Best of the Sole Source Myth thread




Over time, I'll be re-posting parts of the 'Sole Source Myth' thread.

The thread was majorly derailed and this is an attempt to tighten it up a bit.

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.

Great thread.:)

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." The building blocks of the "Eight Trigrams," known as the "Four Digrams," 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:

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,, 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 that Chokmah = Wisdom, How to accurately act in one's current situation (which is not the same as as-isness at all). And at 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.

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 >……..

"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"...

Mike Goldstein:



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. :happydance:


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!:D )

Anyways, rambling.

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.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

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.


It occurred to me that, in my haste to assemble these posts, I may have overlooked some things that would have been appropriate to have posted here. If anything by another has accidentally been omitted, or if there are any who wish to add others sources, contributors, or antecedents - of a (more or less) positive nature - please feel free to add those to this thread. That's what it's for. :)


"His eye was single and his whole body was filled with light."



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." The building blocks of the "Eight Trigrams," known as the "Four Digrams," 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."

(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. :)


Forgive any redundancy. This is being assembled hastily.

In 1937 a book titled, 'The Middle Pillar' by Israel Regardie was published.

Wrote Regardie:

"[Psycho-therapeutic] Analysis is the logical precursor of spiritual attainment and Magical experiment... Not until the mind and the emotional system have been cleansed and unified by the cathartic process... can the full spiritual benefits of magical work be reflected into the mind of man.

"...We should remember the parables of the archaic philosophical religions whose fundamental tenet was that within man was a spirit, a dynamic center of consciousness which, because of its contact and association with matter, had been plunged into a profound sleep, a kind of somnambulism...

"By endeavoring to extend the horizon of consciousness, to enlarge the field of awareness so as to embrace what previously was unconscious, is obviously a logical method. To become aware of all our actions, our thoughts and emotions and unsuspected motives, to regard them in their true light as actually they are and not as we would like them to be or as we would wish an onlooker to perceive them. It requires, to take this step, an extraordinary degree of honesty and courage... The more of this suppressed and forgotten material stored in this at one time unknown or dormant side of our nature that can be raised to the clear light of day, by exactly so much do we awake from the inert stupor into which we have in the past been plunged."

"The Great Work is the raising of the whole man to the power of infinity." From 'Magick in Theory and Practice' by Aleister Crowley.

Sound familiar? See 'Scientology 8-8008'

Instead of the long vanity list (to give credibility and "gravitas" to Hubbard) of "50,000 years of thinking men," etc., in the front of 'Scientology 8-8008', it would have been more accurate for Hubbard to have simply placed Aleister Crowley's name there.

This audio/video is sometimes difficult to hear but, if one clicks the top, and goes to YouTube video, there's a transcription of it.

This is Carl Jung addressing his Soul, or perhaps "Higher Self" would be a better description.

There are many views on how the notion of a Soul (capital "S") should be regarded. One holds that the person on Earth is no more his entire being than a finger tip is the entire physical body. Re-uniting the finger tip with the rest of the body (the "lower soul" with the "Higher Soul"), according to some, will occur at the end of the person's physical life. Others attempt this connection in this life through prayer, meditation, and other mental/spiritual disciplines.

In Scientology, there is no "Higher Self" or "Higher Soul" recognized, and Scientologists tend to see themselves as the compete expression of their being, They are "thetans" who proudly announce that they do not have a soul but are a soul. Yet, what if there is a Higher Soul, and Scientologists have cut themselves off from that? The result: many little Scientologists with giant egos, cut off from further spiritual exploration that may have made then whole.

Years ago, I even experimented ("squirrelling") with this area, using the basic format of an auditing session. The client ("pc"), after a brief description/discussion of the notion of a Higher Self, was asked if there was (forgive the Scientologese, it was a long time ago) an "ARC break" with the Higher Self, with idea of opening a line of communication. It was interesting but not earth-shaking.

It's perhaps noteworthy that Aleister Crowley wrote of "the knowledge and conversation with one's Holy Guardian Angel" as an objective of Magic(k)al study and exercise. Crowley, towards the end of his life, admitted that his "Holy Guardian Angel" may not have been a separate being, but an aspect of his own mind.

(And to Scientologists reading this. No, this is not about "BTs.")

Even Hubbard wrote (in the 1940s) of his Guardian Angel, whom he named, and seemed to regard her (it was a female) as a separate being.

In any event, this audio/visio by Jung is worth hearing, IMO. It does appear the Jung regarded himself as the lesser expression of a greater Being (no matter how one wishes to word it), one with which he wished to re-acquaint himself.

L. Ron Hubbard was embarrassed by the Crowley connection, once the drugs he was taking, when he was stream-of-consciousness-ifying the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures, wore off. There's no indication that Hubbard ever listened to these lectures again, anymore then he, again, listened to his rambling dictation into early recording devices of what became some of his early books - books which were transcribed and organized by others, and only minimally reviewed by Hubbard. Did Hubbard even remember that he had, numerous times, mentioned Crowley during 1952 in Philadelphia?

After some details of the Crowley connection were revealed in the 'Times of London' in 1969, Hubbard concocted a story about having been "sent in by Naval Intelligence to break up a black magic group" in 1946, etc., and "rescued a girl." Incidentally, the "girl" he "rescued" was Sara Northrup, who, also in 1969, in a confidential briefing, he described as the Russian spy Sara Komkovadamanov, whom he had met in the place where nuclear physicists stayed. Of course, it made sense that Hubbard would be staying there since he was a nuclear physicist, etc.

Hubbard spewed so much B.S. and tilted so many mirrors, that it took years to de-code it. Despite that, the Scientologists are still wandering in circles, muttering, "Scientology works," "Scientology works."

The 1969 'Times of London' article, and Scientology's response:

The story invented by Hubbard is presented again in 1971, by Scientology Public Relations person David Gaiman, in response to a series of questions from Paulette Cooper (at the very end):

My reading of Crowley, which began in earnest in the late 1970s, made my exit from Scientology inevitable. I enjoyed reading Crowley.

The first Crowley work I read was a little blood red book (identical in color to the 'Tech Volumes'), called 'The Book of the Law'. Crowley claimed that 'The Book' was dictated to him by a non-material being (a long story), but suffice it to say that there are two primary types of Crowley expression - books he himself wrote as himself, and books he wrote as a scribe receiving dictation from above. Hubbard borrowed freely from both categories. He certainly borrowed from 'The Book of the Law':

From Aleister Crowley's 'The Book of the Law' (This is a departure from the emphasis on "positives."):

"We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit; let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of Kings: stamp down the wretched and the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

"...I am the snake that giveth knowledge and delight, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs. They shall not harm ye at all. It is a lie, this folly against self...

"...The Kings of Earth shall be the Kings forever: the slaves shall serve.

"Them that seek to entrap thee, to overthrow thee, them attack without pity or quarter; and destroy them utterly."


Korzybski's 'Manhood of Humanity' and 'Science and Sanity' both taught that Mankind needed to wake up, to grow up, to become rational.

Although Hubbard borrowed much from Korzybski, that didn't stop him from denouncing Korzybski:


From L. Ron Hubbard's 'Data Series 1', 26 April 1970:

"As Alfred Korzybski studied under psychiatry and amongst the insane (his mentor was William Alanson White at Saint Elizabeth Insane Asylum in Wash. D.C.) one can regard him mainly as the father of confusion."

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:

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 'Messiah or Madman?'

More material on Hubbard's "borrowings" from post War War II 'abreaction therapy' - Scientology's exploitation of the usually therapeutic process of catharsis - in needed, as this thread has become over-loaded with material from Crowley, et al.

Note: This thread seeks essentially "positive" antecedents and contributions to Scientology, although it's understood that, in many instances, these essentially "positive" elements were later abused and exploited by Scientology.

The thread contains many links to other threads.
Last edited:


No need to listen to Hubbard bloviate about it.

The actual dianetics process is incredibly simple. Freud delineated it in his lectures, linked here:

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.



Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller

Surprisingly honest statement from L Ron Hubbard . . .

. . . 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 . . .

So what changed? Oh, right . . . KSW and the Messiah Project.



Surprisingly honest statement from L Ron Hubbard . . .

So what changed? Oh, right . . . KSW and the Messiah Project.

What changed? IMO, very little changed.

In 1954, Hubbard activated his "religion angle," and it was important that Scientology be identified with respectable religions.

So, Hubbard spoke, publicly, respectfully, of Buddhism, and even of Taoism, and also of the Vedas.

He wanted to show that Scientology followed in the long tradition of these subjects, and even briefly spoke positively of Christianity. The 1954 'Creation of Human Ability' book opens with a quote from St. Luke of the Bible.

However, during the 1954 Phoenix Lectures, Hubbard couldn't resist depicting himself as being responsible (by implication) for the arrival of the Vedas on Earth, and at a much earlier date than usually recognized:

"It does happen that there are a set of [Vedic] hymns which as I recall were introduced into the societies of earth in about 8212 BC."

A year later, Hubbard wrote The 'Hymn of Asia', where he depicted himself as the re-incarnated Buddha. Seems as though not only did Hubbard originally bring this knowledge to Earth "in about 8212 BC," he also, as Gautama Buddha, continue to develop it and popularize it.



I can be addressed
But in our temples best
Address me and you address
Lord Buddha.
Address Lord Buddha
And you then address


L. Ron Hubbard, from 'Hymn of Asia'

For a - occasionally - honest Hubbard, speaking to nascent Scientologists with Hubbard being "loose-lipped," probably due to his use of amphetamines or cocaine, one needs to go to the 1952 Philadelphia Doctorate Course:

"Our whole activity tends to make an individual completely independent of any limitation... Old Aleister Crowley had some interesting things to say about this. He wrote 'The Book of the Law'.


All editions of 'The Book of the Law' are blood red,
which is, oddly, also the color of the 'Tech Volumes'.​

From Crowley's 'Magick in Theory and Practice':

"The whole and sole object of all true Magickal training is to become free from every kind of limitation."

More from the 'PDC':

"The old magical cults of the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries in the Middle East were fascinating. The only modern work that has anything to do with them is a trifle wild in spots, but a fascinating work by itself, and that's the work of Aleister Crowley... He signs himself 'the Beast', mark of the Beast 666..."

Last edited: