Project: Hubbard 1954: The Phoenix Lectures

This paper presents Chapter 10 from the book THE PHOENIX LECTURES by L. RON HUBBARD. The contents are from the original publication of this book by The Church of Scientology (1954).

The paragraphs of the original material (in black) are accompanied by brief comments (in color) based on the understanding from Buddhism.  Feedback on these comments is always appreciated.



Here we take up the various reasons why.

We have in Scientology a lot to do with reasons why, but the fact is that a fellow who goes around always looking for reasons why is usually not in particularly good shape.

But there are a lot of reasons why the states of existence and conditions of existence are put together the way they are in this outrageous fashion in which As-is-ness followed by Alter-is-ness gives us Is-ness, followed by an Alter-is-ness, or desire to, which brings us into Not-is-ness, and which then brings us into Alter-is-ness, which brings us into Not-is-ness which brings us into Alter-is-ness, which brings us into Not-is-ness.

A “Static that can consider” is actually a sum total of potential. It is not nothing. The potential is like “potential energy with very sophisticated programming”. As Static becomes kinetic the potential expresses itself as the universe. See Static to Kinetic. This transformation is not As-is-ness followed by Alter-is-ness to generate Is-ness as postulated by Hubbard.

The Is-ness is all the forms of the universe including life. It is a single interconnected system. It is naturally continuous, harmonious and consistent. The “duplication” of the universe means that any observation must also be continuous, harmonious and consistent. Not-is-ness comes about when this continuity, harmony and consistency of Is-ness is not recognized.

There’s a good reason for all this. An excellent reason for all this.

We are talking right here about the fundamental of all aberration, which is incidentally the fundamental of all existence.

The fundamental of all aberration is fixation. A fixation prevents one from seeing things as they are. The fundamental of existence is also a seemingly fixed structure but that structure changes with evolution. It is not absolutely fixed. A fixation does not change when circumstances change around it, and that is why it appears as aberration.

There is found a strange condition here. If a thetan were to remain with an As-is-ness, he would thereafter have nothing. Therefore, immediately after the postulation of some object, it is necessary, by mechanics, and it is just happens to be so in this universe it’s not reasonable, it’s just the way it is in this universe — which puts you right in the field of mechanics) that the As-is-ness must immediately be altered in order to become what we call a reality. And thus people attempt various mechanisms.

Hubbard says, “If a thetan were to remain with an As-is-ness, he would thereafter have nothing.” This is not true. As-is-ness removes fixations and misconceptions only. The Is-ness remains in perfect clarity. It does not vanish. Subsequent Alter-is-ness is not necessary to have Is-ness.

One of those mechanisms is the device of God. Now then, we’re not saying that there is not a God. But if there were never any type of alter ego of this character there wouldn’t be any permanent reality.

It’s one thing for there to be a God and quite another thing for everybody to blame everything on him. The most barbaric manifestations that we have, generally includes a deity. The savage out in the Gullaby Isles is practicing this — he says that the fault is the trees and the River Sprite and so forth. I’m talking to you now about the mechanism of use of, rather than the identity of, when I mention God.

All right, God, then, is to blame. If we make something and have some hard luck, something like that, the way it looks to us here at this stage of development, we can then say, “Well, God did it to us and He has afflicted us.”

Hubbard is implying that the mechanism of blame is used to prevent As-is-ness from making the Is-ness vanish. This is not true. As-is-ness only clarifies the Is-ness. The mechanism of blame comes from the inability to As-is a situation.

Quite in addition to that, every primitive people has the legend of a creator. They have to have a legend of a creator, otherwise they would never have anything. The immediate and intimate use of the legend of the creator is to continue in existence.

Hubbard says, “The immediate and intimate use of the legend of the creator is to continue in existence.” This is a stretch. A legend of creator is there to have an explanation for existence in the absence of a better explanation.

Whether you built it or not, you can cause something to vanish simply by looking at it as it is. Somebody else can put up a mock-up of one kind or another and merely by your perceiving it and making a perfect duplicate of it, you can vanish it. It is not necessary that you exclusively devote yourself to the vanishment of those things which you yourself have made. That is not necessary in order to carry through this cycle. Somebody else could have made it and you could have made a perfect duplicate of it — an As-is-ness — and it would have vanished.

Hubbard says, “Whether you built it or not, you can cause something to vanish simply by looking at it as it is.” This is again not true. As-is-ness simply causes engrams and confusions to vanish. For example, an engram vanishes in auditing when the underlying fixation is handled. A confusion vanishes very commonly the moment a person recognizes the underlying misconception. The energy of engram and confusion simply transforms. A complete vanishment of Is-ness violates the law of conservation.

Now we are talking about something which is very easy to work with and which can be put to objective proof. I can ask you to make a perfect duplicate of something, which is to say, get it in the same space, same time continuum, using the same mass, and your perfect duplicate will cause it first, probably, if you’re having a hard time of it, to brighten up — and then it’ll fade. Well, the next thing you know, even though you’ve made very poor perfect duplicate, why, you sort of get the idea, of looking through this item — and so it is with all of existence. Unless, in other words, there was a legend of other creation than your own, you would not at any time be able to have anything.

The idea of “perfect duplicate” is simply seeing things as they are. As-is-ness clarifies the Is-ness by making misconceptions and fixations disappear. This does not mean that the Is-ness itself vanishes.

The first and most fundamental principle of havingness is: it must have been created by somebody else. And thus, we get Is-ness. When you ask a person to remedy his own havingness, this is perfectly all right. You’re asking him to make nothing of something. He actually can. But the reason it does him so much good is he’s forgotten that he can.

Hubbard says, “The first and most fundamental principle of havingness is: it must have been created by somebody else. And thus, we get Is-ness.” This is not so because the Is-ness is always there. The first and most fundamental principle of havingness is simply the assurance of one’s basic capabilities of observing, postulating and resolving.

In a Remedy of Havingness you ask the preclear to mock something up and pull it in. In other words, you ask him to mock it up and alter it. Why doesn’t it remedy a person’s havingness simply to mock something up — just get a mockup? It doesn’t remedy his havingness because if he leaves it there, it will simply disappear. Many a preclear gets very upset because his mockups all disappear. He puts up a mockup and it disappears. Well, that’s because he doesn’t alter it in position. He puts the mockup up and leaves it right where it is and of course it dissipates and disappears. Now those preclears who put up a mockup and leave it in the same place, which does not disappear, are working on mental machinery which does their mockups for them and for which machine they have “No responsibility”. He’s doing them with a machine not because he’s crazy but because this is the only possible way he could make them persist. The machine changes them and he himself knows that he did not put up the mockup. He knows this. If he didn’t know that, the mockup again would disappear. So it is not a very undercover fact with which we are working.

When a person puts up a mockup and pulls it in, it gives him the assurance that he can postulate, observe and resolve. This builds up his havingness. If he mocks up something but does not resolve it, then he gets upset. Hubbard’s explanation that havingness comes from mocking up and altering that mockup to make it persist is not convincing.

Let’s take this legend of the creator. We discover that it is quite uniform. It is found in every savage tribe. It is found across the face of the world. And it is found throughout this universe. The legend of the creator. Very well, we can say there was a creator and he created everything and that’s fine. And if this were the case, why, that’s fine, too, because it wouldn’t unmock. In other words, things would not disappear if there were a creator who made everything. You could even use this as a tremendous argument to prove that there was such a thing as a creator and he made everything, just by the fact that it’s here and if you had made it and continued to accept your responsibility for it, it wouldn’t be here, so there must have been a creator. You could go at it with this type of logic. However, it works this way: if somebody else, other than yourself, made a mass of energy, all you would have to do would be to come along and fish around for its approximate moment of creation and duplicate it and it would then disappear. So, whether the creator created everything or not, it’s a certainty that you, in order to continue with a physical universe, have to, to some degree, lay the blame on some other identity.

The legend of the creator does not exist in the Vedas, Hinduism and Buddhism. The universe is not there because of some Creator. It is simply there, and all creators and creations are part of this universe.

Therefore, this postulate, he created it or you created it, does not enter the question at all. If you duplicated it, it would go away regardless of who created it. We’re talking now about a very basic fundamental, that it is necessary for you to carry around the postulate that somebody else created it in order for it to exist.

The universe will continue to exist whether you think that somebody else created it or not.

Now it’s a little bit difficult to prove this. You have to work with a preclear for a short time. But the main difficulty of proof which lies on this track is simply proving who made the mockup in the first place. You see, if it disappeared because you duplicated it, why then, you probably made it. But it doesn’t matter then whether we use this one way or the other. We don’t have to admit that you could make anything disappear whether you made it or not. We don’t have to admit that, to continue along with this proof. What we are coming down to here is this matter of responsibility.

We learned in Dianetics that people would not accept responsibility for their own acts, and actually they’re as bad off as they will not accept responsibility for their own acts. And individuals are other-determined to the degree that they will not accept such responsibility.

As a matter of fact, you discover a complete dianometry, scientometry, anything you want to call it, a complete set of tests, which will demonstrate that there is a direct ratio between the health and ability of the person and his willingness to accept responsibility. But the funny part of it is, this only goes up to a certain point and when you achieve that point of acceptance of responsibility, then havingness as such, and the universe, or that part of one’s interest in the universe, would vanish.

Hubbard claims, “… when you achieve that point of acceptance of responsibility, then havingness as such, and the universe, or that part of one’s interest in the universe, would vanish.” Of course, when you complete a cycle, you get busy with another cycle. But this has nothing to do with the universe itself vanishing.

Now here is the Bodhi. Here is the individual who aspires to the attainment of perfect serenity — he can’t have perfect serenity and have something, because he’d have to give away a certain amount of his responsibility in order to continue it in existence. Havingness would only persist so long as he felt somebody else had had a hand in creating it. And the moment he said “I created this” one hundred percent all the way along the line, he wouldn’t have a thing. The perfect duplicate here is what we are looking at, again. Therefore, the condition of becoming a Bodhi is the condition of having nothing.

Hubbard says, “… the condition of becoming a Bodhi is the condition of having nothing.” This is not true because Hubbard’s premise for his argument is wrong. A Bodhi has everything, but since he has a completely objective view, he is not attached to anything. In other words, he is exterior to everything.

A thetan is very able to have something or nothing at will. But it happens that he is appealed to very often on the basis that all somethingnesses, including space, would vanish. He thinks this might be a good thing. The only protest a thetan has, actually, is somethingness.

If you want to say what is wrong with a thetan, you’d say, “somethingness”, and you have stated it. He has something. There is something in existence.

He is perfectly willing to have many somethings, but after a while, the communication formula comes into effect, and he becomes frantic about it. This is something that is terribly elementary. In spite of the fact that it is as deeply pervasive as it is in life and existence, it is terribly simple. It is one of these idiotically elementary factors that everybody could have overlooked forever. They would have had to have overlooked it. They didn’t even dare tread on the edges of it for fear that everything would blow up or disappear.

All right. A thetan makes something, and he himself natively is a Static, capable of consideration, has no mass, no form — as a spirit he has no form — he has no wavelength, he only has potentials. He has the potential of locating objects in space, and the potential of creating space, energy and objects and the action of locating those objects in that space. And with this as his potential, the moment that he makes something, he violates his own communication formula.

Hubbard is saying that a theta violates his own communication formula the moment that he makes something. Well, a thetan transitions from static to kinetic the moment he makes something. The thetan becomes that something itself.

A thetan in excellent condition is able to communicate easily with something. He can simply change his mind about anything and work it around. But the formula of communication becomes native to the creation of space, energy and mass, and that formula is, of course, Cause-Distance-Effect, with a perfect duplication taking place at Effect of that which emanated from Cause.

That is the Communication Formula. And that becomes the formula the moment you have space. Up until that time, you have all cause and all effect capable of occupying exactly the same location, since there is no location.

Hubbard is assuming cause and effect to be there in the condition of static. This is incorrect because in the condition of static everything is potential.  Cause and effect emerge in the kinetic condition only.

So, a thetan is perfectly able, way up the scale, to occupy the space of anything, and so duplicate that thing. But his formula when he’s doing this is not cause-distance-effect. It’s just cause-effect. That would be the formula he’s operating with because he wouldn’t communicate across a distance to something, since he wouldn’t be occupying any cause or effect points.

But he can’t have a game if he does this. He can’t have mass if he does this. If every time he selects out an enemy and then communicates to the enemy and simply becomes the enemy at that point, he couldn’t have an enemy very long, could he? If he said I am fully responsible for everything and I will now make a plot of land, and he mocked up some space and a plot of land, and he’s fully responsible for it — what happens? It’s gone. If he had mocked it up and altered it or changed it, he could then bring about the phenomenon of persistence, which is itself time.

No game can exist in the condition of static, because everything is potential.

When you say survive, you’re saying time. Just put those together and make them synonyms and you understand all you want to know about time. It’s a consideration which leads to the persistence of something, and you can enter all the mechanics into time that you want to, and you can paint it up in any way you want to and you can write textbooks on it and test it and buy very fancy watches and chronometers and set up observatories to measure the movement of the stars, and you still have “Time is a consideration which brings about persistence”. And the mechanic of bringing about that persistence is, by alteration. And so we have Alter-is-ness taking place immediately after an As-is-ness is created, and so we get persistence. In other words, we have to change the location of a particle in space.

Of course, as static transforms into kinetic there is motion. This is simply the potential expressing itself. This is a transformation and not alter-is-ness.

Let’s get back to this communication formula.

A perfect duplication would be cause and effect in the same point in space, wouldn’t it? So, communication as we consider it through space is not a perfect communication system.

Space is the extent of something. That something is energy made up of vibrations that are smooth and uniform throughout its space. Perfect duplication will be recognizing that smooth gradient of energy throughout that space.

You on one point in space communicate with something at another point in space and if you continue to interpose a distance in between the things or space in between the things, you get even then the basic of persistence. All you’ve got to do is get that distance in there, and we have this taking place.

When you communicate you manifest yourself as energy in the kinetic world. You are no longer static. As energy you have space. The something you are communicating with also has space. Your spaces are touching. You are separated only by a gradient of vibrations (not “distance”). The purpose of communication is to change your vibration to the vibration of what you are communicating with.

A thetan cannot duplicate a mass. That is to say he cannot himself actually be a mass. He can conceive that he is by saying now look at all this mass that somebody else put on me. I didn’t create this mass.

There is a very high gradient between the vibration of thetan and the vibration of mass.

He can conceive himself as mass. But he starts to get very unhappy about communicating with somethingnesses because here is this distance factor and he is a nothingness. Now if he can be the somethingness on the same point in space where that exists, then he feels very, very good about things. He feels all right simply because he’s occupying the same space. Well that’s perfect communication for him. That’s a perfect duplicate. But if he totally occupied it at its instant of inception it would disappear.

The basic concept underlying communication is “sharing duties”. It is sharing the vibration. It is not only back and forth but a simultaneous functioning like two gears rotating together. When communicating with mass the thetan must increase its vibration to that of mass.

So, he gets caught between not wanting to communicate with something and wanting to have something. You see, that to really have something he would have to occupy the same space. To communicate with something, he has to stand off at a distance and pretend to be a something. Communication, as we know it in this universe, is cause, distance, effect. Perfect communication, like a perfect duplication, is: the point, the point, there’s something on this point. The thetan can also occupy this point, therefore he can have something, he can communicate with something, but if he says it belongs utterly to him and he’s occupying its basic point, it will disappear.

The thetan increases its vibration greatly to match that of mass. Mass also slows its vibration slightly to match that of the thetan. There is a point of balance in between. It endows mass with thetan energy.

Therefore, he has to have another creator. He has to have some other author of the universe. If he doesn’t have, why, it will disappear.

The thetan now occupies the space of mass. Any misconception of mass that the thetan has now disappears. No misassignment of creator is needed to make that mass persist.

Now, we could enquire at some length into the tremendous complexity of this and why is this. A thetan should simply be able to say by postulate, well, it’s as it is, and it’s going to persist as it is, and we’ll just make this postulate and that will be that. But the funny thing is that it just doesn’t work this way, and it looks here as though we have an arbitrary which has been entered in from one quarter or another, which we don’t fully comprehend even at this moment. But this universe went together on this basis of: AS-IS equals VANISHMENT.

You make one just as it is — all you have to do is pretend as if you were making it at this moment — and boom, it’s gone.

You then see the necessity, at least in this universe, to have another determinism at work. Well, that’s just one point. We see it in terms then of the Creator. That’s fine. This does not enter the question of whether there is or is not a God. We are talking about whether or not people blame God, or why they blame God, or why they put things onto God.

Other determinism is not necessary because Hubbard’s premise above is flawed.

Well, if they didn’t, they wouldn’t have anything.

The other point involved here is people blaming each other. They stand there and one says: You said that, and That’s your fault, and this is why we have this fight, and so forth. And the other person says, No, that wasn’t the way it was, that’s an entirely different situation, you actually were the one that started all this.

We talk to a preclear and we want to know what’s wrong with this preclear. Well, it’s “what Mother did” to him, not what he did to himself. We can’t conceive that an individual could actually become aberrated without his own consent, and sure enough he can’t. He can’t become aberrated or upset, or thin or lean or fat or thick or stupid or anything else without his own consent because he is part of the agreement pattern, and unless he has agreed himself to other entities of agreement, why he won’t get stuck with any kind of a pattern.

The individual is a system of energy. He interacts with other systems of energy. It may not be aware of all interactions. He has problems but he does not know the actual source of these problems. So, he guesses at the source. This appears as blame.

Now let’s look at how that adds up. We find that if an individual to have something went into agreement with other determinisms and said these other determinisms caused all this, he could sit there comfortably with something persisting. But what did he have to do? Basically, he said: in order to have anything I’ve got to go into communication with these other-determinisms and blame them or fix the responsibility of causation upon these others.

So, the child blames his parents. He gets up into the age of puberty, he runs into sex, sex tells him he can’t survive — that’s the basic manifestation of sex — tells him he can’t survive, and he begins to worry about this fact. Why, here he is all equipped to make another generation, he’s hardly started living this one, and that’s a confusing and upsetting fact. He’s already warned in advance that someday he’s going to die. To see something really morbid, read some teen-age writings. You never saw such complete sadness anywhere. Well, they’ve been told they can die, and the appearance of sex, physiologically, told them they could die. They become anxious then about surviving, so they have to turn around and blame somebody for something, anything, and simply by blaming somebody they obtain a continuance of whatever condition they are in at the moment. In other words, they can continue to survive simply by turning around and saying, Well, the trouble with me is all what my father and mother did to me. So, if you were to take somebody and bring him very, very close to death and cause the chilly breath to draft down his neck, you would find him very shortly blaming something else but himself. But he runs in a cycle on this. He discovers that the situation is untenable. Then he’ll blame himself.

Why does he blame himself at that point?

A person blames because he is ignorant of the overall circumstance.

He wants to unmock it. And he actually has forgotten the mechanisms of unmocking. By blaming himself, by taking it upon himself, by holding it all close to his own bosom, he thinks: Now that it’s my fault it will all unmock, and he’s a very surprised person when it doesn’t unmock. He merely gets upset. And the other one is, he finds his condition of survival desirable, and when he finds it even vaguely desirable — it doesn’t matter if he’s a slave in the bottom of a salt mine working out a sentence for having voted, or whatever — the fact is that this individual obtains continuance by blaming others. So, he goes through a cycle of Blame somebody else, that means I’ve got to or I want to, or I haven’t any other choice but to, survive, and the best answer is survive, therefore I’ll just blame everybody else.

Hubbard says, “… this individual obtains continuance by blaming others.” The truth is that the situation is too complex to be As-ised, and the person cannot find the cause of it. He feels very uncomfortable and simply guesses at the cause. Obviously, it is not the right cause and it appears as blame. The situation does not go away.

And the mechanism of blaming oneself is unmocking oneself. Unmocking oneself and the mass with which he is immediately and intimately surrounded. People go through these two cycles and they invert, and that is the basic inversion. They start in by saying, somebody else was responsible for the creation of all this. They’re quite happy about all this and they stand off and look at it and then they begin to get tired of communicating with these somethingnesses, because they cannot enter into a perfect duplication. They are nothing, that’s a something, they begin to get impatient about it after a while, so they decide to unmock it. They look at it and say: I did it. Well, there’s something wrong here. Come on, come on, come on. I did it. It goes right on. They don’t mock it up in the same part of a space in which it was initially mocked up, they don’t try to duplicate it with its original mass.

They omit some of the basic steps of saying I did it and they’re trying to go up against the postulate with which they did it.

The person simply does not know how the situation started.

Having made this postulate and said already that it belonged to somebody else, now they try to take it back, and their next move is to try to squash up these energy masses, use more force in order to flatten force, and he is on his way, this thetan, right away, you see, he’s on his way. Because the more he tries to use energy to knock out energy, the more energy he’s going to have, and the more dislocated the basic particles of that energy are going to be, and he’ll just get more and more and more persistence, and if he keeps on protesting all the way on down, it will just become more solid, and more solid and more solid, and more solid, because he’s protesting that it’s other-determinism then he protests by saying it’s my fault. Now I’m going to disappear and die and that will make you sorry. But again, he’s entering a protest into the line.

The person tries to solve the situation without understanding it fully.

So, we get this basic thing of other men’s responsibility, or “God is responsible”, as the fundamental of persistence and survival. We have to have other-determinism at work or we get no persistence whatsoever.

Either the person understands the situation fully and it resolves, or he simply fumbles around trying to solve the situation by trial and error.

And so we get these postulated other-determinisms, and when you recognize this clearly in your preclear and in creation itself, it will cease to be as entirely baffling as it may have been in the past.

Hubbard is simply trying to advance a complex theory to explain why other determinism comes about.



Hubbard’s terminology of Is-ness, Alter-is-ness, As-is-ness and Not-is-ness is quite useful. But then he insists that As-is-ness not only makes the misconceptions and fixations vanish, but also everything, including the universe.

Thus, Hubbard commits the error of going against the Law of conservation of energy and matter. No doubt the forms vanish because energy and matter change their forms all the time. But that does not mean that energy and matter themselves vanish completely.

Hubbard then uses his premise to explain why other determinism exists because, in his theory, a person is totally responsible for everything that happens to him. But the universe (eighth dynamic) is bigger than the person and the person is limited in this sense. It is not up to the person to resolve the universe (eighth dynamic).


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
%d bloggers like this: