Scientology is all bad

[Panda Termint]

Auditing is intended to address the reactive mind. It is not meant to run out the analytical mind.
I'll try to find references on this, if you wish.

phenomanon

I've always thought of the "Analytical Mind" as spoken of by Hubbard, Dianeticly speaking, as a misnomer for Thetan/Mind. Perhaps I'm mistaken (as if it matters!).

 

[Div6]

I've always thought of the "Analytical Mind" as spoken of by Hubbard, Dianeticly speaking, as a misnomer for Thetan/Mind. Perhaps I'm mistaken (as if it matters!).

Lrn2Dianetics55

 

[Panda Termint]

 

[Dilpickle]

The CofS 'helps' people too (according to them).

Do your friends know you are using scientology/dianetics on them, do you disclose that?

The people we use an e-meter with are MOSTLY all Ex Scientologists.. or their friends, or someone they refered to us.. If it is say, their mother, they will tell her in advance that we used to be Scientologists and what we do.

My other friends, the ones that I just talk to, are not. Listening and asking more about the problem or situation isn't necessarily Scientology.. asking for them to tell me more about it or what they think about it isn't either.. it's kind of common sense to me.. and I do it because it's helpful. Most of the time, with those other friends, we just have a good time talking about kids or art or music or gardening or animal rescue or the many other interests I have.

We have several grown children, grandchildren, and many rescue dogs and cats here.

Unlike the church, we do not charge more than a person can pay, sometimes we trade services.. maybe they will help us paint a room, or clean up the garage.. we trade them 1 hour of their time for a 1 hour session.

We also do not have an RPF and we do not claim to know more than they do, and we only help them have a win or two and be on their way. We don't have to get our stats up and force them to finish any particular action.. it is a bit different here than LA Org.

We are all fed and rested with no seniors to rush us to make completions.

 

[Dilpickle]

I've always thought of the "Analytical Mind" as spoken of by Hubbard, Dianeticly speaking, as a misnomer for Thetan/Mind. Perhaps I'm mistaken (as if it matters!).

Hey - Yes, I've wondered the Same Thing. Or.. maybe there is a reactive mind that handles abberrations, an analytical mind that handles life in general, and some kind of spirit mind that handles exteriorization or any kind of magic stuff Perhaps I'm mistaken too! If I had to take my best shot, I would guess there are only TWO.. Once you are rid of the Reactive one, perhaps the other one stabilizes and becomes adept at handling Both Worlds..

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Hey - Yes, I've wondered the Same Thing. Or.. maybe there is a reactive mind that handles abberrations, an analytical mind that handles life in general, and some kind of spirit mind that handles exteriorization or any kind of magic stuff Perhaps I'm mistaken too! If I had to take my best shot, I would guess there are only TWO.. Once you are rid of the Reactive one, perhaps the other one stabilizes and becomes adept at handling Both Worlds..

Eastern traditions, notably Buddhist philosophy, maintain the existence of subtle mind as distinct from that associated with the body and also the ground state or clear light of consciousness. Normal mind is itself considered as a complex construct with its own layering and subtle mind is distinct from that. Ground state that state of consciousness which is left when all constructs of mind are stripped away.

I believe there is truth to that. Moreover, I suspect that the horizon effect is in operation in that that which can be perceived is limited by one's present mental state & spiritual perspective. Accordingly, it wouldn't surprise me if gradient theory might not well apply here. That there well may be increasingly subtle layers of mind, perhaps finite in number, perhaps not.

I doubt it is as simple as a dichotomy of two. Still, it is a good enough basis from which to start one's personal explorations, provided one isn't locked into a 'two and only two' mentality. Fixed ideas inevitably become obstructions at some point.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Dilpickle]

Eastern traditions, notably Buddhist philosophy, maintain the existence of subtle mind as distinct from that associated with the body and also the ground state or clear light of consciousness. Normal mind is itself considered as a complex construct with its own layering and subtle mind is distinct from that. Ground state that state of consciousness which is left when all constructs of mind are stripped away.

I believe there is truth to that. Moreover, I suspect that the horizon effect is in operation in that that which can be perceived is limited by one's present mental state & spiritual perspective. Accordingly, it wouldn't surprise me if gradient theory might not well apply here. That there well may be increasingly subtle layers of mind, perhaps finite in number, perhaps not.

I doubt it is as simple as a dichotomy of two. Still, it is a good enough basis from which to start one's personal explorations, provided one isn't locked into a 'two and only two' mentality. Fixed ideas inevitably become obstructions at some point.


Mark A. Baker

Hmm.. I'm not sure I entirely understand all that.. lots of words I'm not familiar with.. however, I would never put a limit on how many Minds we might have I'm not sure I want 8 or 9 or 10 however.. would get a little confusing LOL PS: Re-reading what you said, it almost seems like you could use the words Reactive Mind, Analytical Mind, OT Mind and Static for those types of minds..

 

[Demented LRH]

Hmm.. well all I can say, is I have "run out" incidents of some kind where the person was not completely unconscious, and the incident was not prenatal, and the PC has had wins. If that is not Dianetics, I am using the Dianetic principles to help someone overcome a time they were beat up by their dad, or their wife left them, or their child died, etc.. I would NEVER tell the PC to run a prenatal... to me, that is evaluating.. just as I would not tell a person to run OTIII on themselves.. I do not believe in evaluation in any way.. perhaps that is another of LRH's traps.. Let the auditor know he is not supposed to evaluate, and then make him evaluate (???)

The procedure that you described is similar to the psychoanalytical procedures where the subject (PC) is asked to talk about the incidents that he thinks are important to him. There are several other procedures unrelated to psychoanalysis where the subject is asked to do the same things.

I do not belive in psychoanalysis, but the other, similar procedures work; perhaps, Hubbard "borrowed" one of them and dressed it in a Scientlogy garb. He did not modify the procedure but "explained" it from a Scientology point of view. Most likely, you are using a correct and useful procedure with incorrect explanation of its workings.

In Dianetics auditing the auditor does not ask the PC to select the incidents that are important to him. He chooses the incidents for the PC by saying right from the start, "Recall the incident when you were unconscious". If the PC recalls such incident but cannot recall what was happening to him during the incident, the auditor says, "Recall more recent incident when you were unconscious". The goal is to detect the most recent incident of passing out, and to start from it.

The PC does not have a choice of the incidents, the auditor makes the choice for him.

 

[Panda Termint]

Gee, that sounds like a different kind of "Dianetics" to me. Are you sure about this?

 

[Demented LRH]

Gee, that sounds like a different kind of "Dianetics" to me. Are you sure about this?

This brand of Dianetics comes from Dianetics Series Volume I and II (there are other volumes as well, but I have not read them). Volume I was released in 1950, which is also the year when Book 1 was released. The Volume data is an expansion of Book 1.

The purpose of Dianetics auditing is to render the engrams inoperative. In order to do that one must recall the incidents that took place when one was unconscious. Therefore, the auditor asks the PC to go through the incidents that occurred after he passed out. The incidents when the PC was not unconscious are of no interest to the auditor. There is nothing more to add to this picture.

 

[Demented LRH]

This is the story of my Dianetics auditing: I reached Level 0 and finished reading Volume I of Dianetics Series before joining Sea Org. I could not care less about clearing the planet; I joined Sea Org because they promised to put me on a fast track, so I could become Class V auditor in 4-5 months. That did not happen; I left Sea Org after 6 months of slave labor.

I got a regular job, started attending stock market broker licence courses and finished reading Volume II. After that I begun auditing on my own, my PCs were not Scientologists.

My PCs were suffering from several illnesses including MS, arthritis, stomack illnesses, etc. I thought that Dianetics auditing will cure them because Hubbard promised so. None of them was cured, their conditions remained unchanged.

I do not know what Class V auditors are trained to do, but I was following Hubbard's advice -- one can become an auditor just by studying my books and using the Dianetics auditing techniques that I developed, he wrote.

"Who am I to argue? If the Master says that one does not have to pay handsomely for the Bridge courses, then following his advice is the right thing to do", I said to myself.

 

[Dilpickle]

The procedure that you described is similar to the psychoanalytical procedures where the subject (PC) is asked to talk about the incidents that he thinks are important to him. There are several other procedures unrelated to psychoanalysis where the subject is asked to do the same things.

I do not belive in psychoanalysis, but the other, similar procedures work; perhaps, Hubbard "borrowed" one of them and dressed it in a Scientlogy garb. He did not modify the procedure but "explained" it from a Scientology point of view. Most likely, you are using a correct and useful procedure with incorrect explanation of its workings.

In Dianetics auditing the auditor does not ask the PC to select the incidents that are important to him. He chooses the incidents for the PC by saying right from the start, "Recall the incident when you were unconscious". If the PC recalls such incident but cannot recall what was happening to him during the incident, the auditor says, "Recall more recent incident when you were unconscious". The goal is to detect the most recent incident of passing out, and to start from it.

The PC does not have a choice of the incidents, the auditor makes the choice for him.

Yes, what you describe as Dianetics is not what we do.. and when just having a friendly chat with a friend, I don't start asking them for incidents either.. but do listen if they volunteer one.

 

[Dilpickle]

This is the story of my Dianetics auditing: I reached Level 0 and finished reading Volume I of Dianetics Series before joining Sea Org. I could not care less about clearing the planet; I joined Sea Org because they promised to put me on a fast track, so I could become Class V auditor in 4-5 months. That did not happen; I left Sea Org after 6 months of slave labor.

I got a regular job, started attending stock market broker licence courses and finished reading Volume II. After that I begun auditing on my own, my PCs were not Scientologists.

My PCs were suffering from several illnesses including MS, arthritis, stomack illnesses, etc. I thought that Dianetics auditing will cure them because Hubbard promised so. None of them was cured, their conditions remained unchanged.

I do not know what Class V auditors are trained to do, but I was following Hubbard's advice -- one can become an auditor just by studying my books and using the Dianetics auditing techniques that I developed, he wrote.

"Who am I to argue? If the Master says that one does not have to pay handsomely for the Bridge courses, then following his advice is the right thing to do", I said to myself.

I'm really sorry about your friends.. I wish you could have helped them. If someone came here with a severe illness, I could not guarantee I could cure them either. We've looked into lots of alternate therapies (medical - natural - etc) for illnesses, and some do work better than others.. but I haven't heard of a cure for cancer that always works, same for many kinds of medical diseases and illnesses. I am thinking the healthier mentally you get, the more likely you are to be healthy physically, but I cannot even guarantee that. We are all such complex beings..

 

[Panda Termint]

This brand of Dianetics comes from Dianetics Series Volume I and II (there are other volumes as well, but I have not read them). Volume I was released in 1950, which is also the year when Book 1 was released. The Volume data is an expansion of Book 1.

<snip..>

I think you need to review the materials. Most people have moments which they may think of as unconsciousness on a daily basis, they sleep.

What you need to ask for is a "moment of pain and unconsciousness" as far as I recall.

I'm reasonably familiar with engram theory, I've audited thousands of hours of Book 1, Standard Dianetics and New Era Dianetics but haven't done so for a while now.

The Auditor does not select the incident for the PC, the PC comes up with an incident in answer to the Auditor's command.

BTW, you're mistaken about Volume 1 and II, I think. They are a roundup of decades of ever-changing tech but Book 1, DMSMH, is the original version of Dianetics. Volume I and II were released as a marketing exercise and to make Dianetics more accessible to people. I think it was an admission that the data in Book One was a bit of a strain for most people.

 

[phenomanon]

PS: One more thing, for anyone who wants to know where my friend got the ideas of running postulates and asking WHY... I asked him, and he sent me this information, written by Ron.. my friend thought it made sense, and started to use it in the sessions he gave.

From Handbook for Preclears:
you have read here before and as you have come to suspect in your processing, your
own decisions and evaluations are the most important items in the entire process.
What you decide is LAW to you. What you evaluate is evaluation to you.
SELF-CONFIDENCE is nothing more than belief in one’s ability to decide and in one’s
decisions.
MOST PEOPLE THINK THEY HAVE UNCONSCIOUS MINDS OR
BACKGROUNDS OF MOTIVATION SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE REFUSED THEIR
OWN POWER TO DECIDE.
Negation of decision, refusal of decision, letting others decide are the most powerful
sources of aberration. They apply to any and all subjects.

This section is devoted to picking up each and every postulate you can now reach in
your whole lifetime. A postulate is a decision you make to yourself or to others. You make
one, then afterwards conditions change and you make a second one. This makes the first one
wrong. You make a postulate as cause and then, by having lived through some instants of time,
become an effect of your own cause.
A computer could not work if you kept leaving its totals on the calculator for the next
problem. That is what you do with decisions. They have to be made. Sweep them up before
making more. It is a new method of thinking and one that keeps you happy. No need to be
afraid of making decisions. Simply sweep up old decisions. You make New Year’s resolutions.
And you make them into the teeth of old resolutions and you tell yourself you are
weak-willed. You aren’t weak willed, you are simply obeying yourself as of yesterday.
Emotion and effort cover up these postulates. They should be free and clear by now and
indeed should blow at a glance. There are two parts to every postulate. There is the evaluation
of data and the decision itself.
When you pick up an old decision, also pick up the reason you made it. They “blow”
very quickly.
SCAN THROUGH EVERY DECISION, WITH ITS REASON WHY, YOU HAVE MADE………………

From Advanced Procedures and Axioms:
EVALUATION: Postulates are made because of evaluations. Postulates ordinarily do
not lift unless the reason WHY is also contacted. This is brief but very important.



From HCOB 8-20-63:
In my recent surveys of the Tone Arm and its relationship to auditing, it became
apparent that three types of charge existed in a GPM:
1. Charge as an engram (pain and unconsciousness)
2. Charge as Reliable Items.
3. Charge as postulates.
All three must be removed from a GPM. Any incident, wherever it is on the track,
contains postulates (comments, considerations, directions) made by the pc at that
time. Thus in all incidents the pc’s postulates must be called for and removed. To
remove a postulate from any incident, have the pc repeat it until it no longer reacts
on the needle of the meter. If it comes down to a persistent tick get suppress off it
and get it repeated again just as in the case of any Reliable Item in a GPM. DON’T
LEAVE POSTULATES CHARGED. Treat them like GPM Items whether in a GPM or an
engram.

jeebus. This is Scientology. Has nothing to do with Dianetics. Tell your friend to look up Postulates in the Tech Dict. as I don't know what other material he has available. In that definition you will see that "Postulate off equals Erasure. Always". In DIANETIC auditing, the postulate usually comes off as a cognition. Once a postulate comes off an engram or a chain of engrams, the engram or chain is erased. To continue dicking around with a postulate after the chain has erased is a "gross auditing error". There are other references. such as HCOB 7 July 78 entitled " Postulate Off Equals Erasure". There are many more HCOBs that state the same. The EP of a Dn chain is "Postulate Off. Period. This guy who calls himself auditing *apparently* doesn't know what a postulate is. He is a dangerous auditor. It looks like what is going on is that he is running Scn postulate processing on the end of an erased Dn chain. If the damned thing did erase, having a PC looking around at the decision he made at that time, puts his attention back into that time. IOW, he mocks the engram up again.
well. I didn't come into this group to correct auditing errors nor to train up auditors, so I apologize for even replying to your post. None of my business what your friend is doing. I will only caution anyone who is thinking of getting any auditing to ascertain that the auditor has trained up on the materials pertinent to the level.

phenomanon

 

[Dilpickle]

jeebus. This is Scientology. Has nothing to do with Dianetics. Tell your friend to look up Postulates in the Tech Dict. as I don't know what other material he has available. In that definition you will see that "Postulate off equals Erasure. Always". In DIANETIC auditing, the postulate usually comes off as a cognition. Once a postulate comes off an engram or a chain of engrams, the engram or chain is erased. To continue dicking around with a postulate after the chain has erased is a "gross auditing error". There are other references. such as HCOB 7 July 78 entitled " Postulate Off Equals Erasure". There are many more HCOBs that state the same. The EP of a Dn chain is "Postulate Off. Period. This guy who calls himself auditing *apparently* doesn't know what a postulate is. He is a dangerous auditor. It looks like what is going on is that he is running Scn postulate processing on the end of an erased Dn chain. If the damned thing did erase, having a PC looking around at the decision he made at that time, puts his attention back into that time. IOW, he mocks the engram up again.
well. I didn't come into this group to correct auditing errors nor to train up auditors, so I apologize for even replying to your post. None of my business what your friend is doing. I will only caution anyone who is thinking of getting any auditing to ascertain that the auditor has trained up on the materials pertinent to the level.

phenomanon

Here's my Problem with what you are saying.. Obviously, LRH did not make all the auditing/grades/OT Levels etc with the idea that they would WORK.. maybe some.. maybe not others.. for me, the challenge is to find out where he was LYING and where he was telling the TRUTH.. My friend picked out the WHY question and asking for more postulates because it felt possible to him that that was what was causing Dianetics not to work as well as it might. Dianetics was NOT producing what it promised in many instances.. just looking at the data, which constantly contradicts itself, it is hard to know if Ron was telling the Truth when he stated what you are quoting as proper procedure. When did he ALWAYS state the proper procedure.. how can one know whether or not some of his brilliant ideas work if you don't try them or adapt them to what you believe might be a winning formula? Otherwise, we might as well all go back to the Church, or a field auditor who is out of the church but offering the Bridge exactly as Ron created it. All we are doing is trying to pick the gems out and leave the manure behind. All I can say is we have NOT ever hurt anyone with the Decision questions, and LRH DID hurt people with the techniques used at times.. Nobody has gotten a session here and felt worse for it or complained that they did not make Gains. We have been doing this for 30 years. I'm not saying we are making OT's.. however.. we are not crashing people or making them go broke, or applying punishment, etc.. Dilpickle

 

[phenomanon]

Here's my Problem with what you are saying.. Obviously, LRH did not make all the auditing/grades/OT Levels etc with the idea that they would WORK.. maybe some.. maybe not others.. for me, the challenge is to find out where he was LYING and where he was telling the TRUTH.. My friend picked out the WHY question and asking for more postulates because it felt possible to him that that was what was causing Dianetics not to work as well as it might. Dianetics was NOT producing what it promised in many instances.. just looking at the data, which constantly contradicts itself, it is hard to know if Ron was telling the Truth when he stated what you are quoting as proper procedure. When did he ALWAYS state the proper procedure.. how can one know whether or not some of his brilliant ideas work if you don't try them or adapt them to what you believe might be a winning formula? Otherwise, we might as well all go back to the Church, or a field auditor who is out of the church but offering the Bridge exactly as Ron created it. All we are doing is trying to pick the gems out and leave the manure behind. All I can say is we have NOT ever hurt anyone with the Decision questions, and LRH DID hurt people with the techniques used at times.. Nobody has gotten a session here and felt worse for it or complained that they did not make Gains. We have been doing this for 30 years. I'm not saying we are making OT's.. however.. we are not crashing people or making them go broke, or applying punishment, etc.. Dilpickle

As you wish. If you guys want to use your friends as guinea pigs for your experiments with their minds, do what thou wilt. After all, that's what Hubbard did.

phenomanon

 

[Veda]

-snip-

In DIANETIC auditing, the postulate usually comes off as a cognition.

