by Lana M.

“Life is basically a Static.

“DEFINITION: A Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and perceive.”  LRH

This very simple and powerful statement is the basic premise that all of Scientology builds upon.

For people who have no reality on anything spiritual — and consider they are the body, they are mud, they are brain, and they live only once — this basic axiom is a significant jump in reality.

For those who have any experience with being separate from the body and/or the ability to postulate and perceive – it is a major shift from the average Joe, who worries about dying and death (and is positive that there is nothing he can do to improve his lot in life, in a dangerous and menacing world).

In a radio interview last week I heard a University Professor of Philosophy preach about how you are your brain and your body — and nothing more. And, in his view, this is why physical fitness is so important — as by honing your body performance, you can enjoy a better quality of “life”.

Hmmm — maybe he has a basic misunderstood on philosophy.

When people ask me if Scientology really is a religion, I answer yes — and I explain Axiom 1. It is not just lip service or an excuse to get tax exemption in the US — it is actually what makes LRH’s Scientology technology so powerful.

There is more to life than the body we inhabit. There is a technology to improve your potential and abilities. The games that exist in the modern world (relationships, gadgets, money, toys) can certainly be played — but there is a much bigger picture of what is actually happening.

And from the moment when you pop out of your head in an auditing session – or stretch your anchor points out to the horizon and touch the mountains – or make a decision and have it instantly occur – Scientology is seen to be in a different category to other fields of thought or science.

As a result, you are impelled to learn more Scientology, to discover more, to adventure more.

At least that is what I have experienced.  All starting with Axiom 1.




32 thoughts on “Axiom 1

  1. Good article Lana.

    Yeah that canard that Ron called it a religion for a tax break is only for those morons who haven’t actually studied the subject but read about it on the ‘Net.

    Which as we all know is such a font of truthful and unbiased information on the subject 😉

    Anyway keep up the good work.

  2. I listened to an early lecture around 1952 maybe earlier, when Ron figured out he wasnt dealing with a mind so much as a thetan. For me listening to it, I could almost hear his trepidation, as he knew full well what that meant. Scientology was religious by its very nature, and the research was heading down a path he wasnt planning on. Great article Lana!

    • Mr Orts, you really need to review what you just said here and see if you can’t see any outpoints.

      To give you a hint, if you went to a model train club I think you would find a bunch of guys who are all in agreement about how interesting trains are. If you went to a Toastmaster club it shouldn’t be surprising to find a lot of people in agreement about public speaking. If you went to any interest group you would find a group of people interested in that subject and not really that interested in people who want to tell them that model trains are highly over-rated. But you think it “unnatural” that a bunch of Scientologists would agree on Scientology. No, it’s not unnatural at all.

      If you look in the admin dictionary under EXPANSION, you’ll see an expansion formula which applies to any group. It says that if you clean away the barriers & distractions & opposition from the basic purpose an “individual or group … will seem more alive and indeed will be more alive.” That means if you want to become a more effective tennis player then you need to get rid of all the naysayers around you who say tennis is a waste of time. The same goes for Scientology and I am glad that Milestone Two appreciates this point.

      If you appreciate something about Scientology or would like to bolster the purpose in some way, that kind of view is welcome here.

      And in celebration of free speech, just about every other Scientology blog on the internet will accept criticisms of it. So there is a place for everyone.

    • The “Soft-Troll” gradually hijacks and subverts topics by getting others to correct/argue with him.

      Ok, let’s not talk about Axiom 1 then, but some supposed common outpoints with and among the “Everyone” posters.

    • If you state them clearly, with manners in I think you will find the people here much more willing to acknowledge andcommunicate than many similar blogs. try going to a forum about Fender guitars and writing that Fender is crap and everyone should get a Gibson. you’d get a bunch of people attacking and invalidating your comment, in a group that had been all “in agreement” previously.
      I think if you are interested in a real, actual live type of communication you shouldn’t overlook a group of scientologists.

    • BV,

      Either you are desperate to make friends or like making enemies.

      I agree with Chris here.

      Maybe if you can restrain yourself long enough from constantly referring Russell Miller’s turgid hit piece and stop citing squirrels as OLs and stop patronizingly referring to us as in “denial” because we don’t agree with *your* dark assessment.

  3. Its called ARC BV, it involves manners, granting of beingness and a genuine affinity for people of like mind. I dont always agree with what I read here, I do for the most part, but if I dont I will write behind the scenes to clarify it for myself. But to be honest I am really tired of seeing constant below 2 on the tone scale criticism of Ron and the tech, or covert attempts at such, it is not my reality. This blog is unique and I hope it stays that way!

  4. Great post. Science and their worship of the MEST universe and invalidation of anything that is outside that scope is one of the biggest falsehoods around. Try to wrap your wits around the universe of someone who does not have Axiom 1 as a stable datum. It is a long, long jump down.

  5. In the spring of 1967 I had a very enlightening – but also very scary experience – with the aid of some chemicals. When it was over I decided I wanted to experience that again – minus all the negative BS. I knew somewhere out there was a method that could lead me there. Six months later someone showed me a booklet called “Axioms and Logics”. That first axiom accurately explained – for the first time – the experience I had. The rest is history.

    • Hey Maurice, drugs and the use of is a very interesting thing. I remember reading where Ron said drugs kind of buffer the case between the individual and his case leading to the highs and experiences drug takers have. I know they did that for me. Of course they then go on to create their own problems, in addition to the original problem the drug taker originally took drugs for. But I do think they briefly give one an idea of what lies ahead on the Bridge and I can see why drugs are so attractive to people.

      • Probably one of the reasons the Ol’man recommended Huxley’s Doors to Perception at one time.

        My view on drugs now is that they are such a shoddy substitute to real Scientology.

  6. I was just studying the other day on this Static, and the process that in 1954, he describes as Route 2 #40, in Creation of Human Ability.


    “Why does a preclear get sick when you ask him to conceive a static? Now obviously we’d have to get somebody to conceive a static before he could himself stay comfortably outside. What keeps a preclear from conceiving a static? It’s because he associates a static with loss, and he says, “All right, if there is nothing there I’ve lost it.” Don’t you see? “I’ve lost something if there’s nothing there, therefore I’d better not conceive a static.” Conceiving a static is therefore painful. Well, the truth of the matter is, whenever he lost anything, something disappeared.” Professional Auditor’s Bulletin (PAB) 120, 15 Sept 57.

    The ability to conceive a static starts with some sort of grasp of Axiom One. Then it proceeds with TRs, especially OT and TRO, and with various tools developed as he continued to sort out the person’s difficulties with this conception (see the above PAB for example), Ron Hubbard carried on until there were means to assist beings grasp their own “I”-ness.

  7. Wow — hate mail coming through on the comments from ex-Scnsts is at an all time high.

    Guess they just can’t stand to see that we are here and holding a position in space — and that we are firm in our decision not to allow them to come in here and vomit on the guests.

    I find it fascinating that people who have disavowed the subject and its founder spend months, years, decades even, ranting and raving about it. They just can’t move on. They have to attack others who don’t agree with them – and they claim we attack them, when we have done no such thing. They cannot end cycle and go find a new game — as the first postulate is still there. Making a second postulate to try and erase the first is not the way it works — and thus they sit and stew in their nastiness.

    What a way to spend the rest of their lives…

    Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than enter into these people’s games conditions.

    My PC is ready for her third session today — and is having great wins. 🙂

  8. Thanks for taking the heat Lana, I know I wouldnt like to do it.
    But if I was to be benevolent about these people I would feel that it must be a kind of a hell where you supposedly hate something, but are unable to leave it alone. Where you cant help but obsess over it. They would be continually restimulating themselves.
    If it was a 2d you could take out a restraining order.
    The ironical thing about it is if they just applied the tech, as you say, handle the first postulate they would be done with Scientology, allow us to go our way and life would be good for all concerned. But that couldnt happen, because they would realize, again, that Scn worked and that would be very wrong. Quite a dilemma!

  9. Hi Lana,
    Great post. This statement is at the core of the religious philosophy of Scientology, as well as of many other religions. It states very precisely what is meant by the term “spirit”. For me, the first time I read it, it enunciated to me what I had always felt that I am but could not put adequately into words. It is a short, concise statement that defines the difference between materialistic philosophies and truly spiritual philosophies and religions.
    I can’t think of another statement where so much has been said in so few words.

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