Hubbard’s Thinking on Oneness

Hubbard says on OT III,

“Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error.”

He then says on NOTs,

“It’s all on the basis of the misconception that “All is one” and they can’t tell whose picture is whose, or whose somatic is whose. You’re basically trying to untangle this mish-mash. And what’s amazing is that there are as many life beings as there are – there are lots of them.”

In his essay, Keeping Scientology Working, Hubbard says,

“And I don’t see that popular measures, self-abnegation and democracy have done anything for Man but push him further into the mud. Currently, popularity endorses degraded novels, self-abnegation has filled the South East Asian jungles with stone idols and corpses, and democracy has given us inflation and income tax.”

In his essay, Identity versus Individuality, Hubbard says,

“One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the tone-scale. One declines into a brotherhood with the universe. When he goes up scale, he becomes more and more an individual capable of creating and maintaining his own universe. In this wise (leading people to believe they had no individuality above that of MEST) the MEST universe cut out all competition.”

So, Hubbard believed whole-heartedly in the supremacy of individuality. He didn’t think much of Nirvana because it amounted to losing individuality. This thinking then influences the upper levels of Scientology.

The facts are: SELF is made up of CONSCIOUSNESS and IDENTITY. Identity (which is characterized by individuality) is, of course, discrete (as strenuously emphasized by Hubbard). But the underlying consciousness is continuous, which we all share.

Hubbard tried to make consciousness individual and discrete also. That is the anomaly in his thinking. The truth is that we all share consciousness. Consciousness may be plotted on a scale that extends from mystery to knowingness. At its highest point, consciousness is the ability to see things as they are. Please see The Static Viewpoint.

Subject: Dianetics Basics

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): 

  1. DIANETICS: The Original Thesis
  2. 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

  1. DIANETICS (Survival, Dynamic, Intelligence)
  2. ABERRATION (Demons, Psychosomatic illness)
  3. SELF (Individuality, Monitor, Immortality)
  4. MIND (Analytical Mind, Reactive Mind, Somatic Mind)
  5. CLEAR (Self-determinism, Dynamics)
  6. ANALYTICAL MIND (Memory, Thinking)
  7. REACTIVE MIND (Unconsciousness, Hypnotism, Engram, Facsimile)
  8. SOMATIC MIND (Sentient, Training pattern)
  9. AUDITING (Auditor, Preclear, E-meter, Auditor’s Code)
  10. ENGRAM (Shock, Charge, Key-in, Contra-survival. Pro-survival)
  11. RESTIMULATION (Restimulator, Anaten, Sympathy, Painful emotion)
  12. DRAMATIZATION (Black Panther Mechanism, Justification, Valence)
  13. DIAGNOSIS (Tone Scale, Birth, AA, Prenatals)
  14. ENGRAM CHAIN (Time Track, Earlier similar, Lock, Basic)
  15. REVERIE (Returning, Recounting, File Clerk) 
  16. RETURNING (Bouncer, Holder, Denyer, Grouper, Misdirector)
  17. RECOUNTING (Identity thought, Engramic phrases. Time-shift) 
  18. ENGRAMIC PHRASES (Repeater Technique, Ally computation)
  19. FACSIMILE (Sag, Reduction, Erasure)
  20. BASIC PERSONALITY
  21. BASIC PURPOSE (Anomaly, Assimilation, Subject clearing)
  22. Subject: Human Condition
  23. Running Dianetics with Subject Clearing

.

GLOSSARY

Please refer to

  1. KHTK Glossary
  2. 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.

.

Key Word List & Glossary (old)

Please see The Book of Subject Clearing

Key Word List

The key words represent the concepts that have evolved in a subject. The Key Word List is the list of key words that are arranged in a logical sequence. 

Prepare a key word list as you study the books on a subject. The first key word on the list should be the title of the subject. For example, when you are studying mathematics, start the key word list with the word MATHEMATICS. 

The key word list shall get longer as you proceed with your studies. Rearrange the sequence of the key words now and then to reflect the development of the concepts in that subject. For example, the beginning key words for the subject of mathematics may be arranged in a sequence as follows.

Mathematics, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, co-ordinate geometry, calculus, number theory, and so on.

For a general subject, such as, ‘Religion,’ you may first throw a key word list together, and then, start arranging these key words in a logical sequence as you study the subject. 

.

Glossary

If you do not have a glossary available on a subject, then you may generate one while studying various books and articles on that subject. Most probably you will start from an extant glossary and then improve upon it. You may get help from dictionaries, Wikipedia, and Encyclopedias available on Internet.

The Glossary shall contain the definitions of the terminology of the subject. It may also provide additional notes and explanations besides definitions. All entries in the glossary shall be arranged in an alphabetical order.

You may simultaneously generate the key word list; but the sequence of the key words in the Key Word List may have to be rearranged frequently as your understanding of the subject improves. More fundamental concepts shall appear earlier on the list than the later derived concepts. A person can then clear the understanding of the key words in the sequence of their development by looking them up in the Glossary.

.

Summary

The whole idea of the Key Word List and Glossary is to examine the consistency of the concepts underlying the key words. As you prepare the Key Word list and the Glossary, it may lead to many insights and new ideas on the subject.

You may also come up with inconsistencies in the subject. The closer an inconsistency is to the beginning of the Key Word List, its resolution is bound to lead to a major corrections in the subject. This may even lead to new discoveries, new key words and new organization of knowledge.

The tracking down of the inconsistencies and finally resolving them is the most fruitful part of subject clearing. When there are inconsistencies in the fundamentals of a subject, their resolution is of the utmost priority.

.

Word Meanings

Reference: The Book of Subject Clearing

Words and symbols form our basic understanding. When there is confusion in the study materials, the first thing to do is to isolate the area of confusion. Then locate the paragraph which is confusing. Then locate the sentence in that paragraph which doesn’t make sense. Then find the first word in that sentence that seem to generate confusion, and clear up its meaning. Here you have to be careful because the confusion may arise from a simple word, such as, “on”, “of”, or “in” because they can be used in different meanings.

In short, clear up the meaning of words in the area of confusion. It may be just one word or many. But the moment you find a misunderstood word, the confusion lessens and your mood brightens. Keep repeating the above procedure. You will be surprised how fast the confusion clears up.

.

New and Familiar Words

Many a time we run into new words, but we guess their meaning from the context and carry on. Later when we start to have trouble, we may not connect it to this new word that we didn’t look up.

Many words appear familiar to us because we have come across them many times. But we always guessed their meanings and never looked them up. So, it is always safe to look up the meaning of a word when there is the slightest doubt. This will help you avoid a lot of headache later.

.

Broad Concept

Before you look up the definitions, make sure you know the broad concept of the word. You may find the broad concept listed under ‘history’, ‘origin’, or ‘etymology’ in a dictionary. The following broad concepts for some words are taken from “Dictionary of Word Origins” by John Ayto.

The word STUDY comes from a Latin word meaning “eagerness, intense application”.

The word MATHEMATICS comes from a Greek word meaning “something learned”.

The word ARITHMETIC comes from Greek, ARITHMOS number + TECHNE skill, which means “number skill”.

.

Many Definitions

A word, especially a simple one, usually has more than one definition. You may check all the definitions in a good dictionary, and find the one that makes most sense in the given context. If there are more than one definition that seem to fit, then you must understand the difference between them and choose the right definition.

To choose the right definition, visualize each definition. You may sketch the concept as a diagram on paper, or demonstrate it dynamically with bits and pieces of things. You may even use clay to model the concept. In case of animals, trees, flowers, etc., you may consult images on search engines on Internet like Google images. For abstract concepts, such as, “love,” make real examples from your experience to understand the differences, It is always helpful to use the word in a few sentences to get further clarity on a definition. 

.

Words in Definitions

If a word in the definition itself is not quite clear, then look it up in a dictionary as described above. This may sometime get you in a chain of words. List the words as you look them up, and cross them out as they are cleared up. It is okay to look up the same word many times because each time you look it up you may pick up a new dimension to its meaning.

.

The Right Definition

The right definition is the one that lessens the confusion. As there may be more than one word that needs clearing up, keep repeating this procedure until the confusion in the study materials is gone.

When all the words in the area of confusion are understood, but some confusion still remains, then look for anomalies. See Resolving Anomalies.

.

The Discipline of Discussion

Reference: Course on Subject Clearing

When you are studying a subject and listening to others, you are inflowing information from other people’s observations. When you are discussing with other people you are outflowing your independent observations and opinions about that subject. This balances your inflow with your outflow. Such a balance is important.

Discussion may be a good way to resolve the doubts and perplexities you have.

.

Discussion

The purpose of a discussion is to learn by exchanging viewpoints. One uses experience and experimentation to obtain data and then brings it to the table to be discussed.

The participants in a discussion focus on the subject and not on each other. A discussion is not a debate where one is in a contest to win argument against others. There is no need for sophistry. In a discussion there are no opponents. All participants are on the same side. On the other side may just be ignorance. In a discussion each participant’s viewpoint is bound to change and evolve as he/she learns from the data pooled together by all.

Thus, a discussion is a cooperative effort. There is no reason to censor any data in a discussion. The data simply needs to be examined in detail.

.

Rules of Discussion

(1) DO NOT DEFEND A VIEWPOINT, INSTEAD LOOK FOR SOME ANOMALY GENERATED BY IT.

For example, a person may believe that God is a being who has created this world. He may reject those who think differently. This viewpoint generates an inconsistency. A being has a form, but all forms are created only when the world gets created. So either God must have been created along with the world, or God is not a being. The person may not be aware of this inconsistency caused by his belief, and he may be willing to engage in a mindful discussion.

But when a person refuses to engage in a discussion despite inconsistency, and continues to defend his belief, then he may be using that belief to hide some confusion. He may be afraid that if his belief is shaken, some confusion will overwhelm him. But as he gets exposed to mindfulness, he may be willing to examine his confusions. Mindful discussion could then help resolve that confusion. Everybody wins.

.

(2) FOCUS ON THE DATA BEING PRESENTED AND NOT ON THE PERSON PRESENTING IT.

Many people feel so invested in their beliefs that they feel attacked when they are unable to uphold their viewpoint in a discussion. They start commenting on the perceived characteristics of another participant holding a different viewpoint. They may even become accusative, emotional and combative.

Any focus on participants rather than on the subject of discussion causes much distraction. It must be avoided.

.

(3) IN A DISAGREEMENT NEVER CALL THE OTHER PERSON WRONG, INSTEAD PROVIDE FURTHER CLARIFICATION REGARDING YOUR VIEWPOINT.

In any disagreement effort should be made to clarify one’s viewpoint as much as possible. Not doing so, and simply saying that the other person is wrong, does not resolve anything. It only produces distraction.

.

(4) FURTHERMORE, IN A DISAGREEMENT, ASK FOR CLARIFICATION AND, WHEN IT IS PROVIDED, CONSIDER IT WITH MINDFULNESS.

A person can be so convinced about being right that he would not even ask the other person for further clarification. He would not even listen if the other person offers any clarification. He simply would not engage in a discussion. This kind of behavior also produces much distraction.

.

(5) DO NOT COMPLAIN THAT THE OTHER PERSON IS NOT ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, INSTEAD DISCUSS WHAT YOU ARE EXPECTING.

When a person is committed to certain expectations, he may not even see an answer when it is given to him. An indication of that is his continual complaint that he is not getting an answer. The solution is for the person to honestly look at the expectations he has committed himself to and compare it to answers he is getting. If he then finds an anomaly, he should bring it to the table for discussion. But as long as that person is justifying his expectations in his mind, no discussion is possible.

.

(6) ALWAYS FOCUS ON ANOMALIES AND ISOLATE THEM AS BEST AS YOU CAN. NEVER BE DISCOURAGED IF OTHERS ARE TAKING TIME TO RECOGNIZE IT.

An anomaly is a discontinuity (missing information), an inconsistency (contradicting information),  or disharmony (arbitrariness of altered importance). It is something that does not make sense. Mindfulness discussion is very successful because it focuses on anomalies only. When an anomaly is difficult to resolve simply look around for more data on that area of discontinuity, inconsistency, or disharmony, and consider it carefully.

.

Summary

A disagreement doesn’t mean that what is being disagreed with is untrue. To show untruthfulness of something one needs to point out the anomaly. Then that anomaly needs to be resolved to find the actual substance, which makes the observations free of anomalies. That substance shall qualify as the truth.

.