A LOOK AT SCIENTOLOGY AUDITING

Scientology Axiom 11 states:

AS-IS-NESS is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.”

Scientology Axiom 19 states:

Bringing the static to view as–is any condition devaluates that condition.”

.

It is my understanding that at the moment of AS-IS-NESS there is complete awareness of what one is postulating or viewing. There is nothing hidden. One has a choice to make it persist or not persist. This is how Scientology auditing works. Scientology processes, when applied in a session, guide a person where to look.

This principle is borrowed from Buddhism, which exhorts one to:

“Observe things as they really are, not just as they seem to be.”

In Buddhism, the above principle of mindfulness is to be applied at all times and not, as in Scientology, only when a person is in session.

.

In Scientology, a person is made to look deeply into one’s mind through repetition of process “commands.” Under such  introversion a person is likely to be vulnerable. Any little error in directing a person’s attention can have adverse consequences. Some of these consequences may be  subtle and may last beyond the session, resulting in conditioning. Though there are actions built into Scientology to minimize such errors, the liability exists for such processes to cause harm, especially through misuse.

But Buddha simply asks one to be mindful of what is there.

“Observe without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.”

One does not have to go around searching into one’s memory. One simply lets the mind unwind itself naturally starting from whatever is grabbing one’s attention. This way one can look deeply into one’s psyche without any liability. There is a simple and natural way one goes about practicing mindfulness.

Scientology auditing can be made simpler and more effective by following the Buddhist principle of mindfulness, instead of mechanically repeating an auditing command.

.

An E-meter is used in Scientology to direct a person’s attention in a session. The E-meter is connected to the person. The reactions on the E-meter guide the person where to look. This is fine but it creates a dependence on the E-meter. The E-meter, or the interpretation of its needle reactions, is not error free.

A conflict often occurs when the E-meter reaction indicates something ought to be there, but the person sees nothing. The person, depending on the E-meter, then digs into the mind, and the liability of conditioning comes into play. It then takes ‘CORRECTION LISTS’ to dig the person back out. This is not rare. This happens routinely in Scientology auditing sessions.

Blind digging into the mind, is a liability, which can be prevented with the use of mindfulness.

Such errors may be avoided by simply looking at what is there and not blindly digging into the mind. If nothing is there then one may simply accept that nothing is there. It is my opinion that training on mindfulness may make Scientology processes run much faster and with better results. This may, however, render the E-meter obsolete. In my opinion, E-meter is a marketing ploy. Auditing goes more smoothly and effectively with trained mindfulness.

.

In Scientology, a person is encouraged to talk in session about his intimate details as one looks at one’s experience. Everything the person says is recorded. The records are  kept in multiple, thick folders. Such information is used by auditors and case supervisors to determine the processes to be run in auditing sessions. The liability exists for this information to be misused.

Collection of intimate personal details is a liability, which can be eliminated with the use of mindfulness.

Gains in auditing come from the person observing and becoming aware, and not from talking about one’s experiences. But a lot of intimate personal details are gathered in Scientology by getting the person to talk about himself so some ‘expert’ can resolve his case through ‘case programming’.

No such information need be gathered when mindfulness is practiced. A battery of processes may be applied one after another. The mind then unstacks itself naturally whenever the processing question is applicable. The battery of processes may be repeated as long as natural unstacking is taking place. That is the extent of ‘case programming’ needed. It is taken care of by the mind itself. Thus, with the application of mindfulness, one’s privacy need not be compromised while the case is getting resolved.

.

The setup of a Scientology session is quite elaborate. The E-meter is an essential part of it. Thus, guidance in Scientology cannot be provided over long distances using phone, or Skype on Internet. This is an enormous limiting factor in this Information age of today.

With mindfulness it becomes possible to provide Scientology auditing over long distances.

No such limitation exists when the practice of mindfulness replaces the use of E-meter. One can routinely conduct Scientology auditing sessions using phone, or Skype on Internet, with great effectiveness.

.

Thus, it appears that considerable liability attached to Scientology auditing may be eliminated with the use of mindfulness. Also eliminated will be the expense associated with training of auditors on complex auditing actions. The auditor’s function would simply consist of providing auditing commands and to ensure that mindfulness is being practiced by both auditor and the preclear. No Case Supervisor would be necessary. This would make it possible to deliver auditing in much greater volume while also increasing the effectiveness of  Scientology applications.

With mindfulness it becomes possible to provide Scientology auditing inexpensively in much greater volume.

Scientology claims itself to be an extension of Buddhism. Let mindfulness also be incorporated into Scientology from Buddhism. There is a great potential in Scientology to spread as a grass roots movement, like Buddhism did 2600 years ago, with great benefit to everybody.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On October 5, 2012 at 5:15 PM

    I am very aware that Scientologist will say that if one replaces E-meter by mindfulness then it won’t be Scientology any more. It would be a different subject.

    Unfortunately, such people do not understand Scientology from the viewpoint of Scientology Axioms and Logics. Their understanding is very shallow.

    .

    • Elizabeth Hamre  On November 18, 2013 at 2:50 AM

      V.. I have not used the emeter since mid 80’s, so I can call that mindfulness?
      The repetitive questions are there to teach the person, to make the person confront that item.. At the beginning that is needed but later when one is solo auditing, the repetitive questions are not in need. One simply looks what is there and that is called ” blowing charge by inspection. Simply see what is all and understand everything about the subject.

  • Jay  On October 5, 2012 at 6:08 PM

    You are omitting tons of facts. You are projecting your viewpoint into that of others. I can see that you have not learned real Scientology but are really just a glorified “Glib student”.

  • vinaire  On October 5, 2012 at 6:30 PM

    I would appreciate if you follow the following policy on this blog.

    Discussions and what needs to be avoided

    Please provide at least one fact that you are referring to if you wish to participate in a proper discussion.

    .

    • Jay  On October 5, 2012 at 6:56 PM

      Gradient Scales. The Grade Chart is a series of Gradients to higher states. Even Buddha had to take gradient steps to walk up a mountain.

  • vinaire  On October 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM

    I understand gradient scales quite well. How am I omitting the gradient scales above? Please be patient with me and explain it to me. Thanks.

    • Jay  On October 5, 2012 at 9:29 PM

      Thank you for your comm. The answer to me is that the Axiom applies to the spiritual universe, not the physical universe. What is said in the Axiom is true in the “Theta Universe”. The Grade Chart if followed moves the Theta Being out of the physical universe and back to the Theta Universe. Does this clarify my point to you better?

      • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 2:27 AM

        Do you have the reference for that Scientology Jay?

        • Jay  On October 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM

          Yes read the read The Grade Chart and listen to the lectures on the Awareness Characterics. Listen to the entire Technique 88 series 1952 and the History of Man Seires and demo the different universes..

        • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 10:22 PM

          ah, well I see then. Possibly I should study HCOBs as well?

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 3:06 PM

          This comment from Jay,

          (1) does not contribute to a discussion.
          (2) asks others to do its work.
          (3) brings unnecessary ego to the table.

          Such comments, which violate the discussion policy, shall not be allowed on this blog in the future.

          .

    • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 3:55 AM

      Jay, it is very interesting that you say that as-iness axiom applies to the spiritual universe and not to the physical universe. Actually, we are having this same discussion going at Imagination vs. Knowledge: What is the relationship of mental reality to physical reality?. You are welcome to join in there if you wish.

      It is interesting to see how such discussions are prohibited in the Church of Scientology. I don’t see any good reason why that should be so.

      About Spiritual (Theta) universe and Physical (MEST) universe the reference is THETA-MEST theory, which is presented in detail in Hubbard’s book “Scientology 8-8008”. The premise is,

      “Spiritual and physical are two separate universes.”

      I question this premise. I find that spiritual and physical are two different aspects of the same system. Here is my explanation.

      THE NATURE OF EXISTENCE

      Let’s discuss the above premise underlying THETA-MEST theory.

      .

      • Jay  On October 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM

        I appreciaet the invite and I will read it. However, I audit and the best way I know is to train people on the ’52 data with checksheets and not just the “OT Hatting’ the cos does with their drills but to actuallu listen to the lectures by the old man and with the full use of study tech do the course and audit it. In the ’50s they did not have study tech nor did they have checksheets and wordclearers. When that is all put togheter the student really gets it and does apply it. The cos does not allow it because they want salves. Obviously you and I and other independents don’t.

        • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 3:08 PM

          Thank you. I love the Study Tech too.

          .

  • vinaire  On October 6, 2012 at 4:18 AM

    I posed the following question on Marty’s blog.

    Isn’t the following an inconsistency?

    (1) Scientology encourages one to think for oneself.

    (2) Those who deviate from Scientology belief are called “squirrels.”

    Is Scientology the absolute truth, or is it a workable truth?
    Can there be flaws in Scientology?

    You may answer this question here as well.

    .

    • Jay  On October 6, 2012 at 11:22 AM

      If going through a “mine field” in a war zone, I am of the opinion to “follow” in the footsteps of the one who made it through.

      • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 10:30 PM

        Hi Jay, Do you feel that the “group think” of the reactive mind is something which when resolved by auditing results in a greater and more individuated individual? And if that is a positive goal of processing, can you help resolve the inconsistency of why individuation is a bad thing, the result of overts and withholds?

        • vinaire  On October 7, 2012 at 7:48 AM

          That is a good question, Chris, and I shall try to answer it.

          I believe that any auditing should help a person become less judgmental and more compassionate in general. Such a person would not be towing some ideology. He should be able to think for himself. But from Tech Dictionary:

          INDIVIDUATION = a separation from knowingness.
          KNOWINGNESS = being certainness; a capability for truth; self-determined knowledge

          TO INDIVIDUATE (Regular English) = to give an individual or distinctive character to

          Hubbard seems to be saying is that it is bad to give knowingness an individual or distinctive character. He seems to believe in standard knowingness across the board. Hubbard wants everyone to agree with the knowingness he has about mind and spirit. So, anybody speaking his own mind on this subject is separating from ‘that knowingness’, and that is bad.

          Now, that is an interesting look straight from the definitions.

          .

      • Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2012 at 11:16 PM

        Hi Jay, “mine field in a war zone” is dramatic, I give you that, but more importantly, from your comment I infer that you mean that Hubbard “rose above the bank” as outlined in KSW.

        Can you help me resolve the apparent inconsistencies regarding Hubbard’s explosive temper, poor health, anxiety, drug use, and blow from Int in 1982 paired off against having “risen above the bank” ?

        • vinaire  On October 7, 2012 at 7:57 AM

          I do not think that Hubbard made it through the “mine field in a war zone”. Evidently he got bogged down. Look at the current state of the Church of Scientology. It is not a product that Hubbard, or any Scientologist, should be proud of. Hubbard got blind-sided because of his own weakness for gold and power. He failed to predict.

          Looking at the current state of Scientology I would say that Hubbard failed to “rise above the bank” permanently. He had his moments of clear thinking. But he definitely came crashing down.

          I do feel bad for poor Hubbard. He didn’t listen to Buddha.

          .

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

        Chris, I shall not put burden on Jay for more answers. He has to decide to participate in the discussions first. Until then any posts from Jay, and any references to him shall be moderated. Any further violations of discussion policy related to Jay will be held back from appearing in the comment section.

        .

  • vinaire  On October 30, 2012 at 12:27 PM

    Let me just list some thoughts from a post on Chris Thompson’s Blog::

    (1) The greatest common factor between psychoanalysis and auditing is LOOKING.

    (2) Both direct a person’s attention at certain areas of his case in an attempt to bring relief.

    (3) How these areas of the case are determined is called diagnosis in Psychology and C/Sing in Scientology.

    (4) Psychology approach uses medication to address acute symptoms. Scientology is against psych drugs and it does not address acute symptoms except for recommending a calm environment.

    (5) Both Psychology and Scientology aim at handling unwanted conditions, Scientology also aims to “restore” supernatural abilities that are supposed to be inherent in man.

    (6) Scientology started with Dianetics and the discovery of engrams, which approach, in early fifties, fizzled out within a year or two.

    (7) I find engrams to be very few like low hanging fruits. They are right there and need not be dug up. They are discovered very soon if one lets the mind un-stack itself naturally. The early popularity of Dianetics was based on this fact.

    (8) Once these low hanging fruits were plucked and the appetite was whetted, disappointment set in as no more engrams were found while unwanted conditions remained. This led to more and more digging into the mind (memories).

    (9) On point 8, digging into the mind to look for more engrams was the wrong way to go. Hubbard’s premise that engram is a single source of all aberrations, sounds nice, but unfortunately, that does not add up. Mental structure is more complex than that simple theory.

    (10) What worked best in early Dianetics and in later TR0 was to let the mind un-stack itself naturally. This was never recognized fully by Hubbard. His effort remained always through repetitive Scientology processes to dig into the mind. But all these processes simply got different types of low hanging fruits.

    (11) Not letting the mind un-stack naturally is the error made in psychoanalysis too. But it is right in observing that external help is often needed to address the acute symptoms. Research into medicine is, therefore, important. The challenge is to eliminate detrimental side effects.

  • vinaire  On October 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM

    I am wondering if Scientology auditing has aphrodisiacal effects on the spirit? In other words does it get one into imagining wonderful daydreams of roaming around in the universe?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On October 30, 2012 at 8:25 PM

      I like that question and have been pondering it ongoing. I have been and I am currently challenging my own memory of past lives, and am preparing a post on “certainty.”

    • vinaire  On October 31, 2012 at 4:17 AM

      To me, this is freeing up one’s ability to visualize. This is a creative ability used by artists, writers, etc. It comes about because one’s attention is no longer introverted or fixed on mundane survival problems.

      But it doesn’t mean that what one is visualizing is the universal truth. It is simply creative imagination by a person. That’s pretty much what it means when one says, “It exists in my universe only.”

      Just call it imagination. What is wrong with that? Why do people in Scientology want to make it sound like some kind of truth?

      .

      • Elizabeth Hamre  On November 18, 2013 at 2:59 AM

        V….”Just call it imagination. What is wrong with that? Why do people in Scientology want to make it sound like some kind of truth?”
        because it is real to those people same as what you know real to you and not always to others.
        We only can talk about what real to us…

        .

  • vinaire  On August 17, 2013 at 2:00 PM

    In his description of Super Power on his blog Dan Koon said:

    “Unfortunately, something else that LRH predicted also happened. He said that if some people in an org were put through the rundowns but others weren’t, then eventually those who hadn’t had the gains would pull down the others who had. And that’s what occurred. It might have taken a few years, but eventually nearly everybody, as I can recall, got into some kind of serious post difficulties. But in this regard, they were no different from everybody else at the Int Base, however, so the fact that LRH’s prediction came true in this regard cannot be taken as a denigration of their initial gains or an invalidation of the potentials of Super Power.”

    To me this is inconsistent that the gains of the people completed on Super Power Rundown are not permanent in that they could be pulled down by others who hadn’t had these gains. Some blockage cleared in the mind permanently does not get restimulated. So, there are shortcomings in the application of this Super Power Rundown.

    When I did the Running Program, I naturally applied mindfulness (a cultural thing for me, being from India), which I now believe is the secret of permanent gain. Though mindfulness was touched upon in Scientology on TR0 and Obnosis, it was never emphasized in auditing. I believe that whenever, Scientology has produced any gains, there has been inadvertant application of mindfulness by the preclear. Most of the errors in Scientology occur (and correction lists are needed) because mindfulness is not emphasised and preclears try to answer questions even when no response has come up in the mind. Thus, wrong questions are run ad nauseum.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 6:59 AM

    Education is as much a learning of new facts as it is getting rid of false ideas. Here are some notes on FALSE DATA STRIPPING.

    (1) There is no absolute false data. All false data is relative only.

    (2) Relative false data appears as an inconsistency, where something appears to be not quite right and does not make sense.

    (3) A person may not be aware of an inconsistency when he has nothing to compare it to.

    (4) People can have inconsistencies in their thinking, which appear natural to them.

    Step one is to detect the inconsistency.
    There are always more than one data involved in an inconsistency. However, which datum is false may not always be clear.

    Step two is to detect the false datum.
    It may take a matrix of data to determine a false datum. It will be false relative to not only to one other datum, but also to a majority of surrounding data.

    One may ask,

    “On the subject under discussion, Is there anything

    (1) One couldn’t think with
    (2) Which didn’t seem to add up
    (3) Which seems to be in conflict what one is trying to learn.”

    This may only point to an inconsistency and not necessarily to a false datum. One may then have to look at the various contexts in which that inconsistency seems to appear.

    One may start looking at whatever appears in one’s mind relating to that inconsistency.

    (1) It could be an incident where something happened. One then looks at who was involved, what they were doing, what one was doing, etc.

    (2) It could be a long term experience in an area. One simply lets the mind freely associate in that area with respect to that inconsistency.

    This is continued until the whole context clears up, and the false datum is clearly visible.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 8, 2013 at 10:07 PM

      False Data Stripping is more basic than misunderstood words because the definitions of some words themselves may contain false data, and may not be enough to clear up a confusion.

      • Chris Thompson  On November 8, 2013 at 11:34 PM

        False Data Stripping confronts difficult considerations to expose as they are not particularly “charged” being a normal part of one’s makeup of self. What I found that was helpful was to be clear about the Scientology terminology surrounding “computation,” p. 85; and also “service facsimile,” pp 384-385, especially definitions 5 and 6, all from the “Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary. I note these as tools to use as guides to steer to mental areas which may yield inconsistencies and render a satisfying and rewarding experience using the False Data Stripping material. I think it’s good to do in pairs but for the experienced student or auditor can be run solo with equally good results.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 11:23 AM

        COMPUTATION, technically, that aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to succeed. The computation thus may mean that one must entertain in order to be alive or that one must be dignified in order to succeed or that one must own much in order to live. A computation is simply stated. It is always aberrated. A computation is as insidious as it pretends to align with survival. All computations are nonsurvival. Computations are held in place wholly to invalidate others. (AP&A, p. 41)

        .

        We make computations in mathematics. There is nothing wrong with computations. The problem comes when one is not being mindful.

        If one wants to maintain a certain state of mind, or a certain status, constant and not deviate from it, then one should examine that inflexibility. There is never the same solution for every situation. A solution must be derived from the situation. So a fixed solution shall be a suspect.

        What Hubbard seems to be saying is that any fixed solution that one is holding to should be examined under False Data Stripping.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 1:34 PM

          Vin: We make computations in mathematics. There is nothing wrong with computations.

          Chris: This is not the point of clearing the specialized definitions of “computation” in Scientology. These concepts describe a mental structure. If you don’t like the word computation, no problem, pick another word but the point is to see whether the mental structure described is a useful platen to help exploit inconsistencies.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 1:40 PM

          Vin: What Hubbard seems to be saying is that any fixed solution that one is holding to should be examined under False Data Stripping.

          Chris: I rather think Hubbard is saying that if one is mystified by the negative result one is getting from a social process or other process because one is adhering to ideas that on there their surface seem perfectly usual and normal, then one could take a look at the possibility that one is operating with a syllogism using a false major premise. False data stripping’s purpose is to expose inconsistencies in one’s major premises. That is how I use it.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

          Vin from Tech Dictionary: COMPUTATION, technically, that aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to succeed.

          Chris: The guide and salient point of the definition is the relative success or of failure of one’s evaluations. Using perfectly good and sober logic and yet not obtaining the desired result, one could look for false data contained in their major premises.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 11:33 AM

        SERVICE FACSIMILE, 1. these are called “service facsimiles.” “Service” because they serve him. “Facsimiles” because they are in mental image picture form. They explain his disabilities as well. The facsimile part is actually a self- installed disability that “explains” how he is not responsible for being able to cope. So he is not wrong for not coping. Part of the “package” is to be right by making wrong. The service facsimile is therefore a picture containing an explanation of self condition and also a fixed method of making others wrong. (HCOB 15 Feb 74) 2 . this is actually part of a chain of incidents which the individual uses to invite sympathy or cooperation on the part of the environment. One uses engrams to handle himself and others and the environment after one has himself conceived that he has failed to handle himself, others and the general environment. (AP&A, p. 7) 3 . it is simply a time when you tried to do something and were hurt or failed and got sympathy for it. Then afterwards when you were hurt or failed and wanted an explanation, you used it. And if you didn’t succeed in getting sympathy for it, you used it so hard it became a psychosomatic illness. (HFP, p. 89) 4 . every time you fail, you pick up this facsimile and become sick or sadly noble. It’s your explanation to yourself and the world as to how and why you failed. It once got you sympathy. (HFP, p. 89) 5 . that facsimile which the preclear uses to apologize for his failures. In other words, it is used to make others wrong and procure their cooperation in the survival of the preclear. If the preclear well cannot achieve survival, he attempts an illness or disability as a survival computation. The workability and necessity of the service facsimile is only superficially useful. The service facsimile is an action method of withdrawing from a state of beingness to a state of not beingness and is intended to persuade others to coax the individual back into a state of beingness. (AP&A, p. 43) 6 . that computation generated by the preclear (not the bank) to make self right and others wrong, to dominate or escape domination and enhance own survival and injure that of others. (HCOB 1 Sept 63)

        .

        Service Facsimile seems to be an experience that one is using habitually as a justification for one’s fixed behavior. In this case, the behavior is not being derived from present circumstances.

      • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 11:51 AM

        The Scientology concepts of ‘computation’ and ‘service facsimile’ are being used to detect the inconsistency that one should be starting with in False Data Stripping.

  • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 1:48 PM

    Vin: Service Facsimile seems to be an experience that one is using habitually as a justification for one’s fixed behavior. In this case, the behavior is not being derived from present circumstances.

    Chris: Correct, and mindfulness is the cure. Service facsimiles and computations as used in these specialized definitions are substitutes for mindfulness. Mindfulness is a big word with big ramifications in one’s environment.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 5:31 PM

    The whole purpose of doing False Data Stripping is to help a person who is not functioning well on a job or in life. He is making blunders and getting bad results. He is not able to estimate his environment correctly.

    The theory is that this person has fase data that distort his perception of the fundamentals of a subject. If that false data is found and eliminated then that person can get the results that he wants in that subject.

    However, false data by no is means absolute. False data for a person may not be false data for another person.

    Only the result would tell.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 6:41 PM

    Hubbard says:

    “Some people are prone to accepting false data. This stems from overts committed prior to the false data being accepted. The false data then acts as a justifier for the overt.

    “An example of this would be a student studying past Mis-Us on a subject, cheating in the exam and eventually dropping the subject entirely. Then someone comes along and tells him that the subject is useless and destructive. Well, he will immediately grab hold of this datum and believe it as he needs something to justify his earlier overts.”

    .

    But the person may commit overts when he has false data. Here we see an inconsistency in Hubbard’s argument. Hubbard seems to be presenting a circular argument.

    Maybe we should keep overts out of this False Data Stripping .

    .

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 6:47 PM

    Hubbard uses a punishment-based system. The idea of overts belongs to such a system.

    If the person knows his overts then that is not the problem. The problem are the punishment factors that make him suppress or withhold his data.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 6:49 PM

      Looks like the punishment-based system is part of the society in which Hubbard grew up. It is not a matter of what is considered to be overt and what is not. It is a matter of using punishment in the society instead of removing misunderstanding.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 7:14 PM

    Education is as much a learning of new facts as it is getting rid of false ideas. Here are some notes on FALSE DATA STRIPPING.

    SITUATION: A person is not functioning well on a job or in life. He cannot associate his actions with the drastic results he is getting. He is unable to think with data. He is unable to learn.

    Fundamentals of subjects are not clarified in general. He has accepted data from others without proper examination. He cannot estimate his environment correctly. There are not just misunderstood. He is acting on false data.

    False data is absorbed from cultural media, textbooks and the opinions of authorities. False Data Stripping should be used extensively in all hatting and training activities.

    CAUTION:

    (1) False data may appear natural to one who believes it to be true.
    (2) Therefore, do not focus not some particular datum, but on an obvious inconsistency.
    (3) An inconsistency exists where something does not make sense.
    (4) One doesn’t know which data is false in the inconsistency.
    (5) The datum is false in a relative sense only.
    (6) The text being used to clear false data may itself be examined for false data.


    PROCEDURE:

    Ask the person if there is anything he has run across on the subject under discussion
    (a) which he couldn’t think with,
    (b) which didn’t seem to add up
    (c) which seems to be in conflict with the material one is trying to teach him.

    Handle the inconsistency with elementary Straightwire.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 7:18 PM

    The first step of False Data Stripping is as follows:

    A. Determine whether or not the person needs this procedure by checking the following:

    1. The person cannot be hatted on a subject.

    2. No Crashing Mis-Us can be found on a subject yet it is obvious they exist.

    3. The person is not duplicating the material he has studied as he is incorrectly applying it or only applying part of it, despite Word Clearing.

    4. He is rejecting the material he is reading or the definition of the word he is clearing.

    5. You suspect or the person originates earlier data he has encountered on the materials that could contain false data.

    6. The person talks about or quotes other sources or obviously incorrect sources.

    7. He is glib.

    8. The person is backing off from actually applying the data he is studying despite standard Word Clearing.

    9. He is bogged.

    10. He cannot think with the data and it does not seem to apply.

    .

    • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 1:42 PM

      Here my comments on the points above:

      1. I would not like to be hatted as a scam artist like an IAS Reg. So, a lot will depend on the subject one is being hatted on. One may simply have no interest in the subject.

      2. Again, what confirms the validity of a subject? There are no absolute truths or falsehoods. Imposing a certain viewpoint under the guise of False Data Stripping will be tantamount to brainwashing.

      3. The materials themselves can be faulty as in Scientology. The basic assumption in Scientology is that its materials are absolutely correct.

      I think that the remaining points 4 to 10 suffer from the same assumption as pointed out in 3. The bottom line is that one must first find an inconsistency that is real to the person and then help the person discover the underlying false data (assumption).

      I think that false data will always boil down to an unsuspected assumption.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On November 10, 2013 at 4:57 PM

        Vin: I think that false data will always boil down to an unsuspected assumption.

        Chris: Yes, and if the word “false data” is objectionable or gets in the road of mindful looking by way of an incorrect evaluation, then that can be modified. In this case, we might even unearth inconsistencies in the “How to Win Friends . . .” book though that will not be the purpose of this activity.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 7:31 PM

    I am puzzled by the area of social interaction. What model should I use?

    The inconsistency that I see is people not able to get along with each other. There is intolerance and abuse not only in the society but also on the Internet.

    (1) General interaction is there usually to celebrate an occasion, to have discussions to learn about things, to have fun together, to participate in a group activity to get work done, to have a functioning society, etc.

    (2) On Internet I have had problems on ESMB and on Geir’s Blog in carrying out worthwhile discussions. The discussions I have seen there are not focused on the subject, Instead they get focused on the people who are engaged in discussion.

    (3) It is not that I cannot learn to behave properly in these discussions, I seem to be lacking access to proper materials to hat myself on.

    (4) I shall appreciate if links to such materials are provided to me here.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 7:32 PM

    Let the False Data Stripping begin!

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 11:30 PM

      It seems that you already did get started and are well on your way using this tool. I think that’s great. I will be takinga look at it for myself as well.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 8:03 PM

    Shall we look at the following:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM

      Six Ways to Make People Like YouBecome genuinely interested in other people.Smile.Remember that a person’s name is, to that person, the sweetest and most important sound in any language.Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.Talk in terms of the other person’s interest.Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely.

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 8:54 PM

    According to Dale Carnegie:

    Fundamental Techniques in Handling People
    (1) Don’t criticize, condemn, or complain.
    (2) Give honest and sincere appreciation.
    (3) Arouse in the other person an eager want.

    I don’t think that I go overboard on (1). I do get frustrated with others around me do it incessantly. I am ok on (2). It is (3) that I need hatting on.
    .

  • vinaire  On November 9, 2013 at 9:04 PM

    According to Dale Carnegie:

    Six Ways to Make People Like You
    1. Become genuinely interested in other people.
    2. Smile.
    3. Remember that a person’s name is, to that person, the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
    4. Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
    5. Talk in terms of the other person’s interest.
    6. Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely.

    I am OK on (1) to (4). I seem to be weak on (5) as I have strong interests of my own. Point (6) goes out the window when the other person becomes hostile.
    .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 9:07 AM

    According to Dale Carnegie:

    Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking
    1. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
    2. Show respect for the other person’s opinions. Never say “You’re Wrong.”
    3. If you’re wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
    4. Begin in a friendly way.
    5. Start with questions to which the other person will answer yes.
    6. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
    7. Let the other person feel the idea is his or hers.
    8. Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view.
    9. Be sympathetic with the other person’s ideas and desires.
    10. Appeal to the nobler motives.
    11. Dramatize your ideas.
    12. Throw down a challenge.

    On (1) I am avoiding ESMB and Geir’s Blog. These places are very argumentative. They start arguing about the intention and characteristics of the person instead of the subject.

    On (2) I follow the discussion policy as much as possible. Instead of making the other person wrong, I try to clarify my view as much as possible.

    I follow (3) and (4).

    Point (5) is interesting. I have not thought of it.

    On point (6) I am letting ESMB and Geir’s Blog do all their talking. I am just not there. In the discussions that I am personally involved, I am focused on the subject. If I am not discussing with a live person, I am discussing with the authors through their books on that subject. There is plenty that others have said and continue to say. I never stop them from expressing their viewpoints.

    • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 1:29 PM

      Points (6) and (7) are good for Sales people. In discussion, each participant should be allowed to provide their input without criticism and interruption. I am all for that and I do that.

      I do points (8), (9) and (10).

      I don’t quite understand point (11). But I try to be as consistent as possible when presenting my ideas.

      I have certainly thrown a challenge with the discussion policy.

      .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM

    The next step of False Data Stripping is as follows:

    B. Establish the difficulty the person is having—i.e. what are the materials he can’t duplicate or apply? These materials must be to hand and the person must be familiar with the basic true data on the subject being addressed.

    .

    The basic difficulty will have to do with the understanding of some activity of life. So, one should gather up materials on the subject of that activity. In today’s Information age it is easy to gather up such materials.

    Even the ‘basic true data’ of a subject can be suspect. So, the focus should be on finding an inconsistency rather than finding what one thinks is “false”.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM

    The next step of False Data Stripping is as follows:

    C. If the action is being done metered, put the person on the meter and properly adjust the sensitivity with a proper can squeeze.

    .

    As I have indicated before mindfulness is far more preferable to metering. So, the person’s involved in False Data Stripping shall be trained on the 12 aspects of mindfulness per the following.

    https://vinaire.me/2013/09/05/the-12-aspects-of-mindfulness-revised/

    .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 2:04 PM

    The next step of False Data Stripping is as follows:

    D. Thoroughly clear the concept of false data with the person. Have him give you examples to show he gets it. (This would be done if the person was receiving False Data Stripping for the first time.)

    .
    I am of the opinion that False Data ultimately boils down to an assumption that is inconsistent with reality. So the concepts that should cleared up are:

    .

    as·sump·tion noun
    1. something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.
    2. the act of taking for granted or supposing. Synonyms: presumption; presupposition.
    3. the act of taking to or upon oneself. Synonyms: acceptance, shouldering.
    4. the act of taking possession of something: the assumption of power. Synonyms: seizure, appropriation, usurpation, arrogation.
    5. arrogance; presumption. Synonyms: presumptuousness; effrontery, forwardness, gall.
    6. the taking over of another’s debts or obligations.
    7. Ecclesiastical .
    a. ( often initial capital letter ) the bodily taking up into heaven of the Virgin Mary.
    b. ( initial capital letter ) a feast commemorating this, celebrated on August 15.
    8. Logic. the minor premise of a syllogism.

    .

    in·con·sist·ent adjective
    1. lacking in harmony between the different parts or elements; self-contradictory: an inconsistent story.
    2. lacking agreement, as one thing with another or two or more things in relation to each other; at variance: a summary that is inconsistent with the previously stated facts.
    3. not consistent in principles, conduct, etc.: He’s so inconsistent we never know if he’ll be kind or cruel.
    4. acting at variance with professed principles.
    5. Logic. incompatible ( def 4b ) .

    .

    False Data Stripping should be called INCONSISTENCY STRIPPING in KHTK.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 2:12 PM

    The next step of False Data Stripping is as follows:

    E. The following questions are used to detect and uncover the false data. These questions are cleared before they are used for the first time on anyone. They do not have to read on a meter and may not do so as the person will not necessarily read on something that he believes to be true.
    1. “Is there anything you have run across in (subject under discussion) which you couldn’t think with?”
    2. “Is there anything you have encountered in (subject under discussion) which didn’t seem to add up?”
    3. “Is there something you have come across in (subject under discussion) that seems to be in conflict with the material you are trying to learn?”
    4. “Is there something in (subject under discussion) which never made any sense to you?”
    5. “Did you come across any data in (subject under discussion) that you had no use for?”
    6. “Was there any data you came across in (subject under discussion) that never seemed to fit in?”
    7. “Do you know of any datum that makes it unnecessary for you to do a good job on this subject?”
    8. “Do you know of any reason why an overt product is alright?”
    9. “Would you be made wrong if you really learned this subject?”
    10. “Did anyone ever explain this subject to you verbally?”
    11. “Do you know of any datum that conflicts with standard texts on this subject?”
    12. “Do you consider you really know best about this subject?”
    13. “Would it make somebody else wrong not to learn this subject?”
    14. “Is this subject not worth learning?”

    The questions are asked in the above sequence. When an area of false data is uncovered by one of these questions one goes straight on to Step F—handling.

    .

    These questions seem to be fine. They are likely to flush out some inconsistency.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 2:15 PM

    The next step of False Data Stripping is as follows:

    F. When the person comes up with an answer to one of the above questions locate the false datum as follows:
    1. Ask: “Have you been given any false data regarding this?” and help him locate the false datum. If this is being done on the meter, one can use any meter reads one does get to steer the person. This may require a bit of work as the person may believe the false data he has to be true. Keep at it until you get the false datum.

    If the person has given you the false datum in Step E then this step will not be needed: just go straight on to Step G.

    .

    I would rather ask, “Does there seem to be an underlying assumption that needs to be verified?”

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2013 at 5:28 AM

      vin: I would rather ask, “Does there seem to be an underlying assumption that needs to be verified?”

      chris: Any benign and non evaluative wording would be fine.

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 7:25 PM

        Maybe one should ask for contradictory data being given to one rather than false data.

        False data requires that a person be certain of his own data as right or true. But, at times, the person may not be sure of his own data, and may not also be sure if the data given to him was false. So, asking for false data may result in some false data getting missed.

        But one can bypass this lack of certainty by asking for contradictory data. Even when the person is not sure if a datum is false or not, he would be more sure of the contradiction. So, I think, asking for contradictory data may result in more success.

        I would rather ask, “Have you been given any disagreeable, contradictory, or confusing data regarding this?”

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 7:35 PM

          I do not think we are zeroing in on the salient point of FDS false data stripping and that is “How does the person feel about how he is doing with the subject to hand?” I rather think that the person being FDS’s should themself be originating trouble with a subject even though they are doing all they can to get good results. This results in a willingness to look. This willingness to look would only appear when the person himself, on his own evaluation of himself, thinks he is having trouble. Without this, FDS’ing will in my opinion fall flat and be a useless waste of time.

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 8:48 AM

          You seem to be talking about Step E. I am talking about Step F. One does go not to Step F unless step E requires it.

        • Chris Thompson  On November 14, 2013 at 10:15 AM

          That’s cool. The steps are not all of equal importance. The most important step of all, consistent with KHTK, to gently unstack the mind, is to consult the person’s interest. This is the lowest hanging fruit. For example, the final question on the expanded and audited “Danger” handling in ethics is “Is there really nothing wrong?” Because of false data, the person can FN over this question even though there is obviously something wrong. That is not the only reason for the FN, just sayin’.

          If a person does not have a personal complaint about his ability to apply the data of a subject, then one should probably not try to false data strip. Do you see it that way?

        • vinaire  On November 14, 2013 at 6:18 PM

          Of course. Step E determines whether one should proceed with FDS or not.

          In step D, one should clear up the words inconsistency and assumption, and then work out how false data fits in the model of mindfulness.

          .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 2:19 PM

    The next step of False Data Stripping is as follows:

    G. When the false datum has been located, handle as follows:
    1. Ask: “Where did this datum come from?” (This could be a person. a book. TV, etc.)
    2. “When was this?”
    3. “Where exactly were you at the time?”
    4. “Where was (the person, book, etc.) at the time?”
    5. “What were you doing at the time?”
    6. If the false datum came from a person ask: “what was (the person) doing at the time?”
    7. “How did (the person, book, etc.) look at the time?”
    8. If the datum has not blown with the above questions ask: “Is there an earlier similar false datum or incident on (the subject under discussion)?” and handle per Steps 1-7.

    Continue as above until the false datum has blown. On the meter you will have a floating needle and very good indicators.

    DO NOT CONTINUE PAST A POINT WHERE THE FALSE DATUM HAS BLOWN.

    If you suspect the datum may have blown but the person has not originated then ask: “How does that datum seem to you now?” and either continue if it hasn’t blown or end off on that datum if it has blown.

    .

    These questions seem to be fine. I would get the person to look at the datum more closely and verify to his satisfaction that it is an assumption without any basis in reality.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On November 12, 2013 at 5:27 AM

      We seem to be able to examine and to correct some aspects of our programming. This programming might be installed through the process of conditioning. We seem to have ROM programming contained in our DNA in which case I think this might not be able to be self-reprogrammed. When a person is unable to do any self-diagnostic, then the help of a second person to “audit” may overcome this inability. Then one may be reprogrammed to be able to do a self-diagnostic. This may put many programming applications within reach of the individual’s own manipulation.

      • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 7:10 PM

        It seems that we have an inherent sense of the unconditioned state. Whenever there is conditioning we seem to know somehow that something is not quite right. That signal of ‘something not quite right’ may get suppressed but it is never gets totally eliminated.

        Relativity of motion may bring about a gradual change in the quality of awareness when mindfulness is not being applied. That change is quite insidious being gradual and almost unnoticeable.

        Acceleration of motion may bring about a deeper and more permanent change in the quality of awareness. This may be responsible for the construction of the universe itself.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 7:28 PM

          I am only writing that no matter what our mothers tell us, we do not have any inherent infinite potential.

          A man’s got to know his limitations.

        • vinaire  On November 13, 2013 at 7:31 PM

          LOL! That is being mindful.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On November 13, 2013 at 7:36 PM

          Quite right! Thank you.

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 2:21 PM

    The next step of False Data Stripping is as follows:

    H. When you have handled a particular false datum to a blow, going earlier similar as necessary, you would then go back and repeat the question from E (the detection step) that uncovered the false datum. If there are any more answers to the question, they are handled exactly as in Step F (location) and Step G (handling). That particular question is left when the person has no more answers. Then, if the person is not totally handled on the subject under discussion, one would use the other questions from Step E and handle them in the same way. All the questions can be asked and handled as above but one would not continue past a point where the whole subject has been cleared up and the person can now duplicate and apply the data he has been having trouble with.

    .
    This step seems to be fine.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 2:23 PM

    The last few steps of False Data Stripping are as follows:

    I. CONDITIONAL: If False Data Stripping is being done in conjunction with Crashing Mis-U finding one would now proceed with the Crashing Mis-U finding.

    J. Send the person to the Examiner.

    K. Have the person study or restudy the true data on the subject you have been handling.

    .

    Steps I and J are not applicable in KHTK.

    Step K is fine.

    .

  • vinaire  On November 10, 2013 at 2:36 PM

    Well, guys, Chris and I shall have our first session on False Data Stripping later today on the subject of INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP. We shall be starting with STEP A as follows:

    https://vinaire.me/2012/10/05/a-look-at-scientology-auditing/#comment-13657

    Since there ought to be some kind of hatting materials, we shall be starting with the points presented by Dale Carnegie here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

    We shall be looking at each point presented by Dale Carnegie and evaluating them for possible inconsistencies.

    The session shall be carried out under the discipline of mindfulness as outlined here:

    https://vinaire.me/2013/09/05/the-12-aspects-of-mindfulness-revised/

    .

  • vinaire  On August 21, 2014 at 4:39 PM

    What works in auditing is mindfulness. A Scientology process simply provides a framework within which to contemplate mindfully.

    .

  • vinaire  On September 24, 2014 at 8:28 AM

    Here is my response on another blog.

    Blog posting

    Steve: “The problem here is that pc’s usually have an awful ability to communicate and are only comfortable in “social” situations where nobody ever says what they really think. People get very nervous about letting it all hang out and I can tell you that I have seen pc’s burn up auditors like crazy all because the auditor didn’t have sufficient skill to get in communication with them.”

    I do not think that is the problem. Auditing works when the pc’s attention is directed at the right area of his case, He than looks at it and resolves it by realizing what the confusion actually was. He doesn’t have to talk about all that he is looking at in detail to the auditor. He doesn’t need to let it all hang out.

    Here is the problem as I see it.

    (1) Hubbard assumes that preclear’s reactive mind is greater than the preclear’s analytical mind. So the auditor needs to lend his analytical mind in support of the preclear. Basically, this amounts to auditor assisting in analysing preclear’s case. This is simply another form of pschoanalysis.

    (2) Psychoanalysis requires collection of information about the preclear’s case in detail. Auditing is designed to do that. This gets into the violation of the privacy of the preclear. This has many other problems. The profession of Psychoanalysis has professional oversight. Scientology auditing in the field does not have that oversight.

    (3) As I see, Hubbard’s assumption (preclear’s reactive mind is greater than the preclear’s analytical mind) is applicable only in the situation when pc is tackling his case on a wrong gradient. When the pc is looking at the right area of his case, he can handle it easily without the assistance of the auditor.

    (4) The right area of the case is determined through D of P interview. C/S then determines the right processes. Auditor than applies those processes.

    (5) The wrong action is to collect data during auditing session for continuous C/Sing. Auditing should be limited to getting the pc look at the right area of his case. No further analysis is needed. If the pc is not winning than the C/Sing did not determine the right area of the case. Simple.

    (6) No communication from the auditor is required other than TRs.

    (7) No communication from the pc is required other than that in the D of P interview.

    There is something terribly wrong with collecting a blow by blow account of the preclear’s case. That is ok in a research phase, but not in normal auditing where C/Sing has already determined the correct process to apply. This is the BIG OUTPOINT that I see. Otherwise, auditing is not much different from psychoanalysis.
    .

  • vinaire  On September 25, 2014 at 12:28 PM

    Here is my response to another blog posting.

    http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/scientology-indoctrination-abomination/#comment-319753

    .

    PTSness means suppression. This means that, basically, a person is not allowed to express himself. On the other hand, ARCx means upset. This means that a person is unable to make himself properly understood.

    Suppression can occur with the evaluation of one’s case by categorizing it as PTS. It appears that this Scientology Tech works against itself with wrong assignment. Actually, this PTS tech came about as general bucket assignment when regular tech failed…

    One should go back to the original communication and the tech, which failed to handle any miscommunication. PTS assignment came later as a cover up for failed tech.

  • vinaire  On October 18, 2014 at 8:01 AM

    The following few responses are to this post:

    From Marty’s Blog

    Dianetics works like a charm when it is done with mindfulness. HSDC was run on me in 1969. I ran it with mindfulness which I took TR0 to mean. It was a great success. The rapid deterioration that I was suffering from ankylosing spondylitis suddenly stopped. In a way, it save my life and pulled me out of utter desperation.

    I believe that what got Dianetics go off the rails was getting fixated into the significances of the incidents that were generally run. This made one depart from mindfulness. It doesn’t matter if the incident seems to come from prenatal period or from past lives. Just run it without reading anything into it.

    The success of Dianetics came from getting away from psychoanalysis, and simply letting the “file clerk” bring up the incidents to look at. Resolution came from looking at the incident thoroughly. Sometimes, the incident extended in time and “earlier-similar” worked great.

    The error was to think that a “past life” incident meant that “one has lived before” and then getting into all kind of speculations about one’s existence. That is not mindfulness. When one speculates, one gets away from mindfulness.

    The correct use of Dianetics is to run the incident and be done with it. No need to attach any further significance. No need to get into some kind of analysis. No need to speculate.

    Occlusion of memory came about because the “file clerk” principle was violated. Hubbard tried to compute the incidents in a rush to get to the engram in the fastest way possible to obtain a Clear. That is where Hubbard himself went off the rails.

    The “file clerk” principle is the most important principle in Dianetics. It supports mindfulness.
    .

  • vinaire  On October 18, 2014 at 8:28 AM

    Objectives and lower grades work like a charm too when the “file clerk” (the mindfulness principle) is followed. However, this principle of “file clerk” is violated when one starts to think that one can override the file clerk as a thetan.

    The concept of thetan restricts one’s view narrowly to self, and to the belief that it is superior to everything else. It acts against the viewpoint of pan-determinism based on overall reality. The “file clerk” is that pan-determined viewpoint of reality.

    The fixation on Thetan pervades the definitions of ARC and corrupts it. Reality is looked upon as agreement among Thetans. Thus, thetan is made senior to reality. Basically, it is putting egoistic “self-determinism” above the “pan-determinism” of reality. The “file clerk” is decimated by the concept of Thetan.

    This is also where the conditioning of Scientology starts. This fixation on self and its superiority (Thetan) is the germ that has destroyed the principle of “file clerk”, and which has made Scientology so disgusting today.
    .

  • vinaire  On October 18, 2014 at 9:44 AM

    The indoctrination in Scientology starts with the concept of THETAN taking over the concept of the FILE CLERK. It starts with “self” thinking itself to be superior to reality.

    A lot of people familiar with Scientology, whether pro or con, are still infected by this conditioning activated by the idea of “thetan” and oblivious of it. It is because this is an ancient conditioning that has been lying dormant. Scientology simply activates it in a big way.

    It is not just part of Hubbard’s case, it is everybody’s case. It is the human-centric desire to put “self” above the reality, and not recognizing reality for what it is.

    This case was very active in Hubbard. In other’s it was activated by Hubbard to various degree.

    Self is part of reality. It is an aberrated belief that self is separate from reality and superior to it.

    That is just a complex.
    .

  • vinaire  On October 18, 2014 at 9:48 AM

    It is simple to decondition oneself from Scientology. Simply stop focusing and believing in the concept of “thetan,” and get back to validating the concept of “file clerk” and you will do fine. The “file clerk” represents that “pan-determinism” associated with reality. It represents “seeing things as they are” of mindfulness.

    When you do that you will easily separate yourself from all the confusion in Scientology.

    Exteriorization is not some “thetan” separating from the body. Exteriorization is simply the attention no longer fixated on the body.

    OT powers come from fully understanding the reality and not from feigning superiority over reality by force. LRH operated by persuasion through force just as DM is doing. That is not OT power, otherwise Mafia bosses and MEST universe would be OT. LRH had a totally screwed up concept of OT. It was based on the human-centric concept of thetan.

    When you look at this fixation on thetan you are looking at the turd that Alanzo talks about.

    The key to resolution is the viewpoint that FILE CLERK represents. It is viewpoint of reality as a whole. It is mindfulness.

  • fcdcclassof74  On November 12, 2014 at 11:38 AM

    So, there is some value in scientology processing; but the manner in which it is done is in question and mindfulness would intertwine how? I have had scientology processing and with it gain in my life but after being independent for close to 40 plus years and seeing the shenanigans Mr. Misugina has perpetrated I am hesitant to return or use. What or who is to say what is the correct tweak to the tech is valid? Vinaire I have enjoyed your viewpoint on so many things on your blog, it is refreshing to read a sane slant now a days. I would really like to see your opinion on those items still of value to the scientology follower i.e. philosophy and day to day easily attainable mental or better yet spiritual exercises. Bill Dupree

  • fcdcclassof74  On November 12, 2014 at 11:41 AM

    I do recall that Ron did a lot of processing without doing it with a meter he used time lag for response to a question and the change be it smaller or larger. Bill Dupree

    • vinaire  On November 14, 2014 at 9:23 PM

      Gains in auditing come from looking at the right area. The challenge is in finding the right area to look at, and the subsequent correct sequence of looking.

      Scientology uses its theory and processes to work out an auditing program from the interview of the preclear. To the degree this case supervision is correct the case should run smoothly and continuous gains would be there. There should be no occlusion when the gradient and order of looking is correct.

      To the degree there is occlusion, the case is not programmed correctly. It is not running smoothly and the gains are spotty.

      Hubbard fought with the problem of occlusion throughout his research. This shows weaknesses in his theory. The primary weakness was that he didn’t trust the preclear in determining the sequence in which to look. Therefore, all case programming in Scientology is other-determined.

      The “unstacking of inconsistencies” principle of mindfulness circumvents the problem of occlusion by introducing self-determinism in case programming. This principle is applied in Idenics very successfully. However, it is spotted and enhanced in KHTK.

    • vinaire  On November 14, 2014 at 9:33 PM

      Bill, it is not a matter of using an e-meter or not. It is a matter of continuous correct case programming, which only the preclear can do.

      No auditor or CS can know the case of preclear as well as the preclear himself or herself. Scientology invalidates that ability of the preclear by imposing its theory of case programming on the preclear.

  • vinaire  On November 15, 2014 at 7:55 AM

    There is no thetan but only attention as described below.

    … Attention: the influence that moulds awareness patterns out there
    … Visualization: moulding of awareness waves into new patterns
    … … attention brings about visualization
    … … visualization simply changes one form to another
    … … there is mental matter, energy, space and time in that visualization
    … … lack of attention leaves the visualization in a fixed state
    … … putting attention is establishing communication line
    … … The relatively fixed part of awareness at the other end is the terminal
    … … terminal provides stability as anchor point
    … … counter-attention may bring about de-stabilization
    … … This attention (dynamic influence) may substitute for the thetan
    … … Viewpoint determines the nature of attention
    … … Space-time describes the forming of energy-matter dynamically
    … … There are innumerable influences (attentions) forming the awareness
    … … Attentions are not separate from awarenesses being formed
    … … Attention and awareness may influence each other
    … … Aberration comes about as attention and awareness become increasingly fixed

  • vinaire  On November 15, 2014 at 10:14 PM

    ATTENTION AND THETANS
    … There are no thetans. There are only influences (attentions)
    … These attentions arise from the configuration of awareness
    … Thus any awareness has intrinsic built-in tension that appears as attention
    … We may combine all such attentions into a vector called thetan
    … Attention and awareness go hand in hand
    … … No awareness = no attention = no thetan
    … … The ultimate tension or charge is THETAN

    THETANS are pockets of fundamental attentions (charges) with their associated awareness.

  • vinaire  On December 28, 2014 at 6:30 AM

    The following is a FALSE DATUM in Scientology:

    “The pc must say out loud and in detail what comes to his mind. When he only thinks it, or says “yes” as an answer to the auditing command, he will not
    get rid of any charge.”

    The charge vanishes from looking at the phenomenon thoroughly. One need not verbalize it.

    .

  • vinaire  On January 20, 2015 at 11:38 AM

    In Scientology the auditor asks the pc a set of questions as part of a process.

    This is not necessary in KHTK. In talking to the person the KHTK guide can soon find out the general area where the person’s attention is. He then asks the person to look at that general area more closely.

    The guide keeps the attention of the person in that general area and watches for any confusions, problems or any other inconsistencies that the person verbalizes. He helps the person spot the inconsistency with greater clarity in a larger context, and then gets him to look at it more closely.

    The guide simply repeats the above steps making sure that the person is applying the 12 aspects of mindfulness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: