By Leanne M.

Auditing only works to the degree that two way communication exists, and to the degree that it is safe for a preclear or preOT to speak his or her mind.

When the auditing door closes and you hear the words “This is the session”, the person holding the cans should have certainty that they can be honest and can communicate anything, about anything, without reprisal or punishment. Heck — that is the only way that a person can a) get rudiments in so that case gain can occur and b) can gain understanding and as-isness on things they are running into and having trouble with.

But is this actually practiced and applied in auditing in the Church of Scientology today?

Recently I was auditing a former staff member, who had never really received much auditing on staff, but the auditing they had received had not gone well. Observing out-tech and off-policy situations,  this staff member felt helpless to do anything about the situation in the org due to the heavy pressure and duress from the group on anyone who dared say they did not agree. If he mentioned any upset, disagreement or contrary view to what the group was perpetuating, then he would find themselves KRed and interrogated by the Ethics Officer. And if he mentioned or gave specifics in a session, the information would make its way to his seniors, and the same would occur.

Another person I was auditing (a former Sea Org member) had a heavy grief charge on earlier auditing and how unsafe it had been to actually say what was occurring in their org, and how they felt about it.  The auditing room was not a safe haven and was instead a constant tippy-toeing around the actual issue and trying to find answers that would be “acceptable” by the auditor.  Finding the correct item on a PTS Rundown became a real problem.  In this case the actual item was David Miscavige, and this Sea Org member had worked in and around this executive for some years, however they could not name him as the item, as any person that comes up with any negative comments, views or opinions on David Miscavige (and naming him as an SP comes high on the list) is immediately reported to his office, and heads literally, roll.

And I have personal experience, and spoken to many others on SOLO NOTs, where the 6 month (sec) checks are actually just a way of finding out if the person has been looking on the internet, commenting on non-church blogs, or has an views that they feel are “disaffected” or contrary to management.

It is sad that the one tool that we have in Scientology to Clear man — auditing — has been twisted and perverted to be a system to control and alert management to persons who are not “with the program” or “CI to COB”.

It is sad that the meter, a wonderful tool to locate charge within the bank or case, is routinely used to intimidate and interrogate individuals on their own personal ethics and views, to keep them in check and under control.

Based on pure definitions — the above is not Scientology, as Scientology requires two-way honest communication and is solely for the purpose of lifting people up, assisting them to understand, and increasing their own abilities across the dynamics.

Luckily there is sanctity of auditing outside of the Church of Scientology. In fact — it is the ONE place where you can say your piece, ease your mind, unload your upset, and communicate your views with NO reprisal. The job of the auditor is to clean up that reading question on the rudiments or on the correction list, to a point where it is gone and relief is experienced.

And the acknowledgement you get is “Your needle is floating”.

And it is.

It is really important that we re-create that safe space for auditing to take place, and put LRH back into Scientology.

It is the only way that Bridge progress can be achieved.


“There are several codes in Scientology and Dianetics. The only one that has to be obeyed if we wish to obtain results upon a preclear is The Auditor’s Code, 1954. In the first book, “Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health,” we had an Auditor’s Code which was derived more or less from an ideal rather than from practical experience. In the ensuing years a great deal of auditing has been done and a great many errors have been made by auditors. And when we have taken the common denominator of what has caused preclears to make small or negative progress, we discover that these can be codified so as to inform the auditor who wishes to get results what to avoid in his processing.

“When a psychoanalyst or psychologist uses Dianetics he is very prone to be operating in his own frame of conduct. It is the conduct of the practitioner almost as much as the processes which makes Dianetics work. In psychoanalysis, for instance, we discover that the basic failure of Freud’s work in practice and as used by analysts failed chiefly because of two things done by the analyst in a consultation room. Whatever the value of Freud’s libido theory, the effectiveness was reduced by the analyst’s evaluation for the patient. The patient is not allowed to work out his own problem, or to come to his own conclusions. He is given ready-made interpretations. In psychology there is no operating code, for clinical psychology is not much practiced and is, indeed, outlawed in many states. While psychiatry might have a modus operandi, none of those conversant with this handling of the insane — the function of psychiatry — would call it a code intended to induce a better state of beingness in a patient.

 “In education, which is in itself a therapy, we discover an almost total absence of codified conduct beyond that laid down by school boards to regulate the social attitude of, and restrain possible cruelty in educators. Although education is very widespread, and indeed is the practice best accepted by this society for the betterment of individuals, it yet lacks any tightly agreed-upon method or conduct-codification for the relaying of data to the student. Custom has dictated a certain politeness on the part of the professor, or teacher. It is generally believed to be necessary to examine with rigor and thoroughness. Students are
not supposed to whisper or chew gum, but education in general has no code designed to oil the flow of data from the rostrum to the student bench. On the contrary, a great many students would declare that any existing code was designed to stop any flow whatever.

“Dianetics is in an interesting position in that it is itself, and although people may try to classify it with mental therapy, it is closer to the level of education so far as the society itself is concerned. Its goal is the improvement of the mind on a self-determined basis, and its intended use is upon individuals and groups. Because it is an accumulation of data which is apparently the agreed-upon factors from which existence is constructed, and although the simple perusal of this data very often frees an individual, it is also disseminated on an individual and group basis directly to individuals and groups, and is a form of self-recognition.

“If you were to make the best progress along any highway you would do well to follow the signs. In this Auditor’s Code of 1954 we have a number of sign-posts, and if their directions are pursued a maximum of result will result. If they are not pursued, one is liable to find the preclear over in the ditch in need of a tow-truck in the form of a better auditor. Quite in addition to the command of the processes themselves, the difference between the Book Auditor and the professional Auditor lies in the observance of this code. A very great deal of time is invested in the auditor at Academies of Scientology in demonstrating to him the effects of disobedience of this code and obedience of it, and in leading him to practice it closely. This supervision in the Academies is relatively simple. One takes a look at the class and finds somebody who is not in good shape. One discovers who audited him, and one then knows what auditor is not following the Auditor’s Code. The offending student is then taken aside and briefed once more. A graduating auditor has to know this code by heart, and more importantly has to be able to practice it with the same unconscious ease as a pilot flies a plane.


“1. Do not evaluate for the preclear.

“2. Do not invalidate or correct the preclear’s data.

“3. Use the processes which improve the preclear’s case.

“4. Keep all appointments once made.

“5. Do not process a preclear after 10.00 p.m.

“6. Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed.

“7. Do not permit a frequent change of auditors.

“8. Do not sympathize with the preclear.

“9. Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own   independent decision.

“10. Never walk off from a preclear during a session.

“11. Never get angry with a preclear.

“12. Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process.

“13. Always continue a process as long as it produces change, and  no longer.

“14. Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear.

“15. Never mix the process of Dianetics with these of various other practices.

“16. Maintain two-way communication with the preclear.

“This is actually The Auditor’s Code, 1954, Amended, since it has one additional clause from the original release of this code — number 16: “Maintain two-way communication with the preclear.”

“If one were to sort out these provisos he would discover that all of them were important, but that three of them were more vitally concerned with processing than the others, and that these three, if overlooked, would inevitably and always result in case failure. These three are the differences between a good auditor and a bad auditor. They are numbers 12, 13 and 16.*

“In 12 we discover that the auditor should reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process. Almost every case failure contains some of this. The difference between a professional Auditor and a Book Auditor is most visible in this and the other two provisos mentioned. A good auditor would understand what a 

* This code (replaced in 1968) was extended to include:

“17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditors own personal profit.

“18. Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and do not process another imagined case.

“19. Do not explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.

… ” If an auditor is going to raise the ability of the preclear, his ability in the field of auditing must be considerable. That ability begins with the understanding and observance of the Auditor’s Code, 1954, Amended.”  LRH Dianetics 55!

53 thoughts on “Sanctity of auditing

  1. Great article!
    It is very important to make clear the big difference between Non-Black Scn and Black Scn as practiced in the Dark Side (the Co$). Unfortunately, many people are confounding both.

  2. Great article. Made me realize that it is not the PC who should be reported on, but the exec for having such poor communication that a staff member could have withholds.
    It really shows how little some understand auditing. The safety of the PC should be paramount. What he or she was audited on, when blown, is no longer true. Reporting on it is a false report is it not?
    It really gladdens this old timer to see the re-introduction of real Scientology.

  3. Very nice job here, Leanne. You have a great appreciation for the core workabilities of the immensely powerful, yet simple auditing tech. Thank you.

    Related, but in a broader vein, it has sometimes occurred to me, how the other core aspects of the entire subject, may look, in say 100 years or so, in the hands of say two distinct groups?

    The first group, let’s call them the die-hard ‘absolutists’, would predictably preserve everything single thing LRH, assigning it all of equal importance, without any re-evaluation of actual core benefit.

    The second group, may consist of a far more reflective, discerning and ‘progressive’ make up, discarding much of the less workable, in favor of the rock-solid, result producing material.

    Indeed, this is precisely what LRH himself, had advocated.

    One individual, who has endeavored to accomplish just such a feat, is an L. Kin, who has put together a core collection of the essentials of LRH’s works. He has managed to pull this off in a most clinical, yet kindly manner, while still showing genuine appreciation and admiration for the Ol’ Man’s genius.

    In the rapidly changing world ahead of us, in the relatively ‘new’ climate of the free exchange of information, it is inevitable that much of the old, outdated concepts, will have to make way for the new.

    Anyone game to venture their own views of ‘Scientology’ in 2114?

    Calvin B. Duffield

    • Calvin,

      My friend, you are welcome to follow any path you choose. For myself, and for the many that I work with, it is LRH’s path that I will continue to study and apply. I have yet to find unworkable tech, but instead find how misunderstood or misapplied the tech has become.

      The two distinct groups, in 100 years time, will firstly, be Scientologists, and secondly, be others who are practicing or applying parts of, attributes or, or altered versions of Scientology.

      I am a Scientologist, and until I have done the full Bridge (training and auditing) and can apply it to myself and others, I will not be casting the net out for others’ interpretations or versions of Scientology.

      You can call me a die-hard “absolutist” if you wish. We don’t operate of ‘old outdated concepts” instead operating off the Dianetics and Scientology Axioms, as well as the Logics and Qs. Assigning everything equal importance violates basic Scientology principles and policy — so the two cannot go hand in hand.

      As you can tell — I feel strongly on the subject, so sorry if my response comes across as harsh. I simply call myself a Scientologist and I know, without question, that that is what LRH advocated.

      • I’m with you Lana.There are those who are into “lets throw the bad out and keep the good” Any, that I have come across who are pursuing this path have no clue as to what Scientology is in the first place. So how would “they ” know what is bad or good or if any of it is bad??

        For me the real priority is for people to UNDERSTAND and actually apply to consistent wins what already exists and that is the real task ahead.

        • “If one had a complete command of all of the parts and relationships of the mind and a background of uniform success as an auditor since 1950 (and many have, including me) and had been a DofT and a DofP and had run the Saint Hill Course and had studied thousands of cases and case histories and graphs, then one might possibly vary a process. But then such a person would also see how the recommended process worked and that it didn’t need any varying and so would be the last person to change it. In my experience only the poor student with bad graphs on pcs ever varies processes.”

          HCOB 5 Mar 65, A Review of R6 EW.

          NOTE: DofT is Director of Training, DofP is Director of Processing, R6 EW is Routine 6, End Words, addressing the Goals Problem Mass, a phenomenon of the Reactive Bank.)

          • Great reference Jim! Ron already knew what the bad is and how to to get rid of it-its called squirreling-There is ethics tech and qual tech, FDSing throws the BAD out with a vengeance!

    • I don’t mean to oppose you or dampen your intentions. That I can see, LRH did what you say the Johnny-come-lately L. Kin did, and the future of Scn is in the hands of those who study it and use it, not in the blogs and not in the “variations.” My experience with Scn is that if one studies and practices with understanding, things go very smoothly. One way to look at its present state is simply that many individuals got off into “variations” of it.

      Putting this in the indefinite second person singular for grammatical clarity: How could you complain about an auditor who understands you, has compassion for your difficulties, has appreciation for your achievements, understands the tech, and can use it properly to assist you to clarify for yourself the source of your difficulties?

      Some people get wrapped up in blogs and lose their own viewpoints to “agreements.” KSW has been “indicted” for example, along with its “accomplices” or “co-conspirators” named “fundamentalists.” Heck, I could find something and get into the exact wording and convolute it all so badly that all the meaning of it is lost. #18 above *could* be construed as contradictory to “don’t C/S in the chair,” and probably more, such as not making assumptions about the PC’s case. And lawyers get into the same word-games.

      About the “trial and sentencing” of KSW, one guy pointed out that if you are studying medicine, you are expected to study medicine and not something else, and that applies to any study, so why should it be different with Scn?

      Just to put things in my perspective, I recently ran into a bit of an interesting ‘problem’ reading Handbook for Preclears. There’s just so much consistency and clarity of viewpoint there, and I got it all flowing in, and got blown away – I felt like (stupid thought): “How can I communicate that viewpoint, which I see and understand, to another?!” All the pieces fit together! So besides asking myself dumb questions, it occurs to me that first one understands it oneself, for oneself, as if one had thought of it oneself, creating it oneself in one’s own universe, and if one can do that oneself, then step up to the next level of learning how to use it to communicate it all to others. I.e., if it worked for me, then it can work for someone else, too.

      It’s getting over the astounding understanding, and the enthusiasm to go out and tell someone, that, oddly, is a kind of hurdle to overcome. One has to calm down and be rational about it, and learn to follow the correct steps to allow another to understand. Technically, one contains the energy created within one’s space, and that creation of energy is granting of beingness. It is an action, but people confuse it with the meaning of the word “tolerance.” The two are not at all the same. One grants beingness to another to allow them to arrive at understandings which will necessarily be un-identical to one’s own.

      I’ve never heard anyone talk about how difficult it must have been for LRH to not explode in exhilaration, but instead settle down so he could communicate it on a gradient. I know the trick now, I think, that it is one’s own knowledge in one’s own universe, independent of others. So you follow correct auditing procedures with understanding. It is correct Ethics.

      I’m noticing that some of the best auditors do not talk much. Maybe I should shut up, but if no one ever said anything ….

      • Wow again! 🙂 Gee, I’ve been around (Scn) since the early 70’s. (very much old school), when ARC, and theta comm, made interchange fun, creative and appreciated. Now, inval, eval & “them and us”, seem to be the order of the day.
        Still get to keep all i treasure from LRH though, including this gem:
        “All I’m trying to do is teach you is how to look”, (NOT don’t look!)
        Oh, and all your comm and inferences are willingly duplicated & understood,
        Calvin — the “squirrel” and/or whatever 🙂

      • Nickname, i have long been an ardent admirer and supporter of your postings, and remain so. I have never been one to pull punches, but at the same time, believe in giving credit where it’s due. I have noted that you are particularly generous in your capacity to grant beingness to others. (without any ensuing inval.) T This to me, is a hallmark of a great auditor and I have personally known a good many, in my time. Thank you.

        • Thanks, Calvin. I’m just trying to get thing sorted out straight. One thing I left out in is that an auditor and all of Scn aren’t just to sort out difficulties., but to be used to develop and enhance abilities. It’s every bit of a “upwards” thing, just this minor little bug called the reactive mind has to be sorted through.

    • Geezuz, Calvin, just because some Scientologists wish to “preserve” straight LRH Scientology doesn’t mean we/they don’t evaluate importances! That’s quite the evaluation. Can I assume you didn’t read the whole article? And positioning that second group as more “progressive” than those poor non-discerning absolutists is really just inval couched in sheep’s clothing. CB

      • Thanks for chiming in Chris. Please, Chris, try to duplicate me on this, by actually giving my comment a bit of scrutiny??

        I can confidently state that a misduplication has taken place, been added to, by quite a bit of conjecture and misreading of what I actually said and asked, in the first place.

        a) said: ..”.It sometimes occurred to me, (is that an offense?), how
        the other core aspects of the entire subject, MAY(emphasis added)
        look in say 100 years time, in the hands of two distinct groups?” (is this conjecture, in the form of a QUESTION, beyond the realms of possibility, or extrapolation, given the rapid pace of change in a fast developing world? IS IT?? SERIOUSLY?

        b)said:… “The first group, let’s call them the die-hard ‘absolutists’,
        (please note, I did NOT say ‘purists’, and yes, there is a difference.)
        would predictably preserve every single thing LRH, assigning it all of equal importance ( I give here, the ‘absolutist’ example of DM’s re-published book of Basics 0-8, where every single version of scale, code, no matter how obscure, (AND DISCARDED BY LRH,as obsolete,in his ORIGINALLY published version), was featured as of equal importance in the Golden Age of Knowledge edition,.
        touted as ‘refined’ by the DM, Mind Control machine apparatus.

        addendum) I give another example of absolutism, in the oft quoted Christian phrase. “Everything written in the Bible is true, because it was written by the hand of God.”

        c) said …” without any re-evaluation of core benefit.” Please show me in writing, where LRH specifically forbids you to evaluate for yourself, on the workability of ANY datum! I will await such clarification!

        d)said…”In the rapidly changing WORLD (my emphasis), ahead of us, in the relatively ‘new’ climate, of free exchange of information (quite recent, incidentally, in Scn, due to the unrelenting desire to gain information thanks to the internet, and in spite of the heavy suppression of the CO$ But this applies, of course, to the entire spectrum of global knowledge, as we see today.)
        …” it is inevitable that the old, outdated concepts, will have to make way for the new. ” That is not to say that an old concept, still thoroughly workable, NEEDS to make way for the ‘new’ Indeed, we still have tens of thousands of concepts that DON’T !!!

        Let me be clear. The workability of the Auditing tech, DOES NOT have to make way, Why? Simply because, IMHO, it is:
        a) THOROUGHLY workable.
        b) to my knowledge, has not been surpassed, due to the self evident Axiomatic basis of LRH’s hard-won, refined development.

        Though I had no inclination, at the outset,to “defend” myself against obvious ‘misduplication’, it appears that I became the suspect ‘dog just given a BAD name, so hang ‘im!” 🙂

        After this, I hope to be allowed to just call myself a ‘dog’ instead.

        LRH, what ever became of that gem, “granting beingness” ??

        —Calvin (the ordinary mutt/squirrel)

        • Hey Calvin,
          Whoa Nelly! Whoa! My friend.

          I think the sensitivity to the topic is due to the “push” in various quarters to redefine a person who understands, evaluates in correct relative importance, and applies KSW, with an intended A=A pejorative “fundamentalist”.

          In today’s milieu we have a dearth of Standard Tech. The CofS under David Miscavige specializes in Black Scientology. Covert/overt inval of L. Ron Hubbard’s legacy of the 10 points of KSW, and churns out overt products that find themselves searching for that process that will flatten what they have mis-run on them, among other Bad Indicators, showing that anything BUT LRH’s tech as been taken to its full results, with the consequences in full view.

          In the field, well, there are all sorts of renditions, the laissez-faire of who knows what. In among that, some guys that actually do a fine job, as well. (Noting a poster here for instance, Chris Black.)

          So, with this idea that you’ve posted intitially, I’d suggest another view (as opposed to we’re all “agin ‘im”) and that is that there are those who have put in blood, sweat and real tears, to gain the tech skills and application abilities with the intention of getting the real results of this amazing work, and they have in mind Safeguarding Tech and being good guides. Not the wishy washy kind, but good, stable, assured guides that lead the way out.

          The lack of “reasonableness” with things is a positive when it comes to it, and it means that the Bridge is there, for real, and put there by beings who have dedicated their lives to a purpose, you, me and a whole bunch of others embrace.

          You don’t have a thin skin. Be heartened that there are those who care enough to see that LRH’s legacy is kept up, and are willing to be ferocious in seeing that it is applied as per KSW, cause that’s where the gains are.

          You know that. I know you do. You’re a good’n. So are they who jumped in.


          • It’s interesting that one gets Scn differing with, arguing with, and even suing to death other Scns who only want to audit and train others. Firefights amongst Scns. Makes me sick. Happens a ll over the place. I’m working on why this is, and I think I know. (That in itself is a bit weird.) Has to do with ethics which is simply goals and purposes, but part of it materialize as how two guys can be friends until a diamond is discovered. “Fascinating.”

            • Ah, yes, Nickname, “Fascinating,” indeed!! Serfacs, mindsets, mind-control, greed, want, power, need for/escape from, dominance, etc, etc.

              It certainly seems to be bound up in the goal of “survival”, and therefore ‘right’, and certainly NEVER ‘wrong.

              This would make for an intriguing topic, once you’ve worked through the ‘why’. Looking forward to your thoughts on this. Really am 🙂

          • What is all this dissertation here ?
            The guy needs Remedy A and B, that’s all. Are we going now to be running around circles miserably wasting our time ? Philosophy-ing about the Tech instead of just applying it ?

            Guys, you need to reformat this thing and start from scratch. This is becoming a big strange mixture.There is no direction, no plan, no coordinated effort. Stop playing around. Sorry it I sound harsh

            • First, we are auditing – which is what this thread is about..

              Second, when you lose philosophy, you lose Scientology, it’s basis, its reason, and its purpose (and turn into an automaton without direction)..

              • What I meant is that Scientology is a very exact thing, is has no room for different interpretations, is was researched based solely in its workability by a man with an incredible background in science,mathematics,history, philosophy,etc. A research route was followed that resulted in a workable technology that works 100% all times. It has been tested time after time. I was specifically commenting about Racingintheblood post and the fact that a few posters started a philosophic dissertation and getting involved in his comments when a more correct standard approach would have been to indicate to him he just had M/Us and to get some help in that matter. Remedy A and B would help him sort out his confusions.

                The more a standard tech approach is applied to posters comments on obvious confusions, the better for them and this blog as it would become a stable datum to seek for answers many scientologist are looking for who have been overwhelmed by false data from “Authorities” from the Church. By applying to them 100% on Source supervisor tech, their confusions will be handled. Long dissertations and “explanations” on top of false data and M/Us just won’t do. That is all I was refering about in my post. Sorry if I offended any posters. I tend to get desperated by outpoints, s/g I need to handle.

                • Peter, Here’s my response. I am and stay in present time. i CAN and DO duplicate, what happens/ is happening around me. you need to do that too.We would not be having this conversation, if we were together in the same room. You would definitely not be insulting, evaluating, and invalidating me, the way you have done in your post. If you knew my background, I think you would think twice.

                  I would suggest to you, sir, that you rethink your manners!. while you are about it, have a good look at the “duplication’ article, i submitted, by Ron, at the foot of the page.

                  YOU have some work to do, too, sir!

                  Have a nice week-end, sir.

                  • Dear Calvin, my most sincere apology to you. I will read your article. Take care and success in whatever goals you are after. I hope some day we can meet and chat over a beer or coffee.

                    • Yes, I very much agree Calvin. I can be a pain in the ass sometimes ,but I put myself back together pretty fast too. I hope that whatever discomfort I have caused you be handled by know. Take care.

                      ARC, PETER

          • Davis,
            Perhaps you aren’t familiar with this site as a blog. It is a place to be in comm, share ideas, wrangle things around, and enjoy the havingness of it all.

            It’s a perfectly good format for just that.

            I don’t know about you, but the bulk of the time I have is spent on study and auditing. That is a different thing, than this here blog.

            Since this is the first time I’ve seen you post here, maybe you should ask what everybody is up in applying this body of work, rather than jump in like this with your shorts down, and a bullseye painted on that pink arse. Hmmmmm?

            • Typical response, just as in others blogs like Mike Rinder’s. One disagreement and the self-defense mechanism triggers. You missed the point Jim, but I won’t waste my time on you. If you could’t get the message, I guess, I have a lot more work to do with you guys than I thought. I will write a post about the real sit regarding scientology’s present state and I will challenge you and the ones most hatted, to prove me wrong with specifics LRH refs and actual arguments instead of philosophy-ing about it. I will see then, what you really are made of. Wait for it in few days.
              CB#: 7873455951

              • Davis,
                I look forward to your posting.

                Before you get too wound up here, differentiate “self-defense” from some beef on the persiflage. Holding a position is an important factor in generating some juice. If that position becomes fixed, as in a computation that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to survive, well then one has what is technically defined in Scientology as a Service Facsimile/Computation.

                Entering in a conversation with an evaluation is a gambit you played. Suck it up when somebody else says in banter – “hold the phone” on that kind of stuff relative to the other persons participating in the conversation.

                This is a BLOG. Realities may differ, but on this blog a civility, a granting of beingness, a pan-determinism are factors most posters here embrace. All the while assuming that thetans without banks have different responses, fostering individuality and reveling in the joy of creation.

                Hope to hear from you soon with your projected article.


                • I think I started with the wrong foot here. Looking at your 1st comment in a new unit of time, it seems I got it wrong (I am, mostly, a spanish speaker) ; my apologies to you and anyone I might have offended.

                  I got carried away by my frustration. I’ve been looking for something in all past months in different blogs but can’t really find it. Don’t know if it even exist in PT . Is something called a STRATEGY; an strategic plan to revert Scientology to its original state in the Church, not in the field.

                  It seems to me, jim, that many of you have lost perspective of what is Scientology role in this planet and its relation to the current state of affairs. Scientology IS a ROUTE OUT. Is not just something to make you more able, more happy, more causative. IS a ROUTE OUT. A route that IF followed all the way to its end , will bring about FREEDOM AND SALVATION. Something no one on this planet have right now no matter if OT VIII or not , class XII or not, and something no one have had for eons !!!

                  We, as a group, don’t have unlimited time to pull it off. There are forces out there that can wipe us out anytime they want and there is nothing any human can do about it. We are just defenceless and only actual OTs will be able to counteract it. Do you see any OTs around. ? Any Theta Clears around ?

                  The fact is , Jim ,we all are just being happy slaves w/out even noticing. I hear scientologist say “In my next lifetime I am going to…” They actually want a next lifetime with all package included : being born again, not being able to talk or walk for a very long time , having to be taking care of, studying all over again what you already studied, possibly ( if you are PRE-OT) getting back in Scientology when you are already an adult and doing some of the services all over again till you cognite you are a past life scientologist and even so requiring sometimes long hours of auditing to get your memory back ; etc,etc. I know some have been fortunate to discover it fast and even being able to pick up a scientologist family, but that have not been the norm.

                  Scientology is supposed to end the long cycle of death and birth, not to promote it. Will some one please explain to me where is the freedom in that?

                  The fact is we are in a continual danger condition as beings, and we don’t even realize about it. Anyone, of course, have the right to procure another body and another life time, I can’t call that freedom though, can’t even call it self-determinism.

                  I don’t think that there are that many scientologists out there who really, I mean really, understand the sit in which we all are in this planet and guess what, it has nothing to do with humans and has nothing to do with reactive minds. It has to do with evils and powers we are not even aware of. It is either explained or hinted at in so many LRH lectures and yet , it seems to escapes us everytime.

                  So the choice is ours. Really answer to yourself, bloggers friends, this question with complete. honesty : What would LRH do in a sit like the current CofS is ? DO you think he would create independent field groups and practices outside of the established structure? Or you think he would, as he have done in the past, just handle the hell out of it and correct Scientology in its very created structures , you know, apply standard investigatory procedure, standard Data Series evaluation, standard ethics, -standard Tech and Admin and just put it all back together? —————————–

                • Hi Davis/Peter,
                  I get the difficulty with the language, mate. OK, no worries.

                  I admire your passion, and agree with you that we have here on earth today a window of opportunity to make the best of as individuals and for others we can reach, and who reach to us.

                  I’m afraid I’m not with you on the inval of the states of being that many have attained at this time. I’m sure you can’t speak for many of those who have worked hard to attain the spiritual awareness and capability for any future they can create. You certainly don’t know me, nor what I have attained with Scientology and where and what I’ll be able to do in the next moments, or for the infinite future I am quite able to see.

                  I have no idea where you are at training wise, or auditing wise, but I can assure you that rather than freaking out about things, it would do you well to buckle down, get to study and learn to audit and get in the chair. On your own case, get up the Bridge using L. Ron Hubbard’s Technology, unadulterated, unaltered, and stay as far away as you can from David Miscavige’s suppressive, squirrel, out-tech. You might keep an eye out for other goofus renditions too. They seem to abound. Stick to LRH. It’s there. It’s written and spoken and available.

                  Now, on to this idea of yours of straightening out DM’s SP group, the “CofS” as he runs it. What WOULD LRH do? Exactly what he always did – BYPASS the broken line and get Tech delivery happening.

                  In the 50s, a group in California attempted to usurp Dianetics. They wanted to see that any practitioner was certified by psychologists. They had financial support and by shenanigans, attained the rights to Book One, DMSMH. What did LRH do?

                  He carried on with SCIENTOLOGY, and gave the PDC lectures. You see, mate? He bypassed the broken line, and carried on.

                  That’s what we are doing here in Milestone Two. I am aware of three practices going, today, that have auditing sessions in progress, cases being sorted out from DM’s, and other squirrel tech, and students progressing to gain the other half of the Bridge. How many? Oh at a guess I’d say there are about 100 people on those lines that I am personally aware of, carrying on and getting the real gains there to be gotten.

                  Rather than fret and frantic about what’s going to happen to us from interstellar space hooligans, or inter-dimensional magick-ians, if I were you, I’d find yourself a good, trained before GAT, and fully qualified auditor, and get your ruds in, and MOVE on the LRH Bridge. Like, today.

                  It all takes on a much easier feel when you get up there. It really does. It is more than can be described. It is a much better view of things.

                  OK. I am going in session with a preclear right now. I’d love to chat more, but hey, I have my priorities, and getting the subject in practice, for real, is on the top of that list.


                  • Greetings Jim. First of all I am no amateur on the Tech, I know my bussiness and exactly know where I stand. Don’t, please, insult my intelligence and try to talk to me as if I were a lost scientologist who is in some kind of confusion, freaked out, and in neeed of immediate assistence, who have to immediately go up the bridge to handle his confusions.

                    Is is funny how you guys pretend to be 100% on Source in everything and then conviniently choose only the parts that fullfil your desires and “support” your ideas. There are refs after refs of LRH, either written or on tapes (mosly on tapes) , where he specifically talks about the urgency of the sit. It is on the SHSBC lectures , class viii lectures, many ACCs, History of Man and severals HCOBs. LRH was always on a break-neck pace regarding research because of that. He even put the organizing of the materials in other hands ( a mistake I think he made) as he HAD (not only wanted) to dedicate himself fully to research to be able to have a working route for others to follow as fast as possible.

                    Your brushing off my concern (i.e. “don’t worry about inter- dimensional beings…” s/g like that) only shows you are either conviniently ignoring it or doesn’t have any reality on it.

                    Then you mention some 1950 example about how LRH bypassed the line and concentrated on delivery !!! The 50′ s , jim? Come on Jim, you can do better than that. Don’t you know the history of KSW series #1 ? Don’t you know the history of “Tech Correction Round Up”. Please mention specific examples during and after SHSBC where LRH handeld international out-tech,out-admin and out-ethics in any other way than directly getting into the already created structures and getting rid of ilegal HCOBS and HCOPLs, handling the suopresives responsible for it, and broadly issuing HCOBS explaining it all and giving the correct Tech. Mention just one specific example with EVIDENCE. There isn’t ANY. 100 pcs/studends? Come on. Talking about orders of magnitude.

                    You are obviously making the mistake of underestimating me. If you know actual OTs or Theta Clears who can’t ever be implanted again and CAN go to every damn place they want in any part of the galaxy (specially near Marcab) ,please present them to me as I will get in a plane next day to meet them and will beg their auditor/C/S to program me. I was not trying to invalidate any OTs or the gains of anyone. I was refering to actual OTs per definition. You should know, with your background, which I fully know, that OT VIII is the first actual OT level and is a baby OT per LRH himself. I really apologize for not having the ref at hand, but I promisse will post it in few days. I really hate to mention s/g w/out the ref. On OT VII you handle the case ( I don’t want to go into confidential stuff here)and on VIII TRUTH is revealed and then you are prepared for actual OT drills and familiarization with your OT abilities and your relation with MEST universe which is s/g you’ll get from OT IX on, as a logic conclusion. All the bridge up to VIII is only preparing you, even though, you get immense wins and gains from doing so. But to say that and VIII is free Jim, you know better than that. If you guys want to be happy slaves, that is your right.

                • David River/Pedro Towers: “ I’ve been looking for something in all past months in different blogs but can’t really find it. Don’t know if it even exist in PT . Is something called a STRATEGY; a strategic plan to revert Scientology to its original state in the Church, not in the field.”

                  Just in case you still didn’t do it, you may review (and discuss) Save Scientology’s strategy
                  Web site: http://www.savescientology.com/
                  Blog start: http://blog.savescientology.com/2011/01/lrh-intent/

                  • Well, there you go Davis/Peter, the Situation: The Corporate checks and balances put in place by L. Ron Hubbard’s Estate Planning and Trust Instruments is non-functional and has been replaced by a “one man show”, a dictatorship by a Suppressive Person.

                    Now, all you need is the Data Trail, the Why and a workable Handling.

                    Thanks MaBu 🙂

                    • That should be “are non functional”. Or, in a vernacular “be non functional”. Either way, they sure aren’t doing what they are apposed to is.

                    • I understand. This is not an easy evaluation. It requires scientologist with a very honest and just viewpoint on justice, with very clean hands (specially w/out mutual out-ruds phenomena regarding the Church staff), highly trained in Data Series in new unit of time (M-9 w/ced and FDSed), PTS/SP trained, Ethics Specialist trained (all read and W/c M-9 in new unit of time , FDSed on them). Get this program done on 10 of your best, and then, we’ll be ready to properly evaluate w/out guessing at Whys nobody can really do anything about. Anyone wants to play with me? Any volunteers?

                  • Thank you. I had read it ; incredible clever guy. He has a very sane, very well thought strategy where he takes everybody into account, seeks for proper justice and proper corrections , and is very close to a handling I think LRH would do. I think he jumped to some conclusions too fast, but he is really good. I called him “a vulcan mind”. I even commented in his blog how no one besides me had commented on his article, a very strange thing indeed ,and a fact that makes one wonder.

                • Peter/Davis,
                  I’m not sure where this answer will post in this thread, but it is replying to your last one – the SRA one (wink). SInce you seem to know what’s what, you surely are familiar with that infamous acronym.

                  Speaking of which, can you give an idea here on your Eval of the current Sit in DM’s CofS?

                  Just a summary, you know, Sit, Data Trail, Why, Handling type thing.

                  The platitudes aside, Peter/Davis. Confronting the actual state of affairs, what would you suggest is the recipe to follow, today, for real.

                  • Dear Jim, I just can’t see how my comments to you fit in the SRA category. I have a very deep care for every scientologist declared or not, in the field, in the Church. If I sound harsh sometimes it is because I care and really can’t afford being just a nice, agreeable guy. The REALITY JIM, is that if we really wants to save this planet, we MUST take our Church back with all its created structures as designed by LRH. That is our Church Jim, it belongs to all scientologists. Stop calling it DM’s Church, it is not his to have.

                    You were a very good Cramming Officer from what I investigated, self-determined and well hatted. Probably had many stops from people who should have known better. You, of all people, should know that the independent field strategy is flawed, even with all the good intentions I am sure many of you have. You need all (not part) the OEC policy to really make it. An Org Board, lines,hats,the whole lot that has already been created for years. It is there. LRH organized it all originally. It is not just wise to start all over again from scratch Jim. It just doesn’t makes any sense. It is a wrong strategy. Most scientologist will not trust it. It will bog. And just to leave all because of ONE man and a few others ? Are you really granting him all that power? What about your power?

                    Just as a note here : I don’t have all the facts here to properly evaluate DM’s performance. I read information here and there, diferent versions from different people, two sides of the story, and can’t honestly come to an irresponsible conclusion w/out all the factual data at hand.

                    I haven’t made my evaluation of the sit Jim. I only know that there IS indeed a sit based on a list of outpoints I have observed over the years. I don’t have enough data to go beyond that at this point. I only know that the majority of the outpoints points to RTC as the AREA. Concluding anything else at this point will be not proper form. But getting a WHO and a WHERE, which is what most have “evaluated” so far, is very far from a complete evaluation. And choosing DM as the WHY (as many have done) is an instance of “THE WHY IS GOD”‘, as there isn’t any immediate handling at hand and you can’t just go there and grab him by the neck and throw him out. “The Why must be something you can do something about” Thus the Why is limited by what you can control”. It is NEVER that other division or top management or the bumps on the moon”. Even if all this were true, the Why must be something YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT YOURSELF FROM YOUR LEVEL OF AUTHORITY OR INITIATIVE that will lead to THE IMOROVEMENT OF A POOR EXISTING SCENE TOWARD THE IDEAL SCENE” DATA SERIES 23, HCOPL 17 FEB 1972, “PROPER FORMAT AND CORRECT ACTION”

                    It is too late for me know and I have to get up early. I will comm more about this tomorrow and will list the outpoints count classified per illogic types, outpoints assigned to areas and the area with the most : Data Analisys.

    • “Calvin: The first group, let’s call them the die-hard ‘absolutists’, would predictably preserve everything single thing LRH, assigning it all of equal importance, without any re-evaluation of actual core benefit.”

      Those who preserve pure LRH “predictably” assign equal importance without re-evaluation of actual core benefit? Not a little over the top with some sort of fixed A=A thing while insulting those who get great results with 100% standard hairline tech?

      This is the typical diatribal nonsense of those of haven’t studied much in the way of Scientology but think they know enough to rewrite it. You’re not trying to invent GAT III or anything like that?

  4. Wow! Okay Lana! Duplication did not occur, here. Please get what I actually said, and asked. Misduplication results in misunderstanding
    and that reduces ARC. We (me included) are all scientologists, if not exact clones of one another…. heaven forbid!

    • Hey Calvin, Write me on email — and if I have misduplicated your comment, we can sort it out. As I say, you are a friend, and you are welcome to travel any path you choose. I am not ARCXen with you — but I have a viewpoint I wanted to communicate. Write me please.

      • Thanks, Lana. Got you entirely. An e/m might not have cleared the air, adequately. I felt obliged to do that via the latest post.

        Btw, just ’cause you don’t see me, doesn’t mean i’m not on the path.

  5. I have been auditing someone who has had plenty of psych treatment and other practices. She is blown away by being able to itsa freely with no eval. But , that is not all,she is really handling her problems effectively in life. She also exclaimed “Why isn’t everyone doing this?
    I am also handling people who have gotten auditied in the Co$ and the SO-BOY do they see a difference!!!Auditing is now fun and productive and safe!

  6. Yay, Ingrid! You are already my first choice of auditor and I’ve already told you that before. I’m still considering how and when, we can make that happen. BTW, I so love the cliche, that you just touched on…… “If it isn’t fun, it isn’t Scientology.”

  7. To me real Scientology is following LRH’s words with understanding. Following it robotically gets what we’ve got at HQ.

  8. It should say something to an on the fence Scientologist looking at this site, that there is more LRH tech written and referred to on a “sp’s” site, than you get on any church site!

    When I look at the people who complain about LRH and look at the outnesses they complain of, they attibute to him, I pretty well one for one can see can see policy violation or misapplication. Although I have limited tech training I can also quite often see where the auditing tech has not been properly applied and think to myself “what a pity they didnt have a competent c/s and auditor looking after them”, and I would bet there are c/ses reading their histories who cringe at the out tech perpetrated on them.

    LRH wrote KSW 15 years after publishing DMSMH and he did it for a reason. I believe it was to stop all the waffling about and to get people up the bridge. Then they could experience the freedom that that entails and understand the necessity for keeping the structure of the Bridge and the role ethics and admin play in keeping that line straight and open. And thats the only role they play!

    With daves complete mismanagement, I believe we are seeing a similar phenomena now as there was in the 50’s and early 60’s, with alterations, variations and new gurus coming up with their own tech and of course the invalidation of LRH. In saying this, I believe LRH developed lot of tech, and there are a great many avenues for its application.

    I love the fact that this blog is dedicated to the continuance of KSW, I think we need it now more than ever, as the church doesnt follow it any more and many coming out of the church are confused about it and its workability. Let that confusion blow off and get back to the business of freeing people!

  9. What a great OP, and it certainly has engendered a whole bunch of energy, in a variety of directions. Relevant to this topic, by necessity, I find myself currently focused on a very important component of auditing. that happens to be “duplication”.

    And who better, to share the matter, than L.Ron Hubbard himself.

    From The Creation of Human Ability, and also The original book of Basics, 0-8 page 144.


    FUNDAMENTAL: The basic action of existence is duplication.

    LOGIC: All operating principles in life may be derived from duplication.

    AXIOM: Communication is as exact as it approaches duplication.

    AXIOM: Unwillingness to be cause is monitored by an unwillingness to be duplicated.

    AXIOM: Unwillingness to be an effect is monitored by unwillingness to duplicate.

    AXIOM: An unwillingness to remain in a geographical position brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.

    AXIOM: An enforced fixation in a geographical position brings about an unwillingness to duplicate.

    AXIOM: Inability to duplicate on any dynamic is the primary degeneration of the thetan.

    AXIOM: Perception depends upon duplication.

    AXIOM: Communication depends upon duplication.

    AXIOM: In the MEST universe the single crime is duplication

    FORMULA VIII: the primary ability and willingness of the thetan to duplicate must be rehabilitated by handling desires, enforcements and inhibitions relating to it on all dynamics.

    Footnote; As a newly married man with a young family, (1974)we went through a recession, where decent paying jobs were hard to come by. I packed up my poor paying job as a draughtsman, and became a municipal bus driver. I could earn three times as much, by working unlimited overtime. This had many benefits, including paying well enough to pay for Scn courses, auditing, and allow my wife Dorothy, to train up to Class IV, (she later went on to become the first NED trained Auditor & C/S in Durban Org.)
    It helped me too, in that I was able to use the lengthy stops at ‘timing points’ to make a thorough study of the Ol’ man’s written works. ( i kept a full set of dictionaries and demo kit with me, wherever, I had a loooong wait.) So my passenger free bus became my ‘course room’. Thus, I never wasted a minute, of time and dedicatedly used that period to learn the “Basics” AXIOMS, LOGICS, Q’s and scales, to a point where I knew them verbatim.

    Lest there be any doubt, I still ‘think’ with this material, today. 🙂


What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s