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.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • 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.



  • 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.


    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:


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


    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:



  • 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.



    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

%d bloggers like this: