cat in a box


“Now, to begin, I have often offered a point to you which is nearly always missed— the mind and the body are part of a gradient scale of creation. The mind is at a high point on this scale, the body at a low point. The mind has all the capabilities of the body, but the body has lost many of the capabilities of the mind. Thus the mind can function independently of the body so long as it does not have its attention continually on the body.

“When the mind fixates wholly upon the body we have that extreme degree of introversion visible in psychotics or neurotics. No exterior world remains—there is only the body. The dwindling spiral toward oblivion is this road of greater and greater fixation upon the body.

“You can observe that the child is very exteriorized in interest, sympathy, projects and you can trace the curve of his growing unhappiness through a life which at last is most concerned with eating or the inability to eat.

“The downward curve of any case is this curve.

“How does the mind become fixated upon the body? If you know your engrams you can see the sudden introversion caused by a blow. Kick somebody and observe his attention turn to the point of contact and only then turn out again to resent the kick. If you keep on kicking him and if he cannot use the motion to kick you he will turn all the way inwards about kicks and be in apathy. He is now a body willing to accept the exterior directions of your mind.

“The compounded poundings of a lifetime bring about, in the natural course of events, this fixation upon the body. To get well, you must reverse this course, not by going into the past where there were no kicks (the effort of the neurotic) but by reducing or erasing the impacts (as per Dianetics) or by extroverting the attention (as in Scientology). These two methodologies have been developed by myself in order to make people well.

“There are many ways in Dianetics and Scientology to achieve this. None of these ways include shocks and impacts upon the body, as these, of course, reverse the process and parallel the dwindling spiral of the MEST Universe.”

Excerpt from Professional Auditors Bulletin 6, circa July 1953

22 thoughts on “Make people well

  1. “There are many ways in Dianetics and Scientology to achieve this. None of these ways include shocks and impacts upon the body, as these, of course, reverse the process and parallel the dwindling spiral of the MEST Universe.” LRH

    I like to think the dwindling spiral of the MEST Universe is now reversing, due in no small part to LRH.

  2. Great article. I hadn’t heard this before but the introversion on kicking and being unable to kick back = fully apathetic and introverted was new and mind blowing for me. I really can see how all attention goes to 1 spot upon an impact.

  3. “When the mind fixates wholly upon the body we have that extreme degree of introversion visible in psychotics or neurotics. No exterior world remains—there is only the body. The dwindling spiral toward oblivion is this road of greater and greater fixation upon the body.”

    This is so true and so easily observed. In this is the gradient scale of introversion and I know of people who will fixate on even the smallest problems with the body, and have to go see their doctor or find a drug to mask the problem.

    The interesting thing for me is that every major problem I have had with my body I can or it has been thru auditing, traced back to some sort of personal trauma before it, or right there in present time, and then again that is where Scientology comes to the fore.

    Also there is a great deal of truth in the fact that people will postulate their own demise, but again I would bet on some sort of PTSness (or stress) for that to happen.

    It does make me wonder, just how long these bodies would last, given a stress free environment and cleared of past traumas.

    • 4a:

      I wouldn’t necessarily assert PTSness as the reason people postulate their own demise. If you’ve completed all you wanted to do (or all the things you really wanted to do), it might be quite reasonable to postulate your own demise. As far as I’m concerned, life ceases when you give up, when you stop energizing the body, etc. There may be as many reasons for this as there are thetans, and lot of them have nothing to do with PTSness. For example, a lot of people will live to see their grandchildren grow up. That’s their real ambition. In fact, it may be the only ambition they are really left with at a certain point. Having done so, they die. For myself, I have no concern on those lines. So it’s not something I’m going to stay alive for. I think a lot of people have a to-do list (or “bucket list”) of things they want to accomplish. A lot of those things don’t get done, but if a majority do, then they’re done with what they came here for. At that point, there may be no reason to prolong the inevitable. Dying is inevitable, and we may feel bad for those who loved us and wanted us to stick around, we have our own existence to consider. In the end, death is never a no-cost proposition. There will always be friends, spouses, offspring and others who don’t want it to happen for their own (selfish) reasons. But this will always be the case, no matter the circumstances. It is up to oneself to select the time and circumstances of his or her own death, and then carry it out without other concerns interfering.

      I’m sorry to sound so harsh about death, but it is inevitable. One can face it in oneself and others with dread. Or one can choose to look upon it as the opening of other opportunities for the thetan. I can look upon death in a rather neutral way, because I do see it as the beginning of a new game. One reason I can look at it that way is that to view it the other way (all decorated with grief and regret) is simply unproductive. I know because I’ve had a lot of people in my life die, and I’ve observed the waste of human capital that is the mourning of death. You can either spend days, weeks, months and years regretting it and feeling bad about it (below 2.0 on the Tone Scale), or you can celebrate the life that was, briefly, and then go on with yours, continuing to advance toward your goals, with the optimism that the person who just died is enjoying their new life and their new game, whatever it is. Seems a much more uptone response, to me.

      But that’s just me.


      • Paul “I wouldn’t necessarily assert PTSness as the reason people postulate their own demise”

        I agree Paul, I think we are talking about 2 different aspects to livingness and both are valid. Sometimes it is just the end of the game as in the create survive and destroy cycle of this universe and ones life, which is what I duplicated you to be talking about and at other times the tremendous stress associated with a pts type situation and the desire to be out of it.

        Of course going out on your own terms, having had a satisfying life must be the best way to go!!

  4. By the way, love the cat in the photo. Cats are great players of games. Of all the species I know of on Earth, only cats, dogs and perhaps dolphins are so playful. Dogs will play, but often require human intervention to do so. Dolphins I don’t know. But cats don’t need anyone to create games for them. My mom raised dogs when I was a kid and I’ve owned about 9 cats as an adult. They are endlessly entertaining (when they’re not asleep), don’t usually need any input from me to suddenly bolt off and chase non-existent prey. Though they usually do enjoy it when I’m involved somehow.

    Incidentally, cats are a great example of Ron’s definition of intelligence (the ability to pose and resolve problems of survival). One of the smartest cats I’ve known is one I now own. He loves humans and has very strong reach. No box is safe from him, because somewhere along the line, he figured out that boxes can contain objects he loves to play with– sticks, string, wire and the like. Remarkable to watch the lengths he will go to get at something he thinks he would like to play with.


    • Agreed, Paul. I like that old joke: dogs have masters, cats have servants.

      In fact, it is fascinating what postulates cats and dogs run on. Even a microbe is motivated by some postulate besides survival. What is interesting also, is what would happen if the life force were removed from all biological forms; obviously, we’d be left with dead MEST, the 4th dynamic; nothing would reproduce itself, no sex, gasp! So where would the sum total of life force go, once it had exteriorised from MEST? Back to battery, older and wiser? Mr Dwindling Spiral banished from our streets?

      Big Bangers say that a sort of moronic intelligence has somehow evolved to explain organic biology and the spirit of play (their latest theory is the God Comet). They have no explanation for why life forms bother to survive, and go through all that courtship, white wedding, reception, drunk speeches and a scuffle afterwards.

      Ron’s statement that “extroverting the attention (as in Scientology)”, may sound rather mundane, but we already know that some life forms are more extroverted than others, as in say a whale compared to a dolphin. It isn’t just a case of what jeans and chromosomes and complexity the life form is dressed in, what the fashion is. A whole wealth of interest arises from his statement, such as, what is being extroverted, why does it invariably feel better than introverted, and what is attention, anyway – a certain group of molecules facing the same way?

      I was reading up recently, on why does the heart beat? Apparently, it’s because of an electrical circuit generated by a crafty set of tissues. Could this happenstance be what led to the aggregation of liver, kidneys, bladder, arms, legs, and the CPU, the brain – which developed a cunning program called DNA?

      Other practices and beliefs have nothing like the clinical and demonstrable answers available in Scientology.

      • P13C:

        When LRH said about the “bathing” fly: “It’s amazing how some postulates stick” (or words thereabout), I instantly knew how life went together. It’s all postulates. In the case of cats, you need practice to become (or remain) an expert lone predator. Cats get it by playing.

        Ron says that a body will function without a thetan present. But the only reason it does has nothing to do with chemicals, genes, or anything else in this universe. It is the life attached to it, even if it’s a lower form than thetans. And all those chemicals and genes are only physical universe analogs of what’s happening in the theta universe. Sometimes I think all these chemicals and such were dreamed up long ago to help humans (or human like creatures) explain to other humans why stuff works in this universe without having to deal with the real thing doing stuff: life. You want to know why a lot of things haven’t been achieved in biology? Because chemicals simply can’t emulate life. You can look at the chemicals and see what they do in response to the impulses of life, but the chemicals alone will never be able to fully emulate life. This is why a lot of those supposed silly conjectures about life in the future, made by scientists and futurists, are just so much manure. They’ll never happen because chemistry can’t emulate life.

        If you removed all life from the 5th dynamic, you’d have a lot of dead MEST and a lot of lonely thetans. I suspect it is possible to simply erase life, if that’s what you really wanted to do. In which case, life removed might be life erased. Depends on who was doing the acting. And I’m also pretty sure that thetans can create life as well. What’s life? That thing which survives or persists when everything else is washed away (including MEST). Life is even hard to define. You mostly define it by what it does, not what it is.

        The Big Bang is one of the largest crocks of manure ever perpetrated by science on an unsuspecting public. One of its current results is that the universe is made up of 90+ percent “dark matter”, which we can’t see (or apparently, detect in any way). Show me a beaker of the stuff and then we’ll talk about it. Until then, go away and figure-figure some more. This universe was either created in place as it is now, or over time by the expansion of thetans into it. To my knowledge, Ron never discovered the fellow(s) who first committed the crime, but he was pretty sure that we were all more or less hoodwinked into coming here and participating in it.



        • Paul, you say:

          “This universe was either created in place as it is now, or over time by the expansion of thetans into it. To my knowledge, Ron never discovered the fellow(s) who first committed the crime…”

          I’m sure you’re familiar with Rons series of lectures on the Whole Track, where, in his usual good-natured and jokey way, discusses this subject at the end of lecture #6, The Whole Track, 6201C25, at around 1:20:00. Some kindly fellow has posted it here: https://goo.gl/0axQcl


        • Hey Paul. I agree with the O’l Man –“Life is a game” — seems to be the over-riding postulate. “Making People Well”, the title of this article, is yet another. Microbial, viral and cellular and even the supposedly “resolute” make-up of DNA, are all (apparently) caught up within their own set/s of “games” within games – in trying to play the game of “survive”. How else may one explain away the capacity to adapt (one’s moves) to meet challenges (ie “making people well”) through ingeniously deceptive moves such as “mutation”? Our advancing “sciences” have already succeeded in this form of genetic manipulation with GM foods, more pest-resistant strains of crops,etc. Ohhh yeeaahh, baby ,,,,,, bring it onnn! (hic, burp!) … How about another round of that dark stuff, now, Paul? (After all, ol’ buddy, we are all (mostly) unwittingly audience to a great Big Game constantly unfolding before us, not so?

          • RIB39:

            Just so. When you strip out all the supposed “meaning” in life (which you put there anyway), and assume that the purpose of life is to survive/exist, you’re left with only one reason why: to play the game. That’s it. It’s the only thing left. Everyone’s game may be slightly different, but the greatest common denominator is playing a game. Otherwise, you might as well hang it up as a thetan.


