A Look at Scientology

With the recent release of the movie THE MASTER, Scientology has become a subject of broad interest. There is plenty that can be read about this subject in books and on Internet. I have done a close study of this subject over a period that started in 1969 (see My Introduction to America). I even spent a few years aboard Hubbard’s yacht Apollo in the seventies (see Memories at Sea (1972-75)). Here is my summary assessment of Scientology.

  1. Scientology consists of much ground breaking work by Hubbard.

  2. Scientology introduces a whole new plateau to addressing the problems of the mind.

  3. The work on this breakthrough is, however, far from complete.

  4. The success from the application of Scientology is far from consistent.

  5. Any lack of success gets blamed on the practitioner of Scientology.

  6. Unmanageable difficulties seem to exist in the application of Scientology.

  7. Correction lists have become a part of “Standard Scientology.”

  8. A closer look at Scientology shows a lack of application of the principle of poka-yoke.

  9. Mindfulness is the key to successes in Scientology auditing.

  10. Scientology does not seem to put emphasis on Mindfulness.

  11. Scientology takes up aspects of mindfulness on TR0, Obnosis, and Data Series, but it fails to treat mindfulness systematically, and fails to highlight its importance in auditing.

  12. The principles of Mindfulness were first elucidated by Buddha 2600 years ago.

  13. Mindfulness seems to provide poka-yoke to Scientology processes.

  14. The principles of Mindfulness are presented under The Discipline of Mindfulness.

  15. Here is an example of application of mindfulness to Scientology processes – Running Scientology Grade 0 with Mindfulness (Part 1)


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • vinaire  On October 3, 2012 at 5:00 AM

    Hubbard claims Scientology to be an extension of Buddhism. However, he derides NIRVANA, the goal of Buddhism.

    In the book Scientology 8-8008, Hubbard states:

    “One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the tone-scale. One declines into a brotherhood with the universe. When he goes up scale, he becomes more and more an individual capable of creating and maintaining his own universe. In this wise (leading people to believe they had no individuality above that of MEST) the MEST universe cut out all competition.”

    Hubbard sounds very persuasive. Apparently, this is the basic argument Western thinking has against Eastern thinking. This is where philosophy in Scientology diverges from its Eastern roots.


    • Chris Thompson  On October 3, 2012 at 1:33 PM

      Vin, this is a really good and important point to explore and to try and understand. I have now personally explored and adhered to both ideas toward let’s call it “individualism vs. oneness” — is that descriptive enough? These two ideas become hard to sort out when presented in the either/or form. Similar to the “free will vs. determinism” debate, these get presented as though there is only these two choices to pick from in order to understand the world. I am finding that it is not that crisp a choice.

    • vinaire  On October 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM

      I think that the issue raised by Hubbard is “losing one’s individuality.” Does nirvana means “losing one’s individuality” or is it ascending beyond individuality to a higher level of pan-determinism?

      • Chris Thompson  On October 3, 2012 at 11:20 PM

        The way I apply the “-determinisms” if I can have a little leeway is as follows:

        a scale without defined limits:
        Pan-determinism = A consideration which covers all possibilities of every viewpoint which ever has and which ever will be assumed in all dimensions. Every determination.
        Self-determinism = The consideration of all possibilities of a single-point of view. Reduced determinism.
        Other-determinism = The consideration that there are a shortage or no points of view and that all the points of view are already assumed by other entities. No determinism.

        I have simply jotted these down impromptu and they probably need work.

        • vinaire  On October 4, 2012 at 6:11 AM

          The above scale is pretty good.

          I would rather put “non-judgmental looking” at the top. There is no enduring viewpoint at this level.


      • Chris Thompson  On October 3, 2012 at 11:26 PM

        I think “ascends” is an apt word. I conjecture that as one becomes pan-determined, one would leave this usual frame of reference and arrive at new and different frame of reference – maybe one based upon more dimensions than the usual space-time. I believe in that range, one would find the usual space-time very understandable and without further mystery something like Newtonian physics is understandable, its laws defined. Then at that point, we would simply continue on evolving into more dimensions of understanding. This would be gradual with no defining limit, just steady progress.

        • vinaire  On October 4, 2012 at 6:15 AM

          Would “non-judgmental looking” or “completely flexible viewpoint” meet your requirement?


      • Chris Thompson  On October 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM

        Losing individuality or rising to pan-determinism? Again with the either or thinking, this might possibly be a problem. From the pan-determined point of view, it seems possible to me that one stops worrying about the ego and individuality. Do you?

  • vinaire  On October 3, 2012 at 5:06 AM

    The Eastern concept of Brahma (unknowable) has taken quite a beating on a Scientologist’s blog here: Ideology and responsibility


    • Chris Thompson  On October 3, 2012 at 1:49 PM

      For me, “unknowable” has become something which I feel silent about – it is a concept that I try to be mindful of without really applying to anything which is sort of a waste of time. For me, its major value is as a reminder that the universe is something and our minds conjecture that there might be a nothing.

      • vinaire  On October 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM

        To me “unknowable” is simply another way of saying that there is no absolutes in terms of knowing. There will always be something unknown beyond what one knows no matter how much one knows.

        That is the concept of ‘neti neti’ describing Brahma.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 3, 2012 at 1:46 PM

    In a fractal sense, it is possible for me to conjecture that there are worlds within worlds. In your Hubbard example above, and also in say Mormon scripture, one rises in individualism until they become a god and then lord over future worlds.

    In the sense of “oneness,” I conjecture that my individuality can be the creation of a greater and multi-dimensional consciousness. This is similar to a mono-theism.

    I can also understand the world as a synthesis of both these conjectures and also of conjectures not yet born. I am not locked down to any of these ideas, I am just trying to understand any of it.

    Sometimes I almost yearn for simpler days when I was a true believer and focused on only a single discipline. My inconsistencies were more level at that point; However, though I sometimes feel buffeted by these various world view arguments, I feel I am making better overall progress by challenging each of my beliefs.

    • vinaire  On October 3, 2012 at 3:04 PM

      In my view, you are advancing in your looking by leaps and bounds..

      To me, individualism spells as SELFism or, as ‘living and breathing on first dynamic’ if scientologese is preferred.

      Buddhism talks about dissolving SELF. That does not mean becoming one with MEST as Hubbard states.

      Here is the link providing my understanding of NIRVANA

      I think Hubbard was really afraid of losing his individuality. He had no idea that individuality could be transcended.

      When individuality is transcended there is perfect calm, non-judgmental observation, complete tolerance and total detachment (in scientologese, total absence of identification) .


      • Chris Thompson  On October 3, 2012 at 10:55 PM

        I agree about Hubbard’s fear of losing his individuality and so invented processes which steered a person toward greater ego, greater self. As you say, becoming one with MEST as Hubbard states is not the result of looking. Nothing in my experience validates this viewpoint of Hubbard.

        On the other hand, to conjecture that dissolution of self results the primal essence of life dissolving back into the unmanifested state — the Native State, might get some traction.

        When I transcend my ego, my individuality, my experience of those moments are as you write, “. . .there is perfect calm, non-judgmental observation, complete tolerance and total detachment . . .”

        • vinaire  On October 4, 2012 at 6:02 AM

          Well said.

          I have been looking at the phenomenon of “blowing the bank” on your blog, and this is what I have to say:

          My original question in comment-233 was, “What does “blowing the bank” really mean? Bank is “mental image picture collection.” So, these pictures are gone, but thoughts and considerations are still there.”

          My understanding is described in the essay MEMORY & RECALL.

          “Blowing the bank” may as-is energy perceptions into experience, or as-is experience further down into information. We are now confronted with inconsistencies at these subsequent levels, and these inconsistencies need to be blown to get down to the next level until one reaches the level of self. Here we find the ultimate inconsistency or fixation.

          As long as there are inconsistencies, the bank has not blown completely.


        • vinaire  On October 5, 2012 at 4:49 AM

          As-isness does not necessarily mean complete disappearance.

          As-isness of matter seems to result in energy.
          As-isness of energy seems to result in space.
          As-isness of space seems to result in unknowable.

          As-isness of energy pictures seems to result in experience.
          As-isness of experience seems to result in information.
          As-isness of information seems to result in hypothesis.
          As-isness of hypothesis seems to result in theory.
          As-isness of theory seems to result in principles.
          As-isness of principles seems to result in axioms.
          As-isness of axioms seems to result in self.
          As-isness of self seems to result in unknowable.

          Is it really this way? I don’t know.
          It is just another shoe to try on for size.


        • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 2:08 AM

          Interesting. I have to try that shoe on in the morning when I am rested.

  • Chris Thompson  On October 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM

    I believe that unknowable is dynamic. A century ago, many things that we take for granted today were not just unknown, but unknowable.

    If we don’t allow this flexibility in our thinking, then the word unknowable becomes a vague, vacant, and hypocritical tautology.

    • Chris Thompson  On October 3, 2012 at 11:36 PM

      We chip away at it. It is not something we can clearly see. No way to test. Maybe we haven’t even had the thought to wonder about it yet. Even so, men and women curiously look at and stare and wonder at the universe and through persistence break into and pierce mysteries wondered about and not yet wondered about.

      Unknowable must yield to the same rules for absolutes.

    • vinaire  On October 4, 2012 at 6:20 AM

      I never looked at unknowable as “vague, vacant, and hypocritical tautology”. To me it is very dynamic as presented by the process “neti, neti.”

      As unknown become known, the boundary moves farther into unknowable. But the unknowable is always there.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 4, 2012 at 6:25 AM

    1. If we began by widening out world view to include the idea of the observed universe together with the unobserved greater portion of the universe, and then;
    2. Think of the idea “points of view” as disturbances in that space time;
    3. Think of the idea of these particular disturbances as entities. (I am thinking of an ocean of space-time when it is quite in motion with large swells);
    4. Think of the rising and falling of these swells (entities) as the appearing and disappearing of entities (life and death);
    5. The ocean and potential of these waves of disturbances remains regardless of the comings and goings of the disturbances.

    • vinaire  On October 4, 2012 at 12:40 PM

      (1) The only way we may include the unobserved greater portion of the universe is by imagining it.

      (2) To me, the super set of Universe seems to be the Universe of Considerations as described in the first few paragraphs of: THE NULL VIEWPOINT.

      (3) A viewpoint can be any point in space that has been selected to view from.

      (4) The viewpoint senses disturbances in space (light wave, sound wave, etc.) for perception purposes.

      (5) Of course, the space remains, and time is involved with wave travel.

      (6) Since the viewpoint is part of space, it would itself be affected by the perception through light waves that affect the fabric of space.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 4, 2012 at 6:39 AM

    We like to give God many attributes especially the concepts of being everywhere, etc.,. This reminds us of unknowable for in the single-pointed “serial” world that a human lives, being everywhere is not really a possibility.

    These three “-determinisms” that are described in Scientology are for me a way of describing the ability to assume points of view.

    To dial in this language, It seems to me that the points of the amplitude of the waves might be thought of as “points of view” and also as “entities.” In a severely large disturbance such as a Stalin or Hitler or FDR or LRH, we have a full measure of “self-determinism” fully expressed. When we talk about God, we mean the ability and willingness to assume more or every point of view and so refer to this as “pan-determinism.” What do you think of this?

    • vinaire  On October 4, 2012 at 3:01 PM

      If we look at the Universe of Consideration, each point in it may serve as a viewpoint. There may be complex, simple, dense and light points which make up this universe. Each viewpoint is unique in processing the sense data that it receives.

      You gave examples of Stalin, Hitler, FDR and LRH as different viewpoints. These viewpoints would be points in space, whose characteristics shall be determined by considerations held at those point. Each point will process sense data according to its characteristics.

      In non-judgmental looking, there would be no identification with any of these viewpoints. Here the response to the incoming perceptions shall not be colored by the “characteristics” of any viewpoint. Instead, any response shall be determined completely by the relativity of those perceptions to each other. This may be looked upon as null viewpoint, or God viewpoint.

      In pan-determinism, there would be identification with all the viewpoints present.

      In self-determinism, there would be identification with one of the viewpoints present.

      In other-determinism, there would be identification with the perception particles instead of identification with any of the viewpoints. One would let oneself be determined by a viewpoint out there.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 4, 2012 at 6:42 AM

    We seem to think of God as the glue which “binds order” to the universe. The Unknowable God. Yet a little while from now, when “dark matter” becomes less “dark” to us, that piece of God’s work will become relegated to extant physics. And so it goes?

    • vinaire  On October 4, 2012 at 3:28 PM

      God viewpoint seems to be the “null viewpoint” and totally non-judgmental looking.

      All other viewpoints seems to be part of the Universe of Consideration. This universe is simply there. There is no effort to judge or speculate how this universe came about. Spiritual and physical are two different aspects of this Universe of Consideration.

      God cannot be defined with reference to any universe. God is not some entity. God is entirely independent of any consideration that we can make. Thus, God is unknowable. Any consideration about God is just a consideration that is part of the Universe of Consideration.

      We can certainly know more and more about the Universe of Consideration. Not everything will get relegated to physics. There will be stuff that will get relegated to metaphysics.

  • Chris Thompson  On October 4, 2012 at 8:22 AM

    Does the word determination refer to the wave collapse?

    1. Thus “other determined” = no wave collapse
    2. “self determined” = wave collapse within the mind of the single viewpoint.
    3. “pan determined” = broader scale of wave collapse such as big bang.

    Again, I don’t want to pretend to draw lines. These are just general categories of participation.

    • Rafael  On October 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM

      My thoughts are pretty much the same here, Seems like every time we evaluate and even discern or get to “know” something, what we are actually doing is collapsing fields of more or less unlimited possibilities down into greater levels of solidity.
      when we are looking for certainty we are increasing solidity, both for the world we are viewing, and for our own Ego.

      Seems like the way to go is as you say towards transcendence of Ego into pan-determinism and (maybe) infinite posibilities.

      • Rafael  On October 4, 2012 at 10:19 AM

        Also, the first wave collapse from a field of infinite possibilities would entail the highest amount of power such as the Big Bang.

  • vinaire  On October 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM

    Where do all the infinite possibilities come from in the first place?


    • Rafael  On October 4, 2012 at 11:19 PM

      I don’t even know if it exists as such, that is why I used the word maybe.
      I just play with it as a possibility
      Do you know if it exists, and if so where dones it come from?

    • vinaire  On October 5, 2012 at 4:59 AM

      I am still having difficulty in applying the theory of wave collapse to how we perceive.

      My approach is to simply look at what is there, and let it evolve.


    • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 1:26 AM

      We use the words infinite possibilities but more accurately, we think we are looking at a field of potential… To think that anything is possible from that unknown field might be a stretch? One more thing that we can’t know?

      I mean, it’s for sure that our moms lie when they tell us we can be anything, right? Or wrong?

      I am willing for this to fall either way, but just like you and Rafael, there is kind of no way to understand this . . .

      or like Einstein said, “Anyone can know. The hard part is to understand.”

      • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 5:31 AM

        Ha ha!

        The question I had was, “How can one know about these infinite possibilities individually without collapsing each one of them in the first place?” You have answered that inconsistency beautifully here.

        The idea of “infinite possibilities” is simply a speculation on unknowable. One simply sees what has collapsed or manifested. That’s it.

        That settles WAVE COLLAPSE THEORY for me.


  • Rafael  On October 5, 2012 at 3:43 AM

    A question about looking
    When we are looking:
    Are we creating what we are perceiving?
    (cause model)
    Are we just Perceiving a real world out there?
    (effect model)

    Can we know the answer to that question?
    I certainly can have the confort of considering I am creative and I am causing that which I am perceiving

    • Rafael  On October 5, 2012 at 3:52 AM

      ……. I can consider that I am not creating anything and I am just perceiving a real world out there

      Maybe we can never know the answer to that question , and that would make us the unknowable

      ( sorry I’m fighting with my cell phone and ended

      • Rafael  On October 5, 2012 at 3:55 AM

        ……. My last two posts abruptly !!!!! I’m traveling on a bus and everything us moving !!!!

        • Rafael  On October 5, 2012 at 4:10 AM

          I consider that question can not be answered from the viewpoint of self

        • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 2:06 AM

          I utterly agree with this… Self is the most insidious type of out-of-valence that I know (to borrow Scn term)

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 6:16 AM

          Ha Ha!


    • vinaire  On October 5, 2012 at 5:08 AM

      Buddha looks at self as part of the phenomenon to be observed.

      It seems that the focus should be on mindfulness


      • Rafael  On October 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM

        That seems nice to me 🙂

    • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 2:04 AM

      Rafael and Vin, About that RWOT, I am trying to keep in mind that if suddenly my senses were heightened to see everything then my field; my universe would suddenly become very cluttered. The reason and nature of why this is so doesn’t seem to be addressed, so for me, whether the world is created as I perceive it or whether it is all there all the time is a premature worry. My existence is factually so insignificant “to the world,” that for all practical purposes, I don’t exist (except mainly to myself.). I am not trying to create a thought-stopper with this but trying to become mindful of where I am on this chain of viewpoints. If I work from that point of view, possibly I can become better motivated to look rather than stop short with vague ideas of how I somehow “know a lot.”

      • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 6:14 AM

        I find the following scale to be quite useful in not feeling overwhelmed when looking at the universe:

        Sensory input

        One must filter down the complexity into simplicity. Check out THINKING & THOUGHT


  • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 12:07 AM

    The Creative Consciousness; the Essence of ourselves is common to the entire Universe. It is our damnable compulsive individuality AKA inflated egos which are the root source of conflict and disharmony.

    • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 5:08 AM

      That is correct. I do not agree with Hubbard’s theory of Thetans which essentially brings about a fixation on Individuality.


  • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 12:11 AM

    I find it inconsistent in Scientology to profess the virtues of and to audit toward greater individuality, but to define individuation as a bad thing and the result of committing harmful acts toward the group.

  • vinaire  On October 21, 2013 at 6:50 AM

    Scientology puts American individualism (or for matter, individualism anywhere) in a religious perspective.


  • vinaire  On November 1, 2013 at 10:03 PM

    One needs to look at what really brings about gains in Scientology and what doesn’t.

    Hubbard basically gave birth to a method of ‘guided meditation’, which provided quick results. A person left to meditate or contemplate by himself may take a long time before he starts to get some results. However, when guided by a Scientology process the chances of getting a result improve.

    From a scientific perspective, Hubbard’s primary contribution was to come up with a shot-gun method that eked out a quick result from meditation or contemplation. His approach was to put a person through a battery of pre-defined processes to guide his contemplation. This greatly improved the chances that one of those processes may be appropriate for the person’s case, thus yielding a fantastic result quickly.

    But what really gets the result in contemplation is mindfulness. Whenever there are results in Scientology, the elements of mindfulness are present. Hubbard’s shot gun method seemed to provide occasions when a process matched the mindfulness of the person and provided the result. But Hubbard’s method did not specifically work with a person’s mindfulness. So results became spotty and seem to diminish after a while. Not knowing the right reason Hubbard got into more complexities up to a point that the subject of Scientology became more harmful than beneficial.

    Beyond that Hubbard had other fish to fry which further messed up the subject of Scientology.

  • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM

    “The motto of this universe is ‘we must have a game’. The game is the thing. The wins and losses are not the thing. One loses every time one wins, for he then has no game.”

    (L. Ron Hubbard, “Creation of Human Ability”.)


    Is it possible to look at this universe as the universe itself? If that can be accomplished then one does not have to be trapped by this universe. One can look at the games without having to be pulled into them.

    • Chris Thompson  On November 3, 2013 at 9:25 PM

      Vin: Is it possible to look at this universe as the universe? If that can be accomplished then one does not have be trapped by this universe. One can look at the games without having to be puleed into them.

      Chris: We should be careful when using biased or at least ambiguous words like trapped. Seeing things as they are and not just as they seem to be might require one understanding which ant one is playing in the ant hill. There might not be any trap anywhere anytime at all. This might be left over assumptions from earlier indoctrination.

      • vinaire  On November 3, 2013 at 9:59 PM

        Yes, “being trapped by the universe” is the wrong phrase to use. I should have just said “being trapped.” We cannot really blame the universe, or MEST, as Hubbard did heavily in Scn 8-8008. One can get trapped by one’s own desires, or attachment, as Vedas say.

        Anyway, the point I was making was that, if one could be the whole universe, one shall have an exterior viewpoint of all the games going inside the universe. Then he can view all those games quite interestedly but from a detached viewpoint.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 3, 2013 at 10:33 PM

          I am working on a concept regarding our ambition to be more than a human. In our culture, the Madison Ave. promo to “Be All That You Can Be” (possibly by joining the Army or somesuch) seems to be ingrained into our thinking, as you sometimes say, almost at the DNA level. Generally, mothers tell their children that they “can be anything they set their mind to” and I am really wondering whether that is true.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 3, 2013 at 11:43 PM

          Is the spark plug trapped in the combustion engine? Or could seeing it as it is reveal a better reason for its place in the universe? This is just for exploration without any assertion.

        • vinaire  On November 4, 2013 at 5:31 AM

          I think that what traps a person is lack of mindfulness. For example, the moment a person starts to expect something, such as justice, he is trapped to some degree. There is nothing wrong with expectation itself, or letting the life flow. But when the things don’t go the way one expects, then it is mindfulness that lifts the person out of any downslide.

          The indicator of being trapped is Dukkha as Buddha laid it out in the first Noble Truth.



  • vinaire  On April 15, 2014 at 7:34 PM

    Christianity: Identified the individual with body
    Scientology: Identifies the individual with the soul
    KHTK: No identification is needed either with the body or with the soul. It is a continual process of discovery.

  • vinaire  On April 15, 2014 at 7:39 PM

    Scientology Exteriorization = De-identification with the body.
    True Exteriorization = De-identification with both THETA and MEST, and looking at both objectively.

  • vinaire  On April 20, 2014 at 5:15 PM

    Dianetics (a hypothesis)
    …..Auditing (process based on looking)
    Unwanted condition (lack of harmony in the system)
    …..Charge (net effect of disharmony)
    …..Restimulation (disharmonious response to stimuli)
    …..Engram (inconsistency held down in place)
    …..Bank (all inconsistencies collectively)
    …..Unconsciousness (shut down of awareness)
    …..…..Not able to perceive and respond to stimuli
    Preclear (a person unable to handle personal unwanted conditions)
    …..Case (individual system of inconsistencies)
    …..Aberration (recognized inconsistency)
    Clear (a person able to handle personal unwanted conditions)
    …..No case (no individual system of inconsistencies)
    …..No potential for a case (this cannot be absolute)


    A Clear simply is a person who is able to handle personal unwanted conditions by oneself. It is impossible to be free of unwanted conditions in this universe. The difference between a clear and a preclear is in the ability to handle unwanted conditions as they arise.

    A Clear would be a self-learner.

  • vinaire  On April 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM

    Hubbard’s model is:

    Mission: Clearing the planet
    Means: Church of Scientology
    Barriers: reactive mind (clandestine suppressive powers)


    In my opinion,
    (1) “Clearing the planet” would be creating a world of “self-learners.”
    (2) The means for this would not be an institution. It would be a grass-roots learning revolution.
    (3) Barriers to this is simply a lack of proper research and organization. One cannot blame other entities as Hubbard did, and Scientology still does.

  • vinaire  On April 20, 2014 at 8:54 PM

    Whole Track (there are experiences extending way beyond human span)
    …..prenatal “experiences”
    ……….sentient prenatal life
    …..experiences from “past lives”
    ……….whole track (embedded experiences)
    …..Hubbard forwarded a hypothesis to explain this

    E-meter (tool to discover embedded experiences)
    …..electromagnetic field around the body
    …..influences body resistance
    …..attention crossing embedded experience creates a response
    …..such responses when followed up bring to view the embedded experience
    …..this resolves unwanted conditions


    Simply expressed unwanted conditions spring from disharmonies embedded in the soul. Clearing of these disharmonies requires locating them and bringing them to view.

    Dianetics used indicators, such as, pc’s skin color, eye brightness, emotional tone and degree of introvertedness, etc., to follow up on responses from embedded experiences. Scientology used e-meter for this purpose. The underlying assumption was that the pc cannot follow such responses himself. This assumption of Hubbard is wrong.

    When a pc is trained on mindfulness, his sense of inconsistencies becomes sharp. He can sense the inconsistencies (disharmonies in perception) around an embedded experience, and follow them up to bring to view that embedded experience. No e-meter or “meter reading skill” by the auditor is needed.

  • vinaire  On April 21, 2014 at 11:15 AM

    Thetan (a concept that identifies awareness with soul rather than with the body)
    …..Hypothesis: All physical and spiritual phenomena derives from thought
    ……….(Thought is not separate from the phenomenon observed)
    …..Hypothesis: Life derives from thought and not matter
    ……….(Life is observed to be composed of both thought and matter)
    …..Hypothesis: A life organism is animated by theta
    ……….(Animation is inherent characteristic of life organism)
    ……….(Animation is not brought about by something else)
    ……….(Theta and MEST are simply two aspects of life)
    …..Hypothesis: Human being is essentially an immortal “theta being”.
    ……….(Any beingness is constructed out of theta and MEST)
    ……….(MEST is basically an inertia-less primordial field.)
    ……….(Theta s basically an activity-less primordial energy)
    ……….(The interaction between Theta and MEST produces all phenomena)


    Awareness is inherent in all phenomena that is observed. It is not separate. To think it is separate is a wrong assumption.

    All is phenomena. Theta and MEST are aspects of it. A human being, or any idea of being, is simply a phenomenon. The idea of a creator is not needed. Self-realization is simply the understanding of this phenomenon.

  • vinaire  On April 21, 2014 at 8:38 PM

    Past death and past lives
    …..This idea comes from recalls/visualizations
    …..A “recalled” picture is not necessarily a copy of something real
    …..It could be an imaginative reconstruction of something indescribable
    …..It may still lead to the resolution of some unwanted condition
    …..It may duplicate some pattern even with a manufactured content
    …..This doesn’t necessarily imply continuation of some entity
    …..Thetan is simply the center of awareness
    …..There is nothing permanent about a center of awareness
    …..It is part of the configuration like the center of mass of an object
    …..A center of awareness is not some entity that leaves at death
    …..Or hangs around a dead body after death
    …..A center of awareness seemingly disintegrates at death swiftly or gradually
    …..Recall of past life or death is not a proof of some eternal thetan


    Recalled memory is a phenomenon that needs to be studied in more detail.

  • vinaire  On April 22, 2014 at 11:53 AM

    …..One feels that one is outside the body
    …..What is that which feels it is outside the body?
    …..It is the center of awareness that is no longer identifying itself with the body
    …..It is separation from an idea and not from the body
    …..One has more possibilities now from which to imagine or visualize
    …..”Exteriorization” diminishes when one is identifying with the body
    …..”Exteriorization” is stable when one knows that
    ……….One is not restricted by the body in one’s imagination or visualization

  • vinaire  On April 22, 2014 at 12:03 PM

    Operating Thetan
    …..Somebody who can stably be and act outside the body (Scn defn)
    …..In other words,
    ……….It would be a point awareness no longer identifying itself with the body
    ……….It is no longer restricted by the body in its imagination and visualization
    …..The degree of “exteriorization” would depend on
    ……….The degree to which one is not fixated to an idea

  • vinaire  On April 22, 2014 at 12:45 PM

    Mental Image Pictures
    …..Charge is amount of inconsistency in what one is looking at
    …..The actual content of the picture does not matter
    …..It is the resolution of inconsistency that really matters
    …..It doesn’t matter who made those picture
    …..It does not matter who is looking at those pictures
    …..Identification with certain pictures as “mine” is another level of interiorization
    …..Scientology makes “borrowed pictures” an issue (wrong issue)
    …..Pictures should be observed without the idea of “mine” or “not mine”
    …..Pictures are “energy configurations” floating around
    …..Inconsistencies in pictures needs to be resolved when attention fixes on them
    …..Resistance seems to be a constituent of inconsistency
    …..To resolve inconsistency the resistance needs to be resolved
    …..The resistance appears as a ridge “stably” in place
    …..A fixation is a ridge. There is resistance in it.
    …..For example, if one is fixated on “sex” there some resistance involved in it
    …..Unconsciousness could be an extreme form of resistance, or ridge
    …..An engram could be seen as a knot formed of ridges or resistance

  • vinaire  On April 22, 2014 at 9:06 PM

    …..”Home-made” pictures
    …..”Foreign-made” pictures
    …..”Genetic” images (cellular awareness)
    ……….pictures to do with evolutionary development

    Genetic Entity
    …..Entities are self-regulating energy configurations
    …..GE is the “sum total” or the apparent “center of awareness” of basic entities
    …..It is where the cumulative awareness at basic level seems to appear
    …..The being seems to have a structure similar to that of an atom
    …..GE interactions seem to make the “inner shell” around the nucleus of a being
    …..These interactions of “inner shell” are, collectively, called the SOMATIC MIND
    …..Thetan interactions seem to make the “outer shell” around that nucleus
    …..The interactions of the “outer shell” form the CONSCIOUS MIND
    …..At death, the “outer shell” of thetan seems to disintegrate first
    ….. And then the “inner shell” of GE disintegrates
    …..How “interactions amounting to awareness” occur is a matter of further research
    …..There ought to be laws that govern such interactions
    …..A being is a composite of energy configurations (GE and Thetan)
    …..GE and Thetan are themselves composite of smaller entities
    …..There is no theta being in charge of the ‘composite being’
    …..These entities (ridges) may be tracked by feeling the resistance
    ……….and inconsistencies associated with them

  • vinaire  On April 24, 2014 at 11:36 AM

    Man is sum total of energy configurations at mental and physical levels
    …..Patterns of energy configurations may continue from one life to the next
    …..But no identity is permanent enough to continue from one life to the next.
    …..The hypothesis of immortal beings is questionable
    …..Scientology assumes Thetan to exist before MEST came about
    ……….But that seems to be inconsistent on many levels.
    …..Exteriorization is simply freedom from fixation on the body
    ……….There is no thetan hanging around outside the body
    ……….Thetan without the body is a questionable concept
    …..Intention beams, pictures, and ridges are various energy phenomena
    …..The energy phenomena becomes more fluid as fixation is eliminated
    ……….But there is no such thing as “Operating Thetan”
    …..At best “Operating Thetan” could be a modified energy configuration
    ……….That thinks it is an immortal being (ego)
    …..Hubbard misunderstood Vedic hymns
    ……….Spiritual power inherent in Man is mindfulness, not ego
    ……….Auditing works only when there is mindfulness in action
    …..There are no spiritual “powers”; there is just greater simplicity
    …..There is awareness of what is there; what is there may come from awareness
    ……….What persists among consistency are inconsistencies
    ……….As inconsistencies are removed, consistency seems to become thinner
    ……….Finally both consistency and inconsistency seem to vanish
    …..This applies to fantastic visualizations of past lives and present imaginations
    …..Cultural, country, planetary characteristics are part of awareness of identity
    ……….Rare or very different characteristics may be deemed foreign
    …..Pictures seemingly from another’s track is just an inconsistency
    …..The whole idea of GAMES AT THE DAWN OF TIME is part of a hypothesis
    ……….There can be many different hypotheses

  • vinaire  On April 24, 2014 at 11:48 AM

    Man has a composite structure like that of an object
    …..The structure of an object is composite down to the atom
    …..The structure of man is composite down to its soul or thetan
    Thetan is also made of a composite energy phenomenon
    …..There is a hard core, or nucleus, of energy
    …..Surrounding it, in a lower orbit or shell, is GE configuration
    …..Surrounding it, in a higher orbit or shell, is Thetan configuration.

  • vinaire  On May 4, 2014 at 9:30 AM

    I have a new take on Game Theory:

    Game = impulse to get other impulses to resonate with it
    …..it requires other impulses
    …..it requires some overlap
    ……….no overlap is no chance of making it resonate
    ……….complete overlap is also no chance of making it resonate

    • vinaire  On May 5, 2014 at 10:42 AM

      Self-determinism is the impulse in a game
      …..The game is to survive as that impulse
      …..By overcoming other impulses
      Pan-determinism is the game itself
      Other-determinism occurs when an impulse is overcome by another impulse
      …..The game is lost at this point for that impulse

  • vinaire  On May 5, 2014 at 10:44 AM

    A set pattern of moods associated with survival
    …..Apathy (0.0) – Grief (0.5) – Fear (1.0) – Anger (1.5) – Antagonism (2.0)
    …..Boredom (2.5) – Interest (3.0) – Cheerfulness (3.5) – Enthusiasm (4.0)
    Half-tone spacing
    …..Lead the other person by half-tone to bring him up tone
    …..It is how you resonate with the person while leading him in tone
    …..The content of what you are saying may also resonate
    ……….but on a secondary basis
    The whole scale goes from Total Failure (-40) to Serenity of Beingness (+40)
    …..Total Failure (-40): to be overcome completely by another impulse
    …..Serenity (+40): prevailing effortlessly as an impulse

  • vinaire  On July 2, 2014 at 2:24 PM

    I have updated the OP – A LOOK AT SCIENTOLOGY mainly to replace the word “Looking” by the word “Mindfulness.” There are other slight changes, such as, the modification of step 16.

  • vinaire  On August 18, 2014 at 11:51 AM


    Marty makes the following points in his first paragraph:

    (1) Continual revisions and repackaging is built into the nature of Scientology.
    (2) There is no such thing as Standard Technology.
    (3) Standard Technology is just a subjective consideration.

    I would say that there is a standard framework a Grade Chart that Scientologists follow. This framework segregates processes by Grade Levels. It assigns sequence to those grades.

    Another standard aspect that was communicated to me at the Cambridge mission, where I started in 1969, was that I must keep my TR0 in during the auditing. This was a great help. For me, it was like being mindful (seeing things as they are). This mindfulness became the fundamental basis of KHTK, after I observed its critical and beneficial use in Idenics. Unfortunately, I do not see this aspect emphasized by LRH. I was lucky to have used it throughout my auditing with great benefit.

    I found little use for the e-meter in my auditing when I was using mindfulness. Auditor, who was going by the e-meter made enough errors in acting by the reads that I relied more on mindfulness. If there was a flash response to a question in my mind I followed it up, otherwise, I told the auditor that nothing came up. This led to a lot of grinding on Dianetics after some initial fantastic gains. I must have been completed on Dianetics. So, I wasn’t very impressed with the C/Sing and the use of e-meter.

    So, yes, even when there is a standard framework of Grade Chart, the nitty-gritty of auditing is very much in disarray with fundamentals of “looking” not in place. So all kind of revisions keep on getting introduced.

    • vinaire  On August 18, 2014 at 12:13 PM

      Marty makes the following points in his second paragraph:

      (1) Hubbard blamed others when his technology did not work. It was never the fault of his technology.

      (2) He continually justified for his technology not meeting the expectations that he put there, and that the results were forthcoming with the next “breakthrough” he was working on.

      I think Hubbard was very excited by some advances he did make and gushed over them with over projections. That was his personality. He couldn’t help it.

      A person is a product of his genetic code which covers both his spiritual and physical aspects. These aspects may be modified somewhat by the environment one grows up in and the education one receives.

      But a person is essentially determined by his genetic makeup. Nobody can be totally self-determined. That was the case with Hubbard too. But he tried.

  • vinaire  On March 21, 2015 at 6:43 PM

    This is one of the rare exchanges with Mark (Marty) Rathbun.

    “Marty, how do you plan to patch up with people who were hurt by your past actions, and who still feel upset with you. One such person is Bill Franks. I am curious to know because Bill Franks is a friend of mine. He is a good guy like you are. Like you he was also enmeshed in the evil system of Scientology.”

    Mark C. Rathbun
    “You have just proven your philosophy and practice – that I have allowed you to pontificate on endlessly here – may induce severe deterioration of cognitive faculties. Franks’ megalomania apparently knows no bounds. He never even arose as a blip on my radar screen. Adios.”


    Looks like I touched some raw nerve. He seems to be going through a rough time. Most of his communications to others have been similar put downs. I shall let him be and not write on his blog.


  • vinaire  On May 12, 2015 at 7:25 PM

    In his article “Personal Integrity” Hubbard says, “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. And when you lose that, you have lost everything.” What Hubbard does not say is that one usually observes through the filters of bias, prejudice and fixed ideas, and until those filters are removed the observation is distorted. A person is usually not aware of his filters, especially the deepest ones.

    So, a person’s observations are usually distorted but he is not aware of it. They are not objective in the first place. They are subjective according to his biases. But Hubbard is asking one to accept such subjective observations as true. That advice discourages one to question their observations.

    Naturally, a person then encounters inconsistencies that tend to create cognitive dissonance. He feels uncomfortable. He is then told to study LRH and think on the basis of what LRH would do to handle those inconsistencies. Then all the inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance shall dissolve.

    So a person is told to follow LRH, use his definitions of things, and think like LRH does to resolve his inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance. This way Hubbard installs himself as a filter in the person’s mind.

    The person would then be observing as himself, but he would be doing so through the filter of Hubbard. Hubbard can then conveniently say, “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself” because he is assured that you are observing through the “Hubbard filter”. But because it is “you” who is observing so everything is ok. This is an interesting twist that brings about conditioning in Scientology.

    To keep this conditioning in place, you are told not to see, hear, or speak anything that goes against Scientology. You are not supposed to go on the Internet and google Scientology. You are not supposed to discuss Scientology or your experiences in Scientology among yourself and compare notes for real. Such injunctions are, in themselves, inconsistencies. But, thinking like Hubbard, you would say “Such rules keep entheta and enturbulation away from my case.” How convenient!

    Scientology is creating a brave new world.

%d bloggers like this: