by Jim Logan

Along with studying the St. Hill Special Briefing Course tapes and materials, I have been studying various “data of comparable magnitude” (see NOTE below) including now, Buddhist texts. One body of work, the Abhidamma (translated variously as “abhi” – higher, about, and “dhamma/dharma” – basic truths, phenomena, ideas, data*), has extensive descriptions of the “citta” – the mind and goes to great lengths to delineate the many discrete moments of thinking or being conscious of some object, either mental or physical.

Within this particular Abhidamma recension **, there is posited a sort of basic consciousness that runs along more or less continually that is conscious of existence as it is manifested, what can be described in Scientology in the Axioms as the first few actions of beingness in putting out points to view eg., bringing about a “duality” of view point and dimension point and subsequently establishing the continuous awareness of things to experience in the universe thus created and agreed upon that is available as the “time-track”. In 8-80 Ron describes this as follows:

“Life is a static, according to the Axioms. A static has no motion. It has no wave length. The proofs and details of this are elsewhere in Scientology. 

“This static has the peculiarity of acting as a “mirror”. It records and holds the images of motion. It even can create motion and record and hold the image of that. It records also space and time in order to record motion which is, after all, only “change in space through time”. Played against motion as a kinetic, the static can produce live energy.

“In a mind, any mind, the basic beingness is found to be a static on which motion can be recorded, and which, acting against motion, produces energy.

“A memory is a recording of the physical universe. It contains—any memory—a time index (when it happened) and a pattern of motion. As a lake reflects the trees and moving clouds, so does a memory reflect the physical universe. Sight, sound, pain, emotion, effort, conclusions, and many other things are recorded in this static for any given instant of observation.

“Such a memory we call a “facsimile”. The mind, examining a facsimile it has made, can see it, feel it, hear it, re-experience the pain in it, the effort, the emotion.

“There are billions of facsimiles available to any mind. Billions of billions. These facsimiles can be brought into present time by the environment, and “unseen” or “unknown” by the awareness of awareness of the mind, can reimpress their pains, efforts, and aberrations upon the being, thus making one less liable to survive. All unknowingnesses, confusions, aberrations, psychosomatic ills are traceable to facsimiles.

“One believes he can use any facsimile he has ever received. He has been hurt. He uses the facsimile of being hurt to hurt another. But since one survives as well as everything else survives, to hurt another is wrong. One regrets the injury, seeking to turn back time (which is regret). Thus the facsimile he used becomes interlocked with his facsimile of trying to use it and both facsimiles “hang up” and travel with present time. One even gets the pain he seeks to inflict on another, this being the action against him of the facsimile he sought to give, by action, to another. It startles the preclear, when run through a boyhood fight, wherein he hit another boy in the eye, to feel the pain in his own eye at the instant of the blow. And so it is with all inflicted injuries.

“This is a simple matter of the interaction of the pictures of energy.”

In the Buddhist materials there are mental “fabrications” described by the term “sankhara” (Pali and samskhara in Sanskrit. From “sam” prefix meaning “with, together” and krti – construct, make i.e., “put together” or “formations/constructions”). These “fabrications”, aside from the ones made as in a facsimile of one type or another, are the various fabrications that fabricate as well. These, both aspects, are the items including automaticities, valences, circuits, ridges, mental MEST, pictures, facsimiles, machinery of the mind, that behind-the-thetan-shoulder little “deposit” made up to let one know if they are being attacked by weevils, etcetera. You have sankhara that make up stuff, record stuff, perceive stuff that is made up to perceive (eg. A tree is a fabrication and there are fabrications (senses) made up to perceive the tree). Dianetically/Scientologically speaking – the various things a thetan creates either individually or in agreement that are there to experience as well as the means to experience them including all the pictures and machinery that sum up to the various aspects of “mind”.

Aside from the “basic consciousness” and its running record, in the Buddhist theory there are other categories of consciousness that are defined in relationship to their operations as a being goes along involved with its created life. These different aspects of the consciousness/mind/thinking come up in a sequence of “thought moments” which is described in detail with so many “thought moments” at this stage and so many at that, all being concerned with the awareness and consideration/mind-ing of some thing one is “mind-ing” such as an object, circumstance and so on. That is, the moment to moment activity of the mind as it senses and computes existence either objectively or subjectively.

Part of the sequence of moments of thinking is described by a term “javana” (derived from “impel” – go forward, push out – and described as “running swiftly”, that is, these moments go by pretty quick). These moments come after the object has been discerned and determined as some particular thing and are the moments when an “impulse” (a postulate/consideration) towards the item is made. Those impulses can be “good” or “bad”. That is, in Buddhist terms, one can have a good thought about the item (it’s nice, it’s beautiful, etc.) or a bad impulse such as hatred, anger, ill-will and so on. These are patterned-response impulses. Earlier postulates about something become fixed as “seeds of habit-energy”, that is, consideration or continuing postulates, held down 5’s in the computer, fixed ideas in the mind, etc.

In Dianetics/Scientology terms; a being experiences an occurrence and records it as a mental image picture as part of the time track. Those experiences that are impactful, that is, engrams, contain all perceptics of the incident as well as decisions, postulates, considerations that are part of the recording and reside as re-creatable “stores of energy”. Secondary Engrams are intense emotional incidents and also contain decisions, postulates or restimulate earlier ones, as do locks. One behaves according to these recorded pictures, by decision, by postulate and dramatizes earlier conclusions (fixed as patterns of energy) that are not applicable to the present circumstance in lieu of present-time observation and a direct view of is-ness.

(Note: This last is another category of javana that a being who is well advanced on the road to enlightenment has which is a calm equanimity toward the thing but there is no added idea or consideration from some past. He looks at it as it is. One could say he’s at “Lookingness” or higher on the Not-Know to Mystery Scale. It is also interesting to note that Not-Know as the First Postulate is indicated in the Buddhist theories as “ignorance”. Taking some license, one such scale might be described as the Ignorance to Mud scale, or, translated using the Scientology one, the entire series of steps from Native State, through Not-Know (“ignorance”) as the First Postulate to the Second Postulate of Know giving a “duality” and to gain persistence, all the way down to Mystery).

The materials of the Abhidamma concerning the manifestations of mind are a compendium of the Buddhist theory of consciousness and the sundry creations and operations of mind. An important aspect of the work is towards gaining cause over mind, liberation and an exteriorization from the stimulus-response characteristics of an “effect” sort of life and living. A realization and being cause/source as essence of mind and all of its manifestations. (In some schools the aim of return to Native State, that is, no contact, no ARC, no extended points to view, thus no view point, no game, thus no mind to pose and resolve problems, no particles put out so no need to know of them via perception, etc.)

“A very cursory glance at the Dharma discovers that it embraces these facts.

‘All that we are is the result of what we have thought; it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts.’ ‘By oneself evil is done; by oneself one suffers; by oneself evil is left undone; by oneself one is purified. Purity and impurity belong to oneself; no one can purify another.’ ‘You yourself must make an effort; the Buddhas are only preachers. The thoughtful who enter the way are freed from the bondage of sin.’ ‘He who does not rouse himself when it is time to rise, who, though young and strong, is full of sloth, whose will and thoughts are weak, that lazy and idle man will never find the way to enlightenment.’ ‘Strenuousness is the path of immortality, sloth the path of death. Those who are strenuous do not die; those who are slothful are as if dead already.’” LRH, Professional Auditors Bulletin 32 ***

From Advanced Procedure and Axioms under Self-Determinism Processing:

“Each and every aberration of the human mind and the human body has an initial postulate to be so aberrated. Engrams are effective only when the individual himself determines that they will be effective.”

The Definition of Clear: A thetan who can be at cause knowingly and at will over mental matter, energy, space and time as regards the first dynamic (survival for self).” Scientology Clear Procedure, Issue One, Dec 1957.

A being who no longer has his own reactive mind.  Clear is a state of being and as is obvious from the Buddhist texts that are more or less some 2,500 years old it has been an aim of beings on Earth alone, for quite some time.

Discoveries by Ron Hubbard, keen insights, evaluations of importances, the establishing of the various points where the time-track gets charged up, snaggled, obscured, the resolution of the various factors that result in not only aberration, but the mind itself, and the developing and refining of a technology of application of principles all make the attainment of the state of Clear a reality for beings.

We are rich in knowledge and have a positive methodology to attain the goals of so many, including ourselves.

Finally, it is also interesting to remark that both Siddhartha and Ron Hubbard stated that it is not enough to practice the “dhyana” (the various stages, ways of “looking/knowing” ) or get auditing but one must study the materials and understand the subjects, that is, get trained and audit others, to make a complete Bridge to the Ultimate Realms. Fit “study time” into your schedule along with getting in sessions, making a life, creating and managing the household, mixing in compost for the garden, fly-fishing for trout, painting, getting the DVD and postulating time to watch Season 5 of Game of Thrones, climbing Everest or K2 for the really adventurous and all the other stuff one may do while living.

As a hat tip and small token of admiration and humble appreciation- in- emulation to ancient rishis (“poet sages” who composed the Vedas), a hymn for my fellow Scientologists:

Study, audit, get auditing,

Learn, know, with certainty,

Be, free.

Uncover your Buddha-nature,



The Ultimate Truth.

Go Clear, regain OT,

Know you,

Without valence,

And again,

Be, free.


*Dhamma (Pali)/dharma (Sanskrit) derived from Sanskrit “dhr” – hold, keep, maintain – “what is established”, hence “law”, has various meanings depending on context and ranging from an entire body of knowledge to a specific datum or phenomena. If one looks at the Logics 1-4 defining what is knowledge these meanings apply to “dhamma/dharma”.






** Buddhist texts are voluminous and different branches of the overall religion have different canons. I am referring in this instance to a section of the Abhidamma of the Pali Canon which is one collection of materials. This part of the texts, the Abhidamma (Pali spelling of dharma), is an example of exegetical commentary on what are considered the words of the Buddha. Since Siddhartha, the Buddha, didn’t actually write down any of his words they were carried on in an oral tradition and eventually compilations of the oral materials were put in writing. This leads to differences, some small, some significant, in both the written words and especially in the interpretations and commentarial additions to the store of knowledge, among the many schools of thought within Buddhism.

*** various quotes from various Buddhist texts, taken from Professional Auditor’s Bulletin 32, 7 August 1954.

NOTE: My own personal reason for studying these subjects of comparable magnitude and at this time the Vedas, Upanishads, the various Buddhist texts, is based on the idea of “data of comparable magnitude” and the evaluation of things as described in the materials of Scientology. Also, L. Ron Hubbard in many places acknowledges the wisdom he gleaned from these same bodies of knowledge. One place in particular is in a 3 June1955 taped lecture, The Hope of Man, (published as an Ability mag article in June 55 and available in the 91 Tech Vol III) where in reference to the sages of the east he states:

“Don’t think for a moment that when I put together Dianetics I was not completely aware of practically everything any one of these men said in his own district and on his own home ground. If I had not had that information we would never have had Dianetics. But, what did I, a Western engineer, do? I said, ‘Well, these men are too sold on the spiritual side of life, they’re overboard. Nothing practical. We want everything workable. We want wheels. We want cogwheels.We want a standard procedure by which we can take a look at somebody on a couch and say, ‘Zip, zip, rip!’’. I was persuaded into this to some degree by my engineering friends-to some degree.

“I could not completely tolerate looking this picture in the face. And I dare say that there are some Scientologists who cannot tolerate looking this picture in the face directly, because it’s too much truth.”


66 thoughts on “Going Clear and beyond

  1. Jim: Wonderful article and so very well presented. Thanks.

    Now I am taken with a particular point and would welcome any additional clarification, example, demo, tech references you happen to be aware of. The point is:

    “Played against motion as a kinetic, the static can produce live energy.”

    I got the lake reflecting the motion of the clouds, etc – great analogy. I am interested in a better understanding of just how the static PLAYS AGAINST THE MOTION, thus creating such energy, AT WILL.

    The operative term here is “how.”

    Again, delightful read on a fascinating subject.

