The Clear Cognition ***Confidential***

[uncover]

Is there a scientological term/ description/ "state of case" (or whatever) for those (people, spirits, entities, thetans -- whatever you wish to call them) who did not ever in the past and are not now in the present creating this thing?

a term for those who never participated in this activity and might even be surprised to find that such an activity (the activity of creating this thing called the "reactive mind," just so we're clear on what I mean) exists?

Where are all those well trained Class XII´s to answer this question ?
Noone around ? Let´s have a look in the tech dictionary:

NATIVE STATE, 1. the potentiality of knowing everything. (SH Spec 35, 6108C08) 2. the list of no games conditions is a summary of the native state of a thetan. (HCOB 3 Sept 56) 3. ..... 4. the native state thetan is total knowingness. (Op Bull 1)

A "clear"-declare is only a status desire ("havingness") a clear-thinking (sane) person will not really need it. Even a SP-declare (Sane Person) is more worthfull, because at least this has the VFP that you will save your money. Astonishing, that this status thinking leads to 180 posts of Q&A about "natural clear" and several OT-humbug.

"Clear" and "OT" were yesterday - "native state" is the future. Don´t waste your time:
For only $ 1.000.000,-- I will certificy every person who pays (in advance), that he/she/it is a naive ... sorry, typo.... native state - without any boring auditing-session. A one year free membership in the Marty-church is included in this offer. Anyone interested ?

And always keep smiling - Co$-life is really hard. BTW, did you ever observe this:

GLEE, a kind of insanity. Glee is a special kind of embarrassed giggling. You’ll know it when you see it. When you see glee on some fellow on a post, realize it’s because he doesn’t understand what he’s doing. He’s ignorant about SOMETHING and above that is confusion and above the confusion is glee. (HCOB 20 Sept 68)

The "something" - for example - can be the truth (about the xenu-space-opera) which can be found all over the web.

 

[Idle Morgue]

***CONFIDENTIAL*** ***CLEAR COGNITION***

I really don't know if this will mess up anyone's case if they are not "Clear", or what the state really means any more, if it even exists. However...

A couple of people have posted here recently saying the Clear Cog is realizing that "I mocked up my Reactive Mind." It isn't. It is realizing that "I am mocking up my Reactive Mind." It is completely different, completely. Completely.

"Mocking up" means doing it in present time, right now, continuously, repetitively, each instant as it goes by, bam, bam, bam, bam, Hubbard said 25 times a second in the famous 1963 Time Track HCOBs. It's not that one mocked it up once, like you had an accident ten years ago and made a picture of it (engram) at the time and you sort of carry that picture around with you ever after, having made it in the past. You are creating that picture in a new unit of time every instant POW POW POW POW POW, at least, you are when it is in restim to some extent.

Don't ask me the exact mechanics of this. It implies that Hubbard had it all right, and he didn't.

For some reason the difference between mocked it up in the past and mocking it up continuously in present time is hard for some people to grasp. I remember a Grad V guy I checked out on auditing the CCRD around 1993. He was "OT VIII." He had a cold, and look a real mess. After about an hour of trying to get him to see the difference - and I was a trained sup and knew about misunderstoods and earlier similar mis-u's and e/s subjects etc. - I finally "realized" that the reason he couldn't see it (and also why he was in such a mess case-wise) was because he wasn't personally Clear. Now I don't know at all, but I have had trouble with other people - who attested OT whatever in the CofS and were Class VI and so forth - not easily grasping the difference between having mocked it up PFFT! at some point in the past and mocking it up in present time now now now now now now now now now now now now now...


Paul - thanks for this posting this. I am not clear (per Scientology) however, you just saved me hundred's of thousands of dollars and the curiosity of "going clear" if I ever were to go back and do it. But I never would because I never saw a clear that impressed me or looked sane. Not one! NADA - ZIP - ZERO! NOT an Oatee either! They were even stranger - did not talk and seemed really angry all of the time...not to mention working their asses off! They did not come around much. Got fat - looked old and weathered - yuck!

I love it! I am clear that I don't need to go clear! I am already clear! Clearly!

What a scam! I spent years and years on my NED - wasting money and time and grinding away!

I am so grateful for you giving me this "cognition" so I don't have to wonder any more.

With love,

Clearly - IM

I am thinking of some of the young staff members - they really think they are going to get rid of their reactive minds forever and have amazing powers. This is sad - they are wasting their time! Poor souls!

 

[R6Basic]

I'm glad Paul wrote this too. I often wondered what the "Clear cog." was.

One of our staff always said the OT VIII Cog was probably "Hey! It really IS all their fault!"