-snip-

phenomenon

That's what I recall from auditing "Standard Dianetics."

The idea of having an FN, Cog, VGIs, with the pc extroverted with no more interest in the time track for that session and, then, asking the pc for a postulate?

All "tech" aside, it just doesn't make sense.

By the way, good post, pheno.

 

[Dilpickle]

As you wish. If you guys want to use your friends as guinea pigs for your experiments with their minds, do what thou wilt. After all, that's what Hubbard did.

phenomanon

We used ourselves as guinea pigs for many years and saw that what we were doing was helping us before we offered it to anyone else. Since we felt better, we thought they might too.. and they did. If we drove anyone crazy or hurt anyone in any way, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. The alternative is to give up getting better, or taking on ANOTHER type of therapy or help or lifestyle that you feel gives you a better chance.. It's all up to each person to chose the direction they want to go. If I told people that jumping off a building would help them, and some chose to jump, then I would most definitely be responsible for hurting them, and they would be responsible for making that choice and jumping. If you believe Scientology doesn't work, then you cannot quote Ron as the source of what you know doesn't work as if he knew what he was talking about.. My theory is he DID know what he was talking about alot of the time, but decided to screw it up so that none of us would ever challenge him as knowing more than he did. All these things are my theories.. what has been proven to me is that, so far at least, we have not done any damage to any of our PCs or friends. What are you doing now that is helping you and why?

 

[Dilpickle]

That's what I recall from auditing "Standard Dianetics."

The idea of having an FN, Cog, VGIs, with the pc extroverted with no more interest in the time track for that session and, then, asking the pc for a postulate?

All "tech" aside, it just doesn't make sense.

By the way, good post, pheno.

What many of us have noticed is that the PC does not always have an FN, Cog, VGI's after only running out the incident.. that's what caused us to ask more questions in order to get them to that place where they DID have VGI's..

If an engram (let us suppose there really IS such a thing) is made up of Mass and Significance, perhaps in equal proportions, then addressing each side of it makes logical sense to me. If what you are saying is TRUE, then Everyone would be raving about how wonderful Dianetics is and would likely have stuck it out longer to continue on up the bridge.. Some did like their Dianetics.. many did not.

Some PCs might just naturally GO THERE.. and look at their ideas and blow down without being asked to do so.. some might benefit from asking them to look at the Significance side of it. My theory all along is there is a BALANCE in all things.. Good/Bad, Mass/Significance, Love/Hate, etc.. and most things are combinations of both..

To run NOTHING but IDEAS and No Force or Mass would be equally unworkable.. just as getting Nothing but Auditing with no Physical side to it - no exercise, no Locationals, no Touching things or working, no movement, no concern for the BODY at all.. just the Mind or the Spirit.

I think you need to keep a Balance.. address all sides, knowing they are all of equal importance and worthy of our care.

Most folks here have disagreed with me.. and that is OK. My only defense, if you want to call it that, is that my intentions are good, I don't claim to know it all, I can admit if I am wrong, I would gladly admit it if it ended up that I had more knowledge or success or happiness for admiting it, and the fact that we have not hurt anyone.

It's as if I was selling great tasting organic apples in the park, and folks were not buying it, and I kept saying, but they taste good and nobody has gotten sick eating them.. and yet the attacks keep coming, and I just field them as best I can.. knowing that I mean no harm.

You might disagree with my ideas, and I certainly don't mind anyone saying so, but please don't accuse me of destroying anyone's lives.. you don't know me or our PCs, and unless you think I am lying, there is no reason for attack. If you think I am lying, that is a different matter altogether. Is that what you think?

PS: If the PC had FN VGI'S COG after only running the incident, OF COURSE I would not insist that they keep going and ask them for decisions or anything more.. END OF SESSION