    • This is from 8-80 Chapter Two. Perhaps the next part of the chapter will help clarify your question:

      “An interplay of static against motion or between two classes of motion, one relatively static to the other, can and does produce active electrical energy in beings of different characteristics and potentials. This makes a living being an electrical field more capable of high potential and varieties of waves than are known to nuclear physics, of which Scientology is a basic.

      “This created energy played lightly over a “facsimile” reactivates it and causes it to bear upon a being once more. This is an activity of thinking.”

      • This is interesting Jim. There are waves that modern physics just are not up to measuring, but every now and then they come up with a “discovery” which approaches what is known about in Scientology.

        We know the correctness of this statement:
        “This created energy played lightly over a “facsimile” reactivates it and causes it to bear upon a being once more. This is an activity of thinking.”
        It is very observable on the E-meter.

        I have wondered recently, if there are things we do as a thetan, which Scn describes, but we are not aware we are doing them. For instance, I never thought of myself as sublimating sex, even though for many years I would see this reference and try to think with it, until I realized the other day, I used to do it all the time.

        Scientology data really does take a certain amount of sitting back and seeing how it applies to oneself.

        This is an interesting quote:

        “I could not completely tolerate looking this picture in the face. And I dare say that there are some Scientologists who cannot tolerate looking this picture in the face directly, because it’s too much truth.”

        Man aint this the truth. People seem to love significances and I can remember loving them myself. Thank god those days are over!

        • 4a,
          Right now I’m reading about the Buddhist description of “symbols” on the Not-Know to Mystery Scale. The tendency to assign significance and then hyper-associate with a proliferation of this means that, this is connected to that with the mind run amok in associative symbolism to the point of overwhelming the “worldling” and leaving them in a befuddled labyrinthine mess, walking around going “wog, wog, wog” in unintelligible gibberings.

          I’m with you, thank Bhag those days are over (nuttin’ like getting the EP of OT and TRO!)

          • JL:

            I’ve word cleared some people like this, who were so wrapped up in significances that it was near impossible to get them through any course or any cram. One was the Austin Fdn Qual Sec at the time, believe it or not.

            Symbols often become a way of not confronting the physical universe.

            And I just love the conspiracy folks and “hidden science” folks who blithely announce that because the dimensions of he Great Pyramid adhere to X ratio, it therefore means Y. As soon as they trot out “facts” like this, I turn them off, because it’s clear they have no idea what they’re talking about.


      • That did help very much. It may also be the basic on something I have been trying to get a better understanding of for years.

        We have both seen the amazing end result of just two instruments (say bass and drums) along with the Beings playing them (Static) create a kind of energy, capable of fascinating a multitude of people.

        Thus “An interplay of static (Musician) against motion or between two classes of motion, (Bass – Drums or Strings -Horns) one relatively static to the other, can and does produce active electrical energy in beings of different characteristics and potentials.

        Or it could be a vocalist – band (of multiple motions)

        I have always sensed there was something quite remarkable going on, to be able to produce that effect. Now thanks to your article you have steered me right to the LRH observations that speak right to the point. Hmmmmmmmmm – fascinating. Thanks Bud

        • It sure does.

          It is interesting to note that some of the abilities to be regained with awareness of them, include the ability to communicate at finer wavelengths than are able to be measured on present time earth instruments.

          • JL:

            To some degree, though, those abilities aren’t completely gone. Any time we infuse something with a heavy aesthetic, we’re exercising one of those abilities, even if only to some limited degree.

            I was always amused by Ron’s seeming vagueness on the precise wavelengths of this stuff. I figured it was because he wasn’t too keen on the idea of some smart-ass human coming up with a meter to measure the stuff. From there, it might be a short jump to figuring out a way to implant people. Just what these Earthers need.


            • I agree, Paul. Ron was not going to say exactly how presser or tractor beams worked, nor the exact nature of the theta pole. A thorough study of Scientology and a few hours of auditing under one’s belt and one realises where Ron was coming from: freedom from slavery, and recovery of self.

  2. It shouldn’t be a particular surprise that some or a large part of Eastern/Buddhist/Hindu philosophy echoes Scientology philosophy.

    (Don’t faint. I actually have a quote.) “Oddly enough, the only reason I went on and invented Dianetics was because, to get me, they had to pull me out of the brush with both feet flailing. And my intention as I went into it was something quite beyond them and that is, ‘Some day I’ll get even with you bastards and find out. And the rest of the people you’re doing this to are going to be undone.’ And evidently, this is almost very close to mission accomplished.” Lecture Discovery of Facsimile One 4 Mar 1952 Scientology: Milestone One lectures.

    So from the very beginning (millions of years, we assume) Ron has been on this track to free beings, at least off and on (between being doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs).

    Then, for those who actually have had and read copies of Hymn of Asia, at least my read between the lines on that book are that Ron was Gautama Siddhartha. In that book, he continually asks the Buddhist, “Am I Metteya?” (the promised future prophet of Buddhism). The answer, from the evidence in the book, is that yes, he is Metteya. But the deeper question (given the Buddhist belief in reincarnation) is whether Metteya is the original Buddha. My read is that this is the case. And if so, it therefore follows that many of Scientology basics would rest in the Buddhist scriptures.

    Fortunately, we are not forced to read what became the Buddhist scriptures. Ron, the good engineer and westerner that he was, summarized what was important for us and discarded that which isn’t. Gautama failed to develop a workable technology to produce the results he wanted.

    (Faint now. I have another quote.) “Gautama Siddhartha is the first person who said you can be Clear. And all he told you, however, was all you had to do was conceive mind essence. If you just conceive mind essence, you’ve had it. Ask those who have tried.

    “His goal comes true today in Scientology. It’s not a new goal, but we can do it today.” The Story of Dianetics and Scientology.

    And I rather tend to differ with Ron in saying that if it weren’t for Buddhism (and the like) Scientology wouldn’t have been invented. Given his original postulate on the matter (in the first quote above), I’m fairly certain that, regardless, we would still have the workable technology we have today. Ron was a stubborn sort.


    • scatjappers: “But the deeper question (given the Buddhist belief in reincarnation) is whether Metteya is the original Buddha. My read is that this is the case.”

      I tend to read it differently because my understanding of reincarnation in Buddhism is that, to begin with, there is no soul (no thetan) – only a “form” (like a transient personality) that develops and “reincarnates.” Thus, there would be the transient form of Buddha that returns rather than an eternal being/thetan returning. This would not be what Ron meant as he considered the thetan to be immortal and eternal.

      The Metteya is defined as “a” future Buddha – a “successor” – as per this excerpt from Wikipedia:

      “Maitreya (Sanskrit), Metteyya (Pali)…is regarded as a future Buddha of this world in Buddhist eschatology…According to Buddhist tradition, Maitreya is a bodhisattva who will appear on Earth in the future, achieve complete enlightenment, and teach the pure dharma. According to scriptures, Maitreya will be a successor to the present Buddha, Gautama Buddha…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya

      • I’m not sure why my comment is still in moderation, whether it was because of an oversight or there was some objection to it.

        I guess what I was trying to say is that it depends on what is meant by the question of whether or not Metteya is the original Buddha – in other words, is Metteya the same personality “form” as the one Gautama, the original Buddha, “used”; or does it mean the same eternal, aware being. To my understanding, according to original Buddhism it would only be the form. And Ron may have meant it that way too in *Hymn of Asia*, as the poem was addressed to Buddhists.

      • Marildi,
        This whole question of “not-self” is fraught with mis-understanding, most of which stems from the difficulty in conceiving a Static (see other comments.)

        The closest things to “actual” words of Siddhartha, by themselves with nothing other than a good dictionary or clarity of etymology of the words by scholarly types, Buddhist or otherwise, studied with a grasp of Static shows that there is indeed a “Buddha-nature” a “mind-essence” – a Static as clarified by that definition in the Axioms of Scientology.

        Mixing up “valence/ego” with that Static is what Siddhartha was trying to convey. If it’s a “something” it isn’t a “nothing” and “self” isn’t a “something”, it’s a whole lotta nuttin’.

        In the Axioms, the first action of beingness is to extend points to view, which gives one a relative point of view. Now that there is something to view, one can have a viewing point. Nevertheless, the actuality ultimate to those first actions is the Static. All those viewpoints and dimension points eventually end up with a universe, a mind and all the somethings. Getting back to the Static, that Ultimate Truth, that nothing, all the somethings are apparent and one can as-is them. One can go all the way to Native State, no contact, no ARC, no dimension points, no mind, no desire for stuff, no facsimiles of this or that, etc.

        Still, there is Native State, there is the Static. It isn’t a false self. It is, but it isn’t an “it”. These are words we use to describe something beyond words.

        • Jim, thanks for your comments. Yes, I think the main confusion is with the word “self” in that it is either used to mean the ego/identity or else the individual soul (thetan).

          You mentioned Native State. From what I’ve learned about Buddhism (not a lot) I get that Native State is what is meant by Nirvana. Some current spiritual teachers, such as Eckhart Tolle and other modern non-dualists teachers (I’ve listened to some of them on youtube videos) also seem to be referring to what Ron called Native State. They claim that a liberated/enlightened/awakened person will experience it as a state of bliss/unconditional love.

          One thing that helped me differentiate between thetan and theta – both described as being a static – was this quote from the Phoenix Lectures:

          “number [Axiom] 2: THE STATIC IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS, POSTULATES AND OPINIONS. It also has qualities, you understand? Something, in other words, a life form, a thetan let us say who is VERY, VERY CLOSE to being pure static, he has PRACTICALLY [my caps in this sentence] no wavelength. He’s in a very, very small amount of mass.”

          • Notice the observation in the quote from the Phoenix Lectures: He’s in a very, very small amount of mass.

            There’s a “he” and the “mass”. The “he” is the being. Not the mass. That’s a creation which is identified with as “self”. It is “not-self”.

            Being “in” is location. Again, not the truth, an apparency, a second stage and the identification of “self” with “not-self”.

            • Once you are located, have a bit of mass that you are “in” then you can accumulate. In Scientology Axioms it covers that as-isness is the cure for what ails.

              You can assume a category of identity to play a game and have the ability to as-is the various things that may pack on as a consequence.

              At least, those are the rules, agreed upon, for this particular set up, as described in the Axioms.

          • Marildi,
            Again, the difficulty we enounter is trying to communicate with words, symbols, language, something which is beyond words.

            It’s best to clear the words AND get auditing, audit others and gain personal reality and experience of the concepts, which experiences are beyond words, even if we do try and use words to describe them.

            • Jim, right you are. Basically, both sides of the Bridge are needed. I’ve received and given auditing, and cleared words and word cleared others (was posted as a Word Clearer for several years). More recently, I’ve reviewed many LRH references (“…number of times over the materials…”) as well as the same thing you mentioned – datums of comparable magnitude. This is why I appreciated your article – it got me looking some more. 🙂

      • Also, the concept of “soul” at the time of Siddhartha, was also a topic of debate (literally, debate too, as recorded in various texts). As a “thing” it falls under the “something” category and the Static isn’t a something. Using a mind to conceptualize gives one a something – the concept.

        The thetan, the Static, is the one that is mocking up a mind to conceptualize with and thus creates a concept, a mind-thing. The thetan isn’t his thought.

        A “soul” as a thing is not-self.

        Re-incarnation is assuming a new body’s point of view by a Static. Same Static, different viewpoint. Different valence/ego as it’s a new body, new bunch of “now-I’m-supposed-to” to such and such to get food, get along, play the game. IF they bring along with them the mind-storeage accumulated over eaons, then all those bits can get into play, and so on.

        • One other thing, this whole “eternal” thing. Siddhartha had trouble getting across that this term, “eternal” isn’t applicable to mind-essence/Static. The Static isn’t limited by the idea/concept of “time”. The Static made up “time”. It isn’t its creation, unless of course it identifies with it, which is what Siddhartha was trying to communicate.

    • ” Ron was a stubborn sort.” LOL, he sure had a knack for pi….ng people off too, (by that I mean the toes of entrenched powers).

      But god bless him, he knew how to give the bird!!

    • Exactly what I got the first time I read A Hymn of Asia. And one doesn’t have to read very far between the lines if one really “listens” to this very pure hearted and spiritual poem. LRH very clearly inferred that he was (or rather IS) Buddha. Is that so startling? One can believe him or no believe him. It doesn’t matter. Anyone who has a reality that they have lived more than one life (had more than one body) knows that beings do not cease to exist when a body dies. So, given that as a fact, it is obvious that Siddhartha himself must have been somewhere in the 1950s.
      So, even if one does not remember him personally, logically one must at least admit that Ron would be a prime candidate to be that Being. (It certainly wasn’t Eisenhower or J. Edgar Hoover.)

      • E:

        Yeah, Hymn of Asia was such an obscure book that I think that few people owned and/or read. And now the Church says they’ll never reprint it. I ended up with it because I just bought my whole library in 1979. And I read it because I had some free time and thought, “What the heck”.

        I agree, it doesn’t really matter whether you believe he was Gautama or not. He still had mastery of the Buddhist scriptures and some choice things to say about them.

        And the simplicity and completeness of Scientology means that I consider Buddhism/Hinduism (and others) superfluous in terms of what to study. No offense to Jim here. At one time I skimmed the surface of Buddhism, didn’t find workable answers there and so discarded it as a study. Unlike Jim, I have no interest in studying background material. Also unlike Jim, I don’t consider Buddhism “of comparable magnitude”. When someone comes up with a philosophy which has a workable technology with it (that’s not a copy of Scientology), that will be “of comparable magnitude”. The “comparable magnitude” data to which I compare Scientology is my own observations and experiences. My life and experience provides me with a lot lot lot of questions, many of which are directly answered by Scientology. Those which are not answered by Scientology are those which I wouldn’t expect it to answer, such as, “What is it like to experience the world as a house cat?” Those are things that at some point I will be able to answer on my own, but aren’t particularly important in the broad scheme of things.


      • Metteya/ Maitreya – I suggest you look this up online and in this case Wikipedia seems to be pretty straight about it, with other refs given.

        The difference between Gautama “the” Buddha/Siddhartha and “a” Buddha is made clear. Buddhas is a more apt description for “Buddha”.

        • Add in the def of Bodhisattva. One whose essence is bodhi – enlightenment. These refs, the one on Metteya/Maitreya and the meanings of these terms, Buddha, Bodhi, Bodhisattva, etc., minimally are needed to a grasp of the significance of A Hymn of Asia.

    • SJ,
      “Mind Essence” – Static, is described in the Axioms. COHA has various references to it, including gradients of it (R2-31) and the difficulties in getting this as a realization as in R2-40 – Conceive a Static, which is “not recommended for cases having any real difficulty”.

      It’s not impossible to do R2-40. It just ain’t accessible to various and sundry in varying states of case.

      The more I read the commentary of the said-to-be words of Siddhartha, the more apparent it becomes there are those that have a difficulty with this process. Siddhartha, as according to his stated-to-be words, well that being sure seems to have embraced it for real.

      The following quote comes from a tape, 30 Jan 57, Auditing Techniques: Workable and Unworkable, Q&A Period. This is in regards to Siddhartha:

      “I’m afraid he was there originally because he said “mind
      essence” and therefore he obviously could conceive a static. So he said to everybody,
      ‘Alll you have to do is conceive a static and you’re all set’. So here are these poor devils around conceiving a static.

      “Just for kicks sometimes, run it on somebody who disagrees with you-somebody is being real nasty to you. He finds some other people around in the sitting room, you know; and he’s being real nasty and he says, ‘What is this Scientology!’ you know; ‘I was
      a …’ and so on. So you say, Well, I’ll show you.’

      “Don’t enter a discussion, that’s against the Scientologist’s Code*. Just say, ‘I’ll show you. I’ll show you.’ Heh-heh. ‘Now; can you
      get the idea of something that has no mass? No motion? No wavelength? No position in space? Can you get that idea?’
      ‘Rrrwwhrrh, what do you mean by this?’ And I just say
      now, ‘Go through it again,’ and say, ‘Well, just sort of get the idea of it anyway.’ And then go on talking about botany or something to the rest of the people because he’s finished.

      “Anybody who is that far out of agreement with life that he cannot be pleasant about something that might improve it, you see, is at once in a position where he can’t conceive a static.”

      * The version that contained the precept of not engaging in unseemly arguments with the uninformed.

      • JL:

        You know, it’s funny, I never even thought to imagine what “conceiving mind essence” would be or mean. If it’s just a dang static, well then, heck, no problem. Been there, done that. 😉


        • Paul,
          The more “commentaries” and “interpretations” of the basic Buddhist texts, the more I can see the MUs on guys proliferating all sorts of odd ideas about “mind-essence”. It is just a dang Static after all, but that’s a tough one for a number of beings it would appear.

          In Scientology we have a Bridge, bagloads of processes, all kinds of tech, to help raise the awareness levels, peel off the “defilements” and alas, sometimes soon, sometimes after a long while…

          • JL:

            I attribute my grasp of the static to whatever I experienced last lifetime (much of which I don’t remember). When I read about how universes are built in the Axioms (including statics, thetans, viewpoints, anchor points, etc.) this lifetime, it made perfect sense to me. How else could it work?

            If you think about it, though, I don’t suppose it’s that surprising that various and sundry can’t get a grasp of “mind-essence” and view it as a simple static. Who could even imagine there would be such a thing? Just imagine if you were sitting around (without all your training) trying to figure out what old GS was talking about. Good luck.

            Of course, knowing what a static is is not the same as actually confronting the total concept of a real life static. But I imagine that OT TR-0 probably comes the closest in terms of everyday experience of a static. I’ll tell you what, though– just as-is the MEST universe some time (not recommended) and you’ll get a very close idea of what “conceiving mind essence” (confronting or contacting a static) actually is.



  3. Re: “Hymn Of Asia”

    I can say, with confidence and a lifetime of interest, study and participation in the world of “poetry” as it has existed here on Earth that: Hymn Of Asia is the single most skilled, aesthetic, important spiritual, poetic work to have been written, to date.

    Factually, while I have found the most magnificent writers and entire lifetimes of their work, in the end nothing even begins to compare. Everything else has some degree (large or small) of seek “To Be” contained between it’s lines. LRH came along and demonstrated “Being,” pure, unadulterated integrity and execution of intention, ARC, understanding, postulate and aesthetic rendering of it all into one magnificent communication.

    And I happen to be aware of how out-on-a-limb my statement is and how many people might disagree. Yet, I stand by it and have done so for almost 40 years. It is a “Classic” by every possible measure of that term.

    The level of communication in it is so pure, so refined, so free of case and MEST and vias that it is and will remain a standard for any poet, a model for any poetic artist to rise up and seek to attain for the next millennia.

    It sings its message of hope for each individual being and for Man. It paints a vision so gentle and kind that only the most unwilling could possibly find fault with its beauty.

    But to me personally it gave me something so priceless it has kept me safe and winning through every challenge life has ever presented to me, since I first read it. It established a direct, unobstructed line to Source, any time, anywhere, any reason, any future. I do not have a copy at hand, but if you do then you will find what I am referring to.

    It is the way of the Bodhi. One does not need a via to communicate, thus establish affinity and reality, thus to understand. Study our “lessons” yes. But cut that line or have anyone enforce, suggest or demand a via on it NEVER.

    It is the gift Hymn of Asia bears to any worthy of its acceptance.

    My viewpoint, of course.

  4. A fascinating subject, eastern wisdom and I believe there are many truths hidden there. I say hidden, as there is no way to isolate them without knowing the answers already – as in Scientology. Knowing the answers you can go through it and note what is true or not. From what I understand, only a very very small percentage of the materials from eastern philosophy and thought have even been translated to english (like 5%, but I can’t tell you from where I got that datum). And then there is the quality of the translation to deal with. And on top of that, there is a millennium or two of materials written – think alterations, squirrels.

    And even with ALL of that as barriers, it was still enough to civilize 3/4s of the world. This is why I have high high hopes for the future now that there is true and clear and unaltered wisdom entered into the picture.

    • Tom,
      It is my understanding and grasp of Scientology that has made this foray into the eastern texts that have been translated possible for me.

      The “rear-view mirror” is about 12 feet wide 🙂

  5. There are some branches or individuals in Hinduism who have more in common with Buddhism than with other Hindus.

    Here’s one example:

    “Self-enquiry (also spelled self-inquiry) (Sanskrit vichara, also called jnana-vichara or ātma-vichār), is the constant attention to the inner awareness of ‘I’ or ‘I am’ recommended by Ramana Maharshi as the most efficient and direct way of discovering the unreality of the ‘I’-thought.

    Ramana taught that the ‘I’-thought will disappear and only “I-I” or Self-awareness remains. This results in an “effortless awareness of being”, and by staying with it this “I-I” gradually destroys the vasanas “which cause the ‘I’-thought to rise,”and finally the ‘I’-thought never rises again, which is Self-realization or liberation.”

    • Those “vasana” are translated into English as “desires, wishings” i.e., postulates/considerations – and in the Spoken Sanskrit Dictionary as – impressions of anything remaining in the subconscious.

      Applying the succinct clarity of Dianetics/Scientology they are all the pictures and machinery of mind. Quite simply, clear the mind and what’s left is a being. As-is the valences and you as Ultimate Truth, are “such”.

      Aye, thus thou art.

      And, boy oh boy is it ever infinitely easier with a meter!

      Scientology really does embrace knowing how to know.

  6. On the “beyond” part of all of this, there are in Buddhism what are called “siddhi” or “iddhi/rddhi”. Look those up with Google.

    Beings were cautioned not to get in to demonstration of these as that could lead to admiration particles and the receipt point of them by the being ending up in more “ego”.

    There is also the Parable of the Raft. Siddhartha said his “dhamma” was like a raft from here to there across the waters. Once you got to the other side, you didn’t need the raft. If you were a nice guy, you’d send it back. Embellishing the raft with more sticks, weeds, etc., wasn’t recommended as it would soon not get one across.

    Scientology Technology is as per KSW and Safeguarding Tech, a workable means, a functional Bridge. It too needs no embellishing as covered in the policies.

    Once across the Bridge…

    “Don’t ever miss this in what I teach you, don’t ever miss this. I am telling you how to get there, not what is there.

    “Got that? My teachings are entirely a Tao, see?

    “And people miss it, because I don’t keep describing some of the paradises or some of the way stops or some of the pay stations. Once in a while I do this because I find them interesting, but I comment on what has been discovered.”
    16th ACC, 12 Feb 57, Final Lecture: Question and Answer.

    • JL:

      This is very true. Ron could have spent lecture after lecture electrifying people with what’s out there, who the good and bad guys are, the politics of the galaxy, etc. As it is, though, he spent an absolute minimum of his time on this. Lectures like “The Role of Earth” are exceptionally few and far between. Rather, he spends lecture, PAB and HCOB time on the important aspect in all this– how the journey is made. Rightly so, because it’s complicated territory and tricky navigating.


    • Yes. Lots and lots and lots. And lots. I could say, pretty much all of them and not be too far off.

      Here’s one statement on the subject:

      “The remedy for pain, illness, aberration, insanity and the lot, then, is to free the preclear of valences. Apparently, freed of all valences of an unconscious level, the preclear would yet be able to experience, but would not be involved with pain, etc., except by postulate.” HCOB 9 June 60, The Basic Assumptions of Scientology Versus Overts.

        • Sure thing. There are a whole lotta specific things I could direct you to, such as the Beingness Processing of the early 50s. Universe,Viewpoint processing. All sorts of “valence splitters” as such.

          The endless “who or what” a thetan could identify with. Sloughing off all these characters, these views, these “not-self” things is a lion’s share of the Bridge.

          The actual, ultimate being, the thetan, without these valences, this false “ego” stuff, that’s as much self as there is, and, that self is.

          • JL:

            Indeed. When you consider all the problems, ARCXs; O/Ws, service facs, GPMs, false purposes and other OT phenomena which thrust a thetan into valences, the idea that the Bridge is primarily designed to rid the thetan of those things is about as true a statement as you could make.


      • This is quite a statement Jim “. Apparently, freed of all valences of an unconscious level, the preclear would yet be able to experience, but would not be involved with pain, etc., except by postulate”

        Some Scns go up the Bridge not really knowing what to expect, and some expect to sort of become divorced from life and sure there may come a point where we dont have to have this universe and so actually leave it. But on the way up, one gets to experience it more fully, without getting stuck in the experiences.

        Thanks for the reference, copied and kept!

  7. Thanks again. I recently got interested in this subject because of a non-dual teacher by the name of Tony Parsons. There’s an article on the home page of his website titled “The Open Secret” (which is also the title of his book). Here’s a paragraph from the article, describing enlightenment [emphasis in caps is mine]:

    “Should the apparent seeker meet with a perception which reveals in great depth the real nature of separation and also exposes, without compromise, the sublime futility of seeking, there can be A COLLAPSE OF THE CONSTRUCT OF THE SEPARATE SELF. That totally impersonal message carries with it a boundless energy into which the seemingly CONTRACTED energy of self unfolds. A resonance can arise which is beyond self awareness . . . something ineffable can be sensed . . . a fragrance and an opening to the wonder of unknowing can emerge.” http://www.theopensecret.com/index.shtml

    I got the idea that what Parsons calls “the construct of the separate self” is actually an energy manifestation – and it seems to be what LRH called a “valence,” meaning one’s own or another’s personality. Here are a few definitions of “valence” from the tech dictionary:

    “VALENCE, 1. a valence is an identity complete with bank mass or mental image picture mass of somebody other than the identity selected by oneself. In other words, what we usually mean by valence is somebody else’s identity assumed by a person unknowingly. (17ACC-10, 5703C10) … 3. a valence is a false or true identity. The preclear has his own valence … (SOS, p. 106). … 6. the combined package of a personality which one assumes as does an actor on a stage except in life one doesn’t usually assume them knowingly. (5707C17) … 9. the form and identity of the preclear or another, the beingness. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)”

    In the last definition above is the word “beingness,” basically defined as follows:

    “3 . essentially, an identification of self with an object. (COHA, p. 76)” (tech dictionary)

    All this is why I wondered whether there are specific processes to handle valences.

    • Well, I hope I gave you some direction on this question of processes.

      On the developing definition and handling of valence, from 17 Aug 61, Rudiments, Valences:
      “Now, this is a valence. A valence is, then, an artificial beingness of some kind or another. But with that we don’t have, factually, ‘own valence.’ There is no such thing as one’s own valence. This was thrashed out in 1950 and went loose through the middle of the fifties and people refer to it, and I may have even said it a few times – his own valence so forth. But it is not correct – it is just not correct. Because a person’s own valence is silliness. That is a silly statement, because a person is himself or in a valence. You see, it’s one or the other. He is either himself or in a valence.”

      • JL:

        Just like you said (or LRH said) elsewhere, a thetan (or static) couldn’t possibly be a valence. A valence would, by definition, be something added to the thetan. And ultimately, something he would wish to rid himself of. All such things were added to the thetan under duress of one kind or another.

        In fact, if you think about it, it’s rather startling that Ron was able to discover that the theta was a static. It’s easy to mistake the thetan for the viewpoint from which the thetan views, and assume the viewpoint IS the thetan. You’d have to do quite a bit of work to realize that the thetan isn’t any viewpoint he assumes, but is instead a point out of nowhere which originates viewpoints.


      • Yes, Jim, you certainly did give me direction regarding processes to handle valences. And it makes a lot of sense to me that, basically, “a lion’s share of the Bridge,” as you put it, is directed at valences. Thanks much for the comm.

  8. “The theta being is the ‘I’, it is WHO the preclear is. If all the entities and beingnesses of the preclear were hydrogen balloons locked up inside him and each had a name and identity, the auditor might be confused (and the preclear IS confused) as to who ‘I’ is. But if the preclear were suddenly opened and the balloons let loose, the ‘I’ balloon would float free, clear, and unmistakable. And that ‘I’ balloon would be the theta being. It would be who the preclear always thought he was anyway”

    From A History of Man by LRH
    (the subsection entitled “The Theta Being” in chapter 2 entitled “Targets of Address”)

  9. Great article Jim. Great comments. For me, Scientology is a way to to think things over, like buddhism, to look at things, within oneself and around oneself. It’s a spiritual philosophy. What is true for you is true for you. And that’s it. A wisdom that is obtained by observing, by touching, by looking and by staying true to what is true for you, what YOU have observed. In that Scientology might be a continuing of Bouddhism, or some branches of it : one needs to look and experience rather than believe. It’s a science how to look for answers. The fact that I was asked to look, to touch things, instead of taking for granted only theoretical sayings was a major milestone for my philosophical quest. I was invited to experience things for myself and to be aware of what I was looking at or doing. It was an invitation to stand up, to look for myself and to make up my mind. It was a philosophy for applying. A spiritual philosophy where I could move freely within with MY emotions and questions. A path for knowing how to know what I, me, wanted to know. Tao. Find Your answers. What I had difficulties with in studying ancient texts were the non defining of their technical terms. Be it Aristoteles, Platon, the Vedas etc. There might be somewhere a dictionary of these terms now. Is there ? Or, one needs to get into the field of etymology and to the origin of word meanings, the roots of indo-german words for example in the ancient times or beyond, thing I personaly like doing. What do they mean when they talk about ‘soul’ for example, or ‘mind’ ? Is there now a dictionary of terms accompanying the Abhidamma manuscript ? How did you go around that Jim ? In Scientology, what a release to get the exact, simple definition of their technical words, like ‘Spirit’ ‘Mind’ ‘Body’ ‘Death’ ‘Matter’ ‘Space’. From there I could make up my mind and check it over with my personal experience and decide if it’s true for me or not and therafter they became stable datas with which I could operate and continue my quest. I even sometimes was then able to get back to the ancient philosophers and assess what they intended to convey to us as a message and enrich my knowledge of humanity works. Hi Aristoteles ! Hi Siddartha ! Here I am. Lost you a little, but here I am. Buddism originally is a philosophy that invites people to know for themselves. To ask the right questions. That’s my understanding at least. Then came Scientology. It’s all a great process.

