By Robin Rhyne

For a number of years now, I have been outside the firewall of corporate Scientology, which has permitted me to expand my studies, sate my curiosity, of all things spiritual. What I have learned has only strengthened my certainty that LRH taped a workable path out.

Many philosophies, when reviewed, show that Man has been on the trail of the truth for eons. Many’s the time that I have read something and thought “oh, that’s ARC” or “Oh, that’s havingness”

But here is an important, no, vital, thing that LRH discovered which gives the permanence of gain that has been, in my opinion, missing from the field of spiritual freedom: the reduction of force from one’s case.

Felt it was worth sharing.

C/S Series 6

“In Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health considerable stress is placed on the words and phrases in engrams. This is still functional. However as I did further research I found that (a) many pcs were unable to get the words in the engram and (b) the apparent force of the words was derived wholly from the pain, emotion, effort contained in the engram. In Standard Dianetics the words in an engram play no major role in the auditing.

The use of the words to de-aberrate and concentration on phrases in engrams is valid but junior in force to the pain, misemotion, etc in the engram. Thus if you run out the force the words drop into insignificance. This is often how the pc gets cognitions: the words and meaning concealed in the engram are changing value and devaluating. The pc can then think clearly again on a subject previously pinned down by the force. Get the force out and the words take care of themselves and need no special handling.

The meaning of things plays a secondary role in processing to forces. Thetans find counter-forces objectionable. Almost all chronic (continual) somatics have their root in force of one kind or another.
In that the handling of things with bodies involves force to greater or lesser degree, incapability and derangement of mental values is proportional to the thetan’s objection to force.

The pc is continually searching for the significance of a mass or force—what is it, why is it…
The search of the pc is for significance.
The action of the C/S is reduction of forces.” LRH

Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex


“The road to clear by making the preclear take over the creating of the Time Track was long explored and proved completely valueless and chancy.
The road to clear by making the preclear leave the Time Track (exteriorization) lasts only for minutes, hours or days and has proven valueless.
The road to clear, proven over 13 years of intense research and vast numbers of auditing hours and cases, lies only in an auditor handling the Time Track and removing from it, by means governed by the Auditor’s Code, the material, both motivators and overts, which, recorded on it, is out of the control of the pc and holds the pc at effect.”

“Listing for goals and reliable items, engram running, Prepchecking, Sec Checking, recall processes and assists all handle the Time Track successfully and are therefore the basis of all modern processing.” LRH

23 thoughts on “Keeping the gain

  1. An excellent point up. Thank you.

    It’s a very key difference to other practices. If one looks at each religion on the bases of, How does it treat an individual’s relationship with force, it is immediately telling. Pshrinkery, for instance, is at best all about coping, and if that doesn’t work, obliterating awareness.

  2. Excellent post Robin, thank you.

    This distinction in value between force and significance sets Scientology and Dianetics way out ahead of psychology and counselling and other such practices which rely on reason and rationality to help their clients. For instance, we have the modern practice of sports psychologists helping sportsmen to regain their skills or motivation or confidence after an injury, all the while leaving the engram untouched. How often have we said of an athlete, he was never the same after the injury?

    Or while talking to an offender, the Probation Officer is grimly hiding in the back of his mind the certain knowledge that the source of the offender’s misemotion and irrationality is beyond both their reach.

  3. Extraordinary. I’ve read both the issues quoted, and for some reason I never got the line, “In Standard Dianetics the words in an engram play no major role in the auditing”. I didn’t realize that, even though I’m aware of how Standard Dianetics is run. Somehow the omission of the words in favor of the force just escaped me. Makes sense.

    This is a beautiful example of a point I try constantly to make. Techniques went in and out of favor over the years. But that didn’t make them any less workable. Book One was the (workable) standard, and then was superceded by (workable) Standard Dianetics, which handled the same part of the bank (engrams). People seem to have this idea that if the technique changed or the research emphasis changed, it happened because all the old stuff was crappy or some kind of mistake. And it’s just not true.

    For the perpetual students among our readers, “THE TIME TRACK AND ENGRAM RUNNING BY CHAINS” (2 bulletins) is an incredibly meaty and comprehensive examination of the time track and reactive mind. Recommended. But make sure you’ve got your student hat on first.


  4. “When you want results you had better use standard techniques and procedures. Most clearing “failures” are caused by use of non-standard techniques and procedures. Also, such failures can be caused by ignorance. An auditor thinks he is using standard material. He isn’t sufficiently trained to know.

    You see, there is a thing called Scientology. It has axioms. It has principles. It has the goal of empowering a thetan to overcome his own problems. This standard Scientology we don’t change every day. The uninformed, not knowing that a standard exists see in each new release a new subject. So they say, “Why don’t I experiment on my pcs?” And they experiment with the standard background, not with a further reach of old, tried, principles.

    Without a guiding central organization Scientology would fall into an anarchy of opinions in a week for there are too many who can go through the motions of auditing who do not know their basics. They think a new thing, Scientology, is an experimental thing. It is not. The basics are inflexible and have been for years.

    We know now just exactly what clears people. And we know exactly what a clear is. And we know exactly how to train and process. These are hard won riches. Don’t waste them and your time, too.

    This is the way out! Are some people so fond of the trap they avoid the flaming beacons which show the entrance? Or are they afraid to set Man free? ” LRH (Ability 76, ca. early June, 1958 – “Offbeat” Processing)

    • “anarchy of opinions”

      Thanks, Chris. At this point I have seen way too much “afraid to set man free.” In the end, it has been those who have sought to trash LRH’s name into a society who would rather succumb.

      Yet there are many higher-toned individuals out there who work tirelessly to see that we do not succumb.

      • Pazooter, I fear that the ‘anarchy of opinions’ is not much short of overts and motivators. Some in society prefer their reasons why and justifications to succumb – or lash out – is in a sort of beautiful sadness they can’t help but desire, and then eventually regret.

        How confusing it must be for some people to wrong another, and suddenly find themselves with a justified low opinion of their victim; like a magic trick, you turn over a ten, then you turn over an ace.

        Yet even the fiercest critic of Scientology would benefit from a caring auditor: they know they’ve done wrong, so who has the ethics presence to stay in present time, keep their TRs in, and not invalidate or evaluate for them, someone who could ask the right question and let them talk? It was once a wise old man or wise old woman to whom one could turn, someone with no agenda of their own.

        The Christian principal of forgiveness is fine as it goes, but some of us, maybe most of us, have committed overts of such considerable magnitude that it would be impossible for another to atone for us; this is one we have to face up to on our own, Jesus can’t do it for us, the anonymous priest in the confessional with his five Hail Mary’s and two Our Father’s can’t do it.

        You could walk away from the therapist’s couch, or the church, and be more spun in than you were before – you’ve still got your motivators, the undeserved low opinion of the person you’ve actually harmed.

        What’s even worse is that the low opinion can be shared and broadcast widely, precipitating further overts committed by unthinking others on your victim: you’ve now committed overts on the unsuspecting others that you’re going to have to justify.

        One can become isolated, and then even more isolated.

        It’s always been a source of fascination to me how some people can suspend their own judgement in favour of another’s ‘inside knowledge.’ In such a case, one’s opinion of oneself must be pretty near rock-bottom.

        Above that we have the ARCX, an area of even greater upset, so deeply buried, so far removed from our everyday lives, that it’s almost mystical in significance. The non-Scientology therapists who work in this field have not the faintest clue how deep this problem goes, because past lives, chains, earlier similars is not real to them.

        Opinions can be as much misguided as wholly wrong, and never more than at Grade IV, where we feel we are right and others are wrong.

        The starting Scientologist will likely find that his opinions were right at the end as they were at the beginning, and in between was a whole load of nonsense brought about by his contamination with our apparently physical universe. The Clear may find, as I did, that the physical universe prefers it if we adopt its opinions: now you’re supposed to do this, now you’re supposed to do that, and then you’re supposed to die.

        The degree to which we are monitored by opinions is so fantastic, as to be utterly incredible. It is even more incredible that LRH found a way through.

  5. P13C:

    The “Christian principal of forgiveness” is a sadly misguided thing. Somehow, the Christians have elected Jesus or the church or the pastor/priest to forgive them. But the reason you’re in the soup isn’t because (in our case) the auditor or the Church or LRH didn’t forgive you. It’s because you never forgave yourself. That’s how you ended up in this soup.

    Sadly though, forgiving yourself is a fast way to make enemies inside the Church. I’ve gotten in more trouble from doing this than almost anything I did while in the Church. Apparently, after you’ve confronted what you did, you’re supposed to look hang dog for some unspecified period, so that everyone in the Org knows you’ve been a bad boy and feel bad about it. But in my case (if I even thought it was an overt in the first place, which a lot of the time I didn’t), once I confronted the deed, I was done with it. I never went around moping about it. And that used to drive my seniors (who thought, I guess, that I should be asking everyone else for a license to survive) batty. In fact, it often drove them to try to find something else to hit me with, so that I’d be properly ashamed of myself. It didn’t work, though.



  6. That’s right, Paul. The principle of forgiveness is a hot topic, or a button, as we say in Scientology. LRH’s thoughts about this in his ‘What is Greatness?’ article (Certainty Vol 13 No. 3, March 1966. Red Vol VI Pg. 154. https://goo.gl/0zgAzT ) are often misunderstood. Forgiveness poses immense conundrums for both parties, as Ron explains in his article, and in an earlier statement, HCOB 22 July 1963 You Can be Right (Red Vol VI Pg 321. https://goo.gl/VMX1Zr)

    “If there is any saintly quality, it is not to forgive. “Forgiveness” is a much lower level action and is rather censorious.”

    It is my opinion that the Christian Church did itself a grievous disservice in becoming an arbiter in such matters. Nowadays, in England at least, the Anglican Church has become little more than a commenter on morality, as its ministry holds very little significance in the world of jurisprudence. And that’s probably because in our modern society the distinction between ethics and morals has become blurred (Ron comments on this distinction, I believe, in the Briefing Course lectures, but unfortunately, I can’t locate it).

    There is often a public outcry at some of our judges’ leniency in sentences given for horrible crimes, likewise when sentences are perceived to be extreme. Where do we draw the line? It comes down to a three-way ARC with us, criminal and victim, a matter of flows we deal with on Grade Level Four.

    Otherwise, our modern world is not much advanced on ancient times: a day in the stocks for adultery, and a hanging for stealing a horse.

    There is probably no greater button in society than that of injustice; people get very sore on the subject of fairness; the papers are full of it, international politics seems obsessed with it.

    On a personal level, I’ll never forgive what some of my fellows on staff did. Their effects on me are not my concern. Their overts are substantially detrimental to their own lives, not mine, and it is never in my power to absolve those. We both lived in the same world, but they chose to depart from it, and nothing I can do in the way of forgiveness can help them out: it would be profoundly distressing to them for me or anyone else to insinuate their wrongness – it wouldn’t help them one jot.

    If a gang burgled your house and raped your wife, would you forgive them? If a pickpocket nicked your passport and credit cards, would you forgive them? Of course not. No crime is justifiable, but not in my eyes, in theirs; I am but a bystander.

    I have a personal theory that the only reason we have laws and police is because some of us are a little short on havingness.

    So Ron may be rather mild in his use of the word, censorious. Me, I’d call it the absolute height of arrogance to step into someone’s universe and lay down the law, or pat them on the head.

  7. P13C:

    Following up on my last, I recall a bulletin entitled “Power To Forgive”, which arrived relatively late on the scene. As I recall, it allowed the auditor to “forgive” the PC. I remember thinking at the time of the issue that it was odd, since we’d gone three or four decades without such an issue, and done just fine. And here we were, having the auditor give out licenses to survive. And if the PC has been running O/W or somesuch and hasn’t figured out that he’s the one in charge of all this forgivingness stuff, then we haven’t done our job educating him or auditing him or something.

    At this point, I’d question the issue’s pedigree. Are you listening, First Independent Church?


    • Not so much listening as reading, Paul, although there will be a proper line for comments such as yours in the future. But in the interest of clarifying your comment, please see HCOB 30 Nov 78 Confessional Procedure (the original LRH issue), point 25. You can also refer to the issues referenced within it.

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