The Auditor's Code dilemma

[Veda]

There are people who have left Scientology because they feel it has violated the Auditor's Code, most often its first point, "Do not evaluate for the preclear," but other points also.

Parts of Scientology, and especially its confidential "upper levels," massively evaluate.

This revives the old question, "Is denouncing every part of Scientology, as all bad, the best way to extricate a person from the labyrinth of Scientology?

 

[Type4_PTS]

There are people who have left Scientology because they feel it has violated the Auditor's Code, most often its first point, "Do not evaluate for the preclear," but other points also.

Parts of Scientology, and especially its confidential "upper levels," massively evaluate.

This revives the old question, "Is denouncing every part of Scientology, as all bad, the best way to extricate a person from the labyrinth of Scientology?

Telling the truth about the nature of the Church of Scientology organization and the Sea Org and removing their phobia (implanted by Hubbard) of looking at truthful information (that the CoS characterizes as "entheta") is the best way IMO to extricate a person from the organization.

Even then it can be challenging though if they've got close friends and family still in or they work for and/or own a Scientology business where disconnection can be financially devastating and/or they're risking having their family destroyed. If a person's livelihood depends upon remaining in good standing with the CoS that would be a huge barrier. Of course many still in are just pretending to be a CoS Scientologist so they don't suffer the consequences of leaving.

While I am not personally a fan of Scientology at all, once someone leaves the organization I don't care so much what they do. Many of them will leave the subject completely in time, but that can take years to play out. But at least they have the freedom to think critically and can freely explore any doubts they have without the fear of having to pay a fortune for a battery of sec checks.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

There are people who have left Scientology because they feel it has violated the Auditor's Code, most often its first point, "Do not evaluate for the preclear," but other points also.

Parts of Scientology, and especially its confidential "upper levels," massively evaluate.

This revives the old question, "Is denouncing every part of Scientology, as all bad, the best way to extricate a person from the labyrinth of Scientology?

I'm not trying to extricate anyone from anything.

Each individual has to walk their own path out ... I'd almost certainly assist if asked, but it is up to them to walk the walk, or not.

There are some very serious and harrowing things happening around the world and that tiny cult is only mildly interesting to me.

 

[onceuponatime]

I don't think announcing it as all bad is the right way. The person will likely have had personal wins that are real to them. When you say it's all bad it's very easy for them to say, I had this win and my life got better so obviously you're wrong. A better way, imo, is to get them to start questioning some part or piece of it that is obviously wrong/unworkable or doesn't produce the results its supposed to. Once they start questioning or doubting one part, while this alone might not be enough to get them out immediately, at least the first crack is there. Of course this is for people who are already in at least fairly deep. For people already questioning or wondering if they should get in hit them with the full truth, everything.

On the subject of the auditors code, is a little eval every now and then really such a bad thing? Telling someone what's wrong with them as an ultimatum is a bad idea, I agree with that, mostly. But if they are cogniting that the abusive relationship they are in is actually all their fault and something they pulled in and they just have to be nicer to their abusive partner then maybe a little eval would be called for. Just my ramblings having read a fair bit and observed from the outside.

 

[Bill]

There are people who have left Scientology because they feel it has violated the Auditor's Code, most often its first point, "Do not evaluate for the preclear," but other points also.

Parts of Scientology, and especially its confidential "upper levels," massively evaluate.

This revives the old question, "Is denouncing every part of Scientology, as all bad, the best way to extricate a person from the labyrinth of Scientology?

That's not the point. There is no reason to "denounce every part of Scientology" and I don't know anyone here who does that.

The point is that every single promise made by Hubbard, made by Scientology promo, made by Registrars is a lie.

So what if sometimes some Scientology action makes a person "feel good"? So what? That doesn't change the truth about Hubbard's "tech". Let me repeat that because it is the point: Every single promise made by Hubbard, made by Scientology promo, made by Registrars is a lie.

All Scientologists, deep down, know this. They just need to admit it. Some never will and they are lost anyway.

 

[Veda]

That's not the point. There is no reason to "denounce every part of Scientology" and I don't know anyone here who does that.

-snip-

Actually, this thread was prompted by seeing this post on a thread started by a disciple of this person:

I haven't thoroughly read or deciphered the thread, but it appears to have been an attempt by the disciple to interest people in his guru and his teaching.

In any event, here's the post:

Nothing good can become of thinking about the auditors code. It was written by a pathological liar.

 

[Dotey OT]

Actually, this thread was prompted by seeing this post on a thread started by a disciple of this person:

I haven't thoroughly read or deciphered the thread, but it appears to have been an attempt by the disciple to interest people in his guru and his teaching.

In any event, here's the post:

My point is this:

One is better off reading something written by a person or persons that had improvement or betterment of an individual as the purpose of their philosophy or observation.

I am uncertain that flubbard was of that mind.

I am aware that he had used other's "good ideas" and called them his own many, many times. There are some things while I was in that I learned and used, and ideas that made sense in the many, many books, courses, lectures, etc. that I was made aware of while in the cult.

I am not going to promote that one studies scn in order to winnow the wheat from chaff. I would be more likely to advise them to beware and look elsewhere. My opinion. Hard won experience.

 

[Veda]

My point is this:

One is better off reading something written by a person or persons that had improvement or betterment of an individual as the purpose of their philosophy or observation.

I am uncertain that flubbard was of that mind.

I am aware that he had used other's "good ideas" and called them his own many, many times. There are some things while I was in that I learned and used, and ideas that made sense in the many, many books, courses, lectures, etc. that I was made aware of while in the cult.

I am not going to promote that one studies scn in order to winnow the wheat from chaff. I would be more likely to advise them to beware and look elsewhere. My opinion. Hard won experience.

When a person is enchanted by Scientology, it's sometimes effective to show that one part of Scientology disagrees with another part of Scientology. That, at least, sometimes, creates an interlude of doubt, which, by itself, even if the person doesn't act on it, will reside in the back of the person's mind until such occasion as the person is motivated to revive, and consider again, that doubt.

Another example would be saying, "Hubbard changed in the 1960s and started doing the reverse of what he said in the 1950s." This, of course, is an over simplification. (Hubbard's self aggrandizing basic motivation was unchanged since the 1930s.) Yet, saying that line can create doubt, while allowing the person to hold onto some part of Scientology.

In the meantime, so the idea goes, the person might separate himself/herself from the organization, where he/she can sort out things over time.

Separating the person from the organization, and its influence, is the objective, rather than having the person reject everything that he has come to believe while being involved with Scientology.

 

[I told you I was trouble]

When a person is enchanted by Scientology, it's sometimes effective to show that one part of Scientology disagrees with another part of Scientology. That, at least, sometimes, creates an interlude of doubt, which, by itself, even if the person doesn't act on it, will reside in the back of the person's mind until such occasion as the person is motivated to revive, and consider again, that doubt.

Another example would be saying, "Hubbard changed in the 1960s and started doing the reverse of what he said in the 1950s." This, of course, is an over simplification. (Hubbard's self aggrandizing basic motivation was unchanged since the 1930s.) Yet, saying that line can create doubt, while allowing the person to hold onto some part of Scientology.

In the meantime, so the idea goes, the person might separate himself/herself from the organization, where he/she can sort out things over time.

Separating the person from the organization, and its influence, is the objective, rather than having the person reject everything that he has come to believe while being involved with Scientology.

I know that your overall intention is good but the above sounds a bit manipulative to me, almost the reverse version of hubbards tosh used by scientologists to get people into his cult in the first place.

I love to see people here totally relaxed and being themselves, responding as they see fit on any given day ... I don't want any kind of plan, script or even the intention to change the way another person thinks because I'm not trying to run or influence people's lives and I don't believe ESMB was set up for that purpose.

Trolls and wannabe gurus of any kind coming here (like the one that prompted you to start this thread) trying to disrupt the board or promote their version of the tehk are a bit annoying at times (and very funny at other times) but I didn't join ESMB to try and clear the planet of scientologists one carefully worded post at a time. If scientologists are that wishy washy about their own lives a straitjacket and a padded cell would probably be more beneficial overall.

I very much appreciate the solid work that has been done and continues to be done by some fantastic people to expose the cult to 'never ins' via the media and well written books and blogs ... they are incredibly effective, are drying up the flow of new people in and will prevent damage being done to many long term.

They are true heroes and ESMB plays its part too ... by being what it is, a visible message board full of people enjoying being free of the madness of the cult of scientology.

 

[Veda]

I know that your overall intention is good but the above sounds a bit manipulative to me, almost the reverse version of hubbards tosh used by scientologists to get people into his cult in the first place.

I love to see people here totally relaxed and being themselves, responding as they see fit on any given day ... I don't want any kind of plan, script or even the intention to change the way another person thinks because I'm not trying to run or influence people's lives and I don't believe ESMB was set up for that purpose.

Trolls and wannabe gurus of any kind coming here (like the one that prompted you to start this thread) trying to disrupt the board or promote their version of the tehk are a bit annoying at times (and very funny at other times) but I didn't join ESMB to try and clear the planet of scientologists one carefully worded post at a time. If scientologists are that wishy washy about their own lives a straitjacket and a padded cell would probably be more beneficial overall.

I very much appreciate the solid work that has been done and continues to be done by some fantastic people to expose the cult to 'never ins' via the media and well written books and blogs ... they are incredibly effective, are drying up the flow of new people in and will prevent damage being done to many long term.

They are true heroes and ESMB plays its part too ... by being what it is, a visible message board full of people enjoying being free of the madness of the cult of scientology.

Thanks.

At times it can be a bit manipulative. It's not a usual practice but it can occur.

I'm making suggestions, mostly for use in real life situations, not so much for use on ESMBR, where few people deeply IN Scientology appear.

In real life situations, I attempt to plant seeds of doubt that may sprout at a later time.

As I already stated, the objective to to separate the person form the organization, not to make him agree with me.

IMO, to effectively inoculate a vulnerable person, it is often wise to explain that not every piece of Scientology - and not all the people in Scientology - are bad.

Otherwise they may be lured in by one positive experience, or one person they met who they hold in high regard.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

I know that your overall intention is good but the above sounds a bit manipulative to me, almost the reverse version of hubbards tosh used by scientologists to get people into his cult in the first place.

I love to see people here totally relaxed and being themselves, responding as they see fit on any given day ... I don't want any kind of plan, script or even the intention to change the way another person thinks because I'm not trying to run or influence people's lives and I don't believe ESMB was set up for that purpose.

Trolls and wannabe gurus of any kind coming here (like the one that prompted you to start this thread) trying to disrupt the board or promote their version of the tehk are a bit annoying at times (and very funny at other times) but I didn't join ESMB to try and clear the planet of scientologists one carefully worded post at a time. If scientologists are that wishy washy about their own lives a straitjacket and a padded cell would probably be more beneficial overall.

I very much appreciate the solid work that has been done and continues to be done by some fantastic people to expose the cult to 'never ins' via the media and well written books and blogs ... they are incredibly effective, are drying up the flow of new people in and will prevent damage being done to many long term.

They are true heroes and ESMB plays its part too ... by being what it is, a visible message board full of people enjoying being free of the madness of the cult of scientology.

.

Excellent!

From what I can tell, there are as many reasons people LEAVE the cult of Scientology as there are reasons they JOINED the cult in the first place.

However, I would venture and educated guess that 98% of the people that got sucked into the hoax did so because they didn't undertake simple due diligence (for whatever reason) on Hubbard's wall-to-wall lies.

I don't think that generally people either JOIN or BLOW from the hoax because of some nuanced "gains" or esoteric spiritual advancement. I think they join because they want a better life and are willing to gamble whatever time/money is needed to try it.

Likewise, for someone to EXIT the hoax, in my experience it's just a process of aggregating enough proof of Hubbard's lies that the scale tips in the direction of the doors. In my opinion, with the exception of perhaps ONE person in every few thousand, there is no upside to talk about the "positive side" (non-lying) elements of Hubbard's scam.

Again, perhaps one in five thousand might require some nuanced dissection of the "good" from the "bad" parts of that theta penitentiary. But 98% of people simply need to learn about all the lying, which includes the massive hidden criminal and terrorist underbelly.

I don't see much point in talking about the few times Hubbard DID NOT lie. Example:

SCIENTOLOGIST
I am thinking of selling my home and all my assets and
liquidating my retirement account and donating the
money to Scientology, in order to save mankind, clear
the planet and salvage this sector!