One thing I was suspicious about was the definition of "clear." "A being without their own reactive mind." I was like "does that mean they have someone else's reactive mind?" :confused2:

I found out, through this board, that yes, it's all those crazy thetans from 75 trillion years ago.

 

[Jquepublic]

Anyone know where I can find a copy of the actual bulletin? I've found it quoted all over the place but never seen it in full online. It's crazy that the Clear cog is fairly hidden but Xenu is out of the closet!

Edit: Found it in an OT II pack. I would still like a scan of the reference by itself though if anyone has it.

 

[Panda Termint]

It's a "Confidential Issue" and was never broadly available but maybe someone has a copy somewhere. I'm sure I saw it posted right here on ESMB, sometime in the past.

It's one of those tight-held things in the CofS like "Consultant" Advice, now them I'd LOVE to see published!

 

[Jquepublic]

It's a "Confidential Issue" and was never broadly available but maybe someone has a copy somewhere. I'm sure I saw it posted right here on ESMB, sometime in the past.

It's one of those tight-held things in the CofS like "Consultant" Advice, now them I'd LOVE to see published!

Yeah, I remember having to keep it locked up in a cabinet. I found it, it was just in a pile of other refs in a PDF and that's a little bulky...but it'll do!

I didn't even know there WAS such a thing as Consultant Advices! Now I want to see those too!

 

[Panda Termint]

These are VERY tightly held, written Advice from Hubbard (except when they were forged by someone else, of course) that supersede a lot of accepted scientology Policy.

I've read (as in, *studied*) some of them when I was an SO Missionaire and, to be honest, they shocked the shit outta me. When and if those Consultant and R Advices get leaked, it'll be Game Over!

There are others here on ESMB who probably know MUCH more about them than I.

 

[Hatshepsut]

OPPOSITION TERMINAL (also referred to as OPPTERM) :

snipped

We got the idea of two different types of terminals in GPMs, because that’s the
way they are. One, the pc thinks of as his own or himself. The other he thinks
of as an opposition. Hence, we use “terminal” to mean what the pc thinks is his
idea and mass in the GPM, and we use “opposition terminal”, or “oppterm” for
short, to mean the mass and significance he thinks of as the enemy to the one he
is in.

Both the “terminal” and the “oppterm” in the GPM have mass and significance
and have the appearance of receiving and giving communication and so they are
called terminals.

ITEM :

1.
In GPMs, what we now also call items were first called terminals because they
interacted with each other electrically. They were always in pairs.
When one is speaking of either a Terminal or Opposition Terminal and isn’t
being specific as to which it is ( Term or Oppterm ) one says ITEM.

PAIR :

1.
A set of two; two that go together.
DICHOTOMY :

1.
A dichotomy in Scientologese means plus and minus. A plus word and a minus
word. They are of the same order of things always. A crude example would be
“An Apple” and “Applelessness”. That’s a pair, a dichotomy.
Plus and minus interchange a current as you will find on any battery. So we don’t
_________________________________________________________________________________________

page 60

want active-passive. (For example, the active such as “Man” and the passive
such as “Woman”.) We want the bold PLUS and MINUS, the opposites. The
nature of things is a major idea. Each major idea has two parts: a PLUS and a
MINUS. These are opposed to each other. They interchange current. The
conflict. What is generally agreed to be the unwanted or poor side is minus.
What is generally conceived to be all right is plus.

For example, in a modern society we would have the major idea that an
individual has an ecconomic status. Wealth is the PLUS and Poverty is the
MINUS.
snipped portion

ENTITIES :

The basic definition of “entity” as contained in standard dictionaries is :

Something that has a real and separate existence either actually or in the mind;
a being or existence which is considered distinct and self contained.

There are various types of entities described in the full works on Dianetics and
Scientology.

For example, a cell is a living animal all by itself.

There is the Genetic Entity (“GE”) which is the entity which carries foreward
from the earliest formation of the MEST body.

There can be injected entities or sythetic entities. Some of these are ridges on
which facsimilies are planted. Each one of those things can be a thinking entity.
It thinks it is alive. It can think it’s a being, as long as energy is fed to it.

These follow all the rules and laws and phenomena of single beings.

The full subject of entities is not taken up in this glossary. However, for an
understanding of the data on entities as contain in Dianetic and Scientology
materials, one must first have a good understanding of the basic definitions
given above.

References in Dianetic and Scientology materials for further data on entities
include :

HCOB 30 JUL 80, THE NATURE OF A BEING

DIANETICS,
THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH,
Book Two, Chapter IV.

THE HISTORY OF MAN, Chapters Two, Five and Ten.

SET ( also “RUN” ) :

1.
On OT II a “set” or “run” refers to one complete set of 21 GPMs, which are also
refered to as a Whole Track Table.
PART :

1.
The term “part” refers to the individual GPMs which, in their written form, are
called Chapters. Where the chapter is split up into two or more separate sections,
each of these would also be refered to as a part.
L. RON HUBBARD
FOUNDER
Assisted by
Snr C/S Int Assistant

Accepted by the

BCDS:LRH:NP:kjm BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Copyright © 1981 of the
by L. Ron Hubbard CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED OF CALIFORNIA

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now look at the BCDS and the 'accepted by'

That's not from the original SOURCE I'd say.
(this is probably from the same PDF mentioned by Jquepublic above)

Sorry post is long but any of us who have seen the earlier materials and instructions will note that this is a clarification and simplification after the fact made so as to be clearly understood by modern course students. A lot of the old course packs were NEVER in this very plain speak when LRH was alive.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Idle Morgue;718311]

***CONFIDENTIAL*** ***CLEAR COGNITION***

I really don't know if this will mess up anyone's case if they are not "Clear", or what the state really means any more, if it even exists. However...

A couple of people have posted here recently saying the Clear Cog is realizing that "I mocked up my Reactive Mind." It isn't. It is realizing that "I am mocking up my Reactive Mind." It is completely different, completely. Completely.

"Mocking up" means doing it in present time, right now, continuously, repetitively, each instant as it goes by, bam, bam, bam, bam, Hubbard said 25 times a second in the famous 1963 Time Track HCOBs. It's not that one mocked it up once, like you had an accident ten years ago and made a picture of it (engram) at the time and you sort of carry that picture around with you ever after, having made it in the past. You are creating that picture in a new unit of time every instant POW POW POW POW POW, at least, you are when it is in restim to some extent.

Don't ask me the exact mechanics of this. It implies that Hubbard had it all right, and he didn't.

For some reason the difference between mocked it up in the past and mocking it up continuously in present time is hard for some people to grasp. I remember a Grad V guy I checked out on auditing the CCRD around 1993. He was "OT VIII." He had a cold, and look a real mess. After about an hour of trying to get him to see the difference - and I was a trained sup and knew about misunderstoods and earlier similar mis-u's and e/s subjects etc. - I finally "realized" that the reason he couldn't see it (and also why he was in such a mess case-wise) was because he wasn't personally Clear. Now I don't know at all, but I have had trouble with other people - who attested OT whatever in the CofS and were Class VI and so forth - not easily grasping the difference between having mocked it up PFFT! at some point in the past and mocking it up in present time now now now now now now now now now now now now now...

Paul - thanks for this posting this. I am not clear (per Scientology) however, you just saved me hundred's of thousands of dollars and the curiosity of "going clear" if I ever were to go back and do it. But I never would because I never saw a clear that impressed me or looked sane. Not one! NADA - ZIP - ZERO! NOT an Oatee either! They were even stranger - did not talk and seemed really angry all of the time...not to mention working their asses off! They did not come around much. Got fat - looked old and weathered - yuck!

(Ref: HCOB 24 Sep 78R, Iss III DIANETIC CLEAR
HCOB 25 Jun 70RB, Iss II C/S Series 12 RB
HCOB 2 May 79, Iss I , DIANETIC CLEAR SPECIAL


NON CONFIDENTIAL

DEFINITION OF A CLEAR:
A BEING WHO IS UNREPRESSED
AND SELF DETERMINED.

CONFIDENTIAL DATA

A Clear has lost or erased the matter, energy, space and time connected to the thing
called MIND. He has been cleared of the MASS, PICTURES, etc. in the bank or mind. It
is a negative gain.

CLEAR COGNITION: CLEAR OCCURS WHEN ONE STOPS MOCKING UP
BANK, OR REALIZES THAT HE IS MOCKING IT UP OR HAS BEEN MOCKING
IT UP. THAT IS THE CLEAR COGNITION: THE REALIZATION THAT HE IS OR
HAS BEEN MOCKING UP THE MASS AND PICTURES, ETC., THAT MAKE UP
THE BANK.

When the person arrives at this realization he can then, of course, cease mocking
up bank.

A Clear has perhaps not entirely lost the automaticity of mocking up mass. But at
least he knows he’s putting it there and practice increases his general reality.

The last line is an additive I bet.

 

[programmer_guy]

There is no such thing as a "reactive mind" in the way that LRH described it in Dianetics (i.e. DMSMH). However, there is a lot of non-conscious brain activity that affects the conscious brain activity (and vice versa).
.
There is a LOT of human brain activity that occurs outside of our conscious (frontal lobes?) brain awareness (what we think of as "ourselves"). I doubt that what happens in the non-conscious brain activity is directly accessible as memories (or so-called Engrams), by the conscious part. If you attempt to directly get to it by any means (to attempt to "recall it") you will get delusion (e.g. "space-opera").

 

[secretiveoldfag]

I was never in Scientology, which means most of this is over my head. I'm never sure whether I should be happy about this or frustrated.

But in wog terms a person who loses their mind is insane.

This, I notice, ties in with the definition given somewhere in this thread of SP as Sane Person.

Have I got this right?

 

[Jquepublic]

(Ref: HCOB 24 Sep 78R, Iss III DIANETIC CLEAR
HCOB 25 Jun 70RB, Iss II C/S Series 12 RB
HCOB 2 May 79, Iss I , DIANETIC CLEAR SPECIAL


NON CONFIDENTIAL

DEFINITION OF A CLEAR:
A BEING WHO IS UNREPRESSED
AND SELF DETERMINED.

CONFIDENTIAL DATA

A Clear has lost or erased the matter, energy, space and time connected to the thing
called MIND. He has been cleared of the MASS, PICTURES, etc. in the bank or mind. It
is a negative gain.

CLEAR COGNITION: CLEAR OCCURS WHEN ONE STOPS MOCKING UP
BANK, OR REALIZES THAT HE IS MOCKING IT UP OR HAS BEEN MOCKING
IT UP. THAT IS THE CLEAR COGNITION: THE REALIZATION THAT HE IS OR
HAS BEEN MOCKING UP THE MASS AND PICTURES, ETC., THAT MAKE UP
THE BANK.

When the person arrives at this realization he can then, of course, cease mocking
up bank.

A Clear has perhaps not entirely lost the automaticity of mocking up mass. But at
least he knows he’s putting it there and practice increases his general reality.

The last line is an additive I bet.

It was there when I read it, but maybe it was added in 1980 when the bulletin was revised?

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

DEFINITION OF A CLEAR:
A BEING WHO IS UNREPRESSED
AND SELF DETERMINED.

That is the biggest bunch of mumbo-jumbo bullshit I have ever heard.

How does "A being who is unrepressed and self determined" even make sense within Scientology once the person reads OT III and above?

According to Hubbard the "being" is "overwhelmed" by OT III and BTs. Hence the EP of OT III being "freedom from overwhelm"

If a "being" is overwhelmed, how are they unrepressed and self-determined?

The lies within Scientology are genuinely insulting and repulsive.

R-FACTOR TO A CLEAR: Okay, you are totally at risk since you are in the non-interference area. And you are totally repressed and overwhelmed because you have not done OT III. But you are Clear so you are not really repressed and overwhelmed. But you are quite repressed and overwhelmed actually. But you're Clear and you're not really.

This stuff is complete contradictory shit.

Hubbard Law of Commotion at work, folks.

 

[Bill]

I used to think I "got it" about Clear, but I just don't. If you can't show | prove | verify that there even is a "Reactive Mind", how can you show | prove | verify and it's now "gone"?

Hubbard gave a whole raft of indications that a person was Clear: Perfect recall, no psycosomatic illnesses, very few accidents - if any, lightening fast calculations, etc. None of those indicators are used (and, in fact, are not present) for today's "Clears". There is no way to prove a person has stopped "mocking up his reactive mind" just as there is no way to prove he was doing so in the first place.

If there was a thing like the "Reactive Mind", then it's removal would be very obvious and easily seen by all.

I just don't get "Clear", it's all words and interpretations, promises and explanations, but absolutely no substance at all.

Bill

 

[Claire Swazey]

IMO, Hubbard was trying to bring about and describe a bodhisattva. I'm not saying he did it or that he could do it, but I just think that's what he was aiming at.

 

[Demented LRH]

I was never in Scientology, which means most of this is over my head.
Have I got this right?

Don't be hard on yourself. I got to Level 0, but this is still beyond me. Perhaps, someone who had reached the Class VIII level understands it.

 

[Gadfly]

IMO, Hubbard was trying to bring about and describe a bodhisattva. I'm not saying he did it or that he could do it, but I just think that's what he was aiming at.

I think that is absurd.

He may have led people to believe THAT is what he might have been aiming for, but I seriously doubt that ANY part of Hubbard's soul actually was aiming for that.

"Bodhisattvas are enlightened beings who have put off entering paradise in order to help others attain enlightenment."

There is NO "enlightenment" in Scientology. There is only belief and acceptance of dogma. And, in all my many years of dealing with Scientologists I never met even ONE who I could call an "enlightened being". Oh, you could call them lots of other things, but "enlightened" was very much NOT one of them.

So, since enlightenment is non-existent in Scientology (outside of personal delusion), how could there be any sort of "bodhisattva"?

I maintain that Hubbard knew full well that he was TRICKING people every step along the way. I am on the same page as HelluvaHoax - Scientology was and remains a huge HOAX. An intentional HOAX.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I maintain that Hubbard knew full well that he was TRICKING people every step along the way. I am on the same page as HelluvaHoax - Scientology was and remains a huge HOAX. An intentional HOAX.

Yeah, THIS!

And of course, what Jason Beghe said also:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA3Q7im8OSw&feature=player_embedded

 

[HoraciotheOT8]

***CONFIDENTIAL*** ***CLEAR COGNITION***

I really don't know if this will mess up anyone's case if they are not "Clear", or what the state really means any more, if it even exists. However...

A couple of people have posted here recently saying the Clear Cog is realizing that "I mocked up my Reactive Mind." It isn't. It is realizing that "I am mocking up my Reactive Mind." It is completely different, completely. Completely.

"Mocking up" means doing it in present time, right now, continuously, repetitively, each instant as it goes by, bam, bam, bam, bam, Hubbard said 25 times a second in the famous 1963 Time Track HCOBs. It's not that one mocked it up once, like you had an accident ten years ago and made a picture of it (engram) at the time and you sort of carry that picture around with you ever after, having made it in the past. You are creating that picture in a new unit of time every instant POW POW POW POW POW, at least, you are when it is in restim to some extent.

Don't ask me the exact mechanics of this. It implies that Hubbard had it all right, and he didn't.

For some reason the difference between mocked it up in the past and mocking it up continuously in present time is hard for some people to grasp. I remember a Grad V guy I checked out on auditing the CCRD around 1993. He was "OT VIII." He had a cold, and look a real mess. After about an hour of trying to get him to see the difference - and I was a trained sup and knew about misunderstoods and earlier similar mis-u's and e/s subjects etc. - I finally "realized" that the reason he couldn't see it (and also why he was in such a mess case-wise) was because he wasn't personally Clear. Now I don't know at all, but I have had trouble with other people - who attested OT whatever in the CofS and were Class VI and so forth - not easily grasping the difference between having mocked it up PFFT! at some point in the past and mocking it up in present time now now now now now now now now now now now now now...

Get the idea? If not, I tried!

Paul

The problem came from Source, not Effect. And was intentional. As everything is.

When the concept of the Time-Track was introduced it immediately affected the Being that wholeheartedly (and blindly) accepted it. Truth of the matter is, there is no Time-Track, and there never was and there never will be, there is only ever Now. Period. All else being mere commentary.

For clarity imagine an ocean that is 1000 miles wide 1000 miles long and 1000 miles deep. And imagine that oceans name is Now. From the point of view of the greatest perception (think Space) that ocean is One Whole and Complete Being. Called Now. From the point of view of a lesser perception (think Earth) that ocean is divided into 'moments' in time. Which division into moments in time, is called the Time-Track.

The infatuation with events along the time track is what separates spiritual men from physical boys. The former knowing, the later believing.

Which is precisely why, after not just a few years, not a single bonafide clear let alone an OT of any level, has ever been produced, on earth. Though they have been produced, above. In spades.

much love,
Horacio

 

[Mark A. Baker]

The problem came from Source, not Effect. And was intentional. As everything is.

When the concept of the Time-Track was introduced it immediately affected the Being that wholeheartedly (and blindly) accepted it. Truth of the matter is, there is no Time-Track, and there never was and there never will be, there is only ever Now. Period. All else being mere commentary.

For clarity imagine an ocean that is 1000 miles wide 1000 miles long and 1000 miles deep. And imagine that oceans name is Now. From the point of view of the greatest perception (think Space) that ocean is One Whole and Complete Being. Called Now. From the point of view of a lesser perception (think Earth) that ocean is divided into 'moments' in time. Which division into moments in time, is called the Time-Track.

The infatuation with events along the time track is what separates spiritual men from physical boys. The former knowing, the later believing.

Which is precisely why, after not just a few years, not a single bonafide clear let alone an OT of any level, has ever been produced, on earth. Though they have been produced, above. In spades.

much love,
Horacio

Or, put another way, depends on what one considers 'now' to be.

Different realities lead to different perceptions of reality.


Mark A. Baker