelm Reich, but at least it's a place to go should anyone wish to continue this discussion. And, no, I am not a proponent of Reich or his theories.

This thread is about the antecedents of Scientology, and recognizing those antecedents, I and others have found, can be helpful in un-sticking a person from Scientology, even an antecedent as peculiar as Crowley's 'Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia'.

 

[Leon]

They are underfed, that is why the waves do not affect them -- one cannot get sea sick if his stomach is empty.

Oh yes one can. I have seen one poor bastard have stomach cramps so severe that his guts ruptured and he started puking blood. All from seasickness.

 

[Veda]

Please don't junk up this thread with any more off topic posts.


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

Emma


"This whole thread is a very important thread... The recognition of multiple sources is vital..."

Alan Walter

 

[5equals6]

I think Ron DeWolf summed it up nicely:

"Dianetics and Scientology therefore, insofar as its creation, implementation and operation truly belongs on the 3rd Dynamic, not the 1st Dynamic. Scientology and Dianetics as a science literally evolved from 1950 forward, and it didn't grow and become stable as tech without the very important contributions from many sources both inside and outside Scientology. If anybody has a librarian bent, just do some early research. I and many others have made it possible for people to ask questions, do research and to do the impossible. The impossible means to openly and freely communicate and to openly and freely practise Scientology as they see fit."

 

[Veda]

Continued...

This is mainly an informational thread, with background information and useful links re. Scientology's multiple actual earlier sources. (The long pretentious PR lists of "sources," as presented in the beginning pages of 'Scientology 8-8008' and 'Science of Survival', with the exception of the mention of Alfred Korzybski, are misleading.)

This thread is a bit top heavy with references and links to Aleister Crowley, but presents some of his saner writings. There are data and links on Korzybski and his 'General Semantics', links to references to abreaction therapy and its possible exploitation ("The expression of [buried] emotion connected with a mental conflict... the abreaction has been likened to the conversion experience of the religious convert, who feels that a great weight has been lifted from his shoulders,"), to Charles Darwin, and the contributions of early Scientologists, and much more.

The many names and subjects listed can be used as jumping off points for further discovery.

Personally, I find that, over-all, Scientology programming begins to weaken once information, such as presented on this thread, is taken into consideration.

One becomes free to use selected pieces of Scientology, and discard the rest, as he or she chooses.

Alan's 'Opening Pandora's Box', Part One:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=64&postcount=1

Part Two:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=67&postcount=2

Part Three:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=68&postcount=3

The first few pages of the 'Sole Source Myth' thread established - loosely - its template: primarily informational, with concentration on those parts of Scientology that are commonly presented to new Scientologists, and which could reasonably be considered "positive" in nature.

The "positives" of Scientology are what usually attract a person, and often keep a person involved. A thorough examination of these "positives" and their actual origins can have a freeing effect.

An examination of sources for other aspects of Scientology can be found scattered throughout ESMB, and perhaps there should be other threads that consolidate information on "negatives" - such areas as Xenu http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=89707&postcount=1, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=79144&postcount=141, http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=72944&postcount=3, Brainwashing
http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/books/brainwa1.jpg, http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/brainwashing1.html,
and other non-publicized http://www.xenu-directory.net/practices/rpfsrpf.html, hidden http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=100417&postcount=47, denied http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=153723&postcount=12, or confidential parts http://www.xenu.net/archive/go/ic_conts.htm of the subject and operation of Scientology.

The 'LRH's Reading Habits and Sources' thread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=14012&highlight=sole+source+myth

Veda,

I always love your posts.

Some more background material from HCOElite: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=403897&postcount=157

 

[Veda]

Continued...

-snip-

I'm pretty sure that the exploitation of the process of abreaction is discussed or at least mentioned in this thread. If not, it should be added.

From the 'Understanding valid antecedents of Scientology' thread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?23549-Understanding-valid-antecedents-of-Scientology

Some more links.

Israel Regardie on the union of psychotherapy and spiritual exploration, from 1937:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...on-of-psychotherapy-and-spiritual-exploration

'Religion/Spirituality after leaving Scientology' thread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?21354-Religion-Spirituality-After-Leaving-Scientology

Below is from a thread re. the "Interiorization Rundown", 'Out Int, fact or fiction' - http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?19156-Out-Int-%97-Fact-or-Fiction:


Re: Exteriorization and even the "Interiorization RD':

From Aleister Crowley's 'Magick in Theory and Practice' -

Table of Contents and text: http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/aba.htm

(This text is mentioned in the 'Philadelphia Doctorate Course' lectures of 1952, with the title 'The Master Therion'.)

Chapter XVIII: '...Body of Light, its Power and Development...' http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/chap18.htm:

(Pressing 'Control' and 'F' and doing a find on rising on the planes may make navigating this text a little easier.

"You may also try 'Rising on the Planes' with a little practice... you ought to be able to step in and out of the astral body as easily as you slip in and out of a dressing gown. It will then no longer be necessary for your astral body to be sent far off...

"Now, however unsuccessful your experience of getting out of the body may apparently have been, it is most necessary to use every effort to bring it [Body of Light] properly back. Make the Body of Light coincide in space with the physical body... if you fail to do this properly, you may find yourself in serious trouble... you will become aware of this through the occurrence of headaches..."

From my personal experience, one can separate the astral body from the physical, and further separate oneself (as an awareness essence) from the astral body. I've experienced the separation and the reconnecting of these various "bodies" with each other, the realigning (bring together after being apart) of the astral body with the physical, and the more rarefied awareness essence (for want of a better term) with the astral body.

Sometimes the "coupling" together of the astral body with the physical body - like two train cars coupling - can go smoothly, and other times it may occur with a bit of a "crunch."

It's a very interesting area, but one usually forgotten by the person while in normal waking consciousness.

I am grateful that I do not have Scientology as my primary frame of reference for such things, otherwise I might be stuck in Hubbard's very incomplete interpretation of it.


And one more item which might otherwise be lost in the many links, and links with links, that fill this thread:


Gurdjieff is another teacher who pre-dated Hubbard, from whom Hubbard "borrowed." I witnessed the extensive files on Gurdjieff groups in the Guardian's Office in the 1970s. He - his teachings and groups - as with Korzybski, was ultimately regarded as an enemy by Hubbard.

Note the similarities between Gurdjieff and Scientology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z23tl6l_AB8

Hubbard exploited the above ideas, and used them as deceptive lead-ins (the "cheese in the trap") into the darker inner regions of Scientology.

Some excerpts from the works of Gurdjieff can be found in the "Are you Haunted?' chapter of the book 'Messiah or Madman?'

Thanks Veda for reposting the links!

I want to add to the list with this piece from Jon Atak as a good starter for research. And thanks for that link too.

 

[Veda]

And finally...

This from Jon Atak's piece linked above sparked my memory. "Dianetics the Original Thesis was prepared for publication by Donald Rogers, to whom no acknowledgment is given."

Specifically, Donald H. Rogers, and it's true. I knew him in Philly. He was being audited by Ginny Crouse, a field auditor, and they came into the org for their sessions a lot of the time. Don wasn't shy about telling you he'd contributed "significantly" to the research and development of Dianetics. He claimed that he coined the term "anaten" and that his research had helped to shape the subject.

Thought it had been linked to this thread, but just checked, and don't find it, so it's been added. Sorry.

An area that is mentioned but not adequately covered in this thread is that of 'Abreaction', catharsis, "getting it off your chest," etc. (There once was a clip of the opening scene from the movie Star Trek V - I think it was no. V, thank goodness they're numbered! - which depicts the exploitation of the process of abreaction. Such exploitation was/is done extensively in Scientology. Unfortunately, this clip is no longer available on the Net.)


An antecedent of 'Route One', amd more:

'Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia', published in 1913, by Aleister Crowley in the 'Equinox'. It's an exercise that includes spanning attention, visualization (mock ups), specialized mock ups, where a person attempts to place a mock up of the same size, etc., as a physical object, in the same space as the physical object, and projection of consciousness through the solar system.

It even warns about avoiding what amounts to "overrun."

(Note: "Nuit" - as used in the below link - means, essentially,"Infinity.")

http://www.the-equinox.org/vol1/no10/eqi10004.html

Handy navigational aid: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/voyager-interstellar-terms.html

"The Great Work is the raising of the whole man to the power of infinity."

From 'Magick in Theory and Practice'


Crowley's most concise explanation of Yoga:

"Sit still. Stop thinking. Shut up. Get out!"


Quoting from John Symonds and Kenneth Grant, who were editors of some of Crowley's writings. Regarding 'Batra', above:

"[It] deals with the magical practice of expanding consciousness to the stars and the planets.

"The word 'Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia' is made up of the Greek words for Frog Mind Ox World Battle, and is a play on the title of the Homeric mock epic, the 'Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia' or 'Battle of the Frogs and Mice'... The idea behind the use of 'Batra', etc. [the procedure] is that it is supposed to free the mind... from its ordinary bounds. Consciousness - so the theory goes - is exalted to infinity by this method."


The solar system does have its own atmosphere, of sort, and there would seem to be many interacting atmospheres. IMO, it would be beneficial to the human psyche to begin to see the solar system, and its atmosphere, as the immediate environment, rather than just the thin film of livable atmosphere of several miles in which we as human beings dwell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqRQ_93kFKs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqDtUG7RFmI&feature=fvst

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdNDIz1W6f0

-snip-

Strangely enough, IMO, people seem to have their own atmospheres - chakras and auras and such:

http://www.the-auras-expert.com/images/aura-and-chakras.jpg
http://realpowercoaching.com/images/Aura_Chakra.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2005/03/10/crumb_fri_seven.jpg
http://www.egos.co.za/ProdImages/aura-chakra.jpg

Happy atmosphere hopping

My apologies to those whose posts were not included.

This thread is mainly about the "positive" sources of Scientology, positive sources - attributed to Hubbard - who, hypnotically, placed himself in the position of sole "Source."

 

[Veda]

Patricia Waldygo's painting of the Kabbalistic Tree of life:

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."


(This is a re-post to replace a broken link, of which I have just become aware. A re-post is necessary as editing after 30 minutes in impossible. )

 

[Veda]

No need to listen to Hubbard bloviate about it.

The actual dianetics process is incredibly simple. Freud delineated it in his lectures, linked here: http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/h-freud-lectures.htm

The steps are identical, the procedure is identical.

"What left the symptom behind was not always a single experience. On the contrary, the result was usually brought about by the convergence of several traumas, and often by the repetition of a great number of similar ones. Thus it was necessary to reproduce the whole chain of pathogenic memories in chronologic order, or rather in reversed order, the latest ones first and the earliest ones last."

That's it.