Reference: Course on Subject Clearing
This Key Word List is prepared for the subject of Dianetics, which was researched and published by L. Ron Hubbard in 1950. The effort here is to show that you can apply the techniques of Dianetics to yourself with the help of Subject Clearing, without an auditor or e-meter.
.
READING MATERIALS
DISCIPLINE: Discipline of Subject Clearing
TEXT (by L. Ron Hubbard):
- DIANETICS: The Original Thesis
- DIANETICS: The Modern Science of Mental Health.
When reading the text by L. Ron Hubbard, please use his Technical Dictionary to look up words belonging to Scientology technical vocabulary, such as, engrams, secondaries, locks, etc.
.
KEY WORD LIST
- DIANETICS (Survival, Dynamic, Intelligence)
- ABERRATION (Demons, Psychosomatic illness)
- SELF (Individuality, Monitor, Immortality)
- MIND (Analytical Mind, Reactive Mind, Somatic Mind)
- CLEAR (Self-determinism, Dynamics)
- ANALYTICAL MIND (Memory, Thinking)
- REACTIVE MIND (Unconsciousness, Hypnotism, Engram, Facsimile)
- SOMATIC MIND (Sentient, Training pattern)
- AUDITING (Auditor, Preclear, E-meter, Auditor’s Code)
- ENGRAM (Shock, Charge, Key-in, Contra-survival. Pro-survival)
- RESTIMULATION (Restimulator, Anaten, Sympathy, Painful emotion)
- DRAMATIZATION (Black Panther Mechanism, Justification, Valence)
- DIAGNOSIS (Tone Scale, Birth, AA, Prenatals)
- ENGRAM CHAIN (Time Track, Earlier similar, Lock, Basic)
- REVERIE (Returning, Recounting, File Clerk)
- RETURNING (Bouncer, Holder, Denyer, Grouper, Misdirector)
- RECOUNTING (Identity thought, Engramic phrases. Time-shift)
- ENGRAMIC PHRASES (Repeater Technique, Ally computation)
- FACSIMILE (Sag, Reduction, Erasure)
- BASIC PERSONALITY
- BASIC PURPOSE (Anomaly, Assimilation, Subject clearing)
- Subject: Human Condition
- Running Dianetics with Subject Clearing
.
GLOSSARY
Please refer to
- KHTK Glossary
- Technical Dictionary
Additional data specific to this subject is as follows.
DIANETICS
Broad concept: “through mind.” Definition: “a subject that addresses psychosomatic causes of illnesses and aberrations afflicting the human self.” Hubbard: “Dianetics consists of discovering the aberration in the individual, finding the physically painful experience which corresponds to it and placing the data therein contained at the disposal of the analytical mind.” In Dianetics therapy, impressions from the periods of unconsciousness (facsimiles) were found to exist in the mind. Hubbard’s Dianetics theory offers these facsimiles as the source of all psychosomatic illnesses and aberrations.
This theory was published in 1950 in the book: DIANETICS: The Modern Science of Mental Health. The actual discovery of Dianetics is that the mind is capable of recording the details of events, such as, severe injury, delirium, or surgical anesthesia, while the person appears to be unconscious. Such recordings are called “facsimiles.” They normally stay below the level of consciousness, but can be retrieved back into consciousness with some effort.
The existence of facsimiles has been known as “samskāra” since Buddha’s time (500 BC). Buddha’s approach to handle samskāra is “mindfulness meditation.” Dianetics, however, handles facsimiles through an “earlier similar incident” using “repeater technique.” A person, however, can’t apply this technique to himself because the mind tends to go “unconscious” as it approaches the facsimile. An “auditor” had to be trained to apply this technique to the person.
The “repeater technique” is quite difficult to apply as it requires great observation and skill. Misapplication of “repeater technique” affects the mind adversely. Hubbard subsequently came up with a more gradient auditing approach under the subject of Scientology. This approach was presented as a series of auditing steps called Scientology Grade Chart. At the final stages of OT Levels the person audits himself, much like in meditation.
These OT Levels have remained open ended since Hubbard passed away in 1986. The results have not been as spectacular and broad as were hoped. A summary and criticism of these OT Levels is presented at Scientology OT Levels. Even at OT Levels, where a person is auditing himself, the auditing procedure is fraught with errors. The insertion of an auditing approach with E-meter has presented its own set of new difficulties. It makes a broader application very expensive and practically unfeasible.
DIANETICS, CRITICISM OF
This Dianetic procedure needs to be examined closely if its application does not produce results in the hands of others. Apparently, the author of this thesis is able to produce results where others run into difficulty. In my observation, many difficulties arise because of the violation of the gradient in approaching the engram.
According to the laws of returning, the analytical awareness starts to shut down as one approaches the engram, and the thinking increasingly dramatizes the content of the engram. The person is not aware of this change but the auditor is. The auditor is then required to navigate the auditee through it skillfully.
According to the thesis, the auditor’s dynamic assists the auditee’s dynamic in overcoming the effects of the laws of returning. But in practice, the auditor takes over the awareness of the auditee instead of assisting it. Even the use of E-meter brings awareness to the auditor only. The auditee is simply being told what to do, and he is never in command of himself while approaching the engram. He mechanically obeys either the engram or the auditor.
Only the auditee can handle his aberrations. The auditor can only support, encourage and guide him but he can’t approach and assimilate the engram for the auditee. The only solution is for the auditee to remain in control of his awareness while approaching the engram and assimilating its content. This requires the auditee to overcome the effects of the law of returning. Can he approach and assimilate the contents of the engram without returning?
It is important to remember that Hubbard was an expert hypnotist and he thought in terms of returning. So, he may not have even considered the possibility of neutralizing the engram without returning.
In hypnotism, the hypnotist installs a hypnotic command. That command can be neutralized by recalling the moment that command was installed. Hypnotist can easily do it because he knows when he installed that command. But the situation is very different in life. One suspects that there is a painful incident, which installed an engram in the mind but nothing is known about it. Engram is not like a simple hypnotic command. It has many tentacles reaching into many logic circuits of the mental matrix. Its relationship with the mind is much more complex compared to that of a simple hypnotic command.
The dianetic approach is to attack the source of pain (the engram). It tries to push through the pain to locate and re-experience the engram. It neglects the very many and much finer relationships that need to be straightened out in the process of neutralizing the engram. Thus it violates the principle of gradient. The more the gradient is violated, the more forceful is the reaction of the engram. The laws of returning are simply the result of violating the gradient. There are no such laws in play when the engram is approached on a gradient.
The mindfulness approach allows the engram to unwind itself through free association on its own natural gradient. The auditee simply focuses on the aberration that is bothering him. He examines that aberration in detail. He lets all data that comes up associate non-judgmentally in the context of that aberration. He watches objectively the reactions and even strong emotions that come up. He lets all such reactions run out as they may. He doesn’t interfere even when the awareness seems to attenuate as in falling asleep. These are contents of the engramic node getting released to the mental matrix.
It does not matter what the auditee has done or what has been done to him. He does not guess or search for the contents of the engram. If a phrase is running around in his head he simply focuses on it. He experiences whatever comes up without resisting. He may be supported, encouraged and guided by a mindfulness auditor. But it is the auditee’s dynamic that lies behind this free association. Using the gradient of free association any engram can be reached safely and easily.
The Dianetic thesis seems to blame any lack of success on incompetent auditing. It is noted that a proper thesis would be effective and easy to apply at the same time. Hopefully, the mindfulness auditing approach shall be able to overcome the difficulties that have plagued the dianetic procedure.
The out-gradient in dianetic procedure ends up in the auditor taking over the awareness of the auditee instead of assisting it. This seems to have become ingrained so much so that the auditee is expected to submit to the dictates of the organization delivering auditing. This organization is presently the “Church of Scientology”, which closely monitors all its parishioners and expects them to comply mindlessly with its “code of ethics”. It keeps them in line through a system of reward and punishment. Anyone who rebels against the control of the Church is declared a “potential trouble source” or a “suppressive person”.
Fortunately, with mindfulness approach one can audit oneself to great improvement. He can then help others get started with their auditing. Only this way can a grass roots movement be started which is up to meeting the demands of the society.
.
