Hinduism allows its scriptures to be questioned.
Buddha encouraged his disciples to question his teachings.
Knowledge grows when it is questioned and discussed. For inconsistencies are then discovered and eliminated.
Why does Scientology prohibit its followers to question and discuss its knowledge?
If Scientology must grow it should allow its theories to be examined, questioned, challenged and discussed by its followers.
The other option would be for Scientology to go the way of the Catholic Church – moving lifelessly only because of past momentum.
.
Comments
The question then becomes,
What in Scientology helps one look systematically and mindfully?
The answer to that question will help one salvage what is workable in Scientology. The rest of Scientology can simply be discarded.
.
The L-11 process heavily stresses on C/S Series 37R, which essentially talks about the reason behind OVERRUN.
We shall next be looking at this subject of OVERRUN, which, as we shall discover, surprisingly points to the fundamental error in the approach of Scientology auditing itself.
.
From C/S Series 37R:
The usual definition of OVERRUN is “gone on too long” or “happened too often”. This causes high TAs to occur.
.
From Technical Dictionary:
OVERRUN, 1. an overrun means doing something too long that has engrams connected with it which means an engram chain with too many engrams on it being restimulated by life or auditing. Hence overrun. If this overrun persisted unhandled eventually the pc would be overwhelmed and one in theory, would have a low TA. (HCOB 16 Jun 70) 2 . gone on too long or happened too often. (HCOB 3 Jun 71) 3 . means the pc came out of the bank and the pc went back into it again. (Class VIII, No. 2) 4 . continuing a process past the optimum point.(Abil 218) 5 . running past a free, floating needle on any type of process.
(HCOB 2 Aug 65)
.
In my opinion, overrun starts the moment the preclear is no longer looking at the answers presented by the mind.
The overrun mechanism is,
(1) The auditor asks a question.
(2) The mind does not present an answer.
(3) The auditor keeps repeating the question.
(4) The mind does not present an answer because the answer is not available.
(5) The preclear does not recognize that there is no answer available. Thus the F/N is missed.
(6) The preclear starts to get desperate for an answer. Thus, the TA starts to go up.
(7) The overrun phenomenon sets in.
Underlying an overrun is the failure on part of the preclear to recognize that there was no answer available to the auditing question. Thus, he never F/Ns. The situation gets worse as the preclear gets desperate and starts to dig and speculate for answers.
.
From C/S Series 37R:
In examining a few failures on using “overrun”, I have found that underlying this there is a more basic principle.
When a thetan believes something is “overrun” or “has gone on too long” or “was done too often” he is expressing only a symptom of another mechanism.
The truth is A THETAN CAN DO ANYTHING FOREVER.
.
In my opinion, this “truth” offered by Hubbard is a false datum.
A Thetan is presented in Scientology as the core beingness of a person. Hubbard does not provide an objective definition of Thetan. The idea of Thetan as static does not make sense because there is no absolute static. Any idea of static is relative. The person ends up defining thetan in terms of his “self”; and that serves as a “stable datum”, but it is all relative.
One may postulate that “A THETAN CAN DO ANYTHING FOREVER.” But that does not make it an absolute truth. One may postulate anything but then one is faced with inconsistencies.
.
From C/S Series 37R:
To Audit “overruns” is auditing toward an untruth. Thus if carried on as a process it is really an out of ARC Process.
That which makes a thetan believe something can be overrun is the EFFORT TO STOP or THE EFFORT TO STOP HIM.
The effort to stop something, when generalized, becomes a “stop everything” and IS the entrance point of insanity. This has been known since 1967. But I did not earlier connect it with the OVERRUN phenomenon.
.
“Overrun” is a situation where the answer to an auditing question is not available. All the auditor can do to bring relief from overrun is to acknowledge this situation, because this is what the preclear is trying to tell him.
Hubbard is making this situation much more complex than it really is. Of course, if you keep asking a person a question that he does not have answer for, it will drive him nuts.
.
.
From C/S Series 37R:
When a thetan has a long chain of efforts to stop or a chain of efforts to stop him (mixed up with protest, of course, and shame, blame and regret and other human emotion and reaction) he accumulates ridges. These make mass.
This mass makes the high TA.
.
Thetan (self) is basically a matrix of vectors associated with each other in cause-effect relationships. These vectors may be defined in terms of desires and considerations. These vectors are fluid and wavelike. But as resistance comes about to their natural motion, such as, asking for something which is not there, then mass is generated and the thetan starts to get fixated.
See https://vinaire.me/2013/11/14/questioning-scientology-knowledge/#comment-13989
When there is resistance to motion (inertia), mass and location is created. This is covered by KHTK Axiom 7:
.
From C/S Series 37R:
In truth it is not possible to kill a thetan, so therefore any effort to stop a thetan would only have partial success. So the chain is also full of INCOMPLETES.
An incomplete cycle of action causes ARC Breaks.
Thus an OVERRUN is full of MASS and ARC Breaks!
.
A thetan is like a wave. When it is stopped it becomes located like a particle.
Overrun is caused by repeatedly asking a question for which the mind is not presenting any answer.
.
From C/S Series 37R:
As you possibly recall from the material of about 1955 the one process you must not run on a pc is “Look out of here and find something you can go out of ARC with.” This sends him into a dwindling spiral.
The common denominators of a bank are OUT OF ARC and STOP!
Thus if too long a list of “What has been Overrun” is required to obtain the first BD F/N item the listing action may very well restimulate much more bank than can easily be handled on some pcs.
.
Out of ARC means harmony and consistency is being disrupted. Therefore,
Out of ARC = Inconsistency
Stops = Lack of answers
As life gathers inconsistencies and unanswered questions, it starts to lose its fluidity and becomes very constrained.
What will work here is unstacking of the mind as inconsistencies and unanswered questions present themselves.
.
From C/S Series 37R:
As these are also the pcs with very high TA, if one lists for overrun and runs much too long a list to get his first BD F/N item, the pc can be heavily restimulated.
Listing errors or upsets can make this, then, too uncomfortable a proceeding for a pc and should NOT now be done.
And if it doesn’t work on some pcs in the hands of some auditors, it must therefore be cancelled. Any recommendation on VIII Course to do it is cancelled.
The theory is correct as given on the VIII Course. There, a few items were intended. But now some very long lists have come up on some pcs which made the pc uncomfortable and were hard for the auditor to handle. Thus the BD F/N item overrun list must not be done.
.
Overruns over time are very difficult to handle with Scientology listing processes. The best action is to prevent overruns from occurring in the first place. Training preclears on the 12 apects of mindfulness will go a long way in preventing overruns.
The data on the 12 aspects of mindfulness shall be found on this blog.
.
From C/S Series 37R:
CONTINUE is then the Reverse Action to overrun. Continue equals Survival.
The REVERSE to overrun therefore can be run as a process, to wit, “What would you be permitted to continue?” or “What could be Continued?”
This however would not be very successful. Thus the listing action is recommended as the process to use.
.
Hubbard did not fully recognized the mechanism for overrun.
Knowing that mechanism the correct approach would be to find the instance when the mind did not come up naturally with the answer. The preclear then did not recognize this and went into speculation.
.
From C/S Series 37R:
The list questions for the above are:
If A stopped: “What could you continue to do to another?”
If B stopped: “What could another continue to do to you?”
If C stopped: “What could others continue to do to others?”
If D stopped: “What could others continue to do to you?”
If E stopped: “What could you continue to do to yourself?”
If F stopped, list “What could another continue to do to others?”
If G stopped, list “What could others continue to do to another?”
The “Most stopped read” would be one that really froze the needle or caused it to rise or caused the TA to RISE such as 3.5 to 3.6.
The lists would be listed to a BD F/N item, Cog, VGIs. Actually the list could be listed forever. But the pc will get an item he likes and that F/Ns. He is then given his item. One does NOT null such lists unless one has really goofed.
ALL the lists A, B, C, D, E, F and G can be listed. To get a TA DOWN you list the flow that sends the TA UP. Then reassess for the next that sends the TA up, etc.
.
To get the “TA down” one can simply get the person to make a list of questions which has bothered him a lot, and to which he has been unable to get a satisfactory answer to. Then have him rearrange the list such that the most basic question is on the top.
Now have him mindfully contemplate over that question with or without the help of a KHTK guide.
.
From Tech Dictionary:
JUSTIFICATION, explaining away the most flagrant wrongnesses. Most explanations of conduct, no matter how far-fetched, seem perfectly right to the person making them since he or she is only asserting self-rightness and other wrongness. (HCOB 22 Jul 63)
.
From English Dictionary::
jus·ti·fi·ca·tion, 1. a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends: His insulting you was ample justification for you to leave the party.
.
Basically, justification provides an explanation.for some conduct. The Scientology meaning implies that it is used to assert rightness even when one is wrong.
It boils down to stating a viewpoint. That viewpoint could be rational or irrational in a relative sense.
One may argue the rightness or wrongness of a justification. But the important action would be the examination of the underlying inconsistency and determining the facts.
It is incorrect to assume that the person providing the justification has done something wrong. One must examine all the facts related to the situation.
Mindfulness allows for no assumptions.
.
Here is a nice description of the actions taken on L-11 Rundown:
NEW VIEWPOINT RUNDOWN
The rundown was originally developed to resolve extreme cases of psychosis or people in psychotic breaks. The first step in such a case would be rest, food, even mild sedatives to get the person destimulated enough to audit.
The first auditing actions undertaken might be only a GF or CS 53 to further cool it off, then the rundown goes for blood. CS Series 37R is assessed and handled per the issues. While the EP (stated) is an FN’ing flows assessment, if there were to be a big cognition on the subject of continuing or something to do with that that showed it no longer to be a problem or real particular lack of interest, in going further with it, it, would be considered to be complete. It also seems to have a marked influence on TA position and has been known to help resolve chronic low TA’s.
Following 37R, the person is given a copy of HCOB 21 Jan, 1960, JUSTIFICATIQN and asked to read it, and write an essay on how it has applied (or may have applied) to his/her life. This is a restimulative action and helps to open up the case even further.
At this juncture. the pc is asked for an IMPLANT TO HARM which is then Date/Located and should result in blows. Following this, GENERAL OW is run. If the person is stuck in some psychosis, an EVIL PURPOSE will “explosively” blow into view. If a purpose doesn’t, it is run to a general EP.
If no Ev Purp comes off in O/W, you would then L & N for it. The following actions are routinely undertaken with ev purps encountered at this level and above: It is Date/Located to blows and then a 2WC – WHAT PROGRESS HAVE YOU MADE IN ATTAINING THAT PURPOSE?, (or a variant of this) is done to blow off further considerations and free the purpose up to leave. These are the routine steps of NEW VIEWPOINT.
In a later HCOB, CS’ING FLAG RUNDOWNS, an expanded step was added which is: a) CAUSE PA (Program Assessment), CAUSE RA (Results Assessment) and then a Date/Locate to blows of each of the 37R items. This completes New Viewpoint as a rundown.
While other organizations know to us sell this as a minimum of two intensives to complete, it is a fairly short action which averages less than half an intensive. I think it’s an excellent “set-up” for CAUSE and in C/S’ING FLAG RUNDOWNS, is given as the first of these rundowns. Arbitrarily, in that issue, they are done: NEW VIEWPOINT, EXTROVERSION and then CAUSE, although each has its own results and can be done entirely separately from the others.
.
The core of L-11 seems to be blowing from the case THE IMPLANT TO HARM.
(1) The very idea of “implant” assures the person that he is not the cause of any intention to harm that is originating from within him.
(2) This is essentially a trick to bypass justifications from the person. Because such an intention was implanted by others, the person would not have to defend himself for harboring it.
(3) The person would then give out the intention to harm that he has felt within himself.
(4) The origin of the intention would then be located to the satisfaction of the person.
(5) This is like handling all harmful intention that one has felt toward others to its basic-basic.
(6) This must bring a big relief to the person.
.
I am sure that this can also be handled more completely by oneself through mindful contemplation. Please see
.
I would like to see a person be able to blow the implant to harm (if it is there) on his own using KHTK approach. In my opinion, this would require:
(1) Training on mindfulness per EXERCISE: Technique of Mindfulness. This exercise may be repeated anytime to polish up one’s mindfulness skills.
(2) Training in letting the mind unstack itself per EXERCISE: Being There. This exercise may be repeated anytime to polish up one’s skill in letting the mind unstack itself.
(3) Experience with spotting and resolving inconsistencies per EXERCISE: Contemplation. This will prepare a person to handle inconsistencies relating to intention to harm.
(4) The procedure to blow the implant to harm would be:
….. (a) Look up the definition of HARM in a dictionary, and then contemplate over each definition. Let the mind unstack on the concept of harm.
….. (b) Look up the definition of INTENTION in a dictionary, and then contemplate over each definition. Let the mind unstack on the concept of intention.
….. (c) Consider what would an INTENTION TO HARM be. Contemplate over this consideration. Let the mind unstack itself on this consideration.
….. (d) This may done to a point when some persistent thought, emotion or impulse has just left, though this may not always be possible.
….. (e) Repeat this procedure until one can BE THERE comfortably with the consideration “intention to harm.” One shall then fully understand all aspects of “intention to harm” on a first-hand experiential basis.
.
I am doing this process. I was moved by the first instance that came to my mind. It is something that happened about 50 years ago. I happened to locate that person recently but the communication did not go easy.
I had to send an email to that person asking for forgiveness, though that is not required by this process.
.
One needs a quiet place to go through this process of contemplation. One can have eyes open or closed. One may be still or moving around. One may refer to the dictionary, wikipedia, and other references as necessary as the contemplation progresses.
.
Here is an interesting subject that came up. Can one’s desires be looked upon as “intention to harm” if they are intended for the satisfaction of self only with no concern for others?
Well, since that has come up I shall contemplate on that also.
This KHTK contemplation seems to go deeper and wider than anything that I experienced in Scientology.
.
Any intention to exploit another has also come up here for contemplation, with all its consequences.
Sexual desires are quite suspect here.
Here, the concept of “earlier similar” of Scientology seems to be replaced by “allowing the mind to unstack itself naturally.”
For a Scientologist this may appear to be similar to doing TR0 with a certain contemplative process guiding it.
This approach will get the low hanging fruits quickly. One may then go to another process with KHTK approach and get the low hanging fruits on that process, and so on. After some time when one returns to the first process, more low hanging fruits may now be available.
Thus, one deals with low hanging fruits only while going through a large set of processes again and again.
One may use all Scientology Grade 0 processes as a set, and go through them many many times, until all possible fruits are gotten on all Grade 0 processes. Then one may move to the processes of the next grade.
I shall be putting a KHTK Grade 0 exercise together based on this concept.
.
Wise
Your post is for me an excellent breakthrough for KHTK. A lot of good can be done with this. It is a genuine step toward improving our environment polluted with shame, blame, and regrets. Scientology confessional auditing is too harsh by orders of magnitude. It has been rudely abused and deliberately misused to harm, but the underlying motivation to help another confront and to embrace the uglier aspects of their past is a useful and I think an important part of any successful mental health technology. I’ve wanted to discuss this for a while but it is a sore subject when questioning Scientology.
See INTENTION TO HARM.
Regarding Forgiveness:
It can be hard to embrace who, what, when and where we have harmed or destroyed. When we do, it is natural to seek forgiveness. Forgiveness has two faces. One is the healthy side of taking responsibility for the harm which we have done. The other side is not so pretty and is a cascaded layer of justification, an attempt to lessen our own feelings of guilt. Mindfulness dictates that we wrap our arms around our past and embrace all that we are or ever have been which in my own experience is evil as well as good. It is not an easy process but I believe it is an important part of the path to Nirvana.
There is no need to ask for forgiveness unless one is naturally moved to do so.
.
That is correct. And one cannot always right the wrongs of the past. But one can apologize and try to align their future going forward with their epiphany. Also, apologizing sincerely when warranted creates interference patterns and diffuses the condensation of wrong in the mind of the offended and also of the offended. This can be a good thing for both.
Yes. Without sincere apology there cannot be any forgiveness.
True forgiveness ultimately comes from within oneself.
.
We could say that mindfulness by steps includes forgiveness by steps. For the mind that is mindful, forgiveness is a realization.
Nice one!
When I tell someone “I am sorry,” I am specific and clear as to what I am sorry for without any “if’s,” and I do not ask forgiveness as I leave it to the harmed person’s own mindfulness as to what to do with the apology that I have presented. Often there are still ripples of consequences for our past actions whether done decades ago or minutes ago. Mindfulness is a mechanic that mentally moves us out of our past debilitating guilts. This is healthy and will bring a relief. Mindfulness also brings us fully into awareness of harm that have done and suggests that we embrace the consequential ripples of our acts, which may be uncomfortable at best or worse might dictate a commensurate act of contrition.
When there is mindfulness all around we shall gain a great deal of efficiency in whatever we do.
.
In my opinion, both Scientology and Christianity (the two religions with which I am familiar) twisted and degraded this process. Scientology ruined this process by prosecuting an individual each time he makes mistakes or errors, and Christianity by demanding one “ask forgiveness” which makes the process about the perpetrator’s comfort rather than about the perpetrator’s responsibility.
Both subjects do not follow their own recommendations. There are inconsistencies built into them.
.