by LRH

Now in view of the fact that there are only such a tiny handful of absolute truths, there is a thetan you see, and he creates things. That’s about it. In view of the fact that there’s so few absolute truths and that everything after that fact is created, you have been involved for many, many eons, in the creation of an existence. And you had truth or “telling the truth” you see, substituted for and identified with doing the most good. You got these two things crossed. Telling the truth isn’t doing the most good. I could go out here and walk up and down the street and tell the truth for a half an hour and there’d be about twenty suicides. You realize that?

Matter of fact, we don’t have any of this Swami stuff in Scientology and Dianetics. Mostly ’cause it’s a super effort you see, to hypnotize, overwhelm and bring about worship. See, that, it’s just nonsense. It’s the creation of slavery. It is a real big overt act, see. A real big one. You know, tell everybody that you’re in communication with Yawa or Cheezewitts or some god and he’s just given you the word and, and do some perfectly obvious thing like reading the obvious symptoms on somebody’s face or reactions, or something like that, or looking at his facsimiles if you please, reading his mind and so forth to, not to tell the truth about it but to give him a big curve, see. Overwhump him so he believes the lie in some fashion. This is big twisty stuff you know, the effort not to create an effect, but the effort to make a slave. See, that’s a different thing.

So that truth is a word actually that doesn’t even belong in the perimeter. There are facts that the vast, we can’t even say the vast majority because it’s practically all facts, are simply created facts which, agreed upon, have become truths. Now this is a very queasy rule to walk into when you realize that. And when you’re busy laying out these vast facts, these absolute truths with a professor of physics, you’re pretty safe. See, you’re pretty safe. You can get away with teaching physics without totally plowing in so long as you don’t teach it as absolute and irrevocable facts that will never be altered, changed, shifted in any way, shape or form. ‘Cause here we come along and we can upset physics. Now it’s all right to teach something as absolute fact, quote unquote, if you say this absolute fact is apparently agreed to and held by most people. And those that don’t hold it aren’t here. But to that degree it’s an absolute fact. But beyond the first little handful of axioms, you see, there are no unalterable facts. All facts are alterable beyond those first few axioms.

I know it kind of stretches your imagination to think that something like, something like Boyle’s law or the laws of fulcrum and balances and so forth, could be altered. They’re apparently that, but they’re simply part of the agreements of the creation of this universe. Unless one agrees to this universe and agrees to it’s various laws and so forth, well after all these things are true but they’re true by agreement. So don’t be too surprised some day if you take fulcrums and balances and set them up and put a hundred pound weight one foot away from the knife edge and a two pound weight one foot away from the knife edge and stand back and watch them balance. ‘Cause if you haven’t subscribed or if you canceled your subscription on any of these agreements, they tend to cease to be true.

Well now, if codes of conduct are efforts to delineate what are overt acts. You’ll find most moral codes are simply a list of overt acts. And they’re an attempt to get everybody to agree that these overt acts are overt acts. You know, they keep talking about the ten commandments. The only reason I talk about Christianity rather than another religion is, you happen to know more about the tenants of Christianity than some other religion. That doesn’t mean that Christianity’s the worst or the best amongst religions, or actually the funniest. But it is true that this is the case, that they give out ten commandments and everybody says these ten commandments are the ten commandments and that’s swell and so on.

But you go back and read some of the earlier translations of the Bible which weren’t monkeyed with to put a new pitch on the line, and you’ll find out that there aren’t ten commandments. That’s one of the first facts about the ten commandments that aren’t true. There aren’t ten commandments. That’s it. They just go on and on and on and on and on, I mean, I don’t know how many there are. I got tired counting or I could tell you right now. I think I stopped at about a hundred and sixty-two. There’s such things as, “When you have killed a pig and found that it’s flesh was tainted, do not sell it to your neighbor, sell it to the wayfarer and traveler as he comes along.” [laughter] That’s in there.

Now these super absolute moral codes have liabilities basically because they’re not true. Now once in a blue moon in this lifetime and others, why some fellow has picked thou shalt not kill, you know. Some fellow has jumped up big as life and knives in his teeth and all that sort of thing and was gonna hack down the kids or the family or sink the ship or do something of the sort, you know. Well, let’s look at the dynamic balance here. See, you’ve got one fragment of the third dynamic is represented by this bird with the knife in his teeth see, and the whole ruddy lot of the rest of them are under your protection. And at this moment you’re not going to kill, huh? Hah, huh. Thou shalt not kill just falls by the wayside as an absolute code, see. It does. Boom. It’s gone. And as I say, in this lifetime or earlier ones or that sort of thing, come up against this particular situation why, as far as I was concerned, somebody bit the dust. Now I never considered it much of an overt act. It isn’t. Got the idea?

For instance we’ve just been through a war and the conduct of the Japanese in their original capture of Nanking demonstrated that they were not very pleasant people in the military form at least, to have around, no matter how pleasant they are in their houses, at home, you see. And they raped and slaughtered and burned around Nanking until there was practically nothing left of the thing. When I looked that over, it wasn’t an atrocity story. It wasn’t an atrocity story it was just a, a fact. They had a ball. And most of the Japanese troops misconducted themselves. So did white troops, so on. People get going on war and they don’t know when to stop. I remember one sergeant going around during an amphibious landing toward the end of the war with a carbine butt knocking out the gold teeth out of the mouths of the wounded. He had a nice collection of gold when he finished up. But I thought it was a little extreme.

Now overt acts tend to breed overt acts. And you enter in logic along this line someplace and you can begin to speciously, logicate out of existence all overt acts. You can explain how they are all logical. And there’s fellows down here in the local jail right this minute, but you talk to ’em, they could explain it was perfectly logical, absolutely perfectly logical how all dynamics having been violated except some fragment of a valence of the first, they’re totally correct. They see it was totally correct to violate all dynamics all their life. It was so logical. So you see that it somehow or another takes a, it takes judgement to experience in a society, free conduct. You can’t have a bunch of slaves and not have super moral codes and laws. Do you see that? In the absence of judgement you have to have all kinds of laws. And you can just put it down in your book that the more laws there are, the less judgement there is. In the development of Dianetics and Scientology, as practitioners and pc’s were found to have less and less judgement, then more and more laws were developed. Get the idea? Auditor couldn’t exercise judgement on the, on the processing of a preclear we – he couldn’t see it himself you see, and it wasn’t obvious to him, we invented a law, I invented a law to point this fact out. Got the idea?

Well, if you notice, I am very chary of adding more laws, ’cause we’re going in the more optimum direction of adding more judgement to the people. Got the idea? Entirely different look. Now it isn’t that those laws don’t help, they do. In fact we wouldn’t be where we are if we hadn’t gotten some people over the rough points on things and so on. So that’s why I say every once in a while, I say, “Never under any circumstances do this, that or the other thing with the pc.” And then, certainly within a day or so if not within the hour, you will also hear me say, “Judgement is necessary to auditing,” and one of the ways of expressing that is, “auditing, is what you can get away with,” which is an old saw but a very true one. All the laws notwithstanding, auditing is what you can get away with. And if you didn’t get away with it, it’s not auditing. It’s code breaks and everything else, you see.


* Editor’s note: in the Red Volumes this lecture is listed under this date, but LRH says in the beginning that it is the 13th of November.

9 thoughts on “Right or wrong?

  1. I’m not sure why this lecture by LRH has been posed with the question, Right or Wrong? but I’ll hazard a guess.

    Of course, LRH is right: judgement is the paramount string to an auditor’s bow. Rote and one-size-fits-all styles of auditing will crash the PC, and the auditor, because neither is an unthinking machine.

    The great beauty of Scientology is its immense scope. You can have immediate aid, remedial auditing, or bridge auditing. In addition, is the vast philosophical underpinnings of the tech.

    Conventional counselling such as psychology is only concerned with PTPs. Conventional religions are mainly concerned with their bridge.

    People have come to Scientology for a variety of reasons, and none of them are wrong. It doesn’t matter if the reason was ego-driven, or borne of a low-toned impulse, or come from an awareness level below Recognition. Because everyone of them is me.

    What I wanted was to understand. And I think that’s pretty universal.

    The big problem is that, it doesn’t matter that I might be salvaged, because it will only be for a day, and only for me.

    This is where LRH steps up to the plate: Scientology has a bridge, and that is Recovery of Self. There’s no way around it: if you’re dead, so are your dynamics. Yet if you’re still in there pitching, there is still a game on. If you know you can’t die, you’ll always have the ace in the hole.

    You won’t get that from reading the books, though they are exceedingly compelling.

    You’ll get it from a dedicated org practicing standard tech, even if it’s only a one-man-band.

    The auditor will want you to move on from self-interest at some point. But the critical issue for you both, is that self-interest is irrelevant.

    The MEST, and possibly every other universe, is built on gradients, and Start-Change-Stop. And so it is LRHs incredible achievement to present to us with a reason for living: Don’t be a MEST slave, think outside the box.

    It is a wonderful circumstance that the Big Bang Theory is totally incorrect – we are individuals with our own ideas, and MEST is only an apparency.

    Scientology is no subordinate of MEST, and does not follow its mechanical protocols. The auditor will perceive when the PC stalls, and will ask him about it, just as LRH frequently demonstrates in his many auditing demos. Auditing is not a mystery science or craft.

    This lecture by LRH shows conclusively (to my mind) that Scientology is never deductively-driven, but intuitively-driven. It’s not about rules and laws – these are beneath the PC.

    Solve the PCs problems: he wants to become Cause and a player, again. The bridge will do that, but not if you slap his face with a kipper. If a person wants this or that power or ability, then they will never progress up the Scientology bridge, they have limited themselves to shallow waters.

    The cynic doesn’t want anyone winning, but that’s another story.

    • Thanks Rich — so as not to create a mystery, the article was entitled Right or Wrong as the lecture is entitled Rehabilitation of Judgement. 🙂

      • Its a great article, Lana and demonstrates LRH’s infinity valued logic as well as boundless care for me and thee. For all mankind. Yes?

  2. ‘Well, if you notice, I am very chary of adding more laws, ’cause we’re going in the more optimum direction of adding more judgement to the people”

    This lecture was given in 1958, mid 60’s the ethics codes came out, and KSW, then late 70’s the 2d rules for SO came out. I am definately not saying Scientology doesnt give one more judgement, because that would be a lie.

    But maybe there was not enough judgment, or maybe when one gets a taste of freedom, as the Bridge gives, a being gets a little heady with it and does things he shouldn’t. (I do remember an issue from LRH to new Clears to basically keep their ethics in, I think it was referring to the 2nd dynamic.)

    In the end though, those very same laws have been used against Scientologists, Scientology and two bit critics, to its detriment, so the judgement in using them has been out too. Welcome to planet Earth, I guess.

    There is not a policy I have come across that I have not seen a use for, ethics or otherwise, when used at the right time, in the right case, when judgement is used, but maybe, we would have been better off without those laws.

  3. Excellent article! The axioms on truth and lies is another piece to the puzzle. I dare say that if you interviewed a million people not one would say “time place form and event” and so forth.

  4. I’m a little surprised by the lack of take-up by my esteemed colleagues on this this blog to a door Ron apparently opens with his thoughts in this lecture.

    Is Ron saying, ‘anything goes’?

    Up until the Classification and Gradation Chart lecture, Ron had a variety of makeshift bridges. By the time of Creation of Human Ability, there was still no bridge, yet he talked about a bridge right from the beginning, in DMSMH.

    It seems to me that in the early days, Ron was concentrating on getting Clears, then stable Clears, then Theta Clears, then Cleared Theta Clears, all the while ruminating on the prospect of OT, that is to say, cause on the other dynamics.

    A common complaint amongst exes is that they didn’t get full recall at Clear. What do they mean by full recall? The ability to remember every one of the 50-odd perceptics, and every thought, emotion and effort in every MIP down the track? At their discrete disposal? Nicely tucked away, until called upon?

    Well for a start, that’s an immense amount of MEST to be burdened with – who needs that? Where are you going to put all that data? Why do you even need it?

    Explicitly, are you a body, or not? If not, then what are you?

    There are subtler problems: who’s pictures are you looking at? Are they yours? Do they actually belong to you? Are you in the MEST universe as a MEST Being, or do you have no track, being a Clear? Because if the pictures are yours, they would vanish in the instant you viewed them.

    Let’s not forget that MEST has no existence of its own.

    There are many definitions of Clear, and the one given out nowadays as being the Clear cog seems to me to fall well short of the mark. This definition doesn’t even begin to describe the magnificence of Clear, in my opinion. The jump from MEST Being to Clear is, well, just too fantastic for words. I don’t even think it can happen. Did Ron truly believe he could get a MEST Being to Clear? It sounds too fantastic, even for a science fiction writer.

    Therefore, Ron was saddled with the problem of, who am I dealing with? Some folk get it straight away, and the rest just bitch.

    In my opinion, every single bit of Ron’s tech is valid, but judgement is required in its application. For instance, Ron gives a straight-forward route to Clear in the Clearing Congress. There are only a few steps, and bingo, there you are.

    It is to Ron’s credit that he worked hard at making a standard bridge for everyone to walk. However, the truth is that some will make it quickly, and some will take a lot of persuading.

    Forcing the brighter ones down scale only leads to trouble, as every school teacher knows. The cleverer ones make the most trouble.

    This is one aspect of Ron’s thinking in this lecture, to my mind.

    There’s no substitute for standard tech, and Ron was no bully except in the care for your PC. The person in front of you is a living, breathing person, and your care for them has consequences outside of MEST.

  5. Thanx for posting this article Lana. I read it a while back was too busy to comment.

    In here Ron pretty much explains why we are different from what would be considered “New Age Philosophies” and many mind control cults (some sponsored by the CIA) which tend to overwhelm a person’s self determinism.

    It is unfortunate that the Church has gone in that direction.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s