    • Mary,
      Thanks for the comment!

      There are several dictionaries I am using all of which are available online. Go to Spoken Sanskrit Dictionary and aside from the main one, there are several alternatives listed on the bottom of that, including the Monier-Williams. I have that one, the M-W, downloaded as well. I found that searching a term “(blank) in buddhism” gave me another compiled set of definitions at the Wisdom Library which was very helpful too.

      Some of the scholarly works that come up on a search of terms that come up as sections of books that you get a preview on and can scroll help. They tend to give you a few more words to find while you look up the original one. As you clear the various terms you’ll start to get the hang of it. You may have to dig to get a plain meaning that isn’t an interpretation and you will find others have mis-understood various terms so don’t get stuck in their MU 🙂

  10. What a lot of research and detail. Thank you. I know Scientology’s philosophy touches Buddhist philosophy in all sorts of significant ways. I am sad to realise now that even knowing there were similarities, I have never read any Bhuddist texts. This OP serves as a suitable impetus to start now.

    An incident at the Org when I was young has always coloured by view of Bhuddism. A public whale was told off loudly in the foyer by a staff member for j&d-ing LRH’s Hymn of Asia. The whale got all ridgy and started citing tech about LRH calling Buddhism “a whole track police operation” and suggesting that anyone who thought LRH was the Buddha-returned should be summarily Com Ev’d for being idiots. At that stage, other parishioners in the area joined in and it became a shouting match and then was broken up by staff pushing and shoving the whale out the front door. Took about a minute. Watching this play out in front of me as a six year old has left a deep “sankhara” 🙂

    (IIRC, the “whole track police operation” reference comes in the Q&A section of a June 1961 lecture about Auditing.)

    • Fiona, I found that 1961 lecture (a BC tape). Below is an excerpt from it, where LRH states: “And the whole subject is devoted to how to keep people quiet. It’s a police operation, a whole track police operation.” I think it’s important to look at the context just before that statement to decide what exactly is meant by “the whole subject,” especially since there are other LRH references where he speaks very favorably about Buddhism.

      “…I found out that before a thetan can experience a sudden change – like the total loss of his body – he has to be up to being able to have a body first. Before he can walk out of a body, he’s got to be able to have one. And the people who most easily present themselves to be bunged out of their heads are people who wouldn’t have anything to do with a body if you paid them. The person who wants nothing to do with the body at all exteriorizes at the drop of a skunk. All you’ve got to do is say to this person, “Phhff!” and there they are, heading past Arcturus.

      “Now, how the Buddhist, the Lamaist, missed this, I don’t know. But he patently knows nothing about it. The mystery of the East has been exploded. Man, anybody who would be stupid enough to sit still for twenty years and regard his navel so as to exteriorize should have his thetan examined. [laughter] You don’t have to sit still for twenty years. Get somebody to say to you something on the order of – the first exteriorization process is “Try not to be three feet back of your head.” Whammmm! There they go, you know? Well, Buddhism is accomplished. That was the end of track as far as Buddhism is concerned, and that one little set of English words took care of everything they were trying to hand out. Oh yes, they were also trying to hand out Peace, peace on you too, brother,” and so forth. They were trying to hand out various other principles, which got into other religions, and we had people being quiet.

      “And the whole subject is devoted to how to keep people quiet. It’s a police operation, a whole track police operation.” (Question and Answer Period: CCHs, Auditing” 23 June 1961)

    • Yikes! That sounds like a whole lotta “sankhara” in play. Fabricated circuits and Earlier Similars having a go at it.

      As to the tape and its context, which Marilidi has posted here, the context of the various practices help to understand that observation from the tape, too.

      There have arisen, depending on the “school”, all sorts of methodologies to try and achieve what Siddhartha achieved according to interpretations of his descriptions. In working my way through these different sects I decided to try and find an “original” version of the materials without “commentary” from the sect itself. This led me to a book by Tillman Vetter and several others that I was able to get a “preview” of with the search engine (Google). Another one called Concept and Reality in Early Buddhist Thought dealing with a specific term and a compound term describing the idea of “proliferation in symbolizing thoughts/perceptions” which translated to Scientology terms is a whole lotta thinking, associative thinking, and “figure-figure”.

      There are all sorts of opinions about how to get the result Siddhartha got as well as what that result actually was. This is where the whole thing about no-self comes in as well as the proliferation of techniques. Some of those techniques are extremely “renunciatory” and involve leaving behind any and all possessions, family, work and any other type of “thing” that would draw one into the clinging and attachment to stuff that is being eschewed in the preparation to gain the enlightenment sought.

      The supposed “middle path” of neither over-indulging in satisfying the senses nor extreme self-mortification is described as a monk’s life where you go off to work on the path and follow the disciplines that are described as part of that in order to eventually arrive at leaving. In other words, you leave life, family etc., go to a homeless state and beg for food while you meditate and try to exteriorize next from various thoughts, mental stuff, and eventually all of it. (Some of the variious Tibetan schools don’t beg, but accept donations of food and they have a monastery so you aren’t “homeless”.)

      In the absence of a monastery there are all sorts of spots in the woods, caves and so on where isolation can be found.

      • P.S. I would agree with Ron Hubbard on the “runway”. I have spent a good deal of time in my past in “caves” trying to go exterior and gain awareness of “mind-essence”.

        This life, in the first week of Scientology practice, I got CCH’s and went exterior with full perception and the awareness of being was…well, “mind-essence” isn’t a puzzle for me.

        • P.P.S.
          On this whole “quiet” thing, this is part of the idea of lessening motion, and less motion is supposed to be a “good” thing. A quiet person is a good person sort of thing.

          All sorts have tried to quiet down others on this long track of existence because that means they be goodun’s.

          Toleration of motion, the ability to confront a confusion and not have to glom onto a no-motion spot to try and handle it but be able to simply observe it and so on, these are some of the abilities to be gained/regained.

          The ideal of a quiet/i.e., no-motion person as a the best kind of person is not necessarily a fundamental truth.

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