I M Dex
Well-known member
I posted this as a reply to a question I was asked on another thread, and it occurred to me that this might merit its own thread:
Long ago I was very trained and experienced as a grad V Scientology auditor, also studied the C/S series, was lead HGC auditor at the NY org, left because for all the hype of "having the tech for sanity, productivity, success, happiness and understanding", very little of any of that was in evidence around me, although at the time I attributed this to "people running their case on each other" and "out-ethics", rather than "the tech" being largely a fallacy.
Much later I found my way to the "freezone" the world of independent Scientologists, and I found that a much better place, and began my own independent practice. Then, over time, without being under the yoke of the organization and able to breathe freely, more and more I saw the cracks in "the tech". It had always subtly got under my skin, back in my days auditing for the org, that for all the supposed "case gain", and "advancing through the levels" that my PC's were still coming into their sessions with the same sort of "out-ruds", upsets and problems in their actual life circumstances, and that there was something wrong with "flying ruds to get them out of the way to run grade chart". Then later, being independent, gradually, so much of the "tech" principles and practices seemed more and more to be wrong. "Running power processing on Clears is deadly"? That made no sense to me, and I routinely ran power on clears dozens of times with nothing but success. "The state of clear" itself, as described to be? The more I observed and considered, the more that fell apart as a uniform and valid thing. "TR-3 and TR-4", and "don't Q & A with the PC, because their tendencies are meaningless misdirecting bank"? Nothing could be further from the truth-and that's why my old NY org PC's never advanced out of having the same old out-ruds - because what they were manifesting was in fact their relevant "case", and in Scientology that was swept aside with "flying ruds" to instead (mis)direct attention to Hubbard's own projections about everybody's (case) on his generic "bridge". The trouble with a generic approach is that there are no generic people.
More and more, as these things arose for me, I evolved my own approach and my own techniques, with really great success. E- meters were part of Hubbard's indoctrinating everyone- PC's, auditors, and C/S's in the belief that none of us were capable of recognizing or understanding what was happening in a person's mind, or what to do about it, that only he could do that, as stated in his manifesto, "Keeping Scientology Working", e.g., "We will not speculate here on how I came to rise above the bank" (As if). "Don't trust your observation, instincts or feelings" - which is remarkably degrading- "trust the meter". This really hit home for me one day, doing "OT II", and marveling at "the spectacular TA action on the meter" and all of a sudden I realized how foolish I was being. I felt nothing in myself, nothing remotely life-changing was happening, but what had mattered above all else was "keeping score" by the numbers on the meter. That may have been the most pissed off at myself I ever was, realizing this all of a sudden, and I violently jerked the cans out of the meter and threw them against the wall, and that was the very last time I used a meter for anything. Yes, it could show a person's spiritual/emotional resistance to feeling something, manifesting as electrical resistance. But anyone who truly has a passion for spiritually healing others could sense so much more and so much better by setting aside the primitive device. I spoke with my entire roster of clients, and they had all come to trust and appreciate my work with them well enough to be perfectly ok with no more using a meter.
I continued to look, listen, observe, notice, intuit and evolve. Alan Walter's "Knowledgism" was a "Scientology 2.0", superior in every way, including addressing relevant things that Scientology had nothing for. Alan had some brilliant insights, ideas and approaches. But even then, over time, I noticed some flaws, some superficiality, an obsession with long-winded procedures and indoctrination in his projections of existence, and his effort to out-Hubbard Hubbard, in some ways being of the same or similar mind. As I continued (and always will continue) to change and evolve, and leave behind ideas, principles, approaches and techniques for better ways, there were several ideas and bits of things from Alan that have born great fruit as I reconfigured, filled in gaps, expanded, etc, along with everything else that arises for me as I continue.
I don't use any Scientology processes today and haven't for several years, as they are all outmoded by my ongoing approach and techniques. But many people who had invested decades and fortunes in Scientology and "going OT" have been seeking me out in part because I've had such a great past reputation as an "auditor", I can speak the language, know "the tech", and can well understand and respect their journey and their feelings, and most importantly, I can facilitate their accomplishing what they hoped, thought and/or expected Scientology to help them to become or accomplish in our first session or two most of the time.
I've called my practice "Therapeutic Spiritual Counseling", but I'm in the process of rebranding as "The Gelfand Method"- not my own idea, but that's the name some of the people I've been training have told me that's what they call it, and when I found that out I had a talk with my marketing/IT partner, and we agreed it was the better designation.
I don't want to use ESMB to promote, that's not what its for, so if you're interested you can check out my website dexsessions.com and/or my videos on you-tube, and you're welcome to contact me through my website if you'd like.
Long ago I was very trained and experienced as a grad V Scientology auditor, also studied the C/S series, was lead HGC auditor at the NY org, left because for all the hype of "having the tech for sanity, productivity, success, happiness and understanding", very little of any of that was in evidence around me, although at the time I attributed this to "people running their case on each other" and "out-ethics", rather than "the tech" being largely a fallacy.
Much later I found my way to the "freezone" the world of independent Scientologists, and I found that a much better place, and began my own independent practice. Then, over time, without being under the yoke of the organization and able to breathe freely, more and more I saw the cracks in "the tech". It had always subtly got under my skin, back in my days auditing for the org, that for all the supposed "case gain", and "advancing through the levels" that my PC's were still coming into their sessions with the same sort of "out-ruds", upsets and problems in their actual life circumstances, and that there was something wrong with "flying ruds to get them out of the way to run grade chart". Then later, being independent, gradually, so much of the "tech" principles and practices seemed more and more to be wrong. "Running power processing on Clears is deadly"? That made no sense to me, and I routinely ran power on clears dozens of times with nothing but success. "The state of clear" itself, as described to be? The more I observed and considered, the more that fell apart as a uniform and valid thing. "TR-3 and TR-4", and "don't Q & A with the PC, because their tendencies are meaningless misdirecting bank"? Nothing could be further from the truth-and that's why my old NY org PC's never advanced out of having the same old out-ruds - because what they were manifesting was in fact their relevant "case", and in Scientology that was swept aside with "flying ruds" to instead (mis)direct attention to Hubbard's own projections about everybody's (case) on his generic "bridge". The trouble with a generic approach is that there are no generic people.
More and more, as these things arose for me, I evolved my own approach and my own techniques, with really great success. E- meters were part of Hubbard's indoctrinating everyone- PC's, auditors, and C/S's in the belief that none of us were capable of recognizing or understanding what was happening in a person's mind, or what to do about it, that only he could do that, as stated in his manifesto, "Keeping Scientology Working", e.g., "We will not speculate here on how I came to rise above the bank" (As if). "Don't trust your observation, instincts or feelings" - which is remarkably degrading- "trust the meter". This really hit home for me one day, doing "OT II", and marveling at "the spectacular TA action on the meter" and all of a sudden I realized how foolish I was being. I felt nothing in myself, nothing remotely life-changing was happening, but what had mattered above all else was "keeping score" by the numbers on the meter. That may have been the most pissed off at myself I ever was, realizing this all of a sudden, and I violently jerked the cans out of the meter and threw them against the wall, and that was the very last time I used a meter for anything. Yes, it could show a person's spiritual/emotional resistance to feeling something, manifesting as electrical resistance. But anyone who truly has a passion for spiritually healing others could sense so much more and so much better by setting aside the primitive device. I spoke with my entire roster of clients, and they had all come to trust and appreciate my work with them well enough to be perfectly ok with no more using a meter.
I continued to look, listen, observe, notice, intuit and evolve. Alan Walter's "Knowledgism" was a "Scientology 2.0", superior in every way, including addressing relevant things that Scientology had nothing for. Alan had some brilliant insights, ideas and approaches. But even then, over time, I noticed some flaws, some superficiality, an obsession with long-winded procedures and indoctrination in his projections of existence, and his effort to out-Hubbard Hubbard, in some ways being of the same or similar mind. As I continued (and always will continue) to change and evolve, and leave behind ideas, principles, approaches and techniques for better ways, there were several ideas and bits of things from Alan that have born great fruit as I reconfigured, filled in gaps, expanded, etc, along with everything else that arises for me as I continue.
I don't use any Scientology processes today and haven't for several years, as they are all outmoded by my ongoing approach and techniques. But many people who had invested decades and fortunes in Scientology and "going OT" have been seeking me out in part because I've had such a great past reputation as an "auditor", I can speak the language, know "the tech", and can well understand and respect their journey and their feelings, and most importantly, I can facilitate their accomplishing what they hoped, thought and/or expected Scientology to help them to become or accomplish in our first session or two most of the time.
I've called my practice "Therapeutic Spiritual Counseling", but I'm in the process of rebranding as "The Gelfand Method"- not my own idea, but that's the name some of the people I've been training have told me that's what they call it, and when I found that out I had a talk with my marketing/IT partner, and we agreed it was the better designation.
I don't want to use ESMB to promote, that's not what its for, so if you're interested you can check out my website dexsessions.com and/or my videos on you-tube, and you're welcome to contact me through my website if you'd like.
Last edited:
