The Sole Source Myth

Mark, Correction: Avatars are not an incarnation of an individual, they are incarnations of a Hindu God. OM

They are "incarnations", of what is open. It is not limited to "gods". The term occurs most commonly in Hindu mythology where the references are typically of divine or semi-divine beings. That doe not represent an exclusive scope for the term.

Mark A. Baker
Hi Mark,

You've missed the point altogether. The Scn Axioms came from an attempt to prove the universe through mathematics. They are flawed.

That is not the purpose of a formal axiomatic system. An axiomatic system can only "prove" statements within the system. They have NO relevance to external speculations.

Hubbard's adoption of the form was more in light of giving a specious "rigor" to his philosophical speculations.

Look at the original refs provided. ...

You haven't read the references.

You are quite mistaken in your assumptions, I have. Many years back I even had occasion to work through Godel's proof as an exercise in mathematical logic. It was an area of special interest at the time.

I would suggest that you appear to misconstrue the function & limits of axiomatic systems. This was also a mistake of Hubbard's.

Mark A. Baker


You are entitled to your opinion, Mark.
Last edited by a moderator:


Mark, please stay off Hinduism.
Last edited by a moderator:


Patron Meritorious

I always love your posts. :) Here, you'll like this. Here's where the Axioms actually came from (if you don't mind if I correct you slightly). This is from my friend Ivan, who had an amazing education and used this as his basis to leave Scilo. It's rather long, so may take more than one post. Please note, I don't want to discuss the Axioms here. Ivan & I have already had such a long conversation about this... I'll leave it to you guys. Plus, well, the Axioms don't actually work and sort of socks me in my head too much in the wrong direction. Here you go, Veda:

"Dear --------, The problem with axioms and particularly with scientology is Goedel's Incompleteness theorem. Now Goedel's theorem has interesting history. At the turn of the century (20th) Hilbert one of the premier mathmaticians ( at least I think it was Hilbert) put out a task to the math dudes of the day that it was time to wrap up mathematics by putting it on a sound axiomatic footing such that it could be shown that mathematics particaulalry number theory was true and complete and that being so, the truths of mathematics could under pin science and establish science's basic truths thus proving that science was true as well. In other words mathematics could actually be a pure truth and the truest knowledge we have. In keeping with this Alfred Whitehead and Bertrand Russell pretty much wrote a multi volume text showing this least until Goedel came along and in a small paper threw blew everything apart. This stuff is really complex and i dont even dare state the theorem in its original becasue frankly it sounds greek (it is greek has a lot omegas and stuff) But it says that given an axiomatic system of sufficent power (enough to handle basic arithmetic, yes, even that simple an axiomatic system) there exists statements that are unproveable. that is to say truths that are unable to be proved true within the system (It is supposed to be be complete. there ought to be no statements it can not generate or show to be true or false) and falsehoods that are unable to be proved false by the same simple system. How this is done is quite beyond this little message but you can google it and perhaps read a book called Goedel Escher and Bach by Hoffstadder which is a weird trip. this is some strange shit. (Goedel went sort of mad was a bud of einstein at the Institute of advanced studies at Princeton. he almost did not become a citizen of the US because he found errors in the US constitution and wanted to discuss them with the immigration people. Albert saved his ass.) It basically uses paradoxes which the sytem can not handle to show that any axiomatic system can generate statements that could be either true or false deep sixing the idea that math was the true underpinning of truth. Confused? you bet but no worries. In its original format it is rather powerful. Taking it to the SCN axioms is a stretch i grant but it is a thought.

After all that I sort of concluded that there are a truths that scientolgy can not encompass and falsehoods that it can not detect. It is the nature of this universe and axiomatic systems themselves. Further the bridge would have to be incomplete and possible impossible in the current universe ever to be complete. This is taking Goedel alot farther than it was intended but if the scn axioms are stronger and more complete than arithmetic it must be so.

think on that or .....better not...take a walk instead."

I highler doubt that the scn axioms are stronger than arithmetic. But the general idea of saying "does godel's theorems apply to real life outside the world of math?" I like. And in the case of scientology, I believe it asserts its own perfection and can be easily proved not perfect, so a godel's theorem for scientology would certainly be true :D

The theorems themselves are fascinating, at least to me. My attempt at explaining them. Feel free to skip.:

1) If you have a basis, foundation, or language for math, I guess, a collection of statements, then there are ways of logically combining them together that our system can't handle. In other words, our language or foundation can form sentences that it can't understand. You have a base, building blocks, to put together math sentences with. But using just those building blocks you can't tell whether some of the sentences they make are true or false.

2) One of the sentences that you can make that you can't tell if it's true or false is: "the system is self-consistent".

If we say "let's assume this, that, and the other". If we say "everything that follows from putting these assumptions together is true", then godel's 2nd incompleteness theorem says that that can only happen if this and that or this and the other actually contradict each other.


Wow, Justaguy, that was TOO cool!

What a great angle. I never thought of it that way.

I love math, I'm kind of geeky that way. I was chewing on this with Ivan like my favourite piece of beef jerkey for nearly a week, loving every minute of it. One of my favourite shows is "Numbers". Lol!

But you have given me something to chew on for a while longer now, a whole new angle. Thanks so much for that. I'll get back with you in a day or two when Xmas is over so I can reply after playing with that concept a bit more.

LOVE it. :D


New Thread on Goedel's Theorem & Axioms

No worries, Veda. Done.

Justaguy, can you please repost your last remark on the new thread? It was brilliant - Loved the angle. Much appreciated. Anyone else that wants to discuss this from the math angle, please go to the above thread or just type Goedel's Theorem on a search. We won't be discussing it anymore on this thread.
Mark, please stay off Hinduism. You have not studied it deeply enough to know what you're talking about and you have some serious misunderstandings.

It's your m/u, duckie. Avatara are not limited to being the emanations of devas. Bone up on your myth.

I am not going to start teaching you, either.

Thanks for small favors. Judging by your response on this and on Godel you need to "hit the books". :)

Mark A. Baker


One of the big lies... 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:


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

This whole thread is a very important thread.


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

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

An examination of sources for other aspects of Scientology can be found scattered throughout ESMB, and perhaps there should be other threads that consolidate information on "negatives" - such areas as Xenu,,, Brainwashing,,
and other non-publicized, hidden, denied, or confidential parts of the subject and operation of Scientology.

No worries, Veda. Done.

Justaguy, can you please repost your last remark on the new thread? It was brilliant - Loved the angle. Much appreciated. Anyone else that wants to discuss this from the math angle, please go to the above thread or just type Goedel's Theorem on a search. We won't be discussing it anymore on this thread.



The 'Sole Source Myth' thread was somewhat derailed after page 4. It contains many links and links within links. It's worth taking the time to navigate through.

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

From the 'Understanding valid antecedents of Scientology' thread:


Critical concepts for ex-scientologists to understand, should they wish to figure out what happened to them, in auditing, are listed below, followed by phrases in Scientology (in parenthesis) which have either identical or clear relationships with the original concept, followed by links to articles explaining these ideas.

The links I include are included for quick reference, not as comprehensive or exhaustive information on the subject.
Last edited:


Patron with Honors
The unethical part is that Hubbard took ideas from others without giving credit then claimed that he alone was "source" This lie was very usefull to create the larger then life image that attracted many to Scientology.He put his own spin on things and added some of his own crazy ideas from his fertile imagination to the mix .Overall the truth is that like many claims Hubbard made the reality is far less grand then he claimed .Therein lies the con in Scn simply put just about every claim he made was false


A few more items. Note: 'The Sole Source Myth' thread was majorly derailed after page four or so. It may be useful to jump ahead from that point - or shortly after it - to the latter portions. Below is from a thread re. the "Interiorization Rundown", 'Out Int, fact or fiction' -

Re: Exteriorization and even the "Interiorization RD':

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

Table of Contents and text:

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

Chapter XVIII: '...Body of Light, its Power and Development...'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note the similarities between Gurdjieff and Scientology:

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

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


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

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


Gold Meritorious Patron
An example how Hubbard "developed" his tech:


Non Remimeo​

The following report from Yvonne Gillham is of interest:​

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

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

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



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