What's new
By:
Filters

The State of Clear

Panda Termint said:
Toad, you seem to be completely missing the point that there are several so-called "Clears" responding on this thread. They're not Clears as described by Hubbard but they, nonetheless, consider that something occurred in the course of their auditing and that thing was labelled Clear.

Bill will argue that if it's not exactly as Hubbard described then it's not really Clear but rather something else. You will keep asserting that no such thing exists. Others will voice various viewpoints which they have adopted as "true for them" etc. and none of it will make one whit of difference to the fact that there are probably hundreds of people right here on ESMB who know that they got something out of dianetics and scientology.

I don't use the label in any shape or form (neither Clear nor OT) except when people ask about my bona fides in discussing scientology. I'll tell them I achieved Clear and OT per the CofS as it lends weight to my current oppose-the-CofS stance.

If you're looking for the wondrous animal described in DMSMH, you'll be looking 'til the cows come home. Nobody really expects to find one of those, they're rarer than unicorns.

Forget the Hubbardian-hype and accept the fact that some scientology does some things for some people. There's no need to be so afraid of admitting that, it's nearly over as far as organised scientology goes.
Click to expand...
Which all comes back to "What is the definition of Clear?" And there doesn't seem to be one.

Many people claim to be "Clear" but that, I repeat, has absolutely no meaning -- if anything can be considered "Clear" it means there is no validity to "Clear".

So, what is the definition of "Clear" that all Scientologists agree on?

A Clear is "a person who no longer has a Reactive Mind". By definition. That is the Scientology definition of Clear. Use any other definition and you are NOT describing "Clear".

And what is the definition of "Reactive Mind that all Scientologists agree on?

The "Reactive Mind" is that "thing" that causes people to get psychosomatic illnesses, have misemotion, make mistakes, have accidents, have difficulty thinking easily and clearly, can't think logically, have problems, and so on. The LRH definition is much longer.

If you don't agree with those definitions, then you are not talking about Scientology.

Now, lets go one little step further.

A person without a Reactive Mind would be a person who is no longer the effect of the Reactive Mind. That Clear would:
  • No longer have any psychosomatic illnesses.
  • No longer have any misemotion.
  • No longer make mistakes or have accidents.
  • Think clearly and easily all the time.
  • Think logically all the time.
  • Have no problems.
  • And so on.
And there we have a fully agreed-upon definition of a real Clear. A person who no longer has a Reactive Mind and, therefore, always has the above characteristics.

Unfortunately, no declared "Clear" has those characteristics. They just don't.

This means one of the following about all existing "Clears":
  1. They are not Clear and still have a "Reactive Mind". Something else happened to them but cannot be called "Clear".
  2. They erased the Reactive Mind but the Reactive Mind actually wasn't what Hubbard described and removing it made no difference.
  3. There is no such thing as a "Reactive Mind" they just felt wonderful and decided they were "Clear" -- or said the "magic words" and were told they were "Clear".
I understand that I can't stop people from believing that there is some version of "Clear" that fits the definition of "not having a Reactive Mind" but, somehow, doesn't show it.

But that's not a Scientology definition.
 
Last edited:
Panda Termint said:
Toad, you seem to be completely missing the point that there are several so-called "Clears" responding on this thread. They're not Clears as described by Hubbard but they, nonetheless, consider that something occurred in the course of their auditing and that thing was labelled Clear.

Bill will argue that if it's not exactly as Hubbard described then it's not really Clear but rather something else. You will keep asserting that no such thing exists. Others will voice various viewpoints which they have adopted as "true for them" etc. and none of it will make one whit of difference to the fact that there are probably hundreds of people right here on ESMB who know that they got something out of dianetics and scientology.

I don't use the label in any shape or form (neither Clear nor OT) except when people ask about my bona fides in discussing scientology. I'll tell them I achieved Clear and OT per the CofS as it lends weight to my current oppose-the-CofS stance.

If you're looking for the wondrous animal described in DMSMH, you'll be looking 'til the cows come home. Nobody really expects to find one of those, they're rarer than unicorns.

Forget the Hubbardian-hype and accept the fact that some scientology does some things for some people. There's no need to be so afraid of admitting that, it's nearly over as far as organised scientology goes.
Click to expand...



Well, alright then!

Let's simplify the matter.

We all agree that there are no "CLEARS".

Nobody will argue that some people think they achieved something in Scientology.

So, let's do this...let them attest to something and give 'em a certificate.


Billy Blowdown

Believes he has attained the...

State Of Something
​
 
Bill, I answered this question way back at post #415.

Panda Termint said:
For me, personally, it was the moment when I fully realised (and fully accepted as true) the fact that I was the one creating my own condition.

It seems quite an obvious thing in hindsight but prior to that point I lived a life where unknown/unseen things apparently influenced me and my behaviour.

The closest thing I've seen in Hubbard's myriad definitions is probably "cause over (as in 'no longer effect of') my own thoughts, mental matter, energy, space and time etc."

I don't claim to have the over-blown attributes of Clear as laid out in DMSMH or elsewhere and I don't claim that "Clear" has any particular Uniform Attributes.

If you read my earlier post about this http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?3489-The-State-of-Clear&p=622309&viewfull=1#post622309 you'll see that I simply said something did occur and it had (and still has) value to me.
Click to expand...

It was not some non-specific epiphany for me, it was quite specific and produced a quite remarkable change in how I approached life. Whether it would be considered to be of any value to others is debatable.

My point is, it was of value to me. Would you prefer that I pretended it wasn't?
 
Bill said:
<...snip>
A Clear is "a person who no longer has a Reactive Mind". By definition. That is the Scientology definition of Clear. Use any other definition and you are NOT describing "Clear".
<snip...>
Click to expand...
You forgot part of the definition; Hubbard's get-out-of-jail-free card,
"A Clear no longer has his own Reactive Mind". :biggrin:
 
Panda Termint said:
You forgot part of the definition; Hubbard's get-out-of-jail-free card,
"A Clear no longer has his own Reactive Mind".
Click to expand...


Exactly!

He might be Clear but because of the confidential advanced levels, he still is under the influence of evil aliens*.


* "I am not from this planet" - Ron Hubbard - 'Ron's Journal '68

 
Auditor's Toad said:
I'll bite on the " didn't work ".

So is "clear" a product of auditing? Well. show me just one "clear" per LRHs definition or I do have to suspect the " auditing didn't work ".

Since there have been over 60 years of auditing - and God only knows how many thousands upon thousands of hours of it - were is a "clear"? Just one real "clear".

Are you going to tell me in all the people who became trained auditors that every single one of 'em in every single seesion did "something other than was ordered"?


Is that your story and you are going to stick to it?

You are aware there are posters here who delivered thousands of hours of auditing with a fair amount of it be recorded or taped, right?

You are aware there are some posters here who trained by old LRH hisself, right?

And then there was old LRH hisself who, not achieving what he claimed on the grade chart, did not follow instructions?

Really, dude?

Lordy, how about an OT? How come so many OT 7s ( EP = Cause over life ) & OT 8s ( SP= truth revealed ) are dropping like flies?

Did all of them not do it right, too ?

So not one of the some 50,000 who attested to "clear" or several thousand who have done some OT level just got something other than " standard tech"?

Oh, if the EP of OT 8 is " Truth Revealed " and, then, if you personally have not attested ( validly, per your own definition as set forth above ) then how can it be you have truth? See the problem?

Leon, you have a mass of contridictions ( and contrary data ) which you can not even begin to explain - even to yourself -and- certainly not in a post.... LOL !
Click to expand...


I have done a good deal of C/Sing and working with interns and student auditors and EVERY time that one of them came back to me with a story of how the precess "didn't work" I have looked into and found plain as daylight evidence that they committed gross goofs which,. when corrected, led to the process being as effective as intended. So raspberries to you matey, I speak from experience.

Your second complaint - I'll tell you one straight out - in many places in HCOBs and Lectures LRH points out that the single most important factor leading to the success of auditing is . . . NOT the process, NOT the TRs, NOT the e-meter, NOT anythjing else but the auditor's postulate that the preclear will get better.

So go suck on it. And there are no contradictions or significant outpoints in my post at all. Show me them.
 
Posted by Leon

snipped

Your second complaint - I'll tell you one straight out - in many places in HCOBs and Lectures LRH points out that the single most important factor leading to the success of auditing is . . . NOT the process, NOT the TRs, NOT the e-meter, NOT anythjing else but the auditor's postulate that the preclear will get better.
Click to expand...


Silly old Tubs got that wrong too then ... it would be the 'preclears postulate that he would get better' that would be the only 'postulate' that mattered ... (just like anywhere else) but there would have been no money or glory for the cofs in that, so I can see why he worded it thus.

:lol:​
 
Leon said:
I have done a good deal of C/Sing and working with interns and student auditors and EVERY time that one of them came back to me with a story of how the precess "didn't work" I have looked into and found plain as daylight evidence that they committed gross goofs which,. when corrected, led to the process being as effective as intended. So raspberries to you matey, I speak from experience.

Your second complaint - I'll tell you one straight out - in many places in HCOBs and Lectures LRH points out that the single most important factor leading to the success of auditing is . . . NOT the process, NOT the TRs, NOT the e-meter, NOT anythjing else but the auditor's postulate that the preclear will get better.

So go suck on it. And there are no contradictions or significant outpoints in my post at all. Show me them.
Click to expand...


I hate to disappoint you with factual information about the mystical part of your religion, but
what you are describing at a fundamental level is the physician's "Bedside Manner" that, done well, can improve patient outcomes. It is closely related to the placebo or a pep talk.

At another level, what you are attributing to "OT" powers such as "postulates" is referred to as "Waking Suggestion" which is related to hypnosis, but the patient is not fully under.

If the "auditor's postulate" is the driving force, then Scientology is little more than technically dressed-up voodoo or superstition.

I know as a practicing Scientologist you will neither like nor agree with what I am telling you, but perhaps others will enjoy it.

Hey, I know this thread is about Clear, but I am curious if you think the state of "Operating Thetan" is also attainable by Scientologists. Did Ron attain that?
 
It is correct as it stands - the auditor's postulate.

I'll tell you something else here, way back in the early fifties already and also on the Briefing Course LRH stated that one could give all of the materials and processes and published info on Scio to any group of "researchers" at any university anywhere and they would achieve absolutely zero with it. They would get no result worth a penny. Why? because they lack the the guidance of a trained experienced auditor who has within him the - what do we call it - the "culture" of auditing and Scientology; that intangible inexpressible ethos that makes what a tech person is. So all your New York University pap so called proof nonsense is just that.

The reason I couldn't be bothered explaining all of these things to you is because I can't be bothered with you. You have made not even a half-decent attempt to understand what Scio is and how it works but yet you sit here and yap and bellyache about how bad it all is. Why should anyone be bothered with you when you have never bothered to do a proper study of what you criticise so continually?

And in and among all your criticisms you demand that I should explain the subject to you! Huh.

And BTW it is this same ethos that miscavige is so determined to stamp out altogether with his GAT crap.
 
Last edited:
HelluvaHoax! said:
I hate to disappoint you with factual information about the mystical part of your religion, but
what you are describing at a fundamental level is the physician's "Bedside Manner" that, done well, can improve patient outcomes. It is closely related to the placebo or a pep talk.

At another level, what you are attributing to "OT" powers such as "postulates" is referred to as "Waking Suggestion" which is related to hypnosis, but the patient is not fully under.

If the "auditor's postulate" is the driving force, then Scientology is little more than technically dressed-up voodoo or superstition.

I know as a practicing Scientologist you will neither like nor agree with what I am telling you, but perhaps others will enjoy it.

Hey, I know this thread is about Clear, but I am curious if you think the state of "Operating Thetan" is also attainable by Scientologists. Did Ron attain that?
Click to expand...

:goodposting:
 
Posted by Leon

snipped

They would get no result worth a penny. Why? because they lack the the guidance of a trained experienced auditor who has within him the - what do we call it - the "culture" of auditing and Scientology; that intangible inexpressible ethos that makes what a tech person is.
Click to expand...

It may be intangible Leon but it's certainly expressible ... what you are talking about is well meant, over trained, cultic and robotic naïvity.

​
 
Leon said:
It is correct as it stands - the auditor's postulate.

I'll tell you something else here, way back in the early fifties already and also on the Briefing Course LRH stated that one could give all of the materials and processes and published info on Scio to any group of "researchers" at any university anywhere and they would achieve absolutely zero with it. They would get no result worth a penny. Why? because they lack the the guidance of a trained experienced auditor who has within him the - what do we call it - the "culture" of auditing and Scientology; that intangible inexpressible ethos that makes what a tech person is. So all your New York University pap so called proof nonsense is just that.

The reason I couldn't be bothered explaining all of these things to you is because I can't be bothered with you. You have made not even a half-decent attempt to understand what Scio is and how it works but yet you sit here and yap and bellyache about how bad it all is. Why should anyone be bothered with you when you have never bothered to do a proper study of what you criticise so continually?

And in and among all your criticisms you demand that I should explain the subject to you! Huh.

And BTW it is this same ethos that miscavige is so determined to stamp out altogether with his GAT crap.
Click to expand...


Now this is one of my favorite things that happens when Scientologists are confronted with uncomfortable information.

They attack.

They also do what Ron teaches them. "Find or Manufacture" evidence.

You have made not even a half-decent attempt to understand what Scio is and how it works but yet you sit here and yap and bellyache about how bad it all is. Why should anyone be bothered with you when you have never bothered to do a proper study of what you criticise so continually?
Click to expand...

Fantastic, isn't it? Leon pretends he knows all about me but he doesn't know anything. It is one of the hallmarks of L. Ron Hubbard and his disciples.

TOTAL CERTAINTY WITH NO KNOWLEDGE​

Wouldn't it be embarrassing for Leon if I mentioned that I had spent decades mastering Hubbard's tech, auditing and C/Sing. Wouldn't it look kind of bad if I had personally trained hundreds of auditors while supervising and C/Sing the Briefing Course? Jeez, what if I was specially trained on the data series, cramming series and all the rest of the technical de-bug tech so that I could cram, find the why and correct the top auditors at the St. Hill and AO?

Wouldn't it make him cringe just a little for him to discover that I successfully audited people (friends, family, paying PCs, celebrities, et al...) for years with what is considered outstanding results?

No, that wouldn't bother Leon, because he has "total certainty" and he isn't concerned about facts.

He can dismiss me with an imperious wave of his OT hand, knowing that I can't possibly know anything about Ron's tech. That could just not be possible.

Good try, Leon. But the people on this message board can read and understand what you wrote and what I just wrote -- and decide for themselves whether you tell the truth or not.
 
Last edited:
HelluvaHoax! said:
<...snip>
... I successfully audited people (friends, family, paying PCs, celebrities, et al...) for years with what is considered outstanding results?
<snip...>
Click to expand...
HH, I know that you are not joking and are, in fact, telling the truth here so whilst you're at it I'd like to ask a question; Are those "outstanding results" still valid as results or no longer/never were valid? I would genuinely like to know your current view on that.
 
I should have done this since the time I joined a few years ago, but I think I will keep a running log now....

These are Classic Comments by Scientologists who come face-to-face with facts about Scientology and are frozen in the headlights.

That's when they launch incredibly stupid attacks, claiming or asserting that the person who showed them the facts does not understand Scientology.


"Have you ever even read the Basics?" (Mark Baker)

"Have you ever even been a Scientologist?" (Vittorio)

"You have made not even a half-decent attempt to understand what Scio is and how it works but yet you sit here and yap and bellyache about how bad it all is. Why should anyone be bothered with you when you have never bothered to do a proper study of what you criticise so continually?" (Leon) ​

The CoS does this misdirection trick all the time. When they are caught in a glaring contradiction or lie, they claim the person reporting it has never studied Scientology and couldn't possibly know what they are talking about.


REPORTER
Is it true the the FBI raided your churches and found
thousands of secret documents written by Hubbard
in his own handwriting that ordered people to commit
all manner of illegal atrocities, felonies and terrorism?

SCIENTOLOGIST
The FBI has never studied Scientology--therefore they
wouldn't know anything about documents found
inside our churches.​



​
 
Panda Termint said:
HH, I know that you are not joking and are, in fact, telling the truth here so whilst you're at it I'd like to ask a question; Are those "outstanding results" still valid as results or no longer/never were valid? I would genuinely like to know your current view on that.
Click to expand...


Good question.

I characterized them as "what is considered outstanding results".

The persons who had the experience had the experience.

Sometimes I get excited too when I am bowling and make a strike. Probably my TA blows down and my needle floats. But it doesn't have anything to do with wholetrack or outer space or eternity. It has nothing to do with my spiritual state.

I am really not trying to be facetious, but to answer honestly.

Look at a sporting event. When one team scores people erupt out of their seats in "exhilaration", 8.0 on the tone scale. They are VVGI's. If that was an auditing session I would end off and the person would write a success story about the amazing feeling (wins) they had. It wouldn't have anything to do with "tech" or "handling charge".

If people had amazing wins, cool. But strangers sometimes have amazing wins sitting next to me on an airplane when I make them laugh. Or in a few moment random encounter in an elevator when I chat with a complete stranger as if I had known them all my life. They even tell me things they cannot believe they are telling me. LOL. Is that tech? Or is it just giving people love and understanding?

If anyone likes to say they got the wins from the "tech" that's cool with me.

But I see the same wins and even better ones from activities that have nothing to do with "tech".

The first time I heard one of my kids heartily laugh (as a small baby) was a more enlightening and "theta" moment than all of the OT Levels combined. Was that "tech" or just simply being part of the miracle of life?

I am not a fan of Scientology because it bans and bars people from being able to go out in life and find those beautiful moments to experience.

Jeez I am rambling, somebody indicate my F/N already! LOLOL
 
Master leon, I met an OT 5 once who head a bone marrow disease. He used to have the moments of terrible pain. Why his OT powers were not good enough to cure him?
 
[Oct 2011]


Official Periodical of ex-scientologists
What Is Distrustness?

In the clear cognition


The hardest task one can have is to continue to distrust scientologists despite all reasons he should.

And the true sign of sanity and greatness is to continue.

For the one who can achieve this, there is abundant hope. For those who cannot, there is only sorrow, hatred and despair, and these are not the things of which safety or sanity or happiness are made.

A primary trap is to succumb to invitations to trust scientologists. There are those who appoint themselves as trustworthy. Sometimes for the sake of the safety of others, it is necessary to ACK, but it is not necessary also to trust them.

To do one’s task of exposing scientology brainwashing without becoming furious at others who seek to derail the truth is a mark of greatness—and sanity. And only then can one be happy.

Seeking to achieve any single desirable quality in life is a noble thing. The one
most difficult and most necessary to achieve is to distrust ones fellow scientologist's despite all PR invitations to do otherwise.

If there is any safe quality, it is to recognize PR . “PRness” is a much lower level action and is rather censorious.

True greatness merely refuses to trust in the face of smiling, well meaning actions against one— and a truly great person distrusts his fellow scientologist's because he understands where they got their training.

To re-save some Scientologists is a dangerous undertaking. Were you to approach many Scientologists in the world and offer to set them free (as only ex-Scientologist can) they would go berserk, cry and generally cause unpleasantness.

A fully trained Scientologist is in a far worse position to understand than a partly
trained one. For the Scientologist who is fully trained is unable to accept assistance, and also cannot understand why others do what they do and so unknowingly, becomes superior and analyzing . To that degree, true greatness depends on total willingness to distrust. They act as they do because they are what they are—trapped beings, crushed beneath an intolerable burden of LRHness. they have gone mad for it and maintain the delusion in errors of explanation, still one can understand why and can understand as well the extent of their madness. Why should one change and begin to believe them ?

Happiness and strength endure only in the absence of trust. To trust is the road to disaster. To distrust is the road to strength. To distrust in spite of all PR is the true secret of in-the-clear-ness.

And IS the greatest in-the clear cognition an ex-scientologist painfully learns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top