For new people re. Clear

Veda

Well-known member
Link to the old ESMB post Clear: Some background.

This link includes the article Clear, written by David Mayo during the late 1980s, that appeared in the Independent publication International Viewpoints (IVy) soon thereafter. It also was published in Free Spirit magazine.

David Mayo was a Class XII auditor and had been the Senior Case Supervisor International, and also Hubbard's personal auditor during the time of Hubbard's mental and physical collapse, after his spying and covert "dirty tricks" operations, of the 1960s & 1970s, had been discovered, resulting in him fleeing into hiding, while his wife, and others, were in the process of being sent to federal prison.


As was Hubbard's pattern, after upsets, he would make changes in the "tech." Scientologists would usually assume that the changes were the result of research aimed at making Scientology's stated goal of "Total Freedom" more easily attainable, but this was not necessarily so.

For example the changes Hubbard made after an earlier mental & physical collapse (commonly called a nervous breakdown) during early 1967, after his upsets and humiliation in southern Africa, resulted in the appearance of OT 3 which, neatly, provided an explanation, in which Hubbard was not a failure but, instead, the hero of this sector of the galaxy - fighting against impossible odds - and also the Commodore of the newly created Sea Project, soon to be renamed the Sea Organization.

Similarly, private emotional (regressing back to the time before Wife #3 Mary Sue, when Dianetics made "Clears," and Hubbard wrote pulp fiction), and financial need (for additional funds to fight new legal battles, plus fund the various monuments-to-himself projects), and resentment towards wealthy Mission holders (whose bank accounts and property Hubbard felt were rightly his), resulted in changes to the definition of Clear, and other changes.

As usual, Scientologists saw these changes as advances motivated by making the stated goal of Total Freedom more attainable.

______________________​


"Clear" began with DMSMH, with this life-time incidents addressed only.

Then came past lives, after Hubbard lost the rights to Dianetics and abandoned it.

Then came "be three feet back of your head," an idea given to Hubbard by a fan, long forgotten.

The idea, at the time. was that one could "go Clear" simply be leaving the body and, then, proceed, with various processes, drills, exercises, etc.


Frank Zappa was briefly exposed to Scientology.


Then came mock ups and a few other things as a route to Clear.

Link to Clear Procedure 1957

Some consider this, or the late 1950s, to be the high point of Scientology before Hubbard's personal decline began. Others see 1954 as the "peak."


Then the button "help" was used, including addressing identities, and using Listing procedure. I used this process and had very positive results, but it, by then, had become a discontinued procedure. Then came actual (discovered by the person not told to him) Goals Problems Mass as a procedure. This went on for few years. Then this was replaced with artificial implant GPMs told to the person (Scientology's assembly line phase had begun).

Then came the downgrading of Clear in 1978.

The mish mosh, resulting from the above, is now "Scientology." This, and other related information, may be helpful in those who have been, or are now, involved.
 
Last edited:

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
Also, initially, going Clear in Dianetic auditing was about eventually finding the basic-basic engram.
This was about Hubbard's pseudo-science of reactive mind structure, borrowed from older abreaction therapy and then he added all of his stuff to that.
 

Zertel

Well-known member
Hubbard had well developed ideas about the "spirit world" and reincarnation before he published DMSMH in 1950 which he omitted in that book. I guess he didn't want it to sit on bookstore shelves under the category of religion and being ignored in post WWII Judeo-Christian America.

Regarding basic-basic, people might have their own concept of their own "beginning of consciousness". One time in a session I "recalled" a part of my birth and it seemed pretty real at the time but there was an "earlier similar" so we moved on. 😊
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
Hubbard had well developed ideas about the "spirit world" and reincarnation before he published DMSMH which he omitted in that book. I guess he didn't want it to sit on bookstore shelves under the category of religion and being ignored in post WWII Judeo-Christian America.
I understand what you're saying but, to be accurate, Hubbard despised religion and didn't regard his interest with "spirituality" as religious. Neither Aleister Crowley's writings, nor Rosicrucianism, were religious, and were not usually classified as religious.

If Hubbard had written his views on the "spirit world," before the publication of Dianetics, if it had made it to the shelves of bookstores, it would likley have been in the occult section, not the religious books section.
 

Zertel

Well-known member
I understand what you're saying but, to be accurate, Hubbard despised religion and didn't regard his interest with "spirituality" as religious. Neither Aleister Crowley's writings, nor Rosicrucianism, were religious, and were not usually classified as religious.

If Hubbard had written his views on the "spirit world," before the publication of Dianetics, if it had made it to the shelves of bookstores, it would likley have been in the occult section, not the religious books section.
I agree. I could have said "religion or spirituality" and was going to edit my post. Generally speaking when the subject of an afterlife comes up we're discussing religious belief IMO. Your thread is for people on the fence or newly exiting scn and informative so thanks for posting it.

Science probably describes memory as occurring at some stage in development of the human brain when outside stimuli can be stored and accessed. My first "real" memory is of sitting on the ground being fascinated by some ants crawling around. Lol
 
Last edited:

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
I agree. I could have said "religion or spirituality" and was going to edit my post. Generally speaking when the subject of an afterlife comes up we're discussing religious belief IMO. Your thread is for people on the fence or newly exiting scn and informative so thanks for posting it.

Science probably describes memory as occurring at some stage in development of the human brain when outside stimuli can be stored and accessed. My first "real" memory is of sitting on the ground being fascinated by some ants crawling around. Lol
But why does the subject of afterlife have to be "religious"?? If what happens after life happens regardless of whether or not you bow, pray, donate, believe, disbelieve, happens anyway, then what does it matter?

two cents.

I will go back to work now.
 

Veda

Well-known member
But why does the subject of afterlife have to be "religious"?? If what happens after life happens regardless of whether or not you bow, pray, donate, believe, disbelieve, happens anyway, then what does it matter?

two cents.

I will go back to work now.
The subject of the "afterlife" does not have to be religious. There are numerous subjects, groups, books, etc., that are not religious, that address this and similar areas.

For example:


The New Age movement was originally about consciousness/"spirituality" without religion.

Aleister Crowley's last statement with regard to making his work a "religion":

"You might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding and work a rather stupid kind of mischief."

But this thread is not about Hubbard's "religion angle."

It is about "Clear" and the actual origins of the "tech."



From the 1940s

 
Last edited:

Whattodo

Member
Two questions

Why did Hubbard lose rights to Dianetics?

How is bit known he had a nervous breakdown, what was the evidence?
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
I understand what you're saying but, to be accurate, Hubbard despised religion and didn't regard his interest with "spirituality" as religious. Neither Aleister Crowley's writings, nor Rosicrucianism, were religious, and were not usually classified as religious.

If Hubbard had written his views on the "spirit world," before the publication of Dianetics, if it had made it to the shelves of bookstores, it would likley have been in the occult section, not the religious books section.
I don't think Hubbard despised religion, he just saw it as competition. Afterall Scientology is a "applied religious philosphy". Or a new way to persuade other religious people and even the 1st amendment.
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
Also, initially, going Clear in Dianetic auditing was about eventually finding the basic-basic engram.
This was about Hubbard's pseudo-science of reactive mind structure, borrowed from older abreaction therapy and then he added all of his stuff to that.
What should be noted is that while developing Dianetics, Hubbard had used the term “comanome” and then "norns" to describe a engram. Dr Winter and Campbell changed it to "engram" since it was more scientific.

This guy tries to explain it:


"
How Does This Material Differ from Dianetics?
DianeticsSome of terms are different. In this text, Hubbard uses the invented word “comanome” for the concept that would later be called an “engram”. in a later text, he used the word ‘Norns’. Because Norns were supernatural creatures of myth, who manipulate humanity. Hubbard’s disciple, and dianetics was presenting as a science, Dr Joseph Winter suggested the use ‘engram’ instead. This is a recognized term in psychology for ‘memory trace’. In the book “Dianetics”, the term “engram” is used, and it stuck. "

The proof of this is actually true in the Heinlein Campbell letters that I posted about on ESMB. But as far as I know nobody has read them, even Veda.

I think it would be a shock to people who have read dianetics and became scientologists, if they actually knew that Hubbard actually called "norns" as the problem of the human mind and not "engrams" as he said.

I guess it's a matter of language to persuade, and words.
 

Veda

Well-known member
I don't think Hubbard despised religion, he just saw it as competition. Afterall Scientology is a "applied religious philosphy". Or a new way to persuade other religious people and even the 1st amendment.
Scientology is a psychological-political operation disguised as a religion.

Hubbard despised Christianity and Islam and the Old Testament. He regarded religious people as addled.

He expressed in correspondence, and other places. the desire to destroy Christianity.

Buddhism, Taoism, and the Vedas - in its highest expression, such as Yoga - were not religions, but wisdom schools. These were later degraded,
 

Veda

Well-known member
Two questions

Why did Hubbard lose rights to Dianetics?
Google is your friend on that.

How is bit known he had a nervous breakdown, what was the evidence?
Plenty of evidence. Start with Virgina Downsborough's account in Bare Faced Messiah by Russell Miller.

The alternative possibility is that Hubbard really did encounter an enormous amount of destructive psychic energy when confronting the super engram of 75 million years ago and, subsequently, mapped this super engram (Incident 2) for all Mankind, becoming the hero of the galaxy.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Scientology is a psychological-political operation disguised as a religion.

Hubbard despised Christianity and Islam and the Old Testament. He regarded religious people as addled.

He expressed in correspondence, and other places. the desire to destroy Christianity.

Buddhism, Taoism, and the Vedas - in its highest expression, such as Yoga - were not religions, but wisdom schools. These were later degraded,
yah, I know that, but you don't get what I'm say'in. You don't get the rhetoric of Hubbard to persuade. Didn't Hubbard say the closest religion to scientology was Buddhism?

This is what the now official COS says on the internet:


"Scientology has an obvious similarity with Buddhism. So much so that Mr. Hubbard once asked the question of Buddhist leaders in Asia if it were possible that he was the Metteya who had been prophesied by Buddha. Buddha, Guatama Siddhartha, had told his followers when he was about to die that in the future a Buddha would come to complete the job he had begun, and that he was to be known as Metteya. If Mr. Hubbard is to complete the humane intentions of the great Siddhartha, only time will tell. It is not the purpose of this paper to answer the question that Mr. Hubbard raised. However, the fulfilling of prophesies is another similarity to other religions, great and small.
The first book that this writer read was Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought. In reading this book, this writer immediately thought of how similar the contents were to Shinto religions. Specifically there is the understanding that life is but an apparency, and that the physical world is actually the apparent world, there to be seen by the senses. This is very similar to the teachings of the founder of Seicho-no-Ie, Master Masaharu Taniguchi. (Master Taniguchi was one of the four people to write down the Story of The Universe for Holy Master Onisaburo Deguchi of Oomoto, another Shinto religion of Japan.) Both Oomoto and Seicho-no-Ie are relatively recent in Japanese history with Oomoto beginning at the end of the last century and Seicho-no-Ie beginning in the 1920s.
In Buddhism, this same idea of the “apparency of life” is expressed as “Shiki soku, Ku soku ze shiki” which means simply that anything that can be perceived with the five senses is simply nothingness or empty. The Buddhists also maintain that the universes of man are only manifestations of the mind. Of course Buddhism also has a much deeper meaning, as does Scientology.
Other explanations about life and the mind are also comparable to some Shinto beliefs, such as that the memories of experience are recorded in a film-like memory, each frame duplicating the events for the person. This again has similarities to Seicho-no-Ie. But one term in Scientology that was of great interest is the term theta. In Yui Itsu Shinto, what could be a corresponding term means “The Great Life Force of the Universe.” It is also in common with Hakke Shinto, which had been in charge of religious services for the Imperial Household until the time of the Meiji Restoration. This same concept then became the basis of newer Shinto religions such as Mahikari, which boomed after the war.
The concept of a person having lived before is old and fully accepted by Eastern religions. Scientology theory and practice is based around this concept, that one is a spiritual being which Mr. Hubbard has called a thetan, and that one can recall his past lives, and that as a spiritual being his actions of his past determine his situation in the present.
The concept of a person having lived before is old and fully accepted by Eastern religions. Scientology theory and practice is based around this concept, that one is a spiritual being which Mr. Hubbard has called a thetan, and that one can recall his past lives, and that as a spiritual being his actions of his past determine his situation in the present. There are more than 180,000 religious bodies in Japan, and I would expect that this concept is shared by most of them in one way or another. Of course this concept dates back not only to the time of Buddha, but also to the Veda, the source of the great Indian religions."

Oh, the rhetoric of it all.


https://www.scientologyreligion.org/religious-expertises/relationship-btwn-scientology-and-other-religions/scientology-practie-auditing.html
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
Can you believe that rhetoric posted by the COS?

Is there any proof, logic, or just persuasion?
 

Veda

Well-known member
yah, I know that, but you don't get what I'm say'in. You don't get the rhetoric of Hubbard to persuade. Didn't Hubbard say the closest religion to scientology was Buddhism?

This is what the now official COS says on the internet:


"Scientology has an obvious similarity with Buddhism. So much so that Mr. Hubbard once asked the question of Buddhist leaders in Asia if it were possible that he was the Metteya who had been prophesied by Buddha. Buddha, Guatama Siddhartha, had told his followers when he was about to die that in the future a Buddha would come to complete the job he had begun, and that he was to be known as Metteya. If Mr. Hubbard is to complete the humane intentions of the great Siddhartha, only time will tell. It is not the purpose of this paper to answer the question that Mr. Hubbard raised. However, the fulfilling of prophesies is another similarity to other religions, great and small.
The first book that this writer read was Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought. In reading this book, this writer immediately thought of how similar the contents were to Shinto religions. Specifically there is the understanding that life is but an apparency, and that the physical world is actually the apparent world, there to be seen by the senses. This is very similar to the teachings of the founder of Seicho-no-Ie, Master Masaharu Taniguchi. (Master Taniguchi was one of the four people to write down the Story of The Universe for Holy Master Onisaburo Deguchi of Oomoto, another Shinto religion of Japan.) Both Oomoto and Seicho-no-Ie are relatively recent in Japanese history with Oomoto beginning at the end of the last century and Seicho-no-Ie beginning in the 1920s.
In Buddhism, this same idea of the “apparency of life” is expressed as “Shiki soku, Ku soku ze shiki” which means simply that anything that can be perceived with the five senses is simply nothingness or empty. The Buddhists also maintain that the universes of man are only manifestations of the mind. Of course Buddhism also has a much deeper meaning, as does Scientology.
Other explanations about life and the mind are also comparable to some Shinto beliefs, such as that the memories of experience are recorded in a film-like memory, each frame duplicating the events for the person. This again has similarities to Seicho-no-Ie. But one term in Scientology that was of great interest is the term theta. In Yui Itsu Shinto, what could be a corresponding term means “The Great Life Force of the Universe.” It is also in common with Hakke Shinto, which had been in charge of religious services for the Imperial Household until the time of the Meiji Restoration. This same concept then became the basis of newer Shinto religions such as Mahikari, which boomed after the war.
The concept of a person having lived before is old and fully accepted by Eastern religions. Scientology theory and practice is based around this concept, that one is a spiritual being which Mr. Hubbard has called a thetan, and that one can recall his past lives, and that as a spiritual being his actions of his past determine his situation in the present.
The concept of a person having lived before is old and fully accepted by Eastern religions. Scientology theory and practice is based around this concept, that one is a spiritual being which Mr. Hubbard has called a thetan, and that one can recall his past lives, and that as a spiritual being his actions of his past determine his situation in the present. There are more than 180,000 religious bodies in Japan, and I would expect that this concept is shared by most of them in one way or another. Of course this concept dates back not only to the time of Buddha, but also to the Veda, the source of the great Indian religions."

Oh, the rhetoric of it all.


Scientology Practice—Auditing - The Relationship Between Scientology and Other Religions
Rhetoric is persuasive writing or speaking usually deficient in sincerity or meaningful content.

So?
 
Last edited:

Riddick

I clap to no man
Rhetoric is persuasive writing or speaking usually deficient in sincerity or meaningful content.

So?
that' a superficial definition with added statement.

"Rhetoric is persuasive writing or speaking"

That's it more or less. And didn't Hubbard do that to us?

You really ought to study up on Rhetoric.

This vid kind of explains it.

When you first got involved, what appealed to you about Hubbard's writings and speakings or lectures?

Was it logos, pathos, or ethos, or maybe a combination of the 3 means of persuasion?

Hubbard said we could go Clear by reading Dianetics and auditing. Hubbard said we could go OT by reading and listening to his lectures and doing the OT levels, to become cause over MEST, matter, energy, space and time, a OT.

That is Hubbard's rhetoric, to persuade, but yet nobody is clear or OT. Not even Hubbard.
 

Veda

Well-known member
That' a superficial definition with added statement.
That's the standard dictionary definition of rhetoric. The folks who create the Oxford Dictionary would be happy to hear from you if you'd like them to revise the definition.

But, first, a response to that slick PR piece from Scientology Inc. on the topic of Buddhism, Scientology, and religion. Link to the Hubbard, Buddha, Crowley thread.

Note: Crowley's Thelema was not a religion under Crowley, and he never tried to make it a religion, although he poetically used the word religion on a few occasions to annoy what would, these days, be called "normies." Crowley's final statement towards the end of his life was that incorporating Thelema as a religion "might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding and work a rather stupid kind of mischief."

"Rhetoric is persuasive writing or speaking"

That's it more or less. And didn't Hubbard do that to us?
Of course, but that analysis is only slightly better than, "It's Bullshit!"

Both have some truth, but hardly a comprehensive analysis.

You really ought to study up on Rhetoric.
Thanks for the advice. I did, years ago.

This vid kind of explains it.

When you first got involved, what appealed to you about Hubbard's writings and speakings or lectures?
I found some of the ideas interesting and, mostly, I found some of the techniques - actions that I could do - to be refreshingly innovative and different from the Western and Eastern philosophy, and psychology that I had previous been studying. I wasn't much enchanted by Hubbard's slick, manipulative, talking and writing. That's one of the reasons I never allowed myself to be recruited into staff or the Sea Org. I remained a "public."

I started backing away from Scientology in the spring of 1977, after reading Hubbard's bizarre "LSD, Years after they have come off of" HCOB.

After the "Dianetic Clear" lunacy of the following year, the hypnotic power that Hubbard had over most Scientologists was obvious. Soon after that, I started an in depth study of the works of Aleister Crowley. (I happened to be in a location where I had inexpensive access to all his books, that being New York City at Weiser's Books on Broadway.)

I would come to realize that Crowley was one of the major antecedents of Scientology. This was later further confirmed when I spoke with L. Ron Hubbard Jr. who had been in Philadelphia, in 1952, with his father, during the only series of lectures where his father acknowledged Crowley. I had already read the 1982 Mission Holder's transcript and it was obvious that the "kids" (at least appearing to be) running Scientology were deranged.

Soon after that, I would spend a year re-examining aspects of subject by doing a bunch of auditing, mostly of others. Then I began examining other aspects of Scientology, including the thousands of pages of documents from both the Mary Sue Hubbard trial, and (slightly later) the Armstrong vs. Scientology trial.

I dealt with Scientology thugs, was deposed by Scientology consiglieres, testified in court, and had other adventures, and worked on various Scientology related projects, usually in response to attacks from Scientology.

Although I appreciate your attention to rhetoric, there's much more to the analysis of the strange subject, and operation, of Scientology than rhetoric.

Was it logos, pathos, or ethos, or maybe a combination of the 3 means of persuasion?

Hubbard said we could go Clear by reading Dianetics and auditing. Hubbard said we could go OT by reading and listening to his lectures and doing the OT levels, to become cause over MEST, matter, energy, space and time, a OT.

That is Hubbard's rhetoric, to persuade, but yet nobody is clear or OT. Not even Hubbard.

Edit: And, speaking of "Clear," that is the topic of this thread. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UTR

Riddick

I clap to no man
That's the standard dictionary definition of rhetoric. The folks who create the Oxford Dictionary would be happy to hear from you if you'd like them to revise the definition.

But, first, a response to that slick PR piece from Scientology Inc. on the topic of Buddhism, Scientology, and religion. Link to the Hubbard, Buddha, Crowley thread.

Note: Crowley's Thelema was not a religion under Crowley, and he never tried to make it a religion, although he poetically used the word religion on a few occasions to annoy what would, these days, be called "normies." Crowley's final statement towards the end of his life was that incorporating Thelema as a religion "might easily cause a great deal of misunderstanding and work a rather stupid kind of mischief."



Of course, but that analysis is only slightly better than, "It's Bullshit!"

Both have some truth, but hardly a comprehensive analysis.



Thanks for the advice. I did, years ago.



I found some of the ideas interesting and, mostly, I found some of the techniques - actions that I could do - to be refreshingly innovative and different from the Western and Eastern philosophy, and psychology that I had previous been studying. I wasn't much enchanted by Hubbard's slick, manipulative, talking and writing. That's one of the reasons I never allowed myself to be recruited into staff or the Sea Org. I remained a "public."

I started backing away from Scientology in the spring of 1977, after reading Hubbard's bizarre "LSD, Years after they have come off of" HCOB.

After the "Dianetic Clear" lunacy of the following year, the hypnotic power that Hubbard had over most Scientologists was obvious. Soon after that, I started an in depth study of the works of Aleister Crowley. (I happened to be in a location where I had inexpensive access to all his books, that being New York City at Weiser's Books on Broadway.)

I would come to realize that Crowley was one of the major antecedents of Scientology. This was later further confirmed when I spoke with L. Ron Hubbard Jr. who had been in Philadelphia, in 1952, with his father, during the only series of lectures where his father acknowledged Crowley. I had already read the 1982 Mission Holder's transcript and it was obvious that the "kids" (at least appearing to be) running Scientology were deranged.

Soon after that, I would spend a year re-examining aspects of subject by doing a bunch of auditing, mostly of others. Then I began examining other aspects of Scientology, including the thousands of pages of documents from both the Mary Sue Hubbard trial, and (slightly later) the Armstrong vs. Scientology trial.

I dealt with Scientology thugs, was deposed by Scientology consiglieres, testified in court, and had other adventures, and worked on various Scientology related projects, usually in response to attacks from Scientology.

Although I appreciate your attention to rhetoric, there's much more to the analysis of the strange subject, and operation, of Scientology than rhetoric.




Edit: And, speaking of "Clear," that is the topic of this thread. :)
thanks for your reply.

How and or why did you first get involved with dianetics and or scientology?

For me it was by reading the book Dianetics.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
thanks for your reply.

How and or why did you first get involved with dianetics and or scientology?

For me it was by reading the book Dianetics.
I think I partially answered that already.

My first books were Scientology 8-8008 and, then, the now out of print Phoenix Lectures.

These two links to old threads hopefully will answer your question as to how I became involved:

Link to the What I liked in Scientology thread

Link to the The Master Game thread

Edit: One additional link added.
 
Last edited:
Top