  5. I don’t think that Dying is just ‘end of cycle’ and just starting of a new clean game forgetting all about the last game and our responsabilties therein on having messed up or improved things in our last life. The conditions of our 8 dynamics run through a global life to life cycle and yes they sometimes seem close to boudhism but explained in a more scientific way in terms of flows and particles concepts and in terms of self-determinism as well as pan-determinism. A person gets hit 200 years ago and passes away. This incident may influence his present life. The same person blasts away another person 300 years ago. This incidence has been influencing another person’s life to life cycle in a harmfull way. This is something that we carry around from life to life and is the cycle of aberration. People we were dealing with from life to life are coming back to cross our road. Those we had severly tried become our slaves or those we had associated with to play a good positive game with, those of our ‘group’ or whatever in this universe. We might not always recognize them but here they are, all around. It is a fake thing to say that all these ‘bodies’ are people we had nothing to do with ever. Kids have good memories when they are little and some have good recall up to 6 years old. One just need to listen and look without invalidating and letting them be what they are. So yes Death seems to present an entry sign of ‘a new game’. But it’s just an old game we are playing again and again dwindling down the spira. We comfort us by saying it’s a new game. But it’s an extension of our last games. So yes, the solution is the article above by lrh and audit and get it really up to a newer game level.

    • M700:

      Yes, of course, you’re correct. All we do now and in the future is simply an extension of a game now trillions of years old. And yes, our current circle of acquaintances includes those we’ve associated with before and those we’ve never ever met. I’ve met quite a few people with whom I sensed a whiff of familiarity.

      You’re looking at this from a very long distance. I was viewing it in the microcosm. To the thetan just starting out a new life, his immediate awareness is of a brand new playing field. Last lifetime, he really wanted to learn the saxophone, but never got around to it. This life, perhaps he’ll take some time to master the instrument. In the back of his mind, he knows about the whole track and all the wicked and ecstatic experiences which came before. But what he’s immediately aware of is the current, new game. And some of his joy is that, he gets to participate in making up the rules for himself in his early years. By the time he was old in his last life, he’d been playing by the rules he had agreed upon years or decades earlier. And now he has a chance to make different rules, at least to some extent.

      I recently realized that this is the motivation for a lot of what happens in the upper echelons on this planet. What makes someone want to obtain wealth and power? Well, of course, according to Ron, it’s just survival. Having more wealth and more power means better survival, at least as far as a human would compute it. But there seems to be more to it than that. And then the penny dropped. It’s the fact that those with more wealth and power cease being simply pieces in the game. At some point they graduate up to the point where they can participate in making the rules up for the game. Suddenly, they aren’t just pieces, they’re game-fashioners. It’s all still survival, but a different kind (and better, according to these folks). One guys takes out the trash all his life. That’s the game and he’s the player or the piece. He’s content with this game. He’s the trash taker outer. It’s his life, his beingness, his job description. But another guy wants to swim in his own pool at his leisure, have his clothes laundered for him, and sail the seas on his own yacht. But he starts out in life as the son of the trash collector. So he sets out achieve a position where he can change the rules of the game so that he can have what he wants, and what his father never had.

      (Some of the above is taken from interviews I did with some acquaintances in high school. Unscientific, yes. But it proved to me that most people simply go along in life and react to what happens to them without in any way taking the reins to change their environments. You ask them probing questions about life, purposes, religion, philosophy, and they simply cannot answer. They’ve simply been dumped into whatever game and they’re playing it, mostly by simply reacting to the randomity of life and MEST. It’s a great contrast to people who break through to the point where they can change the rules for themselves [and sometimes ominously, for others].)



  6. Yes, Mary, I’ve heard young children blurt out the most amazing recalls and knowledge, proving your point. Anyone who loves their children will have heard them say these things. And don’t children just love to dramatise, LOL!

  7. P13C:

    I’ve never personally witnessed what you describe, but I’m sure it happens. I have seen interviews with children who could describe prior lives in detail (and had the details verified).

    I do, however, have a couple of fascinating granddaughters. One has a near eidetic memory, and is years ahead of her peers in reading and other skills. I’m sure she benefits from thinly veiled recalls from another life. She is also quite the attention seeker. She strives always to be the center of attention.

    Her sister, on the other hand, does not demonstrate much of this. And yet I would bet she is the more capable thetan. She has very strong reach. But most importantly, she is incredibly independent. Where her sister would prefer to play in the presence of company, the younger one will occupy herself for endless hours, quietly making up her own games to play. She’s one of those people who marches to the beat of her own drummer.

    Interestingly, the younger (from the last paragraph) used to climb about on things constantly. She was never happy unless she was above everything else. She used to give us apoplexy by climbing on the most precarious objects. We couldn’t figure out why she would do this all the time, until it occurred to us that she either was much taller last lifetime, or she was in a profession which put her at loftier heights than her fellows.

    Kids are truly amazing.


      • M700:

        I just realized something interesting (to me at least). When you try to describe the behaviors and personalities of children, it’s rather easy, because they are so shallow at that point in their lives. Their wants and desires are rather simple, and they really have no filters. They tell you exactly what is going on with them, even if you don’t understand what they mean.

        Try doing that with adults. I’ve never been able to adequately describe the full personality of an adult in a few words. It’s always a massively complex package, with ridges here, drug masses there, missed withholds here, ARCXs there, problems over here somewhere, and everything else you can imagine stuck to them, not to mention valences, which are a whole other kettle of fish.

        Children do have their own hidden bogeymen, undoubtedly, but they’re not as multifaceted and visible as they become later on, when they’ve been through some life experience. I guess it’s one of the things I find refreshing about children. And maybe it’s just me. Maybe a professional auditor would see a child differently than I do.

        Oh wait, I know what it is: it’s honesty. Kids are overwhelmingly honest about what they feel and think. Until they figure out that there are things which they shouldn’t say and shouldn’t express, they just tell you everything, even when they don’t have the words to express what’s going on. We as adults spend a lot of a child’s youth telling them what to do and not to do. As they learn these things, the walls and bridges go up, and what they express becomes less and less unfiltered. It becomes less and less safe to simply express what’s going on. We tell them, “Now Johnny, you shouldn’t call Billy ‘fat'”. “How come? That’s what he is!” “I know, but it’s cruel to call him that.” And you’ve just introduced a concept he doesn’t understand, “cruelty”. He won’t ask you what it means. His understanding at this point is that “cruelty” is something somehow bad, even though he’s not sure why or how. As you pound on him about this over they years, he finally develops a picture of what cruelty is. And he figures out that the rule is, if something is cruel, you’re not supposed to express it. Of course, that is a sort of ARCX for him. He develops an enforced button.

        And so it goes. We “train” children, and their behavior becomes more and more complex, harder and harder to describe simply.

        I have to say, though, that telling a child something is “cruel” or “mean”, or “rude”, is really sort of sticking a child with the adult “shorthand” of the world. I rather suspect that it would be far better to simply try to get them to understand in a way that relates to them more immediately. “Now Johnny, you shouldn’t call Billy ‘fat’. What if I came up to you and said, ‘You’re fat’? What would you think about that?” “But I’m not fat, like Billy”. “Maybe, but what if I said that anyway? Would that make you happy or sad?” And so on. (And for God sakes, don’t ask them how they would “feel”. Ron makes a point about this in auditing. Asking a PC something like that puts his attention on his body. So instead, you ask a PC what he thinks, or how he considers it, or something like that.)

        Perhaps we should stop and consider, as adults talking to children, what we are saying in terms of their capacity to understand. Relating something to their experience and emotions would likely be far better than simply throwing out a word they don’t understand and making them try to figure it out over time. And perhaps, by relating things directly to their experiences, you might end up over time teaching them compassion for others, something they don’t understand well starting out, since their whole world tends to be about them. Over time, they develop the habit of examining what effect they will produce when they say something or do something, because they can assume the viewpoint of the other person. This also would serve to expand their view of the dynamics, improving their ability to perceive on dynamics other than the first.

        Jeeminy, what a tangent. Anyway…


        • Hey, Paul. We’ve ALL been there, countless times, ( on all flows, to boot) It’s really best remembered though, when we were able to share it, with a welcoming ‘other’ who could participate with you in that ‘sharing’ experience. Can anything top that high affinity memory maker?… I doubt 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 )

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