The State of Clear

[Auditor's Toad]

The State of Clear is fully valid. The difference between you now and you when you are Clear is enormous and is well worth striving for. Infinitely so. But that last para of mine in the above post is completely accurate.

You can take any of the grades from Life Repair on up, any process almost, and if you demand that ts EP be attained in an absolute sense then you would have the OTest OT that anyone ever saw. Any grade at all taken to its absolute would give you this. But they are grades. None of them is an absolute ultimate. And despite what LRH reckoned before he popped, Clear is NOT an absolute state. It ghas gradients. And he determining factor in the gradient is you yourself.

Show us one "clear". Just one "clear" in 60 years of trying and God only knows how many hundreds of hours of trying. Nada. Zip. Not one clear.

But 50,000 + have attested to " clear "

Leon, dude, THAT is the "truth" of scientology.


scientology is incapable of producing even a wisp of what it promises.

Leon : Wake up you foolish boy !

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Leon has a cross to bear.

I wish him luck in his endeavor to peel the onion but I see no point in me wasting my breath on that one for a few years yet. That one ain't looking for truth. Sad.

 

[Bill]

The State of Clear is fully valid.

But completely and totally undefined.

The difference between you now and you when you are Clear is enormous

But completely and totally undefined. It's "enormous" if you think it is.

Using this criteria, which most Scientologists do, means that any claim to a Scientology label must be "valid".

Anyone who claims to be a "Release" is a Release.
Anyone who claims to be "Clear" is Clear.
Anyone who claims to be an "OT" is an OT.

Without definitions for these things, you can't say no.

Labels without definitions are meaningless and that is exactly what you have. And, yes, that makes your labels very much invalid.

 

[DagwoodGum]

Show us one "clear". Just one "clear" in 60 years of trying and God only knows how many hundreds of hours of trying. Nada. Zip. Not one clear.

But 50,000 + have attested to " clear "

Leon, dude, THAT is the "truth" of scientology.


scientology is incapable of producing even a wisp of what it promises.

Leon : Wake up you foolish boy !

I don't believe in the "state" of clear as it's far too variable and poorly defined. I do believe, however that anyone can have and attest to some of the various abilities that are described as being clear and that the COS isn't a legitimate organization to attain those abilities in as one is required to subscribe to the stable datum’s of a loon. Your early gains in the basic courses & books are the hook and the bait, then once you're hooked you're reeled onboard and fileted...

 

[Panda Termint]

I've written about it on ESMB way back but just as a point of interest I decided to survey someone I know quite well;

Did you achieve the State of Clear in scientology? Yes.

Was it exactly as described by Hubbard? No.

Did you actually change for the better? Yes.

Does everyone else agree that you changed for the better? No

Has the State persisted/continued/been stable over the years? Yes.

Was the so-called "State of Clear" of any value to you? Yes.

Do you still consider it valuable? Yes.

Is there anything else you'd like the audience to know? Yes.

Uh huh? There is definitely something which occurs when a person actually "goes Clear" in scientology. It might not be anything like what Hubbard described so glowingly but it is something. I find it impossible to say that nothing actually occurred, that would be a lie. Something did occur and it was, for me, life-changing and permanent. I don't recommend scientology to anyone these days but I also can't pretend that it did nothing. Some people here will understand what I mean and some won't, I guess.

Quoted for balance. LOL

 

[Bill]

Quoted for balance. LOL

As far as I can tell, what Scientologists are now calling "Clear" is, in the real world, called an "epiphany".

Like "new Clear", an epiphany is a a sudden realization of great truth. It is completely different for different people which, according to the Scientology's "new definitions" is just like Clear.

Unlike the original definition of "Clear", the new Clear is experienced by almost everybody at one time or another, both inside and outside of Scientology, and means nothing specific.

In other words, Scientologists are usurping a common phenomena and pretending it is special to Scientology -- because nothing they do actually results in anything unique or special to Scientology.

 

[Panda Termint]

No arguments here, Bill, other than the fact that it is a very SPECIFIC epiphany. Any old epiphany won't do, it must be a specific epiphany about who is actually creating all that mental junk.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

As far as I can tell, what Scientologists are calling "Clear" is, in the real world, called an "epiphany". ...

Only in part. In my experience epiphanies occur frequently in auditing. They also occur without auditing but less frequently. I had the benefit of experiencing a few epiphanies over the years before my involvement with scientology. The great attraction of scientology auditing for me was that it served as a way of rapidly achieving successive epiphanies, something I had not previously encountered. Moreover, it's a fairly simple regimen and one that individuals can be easily trained in.

Subsequently I had many more epiphanies, both "large" & "small", before I attested clear. And even more since. Clear was more along the lines of an 'oh, guess what' type of epiphany for me, in that it was a recognition of a new perception about my state of being, rather than an 'earthshattering realization' in its own right.


Mark A. Baker

 

[DagwoodGum]

As far as I can tell, what Scientologists are now calling "Clear" is, in the real world, called an "epiphany".

Like "new Clear", an epiphany is a a sudden realization of great truth. It is completely different for different people which, according to the Scientology's "new definitions" is just like Clear.

Unlike the original definition of "Clear", the new Clear is experienced by almost everybody at one time or another, both inside and outside of Scientology, and means nothing specific.

In other words, Scientologists are usurping a common phenomena and pretending it is special to Scientology -- because nothing they do actually results in anything unique or special to Scientology.

Oh, this post perhaps say's it all, wish I'd said it, or thought of it in these terms. You get a star for this one.

 

[Bill]

No arguments here, Bill, other than the fact that it is a very SPECIFIC epiphany. Any old epiphany won't do, it must be a specific epiphany about who is actually creating all that mental junk.

That certainly may be, although that restriction doesn't seem to be included in every Scientologists' criteria. It appears that, for some, any old epiphany will do.

But even if it is that one thought, so what? Saying "I'm mocking it up!" doesn't confer any abilities, powers, benefits or whatnot. If you look at the mass of "Clears" that Scientology has certified, they are just plain, ordinary folks still with normal problems, illnesses, troubles and difficulties.

If having this epiphany confers something unusual or special, it has never manifested itself in the real world. Certainly not for me. Certainly not for any of the "Clears" I have met.

My primary point is that if the only definition and description of "Clear" is: "person said a specific phrase", then it's a pretty useless "State", isn't it?

Personally, I wouldn't consider "I'm mocking it up" to be a great truth anyway -- which would explain why "realizing" that doesn't seem to change anyone's life.

 

[Bill]

Only in part. In my experience epiphanies occur frequently in auditing. They also occur without auditing but less frequently. I had the benefit of experiencing a few epiphanies over the years before my involvement with scientology. The great attraction of scientology auditing for me was that it served as a way of rapidly achieving successive epiphanies, something I had not previously encountered. Moreover, it's a fairly simple regimen and one that individuals can be easily trained in.

Subsequently I had many more epiphanies, both "large" & "small", before I attested clear. And even more since. Clear was more along the lines of an 'oh, guess what' type of epiphany for me, in that it was a recognition of a new perception about my state of being, rather than an 'earthshattering realization' in its own right.


Mark A. Baker

Um... That, in my opinion, has little to do with Scientology and much to do with seeking answers. Any activity in which the individual is looking for answers will, inevitably, result in more than average "epiphanies".

It is not Scientology (or any "technology") that is causing this. It is the seeking that is causing this. In my opinion.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

OK. Here we go. I going to lay it out for ya.....one more time

( Gawd I hope some them that FreeZonked people are a reading this here )


Anyway. I been talking to my cat - now don't go all weird on me - telepathicly and she excitedly told her recent cog, and by GAWD it IS that there "clear" cog thingie ya'll been talin 'bout on this here thread!

So, anybody out there can do me a "clear" cert for my cat?

Ya'll ALL know the big deal is getting that CERT. I want to get it here. Frame it all purdy - and suprise her wid it !

And, I'll bet ya'll anything that once she gets that CERT all my cats will originate that there "clear" cog - and then so will all the neighborhood cats, too.

Tell me I ain't right 'bout dat !



Ain't that cool?

 

[Veda]

Two key sentences from the David Mayo article on Clear

Interview with David Mayo, 1986: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/bfm/interviews/mayo.htm

Excerpts from an article by David Mayo on Clear, 1991: http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html

"It was PR and marketing considerations that led Hubbard to decide that certain people were 'clear' at a certain point"...

-snip-

"It [Clear] is not an attainable state (at least given our present level of technology)"...

Leon, I've simplified it as much as I can. Is any of this getting through to you?

If you or anyone wishes to call himself "Clear," that fine. However, it's just a title that, while perhaps "validating" some experience, will, ultimately, keep you in the Scientology "box." Of course, I understand that, for some, the "box" is their home, and they couldn't imagine being without it.

 

[apocalyptic]

From Bill:

As far as I can tell, what Scientologists are now calling "Clear" is, in the real world, called an "epiphany".

Like "new Clear", an epiphany is a a sudden realization of great truth. It is completely different for different people which, according to the Scientology's "new definitions" is just like Clear.

Unlike the original definition of "Clear", the new Clear is experienced by almost everybody at one time or another, both inside and outside of Scientology, and means nothing specific.

In other words, Scientologists are usurping a common phenomena and pretending it is special to Scientology -- because nothing they do actually results in anything unique or special to Scientology.

From Panda Termint:

No arguments here, Bill, other than the fact that it is a very SPECIFIC epiphany. Any old epiphany won't do, it must be a specific epiphany about who is actually creating all that mental junk.

From us:

You are close PT (and you are right-on Bill) but you Panda are 'missing the mark'. Hmmm, our bad, as 'missing the mark' is a christian-religion phrase, let's just say you are 'floofing the goof' (a scientology-religion phrase). and yes joking and degrading are alive and well in certain lighthearted chambers. on purpose. lol.

Nonetheless, here is where your error appears PT: By implying a 'who' instead of 'what'...is actually creating mental junk, you are falling into the scientology trap of imaging yourself to be that 'who' instead of being that 'what' (or at the highest (or least) being one with it). With the consequence of that ' simple-misunderstanding' being huge. Spiritually speaking.

And if that sounds intellectually tricky (to understand), it is. But emotionally/spiritually complicated, its' not.

As Bill wrote:

In other words, Scientologists are usurping a common phenomena and pretending it is special to Scientology -- because nothing they do actually results in anything unique or special to Scientology.

And for the record the question is not one of a 'specific' epiphany Panda, as you responded:

...it is a very SPECIFIC epiphany. Any old epiphany won't do..

The question is one of the 'Specialness' of that epiphany (i.e. the depth & or height of it).

Think Siddhartha. Think Self. Think Christ.

Think Ron.

The 'Who' is the Four, the 'What' is the One. Big difference than in believing: the 'What' is the Four and the 'Who' is the One. It's the difference between Understanding the Impersonal & the Personal Being, on display, and Mis-understanding it. Between the Static & Thetan in Mest, for example, in Ron's terms. (which he never fully revealed that we know of).

Self-Realization is the Only-Revelation that Ultimately-Counts (for sure). And though, to mistake 'a mere passing of intellectual/emotional/physical fancy', as an authentic spiritually transforming experience, is floofing the goof, to be sure.

Apocalyptic

bottom line: Bill was, and is, correct.

Kudo's & thanks.

Apoc

 

[Panda Termint]

<...snip>

bottom line: Bill was, and is, correct.

Kudo's & thanks.

Apoc

Bottom line is Bill is somewhat incorrect. It's not "saying I'm mocking it up" as Bill stated, it's KNOWING you're mocking it up (and ceasing to do so).

BTW, Apoc, attesting to Clear does indeed require a very specific epiphany. If you think otherwise, you're misinformed.

 

[Bill]

Bottom line is Bill is somewhat incorrect. It's not "saying I'm mocking it up" as Bill stated, it's KNOWING you're mocking it up (and ceasing to do so).

BTW, Apoc, attesting to Clear does indeed require a very specific epiphany. If you think otherwise, you're misinformed.

Sorry, "mocking" what up? Ceasing to do what?

Yes, yes, I know, the "Reactive Mind". Which does not exist anyway. It is Hubbard's assertion, with absolutely no proof whatsoever, that there is such a thing as a "Reactive Mind". No one can prove there is such a thing -- because it doesn't exist. So, having the "realization" that "I'm mocking it up" is pretty silly.

That's like "realizing" that "I'm the moon!"

Scientologists are convinced that the Reactive Mind actually exists. They cite engrams as "proof" but that isn't proof. It is an assertion that "the Reactive Mind exists" but it is never proven.

Given that "Clears" are "no longer mocking up their Reactive Mind" and are "free of its influence" and by simple, long-term observation, "Clears" are no better off than non-Scientologists -- it is much more logical to conclude that there is no such thing as a "Reactive Mind".

 

[apocalyptic]

BTW, Apoc, attesting to Clear does indeed require a very specific epiphany. If you think otherwise, you're misinformed.

We attested.

We know.

We are not misinformed.

Apocalyptic

101

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Sorry, "mocking" what up? Ceasing to do what?

Yes, yes, I know, the "Reactive Mind". Which does not exist anyway. It is Hubbard's assertion, with absolutely no proof whatsoever, that there is such a thing as a "Reactive Mind". No one can prove there is such a thing -- because it doesn't exist. So, having the "realization" that "I'm mocking it up" is pretty silly.

That's like "realizing" that "I'm the moon!"

Scientologists are convinced that the Reactive Mind actually exists. They cite engrams as "proof" but that isn't proof. It is an assertion that "the Reactive Mind exists" but it is never proven.

Given that "Clears" are "no longer mocking up their Reactive Mind" and are "free of its influence" and by simple, long-term observation, "Clears" are no better off than non-Scientologists -- it is much more logical to conclude that there is no such thing as a "Reactive Mind".

Yeah pretty much, but it's slightly more involved, Hubbard gets Scientologists to believe that this bag called the reactive mind exists, Scientologists spend years, even decades, tossing all their problems into this bag, then they realize the bag does not exist, so their problems which have been tossed into this nonexistent bag are supposed to no longer exist either ... It takes an awful lot of brainwashing and willingness to toss your rational thought aside to continue to convince yourself of this, but some people do, and they usually end up nutty than Grandma's fruitcake or if you prefer the Scientology term for it ... 'OT'.

 

[Panda Termint]

Sorry, "mocking" what up? Ceasing to do what?

Yes, yes, I know, the "Reactive Mind". Which does not exist anyway. It is Hubbard's assertion, with absolutely no proof whatsoever, that there is such a thing as a "Reactive Mind". No one can prove there is such a thing -- because it doesn't exist. So, having the "realization" that "I'm mocking it up" is pretty silly.

That's like "realizing" that "I'm the moon!"

Scientologists are convinced that the Reactive Mind actually exists. They cite engrams as "proof" but that isn't proof. It is an assertion that "the Reactive Mind exists" but it is never proven.

Given that "Clears" are "no longer mocking up their Reactive Mind" and are "free of its influence" and by simple, long-term observation, "Clears" are no better off than non-Scientologists -- it is much more logical to conclude that there is no such thing as a "Reactive Mind".

For me, mental mass and unwanted and often painful mental pictures were quite real. They were real to me long before I ever heard of Dianetics or scientology. I called them parts of my Subconcious Mind before I ever heard the term Reactive Mind.

I understand that my mental image pictures were not and have never been real to you. They were, however, real to me and I was affected by them in various ways right up to the moment that I realised I was creating them myself. It's just my experience, it's not yours.

 

[Leon]

For the record - Back in the C0fS (which I left in about 1983 or 4) I did attest clear and then undeclared myself and then said oh OK I'll be clear even though I'm not and this went on back and forth a while. Then in the Freezone I thought OK maybe I am and went on and did OT3 and things, and then I went back and did PRPr and R6 and CC to a sort of EP, and this went on for some years. Meantime I was happily running lots of Dianetics too with great success, and I did Excal and more Ron's Org stuff and then more Dianetics and solo'd more stuff and then sort of lost interest in my "case".

For the last many years when people ask me if I am Clear I say I'm more or less clearish in my better moments. And then a few years back I tried to solo audit some more stuff and couldn't find any pics or time track or anything. Not in the way I was able to in the past. I can sort of "know" where I've been and spot locations and things for generations past but no time track is to be found by me. So I think I may be some sort of something which may include the word Clear in it. But I can't be too bothered about it for me.

Fact is I have seen numerous other people go Clear and the experience of it was massive. There is something there and there is a state called clear. That's for certain. Though as I said earlier, I don't knoww exactly what it is.

And the post I made this morning are good. I stand by what I said. Also, don't pay all that much attention to what LRH says in his definitions of it. These were undoubtedly true for him at the time he wrote them but they don't go too far beyond that. Asjk anyone to desctribe verbally exactly what they experience when listening to music or some ascension trip and the words wil always fail to do justice to the experience. The experience of these things like Clear is in a completely different domain to that of language. So getting stuck on language in these areas is always a waste of time completely. Forget the "definitions" of Clear. It's the experince of it and the lasting changes it brings that matter to the person.