APOSTATE
Before you do that, I feel a moral obligation to inform
you that Hubbard was a pathological liar and he was
lying about having the tech not only clear the planet
but to even clear one being. He lied about all that.

SCIENTOLOGIST
Are you saying that LRH was a total liar
about. . .EVERYTHING?

APOSTATE
Yes. That's exactly what I am saying.

SCIENTOLOGIST
What if I can prove that Ron was not
a liar about EVERYTHING?

APOSTATE
Go for it!

SCIENTOLOGST
Well, the first time I was at St. Hill Manor, I was
on a course break and looking for the WC. To my
great shock and joy, I bumped into Dr. Hubbard in
the hallway and asked him where the bathroom was.
He pointed in the opposite direction. Using the tech
he gave me, I was able to find the bathroom. So that
proves he didn't lie about EVERYTHING!

APOSTATE
Cool, what about the other 99% of what he said in his
lectures and books about God-like magical powers?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Well, because of my personal experience with Dr. Hubbard
where he was 100% truthful, I think it is safe to assume that
it's a great idea to remain in Scientology.

APOSTATE
So, you don't read the internet or watch TV and you are not
aware the Hubbard lied 99% of the time?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Oh, no! That's not the case at all. I know he was a pathological
liar about 98% of everything he promised. But YOU said he was a
100% liar, which is not true. So, because you were unwilling to
validate Ron for telling the truth 1% of the time, I refuse to
blow from Scientology.

APOSTATE
So, if I had only admitted that once a year Hubbard actually
said some small thing that WAS NOT a lie, you would have
left?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Definitely! That cult is a bunch of fucking liars and criminals, just
like Hubbard and Miscavige. But you refused to grant them beingness
and tried to make them wrong, so I am going to follow Ron's Code of Honor
where he states "Never desert a comrade in need, danger or in trouble" and
also to "...never withdraw allegiance once granted".

APOSTATE
So, let me get this straight. Even though 99% of Hubbard's words are lies, because
I didn't acknowledge that he ever said anything true, you are staying in a destructive
mind-control cult where all your money and all your time are stolen?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Exactly. I hope you learned your lesson. Don't ever try to talk about Ron's lies,
fraud, terrorism and crimes unless you also acknowledge and validate the
times he did not lie. Hey, that reminds me of another personal win i had with Ron
when he sent me bank coordinates so I could wire money to him. I used the exact
tech he gave me and the wire worked and the money went thru to him. You
should really try to look at Scientology in a more unbiased way,
there's a lot of tech that works!


.​

 

[Veda]

.

Excellent!

From what I can tell, there are as many reasons people LEAVE the cult of Scientology as there are reasons they JOINED the cult in the first place.

However, I would venture and educated guess that 98% of the people that got sucked into the hoax did so because they didn't undertake simple due diligence (for whatever reason) on Hubbard's wall-to-wall lies.

I don't think that generally people either JOIN or BLOW from the hoax because of some nuanced "gains" or esoteric spiritual advancement. I think they join because they want a better life and are willing to gamble whatever time/money is needed to try it.

Likewise, for someone to EXIT the hoax, in my experience it's just a process of aggregating enough proof of Hubbard's lies that the scale tips in the direction of the doors. In my opinion, with the exception of perhaps ONE person in every few thousand, there is no upside to talk about the "positive side" (non-lying) elements of Hubbard's scam.

Again, perhaps one in five thousand might require some nuanced dissection of the "good" from the "bad" parts of that theta penitentiary. But 98% of people simply need to learn about all the lying, which includes the massive hidden criminal and terrorist underbelly.

I don't see much point in talking about the few times Hubbard DID NOT lie. Example:

SCIENTOLOGIST
I am thinking of selling my home and all my assets and
liquidating my retirement account and donating the
money to Scientology, in order to save mankind, clear
the planet and salvage this sector!

APOSTATE
Before you do that, I feel a moral obligation to inform
you that Hubbard was a pathological liar and he was
lying about having the tech not only clear the planet
but to even clear one being. He lied about all that.

SCIENTOLOGIST
Are you saying that LRH was a total liar
about. . .EVERYTHING?

APOSTATE
Yes. That's exactly what I am saying.

SCIENTOLOGIST
What if I can prove that Ron was not
a liar about EVERYTHING?

APOSTATE
Go for it!

SCIENTOLOGST
Well, the first time I was at St. Hill Manor, I was
on a course break and looking for the WC. To my
great shock and joy, I bumped into Dr. Hubbard in
the hallway and asked him where the bathroom was.
He pointed in the opposite direction. Using the tech
he gave me, I was able to find the bathroom. So that
proves he didn't lie about EVERYTHING!

APOSTATE
Cool, what about the other 99% of what he said in his
lectures and books about God-like magical powers?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Well, because of my personal experience with Dr. Hubbard
where he was 100% truthful, I think it is safe to assume that
it's a great idea to remain in Scientology.

APOSTATE
So, you don't read the internet or watch TV and you are not
aware the Hubbard lied 99% of the time?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Oh, no! That's not the case at all. I know he was a pathological
liar about 98% of everything he promised. But YOU said he was a
100% liar, which is not true. So, because you were unwilling to
validate Ron for telling the truth 1% of the time, I refuse to
blow from Scientology.

APOSTATE
So, if I had only admitted that once a year Hubbard actually
said some small thing that WAS NOT a lie, you would have
left?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Definitely! That cult is a bunch of fucking liars and criminals, just
like Hubbard and Miscavige. But you refused to grant them beingness
and tried to make them wrong, so I am going to follow Ron's Code of Honor
where he states "Never desert a comrade in need, danger or in trouble" and
also to "...never withdraw allegiance once granted".

APOSTATE
So, let me get this straight. Even though 99% of Hubbard's words are lies, because
I didn't acknowledge that he ever said anything true, you are staying in a destructive
mind-control cult where all your money and all your time are stolen?

SCIENTOLOGIST
Exactly. I hope you learned your lesson. Don't ever try to talk about Ron's lies,
fraud, terrorism and crimes unless you also acknowledge and validate the
times he did not lie. Hey, that reminds me of another personal win i had with Ron
when he sent me bank coordinates so I could wire money to him. I used the exact
tech he gave me and the wire worked and the money went thru to him. You
should really try to look at Scientology in a more unbiased way,
there's a lot of tech that works!


.​

All I can tell you is that I've seen and encountered thousands of people who have left Scientology gradually.

There were large numbers of people who were very nuance conscious.

Most are out completely now.

In 1938, Israel Regardie, in his 1938 book The Middle Pillar, posited the joining of psychotherapy followed consciousness exploration. It excited many people

Some who are completely recovered from Scientology, still regard that as a worthwhile objective.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

All I can tell you is that I've seen and encountered thousands of people who have let Scientology gradually.

There were large numbers of people who were very nuance conscious.

Most are out completely now.

In 1938, Israel Regardie, in his 1938 book The Middle Pillar, posited the joining of psychotherapy followed consciousness exploration. It excited many people

Some who are completely recovered from Scientology, still regard that as a worthwhile objective.

Sure, people do leave gradually, that's what I've observed as well.

I am not sure that there is best way to help someone escape the cult. I think of it like a giant hardware store, I just go in and get the tool that fits.



.

 

[Dotey OT]

All I can tell you is that I've seen and encountered thousands of people who have left Scientology gradually.

There were large numbers of people who were very nuance conscious.

Most are out completely now.

In 1938, Israel Regardie, in his 1938 book The Middle Pillar, posited the joining of psychotherapy followed consciousness exploration. It excited many people

Some who are completely recovered from Scientology, still regard that as a worthwhile objective.

Most of the people that I know and knew in scn are still IN.

I have spoken to very few that are out. I am still thinking about those that are in.

Sometimes these threads look like post mortems of the tech, trying to find a wishy washy middle ground of "Oh no, you can't throw it all away" or something like that. I know that I am on a different experiential arc than most here. Actually, I sometimes feel put off a bit by it. I also know that most of my indigestion is my own fucked-upness, and I am not throwing stones.

 

[Zertel]

At least it's a written code. Do psychologists have a written code or do they just "trust their gut"?

When I was auditing people I considered that my role as an auditor was similar to that of a psychologist but much better. You go to a psychologist and talk about shit for an hour and then go back next week. pffft

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

At least it's a written code. Do psychologists have a written code or do they just "trust their gut"?

When I was auditing people I considered that my role as an auditor was similar to that of a psychologist but much better. You go to a psychologist and talk about shit for an hour and then go back next week. pffft

.

LOL, yeah at best psychs can only achieve a very temporary KEY OUT of charge. Thus their patients have to keep going back week after week.

By contrast, we as professional auditors are routinely able to achieve FULL & PERMANENT ERASURE of charge! Whatever we are helping our PCs handle in a session is gone forever and the PC never needs incur the DevT and the cost of any other auditing sessions.

When our PCs have completed a session they have no further need for auditing since everything is totally handled. However, our PCs have very dramatically increased awareness and they can perceive other more advanced levels and will want to schedule more sessions to handle the charge on those levels. (It has nothing to do with the charge we just helped them erase, trust me, because erased charge can never come back, unlike the inferior "Keyed Out" charge that psych patients always are afflicted with).

.

 

[stratty]

At least it's a written code. Do psychologists have a written code or do they just "trust their gut"?

I don't know if they have a written code, but they went to a university and got a degree of some sort. In scientology you can have any old joker dealing with a person's deep psychological stress and trauma - the equivalent of a dishwasher trying to fix a malfunctioning nuclear power plant.

 

[Zertel]

.

LOL, yeah at best psychs can only achieve a very temporary KEY OUT of charge. Thus their patients have to keep going back week after week.

By contrast, we as professional auditors are routinely able to achieve FULL & PERMANENT ERASURE of charge! Whatever we are helping our PCs handle in a session is gone forever and the PC never needs incur the DevT and the cost of any other auditing sessions.

When our PCs have completed a session they have no further need for auditing since everything is totally handled. However, our PCs have very dramatically increased awareness and they can perceive other more advanced levels and will want to schedule more sessions to handle the charge on those levels. (It has nothing to do with the charge we just helped them erase, trust me, because erased charge can never come back, unlike the inferior "Keyed Out" charge that psych patients always are afflicted with).

.

That was my point of view from inside the bubble back then and there was some logic to it in my opinion. From outside of the bubble looking back in it's a different story.

I only did a limited amount of auditing on others, maybe a thousand hours total. At least they all got to the examiner with a floating needle. I probably screwed up a few times but it got handled with a correction list.

I have no idea what psychologists do. I guess someone shows up with a problem and the psychologist suggests ways other people handled a similar problem but that's just a guess. Someone once told me that upwards of 30% of all people get "better" no matter what therapy they choose, probably because of the intention to get better.

 

[stratty]

That was my point of view from inside the bubble back then and there was some logic to it in my opinion. From outside of the bubble looking back in it's a different story.

I only did a limited amount of auditing on others, maybe a thousand hours total. At least they all got to the examiner with a floating needle. I probably screwed up a few times but it got handled with a correction list.

I have no idea what psychologists do. I guess someone shows up with a problem and the psychologist suggests ways other people handled a similar problem but that's just a guess. Someone once told me that upwards of 30% of all people get "better" no matter what therapy they choose, probably because of the intention to get better.

I'm sure you mean well, but have you any idea how much contempt there is here for 'floating needles' and 'correction lists'? As though these things actually have real value.

You yourself provided the clue as to why some people benefited from 'auditing'.

'Upwards of 30% of all people get "better" no matter what therapy they choose, probably because of the intention to get better'.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

...
I have no idea what psychologists do. I guess someone shows up with a problem and the psychologist suggests ways other people handled a similar problem but that's just a guess. Someone once told me that upwards of 30% of all people get "better" no matter what therapy they choose, probably because of the intention to get better.

.

After leaving the cult, I realized that people in a comedy club are laughing like mad--which means that if they were on an e-meter they would be evidencing massive "blowdowns" and "F/N"s. Such meter phenomena scientifically confirmed that they were "blowing charge" and getting massive "case gain".

Ergo, the entire esoteric cosmology of Hubbard having the "only workable technology in the universe" was proven to be a rather obviously stupid sales pitch.

To wit, when PCs at the end of session sit there and laugh and blow-down and F/N it's no different than a "wog" in a comedy club or watching a funny movie at home. Well, it's little different actually---laughing at a rental movie only costs 3-4 bucks---but laughing at one of Ron's punchlines costs $600,000.

.