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
Hubbard and the Occult by Jon Atack
Alan’s summaries of development of auditing and study tech on this message board:
John Galusha’s technical contributions as described by Mike Goldstein:
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)
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?
Thanks for posting this. It's information like this that really helps break down the illusion of Hubbard as "Source".
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.
Here's an interesting collection of processes of which L. Ron Hubbard was aware.
Derived from ancient sources, and re-written by Aleister Crowley.
Interesting stuff Veda. Thanks for posting it.
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.
Scroll down to see 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:
About the 'Naples Arrangement', excerpted from the 'Book of Thoth'
Some more Aleister Crowley - 'Little Essays Toward Truth':
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'.
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."
I couldn't find them. Could you explain a bit more?
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....
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).
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.
P.S. I looked over the links you located and posted, and I think (for now) you'll find them of little use, and a source of some confusion. It's a difficult area to study. My suggestion is to avoid complexities, and to study as much as possible the simplicities, and then - on your own - extrapolate from there.
The only way one can hope to slog through the knee-deep swamp of significance of this area of study is through perseverance.
Some day, perhaps, you'll develop a passionate interest, otherwise, a mild curiosity is fine also, but a mild curiosity won't motivate you to do the necessary slogging.
Hopefully, the material presented in the several posts on this thread will be of some use to you, and to others.
As for a Scientology source for the 'Four Conditions of Existence', you might try the book, 'The Phoenix Lectures'.
Hubbard added his own twist, omitted much, reduced 'Tetragrammaton' (the four expressions, or "letters of the name of God") to an almost comic book-level, where the first expression (condition) means only "to make something vanish" ("as-is"), and the second expression (condition) means only "to alter" something.
There's much more to it, of course.
Perhaps another time.
These links, and other material, are from other threads, and are an attempt to consolidate links, etc., re. the subject of Aleister Crowley:
Note: There is some redundancy.
TOL ... Ahhh yes ... this is what I would call a REAL RELIGION!
Pre Crowley, the story has it that the Tree of Life was inspired by Moses after Moses experienced the Light of God at the burning bush and came down from the mountain. It is written in the metaphor and allegory of the post Moses time period in Hebrew into the Zohar .
Actually there were a number of folks who had those pesky NDEs through out history. Hence bibles and stuff to do some kind of translation. And from what I understand there was a science fiction writer who once had an NDE ... and here we are!
This is one of my favorite symbolic renditions of the schematic with the light at the upper apex as the Kingdom of the Father .
snip>... "Keter is the source of all, including the things as yet unmanifest. Stabilizing consciousness at this sphere is the goal of human evolution.
KETER, or "The Infinite," is the crown of the tree, the peak of the spiritual realm, the assimilation of all spiritual work. It is the place where the pure energy first extends into the world and becomes recognizable as tangible reality. "
With Bina and Chockma being the polarity of the male and female essances that together with the father form the Holy Trinity , horizontaly and on down vertically through the left and right sides of the tree through the other emanations (Sephers) of Godliness, thus manifesting in Mother Earth "Sepher Malchus" where the seeds of the Holy Trinity have found fertile ground!
Snip from the site >……..
INVOCATION OF THE ORCHARD
"I pass through this orchard remembering that what I may learn, and what may pass before my eyes will be for the purpose of healing the world, and bringing Unity into this dimension, into the plane of human awareness. This orchard is the transition point between the transcendant and the imminent - the abstract and the concrete.
My personal path can adapt and absorb this forest slowly, and as it sees fit. My basic personhood remains intact, while sampling the myriad forms and concepts in the grove. Drinking from the river of delights of the Creator's house, my own specific root into the infinite is a path of emanation along which I can safely and respectfully traverse.
"All the world is a very narrow bridge - but the point is to be fearless."
Sepher Malchus is the grounding point, where I am centered, and where I will return after contemplating the trees, springs, fragrances, and many-faceted gems in the enclosure. Sepher Malchus is the point of connection and return to my personal concrete reality and viewpoint, to my ideal stability."
Some more info on other sources:
Jack Horner, Charles Berner...
Note, the above, "hain Indexes" (Chain Indexes) on the chalkboard, as in "earlier similar" (also Korzybski usage.)
And a few other items to inoculate against possible mesmerizing by the Standard tunnel - oops, I mean the Standard "Bridge"...
This whole thread is a very important thread.
For much of most peoples case conditions come from past failures in earlier 'ism's, 'ologies and earlier than this incarnation of Scio attempts.
The recognition of multiple sources is vital to unlock the different dynamics - as a being regains their own viewpoints (Sovereignty) - they progress up to recognizing other viewpoints - then granting beingness and value to those viewpoints (Omni-Sovereignty) - then being able to co-create with others without diminishing each other.
The killer of Scio is the crushing and making nothing of a staff member or followers viewpoints and super-imposing LRH or DM or whomevers viewponit over the top of yours.
The reason people are stuck in Scio and places like the SP Hall is they have no viewpoints left of their own.
Even if you were to go in and save them - they would not want your help as they cannot align their conditioned viewpoints to yours.
The path out is fairly simple - it is the recovery of your own viewpoints - then helping others recover their own viewpoints.
Thus there can never be a dominant viewpoint - at best at the highest levels it can be a co-create - and lets face it the greatest love affairs are co-creations.
Good post, Alan.
I think this is true, the recovery of one's own viewpoint is neccesary. It is a slow process I think.
For me, sometimes, honestly, I feel like living teen years that I never had. Its odd. But still knowing whats ethical (to some degree) it makes for a strange concept regardless.
I think after getting out, it took me about 3 months to search the internet. I probably did it faster than some, because I knew the OT materials up to VII (at least up to V, plus I have audited OT VII's and VIII's), I figured there was nothing really confidential to me that I had not already seen the original.
So really what triggered it for me was the lies about LRH. I think that was when I had had enough.
Plus the horrible mishandling of illegal activities commited by Scientologists and/or Sea Org members. They are covered up. It is rare that they are turned over the authorities. That kinda pisses me off that the justice system is the way it is.
There is plenty of corruption going on unreported to authorities. And, as Illusionist said once on a thread, it would be great for them to be reported. But me doing that, its hard to remember them all, evidence, specifics, etc (IO am SP, you know! )
About getting one's own viewpoint back, it seems to happen oh so slowly.
In my case, (and this likely shows on this board in what I write about), I feel like I dont have enough information to give a viewpoint on things. Alot of things.
So it leads me to ask many many many questions. I read and research. I want to find out about all kinds of things. And so in between people's debates on this board, I will interject questions and ask for more info. (makes me laugh).
I am fortunate in that I can read and study and assimilate information rapidly. So I am always digging, asking, learning.
In a few years of study, I may be fighting and posting against everything I see others doing here. They have already studied it (or think they have, no offense intended there).
But for those stuck in the hall, its a long journey out. And some probably aren't even thinking about that. They want to get back in good graces and continue to fight against the reactive mind. It's sad, but some of them may never see the truth.
Alan Walter on the possible (Charles Darwin) inspiration for the "Tone Scale":
John Anchovie, 'Sources of Scientology':
WOW! Thank you Alan.
I've studied the Qabalah through Will Parfitt's excellent books on the subject but have only retained a very rough impression of it.
What did stick though was the notion of the two pillars, basically "Love" and "Will" and the need to keep them in balance. It seems to me that the CofS has gone overboard on the idea of "will" and completely forgotten the notion of "love" which I think is ultimately senior to it; you can exercise will and stay essentially the same. i.e trapped in an egoic perspective, whereas Love changes you and for the better.
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."
. . . to say that out of whole cloth and with no background, a Westerner such as myself should suddenly develop all the things you need to know to do the things they [Hindu Vedas] were trying to do, is an incredible and unbelievable and untrue statement . . .