Advertisement
“An Overview of Scientology” banner

Scientology® pages index  |  Contact

Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard® - An introduction  or 
    ‘Keeping Scientology Working’, yesterday and today ...

(Includes various historical notices)
(to other Scientology pages)

>> Do you want to help with preserving the original technology? <<  Consult my want list here!

Please note that words with an asterisk (*) are defined at the bottom of this page! Only first appearances are indicated.

        
“I don't expect auditors or Scientologists to instantly agree with or seize upon whatever I say. I would be offended if they did and would feel they weren't a Free People. Since they are intelligent I expect them to think over what's said, try it, and if it's good for them, use it.
        
 
I sorrow when I see somebody accomplishing less than he should because he thinks I wouldn't approve of it. In organizations and out I count upon initiative and good judgment.”
 
  L. Ron Hubbard            
  (from ‘PAB* 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)  

 
Index:

     Foreword
 
Development of a technology
  Introduction to a technology ... (1)
  ‘L. Ron Hubbard: An Introduction to Scientology’ - Interview 1966 (2)
               - The interview
- Overview of the editing implemented in the 2006 DVD release and additional observations
  Scientology:  ‘A belief system?’
  The matter of ‘evaluation’
 
‘Keeping Scientology Working’
  The subject of Scientology  vs  Those involved with it
  Keeping Scientology Working (1) - A workable technology
         (Includes:  Attempt for infiltration;  “The danger points of the past and of the future”;  Rights and obligations ...)
  Keeping Scientology Working (2) - How to go about it?
 
Historical
  The source of the name of ‘Scientology’ (1)
         - A short history as seen from the publications
- ‘Scientologie’ by A. Nordenholz
  Scientology: ‘Science versus Religion’ (2)
  The founding of the ‘Church of Scientology’ and its ‘Creed’
  L. Ron Hubbard about ‘My Philosophy’ (some quotations)



 
Back to Main Index Foreword

“The new prospects!”

To say the least this subject is considered rather controversial. At the time that I first got acquainted with this it was frequently in the news. On the television a rather unfavourable picture was given of what it supposedly was about. As I traveled frequently to Amsterdam I got these warnings from my father. One time while walking along the main shopping street (Kalverstraat) I was stopped and asked if I would be interested to do this thing they referred to as a personality test. I talked to the guy and found out quickly that this was this Scientology thing. “Alright”, I said to myself, “then let's see and find out how they actually brainwash people”. My curiosity urged me to follow the guy to this building. There I was given a pencil and this piece of paper with 200 questions. So I sat down and did that test.
Afterwards I received an evaluation of that test and some person was recommending this Communication course to me. This course didn't sound all that interesting to me. Not much effort was made to convince me otherwise either. I did however wanted to know more. It was me that kept asking questions and inquiring. Some time later in the basement on a reasonably big screen I was watching this interview with the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard. I was not sure how to take all the things that were said. Here I was, still trying to find out how you got brainwashed here. Then my eye caught this typewriter standing on some table. Various papers were lying around this machine and I read: “asdf asdf asdf uiop uiop qwer qwer aaaaa fffff jjjjj lllll” etc..  The papers were all full of these in any and all variations. I simply inquired what happened here. I received the response that some person apparently had been doing some typing exercises. I however assumed otherwise.
Later when I started to properly learn how to use a typewriter I realized that I had assumed things quite wrongly. Apparently brainwashing can come to you from unsuspected sides. After all my mind was already made up –or at least to some degree– what this Scientology was about, and this because of some series of television programs. Now how to discern which is correct? Not a very easy task actually.

Since that time I have traveled on various roads with this Scientology. Today I know pretty much what it is about. There are various things that are done or promoted by some that I could not agree to, and I never submitted to any of that either. Any person in any organization, group or whatever is subjected to the danger to get caught in some web, i.e. that he will adopt the agreements that exist in that group. The Scientology parishioners are no exception to this happening. Various people alter and/or simply misinterpret. I came to understand that Scientology is what you make of it. You either adopt it blindly, or you honestly try to understand and analyze the information that is relayed. Those that adopted it blindly did not turn free after all, although they themselves will tell you differently!

Go to index

 
Development of a technology

Back to Main Index Introduction to a technology ... (1)
A young L. Ron Hubbard
A somewhat intriguing personality is L. Ron Hubbard (13 Mar 1911 / 24 Jan 1986). If it is not for the person, it will be because of all the contradicting stories that are going around about his person, or the things that have been attributed to have been deriving from him. (‘A Brief Biography of L. Ron Hubbard’ as of January 1959 can be consulted here). Especially his creation, the subject of Scientology, has been met with a lot of controversy. It has been claimed that he developed a technology so that man can go free. Now what is meant with that going free? It may be defined as not being limited or impeded in one's efforts to create something, i.e. the absence of barriers. But that which is good for the hunter is not always good for that which is being hunted. It is obvious that one has to be careful about setting standards here. This Scientology at least has attempted to set some of these standards that do consider these things.

It actually comes under 2 names: Dianetics™ (addressing the mind, or the physical body if you like) and Scientology (addressing the spirit). Dianetics (in part also Scientology) could be briefly circumscribed as techniques that would enable you to face your past. It is a sort of looking at these things that are in your mind in a new dimension of time. If you repeat or persist looking at what is there, it will get easier and easier to look around, and you will see more and more. This way you get perspective on your past as you free yourself from unconscious associations that interfere with your present day life. These techniques simply makes you aware of what is found in your mind, and your memories. You regain analytical control over these with help of this person referred to as the auditor. Scientology also does offer an amount of information and various techniques relating to knowledge and rules of life that would/could make it easier for you to entangle yourself and get on well in your life. In essence none of these things that came with Scientology and Dianetics are entirely new, nonetheless generally it is experienced that people are quite skeptical towards that which followed with it, or what some have made it look like. We often do find out that some person heard or read something about it that they may be did not like. One should realize that through all ages, new ways of looking at things, new religions and so on are not particularly welcomed with open arms right away. It would be odd if Scientology would have been an exception to this rule. Rumours will be going around, it's just a matter of finding out which is true and which is not.

“Any new vital force in the world has a hard time.”          LRH*   
(quoted in ‘The Hidden Story of Scientology’ by Omar V. Garrison, 1974, p. 5)

Usually it is a lot easier to criticize something rather than finding out more about it and put it to the test, i.e. an objective test with absence of bias and preconceptions. Usually something that is criticized rather ruthlessly may have something to offer. It may come down to that such individuals have not understood what it actually is about, or they may fear what it may do! To find out more about it is simply to get first hand data, not in particular organizational propaganda information, but rather directly from the original publications. These are available from the different Scientology organizations, and they are also findable secondhand if you are willing to do some additional effort. There is also a whole variety of tape recordings (about 3,000 lectures are known to have been taped).  I have found that these writings at least have something to offer.

Its main objective could said to be to establish the following:
        
“That mind which understands itself is the mind of a free man.”          LRH
(from book ‘Dianetics 55!’ (1955))
        


A selection of official publications with various worthwhile information:  (pop-up windows)
  ‘Scientology: Clear Procedure, Issue One’ - “Introduction: The work was free” (1957)
    “A Brief Biography of L. Ron Hubbard” (1959)
  “Essential Information Every Scientologist Should Know” (1963)
  ‘A Report to Members of Parliament on Scientology’ (1969)
  ‘A Summary on Scientology for Scientists’ (1969)

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index ‘L. Ron Hubbard: An Introduction to Scientology’ - Interview 1966 (2)

 
Go back The interview

This interview that was produced for television by Rhodesian Television in May 1966, provides for a solid and rather complete overview of what the subject and its aims are about. L. Ron Hubbard answers vividly and fastpaced to questions that are commonly asked by those persons that know little to nothing about Scientology. Nonetheless this is still of value for Scientologists as the information relayed is very basic, lays out its tenets, and explains its method of research.

Originally a 16mm film on 3 reels that ran at 53 min/13 sec, and finally released on video in 1984. Then released as a DVD at the Scientology New Year's Celebration 2007 held on 27 December 2006. It is said that this DVD version features the entire film digitally re-mastered in color. Golden Era Productions is said to have restored the footage from film stock that had long deteriorated from being stored in poor environments. Flaws such as poor camera movement and focus had also been corrected.
Despite these improvements we find however also that a whole of 4 minutes had actually disappeared (edited out) from this DVD release that is now only running at 49 min/13 sec. It was not found necessary to inform the public about that. All that was promoted were the advancements of this release.

This DVD came with subtitles in a variety of languages, including English. In spite of that however no actual transcript of the interview had been included with this DVD release in printed form. Till date still no transcript has been produced/published of this interview, such a transcript therefore I have provided in the link here below. I have indicated here also which parts have been excluded from the latest 2006 DVD release.
    ‘L. Ron Hubbard: An Introduction to Scientology (1966)’  (pop-up window)
The complete interview can still be seen on the early 1984 video release, although this is then in the original black and white.

 
Go back Overview of the editing implemented in the 2006 DVD release and additional observations

Things like this have happened through all of history. The need for editing, this for various given reasons. And far too often for propaganda-like reasons. In this particular case though it would have sufficed to present the interview as-is, but to then simply inform the viewer that some data relayed on the interview was outdated and to properly clarify these matters in the accompanying booklet that came with the DVD release. According to my inquiries I have found that generally this editing implemented on this DVD is not very much appreciated amongst the Scientologists.
It should in addition also be considered if in fact such alterations are condoned or allowed within L. Ron Hubbard guide lines about these matters. I have examined this in more detail here (separate window).

Here below you will find a PDF-document for printing that lists chronological the complete listing of that which has been altered on the DVD release, and the full text of that was has been deleted and indicating the exact time location on the DVD. Therefore this works very well as a complement to the DVD release.
    ‘lrh_intro_to_scn_2006-dvd_alterations.pdf’

 
Go back The interviewer, Mr. Tony Hitchman

The first thing we notice is that the name of the interviewer has purposely been kept hidden. L. Ron Hubbard does even address the interviewer by his name in the very beginning and at the very end of the interview. Both these instances have been edited. This was done as follows:
The first answer from L. Ron Hubbard to the first question of the interviewer reads in the original:
    “Well Mr. Hitchman. You've just asked ...”
And on the 2006 DVD release it reads:
    “Well, it's very interesting. You've just asked ...”
We see here that the interviewer's name has actually been replaced with “it's very interesting”, so where is this line coming from as it is not like this on the original recording! Obviously it was thought that if one removes the name, you then need to account for the lost space, as this is on actual film. Therefore something else had to be put in it's place.

Removing the mention of the name of the interviewer by L. Ron Hubbard at the end of the interview appears to have been a lot easier. They have simply been edited out in their entirety. Removed are de very last 2 lines:
The interviewer:
    “Mr. Hubbard, thank you very much indeed for this interview.”
L. Ron Hubbard:
    “Thank you Mr. Hitchman.”
        
sound  Sound snippet (0:12) 
        
One could actually have decided to only remove the very last line, but no. It may have deemed being impolite to not respond to the interviewer.

But there is more. There is an additional alteration in regards to in the way that L. Ron Hubbard responded to the interviewer.
The interviewer, Mr. Tony Hitchman asked:
    “You said that through Scientology processing, a person was able to look at the problems, to confront the problems that they were facing in their everyday life. Is this some form of hypnotism?”
And L. Ron Hubbard responded:
    “Oh, no. You are very funny. Man is asleep! ...”
Which was replaced on the 2006 DVD release with:
    “Oh, no. This is very funny. Man is asleep! ...”
I leave it to your own contemplation why this was done. It is clear though that this is again an actual alteration of the original words spoken by L. Ron Hubbard.

 
Go back Sections of text removed from the 2006 DVD release

The edited out text can be divided up into 3 sections. The full text of these deleted passages are made available in the sound snippets here below following, but can also be consulted in my transcript earlier linked to in this chapter (or click here).

The first section of deleted questions and answers (8 in total) are mostly of an historical and then-present-day significance. Questions are asked like “..., where are the headquarters of Scientology today?”, “How many people are in Scientology?”, “Why are you based in Britain?”, etc. This information is not the same this day and thus it was deemed that there was a need to have it removed. Minding though that various worthwhile knowing information also had disappeared along with it.
        
sound  Sound snippet (2:32) 
        

The second section is about the single question asked “Is Scientology processing expensive?”. In this L. Ron Hubbard concludes in its last 2 lines “Processing goes for free, or for very much higher prices. But, in any event it is far, far cheaper than any psychotherapy where we assisted.”. I did ask a few Scientologists about this, and they do not see a reason why this should have been deleted. Was the reason for deletion may be the charged subject of money? Indeed this has often been a topic that reached the media. Another argument could be that the question may be raised if in fact it is still “far, far cheaper than any psychotherapy”? But if so it would have sufficed to only delete this last line. Thus one would assume here that it has been removed to shift the focus away from cost or money, or the lack of need for that.
        
sound  Sound snippet (1:02) 
        

A third section consists of the following 2 questions “Does Scientology in any way involve prayer, hymn-singing, things of this nature?” and “Do you have a Church in Scientology?”. I am unclear about why this was removed.
        
sound  Sound snippet (0:21) 
        

 
Go back Translated in 72 languages

This of course is all accommodating. The problem here however is that subtitles have been divided up in a variety sets of this DVD. And the choices made in how these were divided up is not very logically done. Below I list 2 of these DVD releases and the subtitles that were included on them:
    English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Dutch, Hungarian, Portuguese, Japanese, and Chinese.
And:
    English, Norwegian, Danish, Russian, Swedish, Czech, Greek, Finnish, Hebrew, Ukrainian, and Brazilian.
Now, wouldn't it have been more more effective and practical to have a mid/Northern-European language compilation? Instead of adding various rather obscure languages mixed within?

Further examination of the DVD itself then reveals that there would have been place on each individual DVD to add a whole lot more subtitles, where this now may not be the case. The matter is that I found that the actual filmed interview is stored twice on the DVD! Included is one clean version, and then another version with a shady background line on where the subtitles would be displayed.
L. Ron Hubbard 1966   L. Ron Hubbard 1966
The conclusion would be that here is chosen for aesthetics as opposed to useful. If you remove this second version of this interview you are likely to have been able to fit all these 72 language subtitles on this one DVD! It is just a lot more functional to in fact have all these on one DVD instead of having them scattered about on 7 DVD's (10-11 subtitles on each). In particular I am thinking here about dissemination purposes.

 
Go back Additional left out information worthwhile knowing and copyright notice

This DVD release also still does not reveal in its release notices exactly when, where, and for what purpose this interview was conducted. The time was May 1966, and it was produced for television by Rhodesian Television, with the purpose to broadcast it. In fact one should have been informed about this in DVD release notices. This for the simple reason to be able interpret matters and what is being said in this interview in the right context. At some point in the interview L. Ron hubbard responds “And it's very interesting that an individual does survive life after death. But I'm afraid that's too technical a question to go into in a program of this nature.”. Now, what “program”? Ah right, a television program! Indeed it does add a bit of significance here.

Another line said by the interviewer reads “I like to go back, Mr. Hubbard, to this question of processing that you mentioned last week.” (excluded from the DVD release). It may seem here that several sessions took place where this interview, in its present form, has been compiled from. This becomes the more interesting because it looks like the whole had been edited prior to broadcasting and probably to fit the 55 minute time frame. The question is if all this footage has been saved back then and if it can be recovered? Has any research been done to find out the details about this? The DVD release does not make any mention of this. I would have figured that such information could have been included in the 42-page booklet that accompanies the DVD release.

The copyright notice of this DVD release comes in 3 ways as follows:
    on backside of DVD cover    ‘©1990, 2006  L. Ron Hubbard Library’
  on the DVD disk ‘©1966, 2006  L. Ron Hubbard Library’
  following the film ‘©1966, 1990, 2006  L. Ron Hubbard Library’
This all may seem a bit inconsequent. The original ‘L. Ron Hubbard’ copyright has been omitted from mention as it still did on the video re-release in 1990. Strictly taken there is no copyright for 1966 for ‘L. Ron Hubbard Library’ in existence. I address these matters in more detail on my page “The copyrights issue, licensing and related matters”.

 
Back to Main Index Scientology:  ‘A belief system?’

Well, does this Scientology thing involve anything that one needs to believe. Does it offer something that has to be adopted without being able to verify if there is any truth in it, or something that can not be or is not supposed to be substantiated in some way? In the media it is often portrayed as if it is about something that resembles that. So what is it?
Well, as far as it concerns me, would it have been a belief system, then I would never have given it very much attention. Naturally if people want to believe something you can't stop them from doing so, however this all by itself does not turn Scientology into a belief system. This is simply the doing of some people. As far as it goes for me, well, I don't believe any of it. That's just not my way of going about something. Never has, never will be. The whole essence and outset of Scientology is about finding out for yourself what is true to you. Then how can it be about adopting some belief system? You see, if you have made something into your belief, it will be of no particular use to you anymore. Your frame of mind will be set, and in that degree you will have lost your sense of rationality and curiosity, you will not question or investigate certain things anymore. You may think that you still do, but you are not. You have started to adopt, adjust and implement according to your present adopted beliefs and convictions. You see, you will have started to look at things through this filter that you have created and put up all around yourself. And when that happens, well, you are done for! This would account for both those that became entangled in it, but it is equally true for those that blindly oppose to it. Something like this also seems to have happened with the Creation versus Evolution controversy/debate. It has turned to throwing some sort of symbolisms at each other. This phenomena can be interesting to observe at times, and for a little while. On the overall however it is quite useless! These filters, you see, you need to remove these filters if you are to learn and understand something. But do leave your ability to criticize intact, otherwise you'll just turn into a dummy. Dummies are found on both sides of issues, any issues that have a pro and an anti. Just because you may have right about something, be it in theory or factually, doesn't un-dummy you, get my drift?

Now, some persons may refer to this Creed which the Church of Scientology endorses. The word ‘believe’ does appear a couple of times in there. Mind though that this is just a Creed, which are just some general principles laid out and formulated by the Scientology organization. These do not make out the substance or rather that which is referred to as the technology of Scientology and Dianetics. You may however consult this Creed itself as per the version that is copyrighted in 1970 (today's version in use is virtually identical to this).
    “The Church of Scientology CREED (1970)”  (pop-up window)
The original Creed dates as early as December 1953, see later chapter on this page entitled: “The founding of the ‘Church of Scientology’ and its ‘Creed’”.

The substance of Scientology and Dianetics probably could be best circumscribed as a practical philosophy. You work with information that persistently is able to produce a certain result. It offers a variety of data, however it is something that one is to put to use in a practical manner. This package of data is put in a coordinated system just to enable a person to get it to put it to use more effectively. The subject of Scientology itself is anything but a belief. Certain truths were found during the early research of Scientology and Dianetics. I find that the Church of Scientology today itself also does present various as its belief, which is not necessarily a correct presentation. The belief is entirely irrelevant. For about at least the initial 30 years of Scientology it was never perceived nor presented as such. It should be understood that there first was research, there was not first a belief. It is people that created the belief.
The substance of Scientology and Dianetics for that matter should be examined for what it is, while doing that you are to make sure to pass by any bias. You should never freeze your critical eye, you continue to examine it as the days, week, months, years pass by, and continue to consult your own understanding. The very moment you stop doing this it will have turned into your dogma. Now you're hooked. Don't fall for it. Many fall for it. And various of these are today the noisiest complainers.

        
“I don't expect auditors or Scientologists to instantly agree with or seize upon whatever I say. I would be offended if they did and would feel they weren't a Free People. Since they are intelligent I expect them to think over what's said, try it, and if it's good for them, use it.
        
 
I sorrow when I see somebody accomplishing less than he should because he thinks I wouldn't approve of it. In organizations and out I count upon initiative and good judgment.”          LRH
(from ‘PAB 79’, 10 Apr 56 “The Open Channel: What Do I Think of Auditors?”)
 

More facets of this can be consulted in later chapter found on this page entitled: “Scientology: ‘Science versus Religion’ (2)”.

The below links address various further aspects:  (separate windows)
  “The ‘Xenu’ controversy”
     “The era of adoration celebrates its birth: (1) ‘Hymn of Asia’, the ‘LRH room’ & idolatry; (2) ‘SO #1 Line’ or ‘You can always write to Ron’; (3) Biographies and L. Ron Hubbard & Where is his family?”
  “The original OT VIII  vs  The end of the road?”

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index The matter of ‘evaluation’

“RELATIVE IMPORTANCES AND ‘BELIEVE’ AND ‘CAN'T BELIEVE’

... One of the most important functions of the mind is the computing of the relative importances of data.
In discovering and conducting research on dianetics, for instance, there were billions of data about the mind accumulated throughout the last few thousand years. Now, with a six foot rear vision mirror we can look back and see that here and there people had expressed opinions or turned up unevaluated facts which are now data in some of the axioms of dianetics or parts of its discoveries. These facts existed in the past, some exist now in dianetics, but with a tremendous difference: they are evaluated. Evaluation of the data for its importance was vital before the information was of value. Dr. Sententious might have written in 1200 A.D. that he believed actual demons did not exist in the mind; Goodwife Sofie in 1782 was heard to say that she was certain that prenatal influence had warped many a life; Dr. Zamba might have written in 1846 that a hypnotized patient could be told he was crazy and that he would thereafter act crazy. Dr. Sententious might have said also that angels, not demons, caused mental illness because the patient had been evil; Goodwife Sofie also might have said that punk water poultices cured ‘ravings’; Dr. Zamba might also have declared that hypnotized patients needed only a few more positive suggestions to make them well and strong. In short, for every datum which approached truth there were billions which were untrue. The missing part of each datum was a scientific evaluation of its importance to the solution. The selection of a few special drops of water from an ocean of unspecial drops is impossible. The problem of discovering true data could be resolved only by jettisoning all former evaluations of humanity and the human mind and all ‘facts’ and opinions of whatever kind and starting fresh, evolving the entire science from a new highest common denominator (and it is true that dianetics borrowed nothing but was first discovered and organized; only after the organization was completed and a technique evolved was it compared to existing information).
The point here is that monotone importance in a class of facts leads to nothing but the most cluttered confusion. Here is evaluation: opinions are nothing, authority is useless, data is secondary: establishment of relative importance is the key. Given the world and the stars as a laboratory and a mind to compute the relative importance of what it perceives, and no problems can remain unsolved. Given masses of data with monotone evaluation and one has something which may be pretty but isn't useful.
The stunned look of fresh-caught ensigns of the Navy when they first see in the metal the things about which they have so laboriously read is a testimony to more than the faulty educational system currently employed: the system seeks to train something which is perfect—the memory—; it aligns little or nothing with purpose or use, and ignores the necessity of personal evaluation of all data both as to need for it and its use. The stunned look comes from the overwhelming recognition that whereas they have thousands of data about what they see, they do not know whether it is more important to read the chronometer when they take a sextant sight or use only blue ink in writing a log book. These gentlemen have been wronged educationally not because they have not been given thousands of data relative to ships but because they have not been told the relative importance of each datum and have not experienced that importance. They know more facts than the less educated but they know less about factual relation.
...
The ‘Can't believe it’ finds difficulty in evaluation because he has difficulty giving credence to any fact more than any other fact: this produces an inability to compute relative importances amongst data with the result that he may be as concerned with the shade of his superior's tie as with the marriage he himself is about to undertake. Similarly, the ‘You must believe it’ case finds difficulty in differentiating amongst importances of various data and may hold equally firmly the idea that paper is made from trees and that he is about to be fired. Both cases ‘worry,’ which is to say they are unable to compute well.
The ‘Must believe it’ case will present a confused reactive bank, for the bank embraces the most unlikely differences as close similarities. The ‘Must believe it’ engram command can dictate that one person, a class of persons, or everyone must be believed, no matter what is written or said. The auditor, returning the patient, will find major aberrations held in place by a lock containing only conversation.
Rational computation depends upon the personal computation of the relative importances of various data. Reactive ‘computation’ deals exclusively with the equation that widely different objects or events are similar or equal. The former is sanity, the latter is insanity.”          LRH

(from ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’; 1950, 23rd printing: January 1973; Chapter IX, Part Two; pp 339-340)

Go to index

 
‘Keeping Scientology Working’

Back to Main Index The subject of Scientology  vs  Those involved with it

There could be said to exist 2 aspects that one should watch for. Which is the people that make use of it and that what it says in the original writings. It should be a simple reality that which is called for Scientology may not be Scientology, it could be an interpretation or it could even be an alteration. Its history has been stretching over a period of about 60 years now. In its history it did go through various developments. Changes that may have been introduced in certain time periods however may not always get accepted as correct technology by those that may practice Scientology outside the scope and control of the official Church of Scientology.
This almost has turned to a dilemma. In fact some battles of sorts have and still are being fought about this. It is not my aim to tell you which is which. However the pages on my site aim to look at various matters in rather great detail. You are simply to make up your own mind about them.
A chronological anthology of this can be consulted here below:  
    “Project: The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard chronology  or
A closer look at 1972, 1977 & 1982”
 
(separate window)

Another battle is being fought between Scientology (as an organization or as a subject) and that what can be addressed as the anti-Scientology movement. These battles characterize themselves with that the anti-Scientology movement(s) pretty much have condemned all of the subject of Scientology, its founder L. Ron Hubbard, and the organization. For them it is deemed one and the same. Thus we can determine that no distinction is made by them between The subject of Scientology and Those involved with it. I find however that it is rather important to do make such a distinction.
A study of those that oppose to Scientology all together can be consulted here below:  
    “Scientology in the media and on the Internet  or
How reliable is the information found? vs propaganda”
 
(separate window)

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Keeping Scientology Working (1) - A workable technology

So how are we going to go about this? L. Ron Hubbard says specifically that Scientology is a workable technology, he does not say it's the only one or the best one, that it will solve all your problems or that it will take you to Walhalla, Nirvana or heaven. It is simply a workable technology. It is said that it has been tested throughout, and if it was not delivering the desired result it was worked on till it gave the desired result. This and only this is what is meant with that this technology is workable. Then having achieved this L. Ron Hubbard adds to it that it should not be made subject to any more changes. For the risk that if you do alter, it will no longer be workable and therefore becomes useless. There are quite a few of such references wherein it is described in detail what one is allowed to do and what not to do with this technology. The main target has been and still is to keep it workable.

 
Go back
Attempt for infiltration

During the early 60's L. Ron Hubbard informed us about this:

        
“As the organization rapidly expands, so will it be a growing temptation for antisurvival elements to gain entry and infiltrate, and attempts to plant will be made.”          LRH     
(from HCO PL 30 Oct 62 I “Security Risks Infiltration”)
        

        
“... the United States government and the efforts of that government since 1955, stepped up since 1963, to seize Scientology rather than forbid or stop it ... .”          LRH    
(from HCO PL 14 Jun 65 III “Politics, Freedom from”)
        

Please do mind and consider the consequences of this!


At that time we also had this Keeping Scientology Working policy letter being written up:

“Our technology has not been discovered by a group. True, if the group had not supported me in many ways, I could not have discovered it either. But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can only assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future. I can only say this now that it is done. There remains, of course, group tabulation or coordination of what has been done, which will be valuable—only so long as it does not seek to alter basic principles and successful applications.”          LRH
(from HCO™ PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”)

Of course there is a reason for this effort of mine to get this point across! Well, basically because a variety of the information supplied about Scientology on this site is dealing with alterations. The fact we have to face is that since the early 80's that we have a different situation. It is reported that L. Ron Hubbard had stopped appearing in public since December 1972, and pretty much so went in complete seclusion since about October 1979, and that there may be indicators that he was not anymore in control of various things. Before you have your opinion ready about this, it may be advised to have a look at various of my findings that clearly seem to support this thesis. And I have been quite thorough about it! Any that which I say can be verified. Once upon a time it was deemed that we were “having the correct technology”.We may be face a different reality this day.

 
Go back
“The danger points of the past and of the future”

And it's really not so difficult to lose the right track out of sight:
        
“Now, the moment you have found the exact, precise mechanics which apply to all minds, you can then get a broad agreement on the situation because they override the minor data on which the people are fixated. In other words, they also would have this broader perimeter of data and they'd recognize the truth in the broader perimeter of data. But the moment that you move even a sixteenth of a millimeter sideways off of what is generally applicable to all minds, you are again into the particularities and opinions. So therefore, if you had a broad sphere of knowledge which was true, and these were all high generalities and everybody would agree with them, frankly it'd be very easy to bankrupt and upset that whole operation by taking it, and by false relay—you see, bad instruction and bad relay of the Material and dropping out a datum here and a vital datum there and substituting something or other—you eventually could then again effect a sort of a slavery out of that information.
        
 
In other words, even if you arrive at the technology, you still have the task of safeguarding the technology because, once more, it can easily turn and become a false technology.”          LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #308, renumbered 1991: #338 “Saint Hill Service Facsimile Handling”, given on 18 Sept 63)
 
        
sound  Sound snippet (1:28) 
        

And a warning from 1968:
        
“The situation with regard to standard tech at this time is we have had a few mice. And I imagine down through the years there will be a few other mice. A bulletin gets altered, a tape gets pulled off the line, some vital action is shifted. Somebody comes tearing in with a brand new idea that seems to be absolutely vitally essential, and the first thing you know, why we have trouble of one kind or another. And tech fails. And it suddenly ceases to give the results which it should attain.
        
 
At that time morale goes down. ‘No, Scientology doesn't work.’ These are the danger points of the past and of the future.”          LRH
(from Class VIII lecture #5 “The Standard Green Form and Rudiments”, given on 28 Sept 68)
 
        
sound  Sound snippet (1:05) 
        

Interestingly enough these are not in particular considered by the Church of Scientology representatives and/or spokesman. It is just always presented that we are “Having the correct technology.”. Indeed it does say in HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working” that “One above has been done.”, and the entire focus is on exactly that. I would perceive however that people in general do take things for granted. It is easier to let someone else take care of safeguarding and all that (this turning to authority worship), rather then maintaining your own alertness.

 
Go back
Rights and obligations ...

Either way there are some standard lines how to deal with this. And I have walked on these paths many times, but it appears to take time, lots of time to get adjustments implemented. In the interim I wish not to withheld any of this information from those who call themselves Scientologists and/or any other who would have an interest in this one way or the other.

        
“To work for freedom of speech in the world.
        
 
To actively decry the suppression of knowledge, wisdom, philosophy or data which would help mankind.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 5 Feb 69R (Revised 15 May 73) “Code of a Scientologist”)
 

        
“That all men have inalienable rights to conceive, choose, assist or support their own organizations, churches and governments.
        
 
That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”          LRH
(from ‘The Creed of the Church of Scientology’ (1954, 70))
 

And thus if anybody feels offended, or finds that I offend any person or management.

        
“Never fear to hurt another in a just cause.”          LRH
(from ‘PAB 40’, 26 Nov 54 “The Code of Honour”)
        

At times however I may be wrong about things, if that is the case then I urge you to forward your findings to me! And if their correctness can be properly substantiated and verified they will be implemented.

 
In regards to daring to question the present Scientology management there are some approaches to consider:
        
“‘7.   ABILITY TO JUDGE.  “Try to understand the facts of a situation before you judge. Evaluate things on an open-minded, unprejudiced basis and be willing to change your mind.” ...
        
 
‘21.  CURIOSITY.  “An inquisitive, curious mind will help you seek out new information. Don't be afraid to admit you don't know it all. Always ask questions about things you don't understand.”
 
 
‘22.  INDIVIDUALISM.  “Do things the way you think they should be done, without fearing somebody's disapproval.” ...
 
 
‘24.  IMAGINATION.  “Geniuses know how to think in new combinations, see things from a different perspective, than anyone else. Unclutter your mental environment to develop this type of imagination. Give yourself time each day to daydream, to fantasize, to drift into a dreamy inner life the way you did as a child.”’”
 
 
©1980 National Enquirer/Transworld Features.
(from ‘Central Office of LRH ED (COLRHED) 821’, 21 Jul 80 “Genius”)
 
And to read all of these, please click here (pop-up window).

 
Back to Main Index Keeping Scientology Working (2) - How to go about it?

“There is a maxim in PR or advertising that a MESSAGE MUST BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER TO IMPINGE ON A GIVEN PUBLIC.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 9 Jun 75 “Enemy Lines”)

This can also get very wrong as history has shown us. Please reflect on the following. It is reported that Adolf Hitler has said: “If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it.”. He also said, “People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one. If you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one. People will believe that.”

Some have expressed to me that Religious Technology Center is full bore on keeping the technology pure. This is being promoted in countless flyers, magazines, books and scheduled public meetings, over and over and over again. Mr. David Miscavige has said: “We give you pure and unaltered tech!”  So why should we be bothered about it? Everything is taken care of is it not? This may not be as obvious as it may seem though. We can see this expressed in this paragraph added in the 15 June 1970 reissue of HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”:
        
Note:  Neglect of this PL has caused great hardship on staffs, has cost countless millions and made it necessary in 1970 to engage in an all-out, international effort to restore basic Scientology over the world. Within 5 years after the issue of this PL, with me off the lines, violation had almost destroyed orgs. ‘Quickie grades’ entered in and denied gain to tens of thousands of cases. Therefore actions which neglect or violate this policy letter are HIGH CRIMES resulting in Comm Evs on ADMINISTRATORS and EXECUTIVES. It is not ‘entirely a tech matter’, as its neglect destroys orgs and caused a 2-year slump. IT IS THE BUSINESS OF EVERY STAFF MEMBER to enforce it.”          LRH
        

Per this one can not simply rely on that others will take care of that. Only because some people confide to us that some things are or have been done, this does not automatically mean that this has been carried out in reality. This is what Public Relation is all about. For many it is the easy way out to simply state: “See, all has been taken care of, I don't have to do anything anymore!”  In reality it just has become a justifier for not doing anything. To say with Bob Dylan: “The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.”. Even Religious Technology Center does acknowledge that “he (LRH) has stated, Keeping Scientology Working is a responsibility shared by all members of the Scientology religion”. Reality is though that criticism is often met with as if there is something wrong with you. You can't have it both ways! The data itself should be investigated if some peculiarity surfaces.

HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working” gives an listing of 10 steps of what is actually needed for “getting the correct technology applied”. The first step is “One: Having the correct technology.”. Then at the end of the list LRH says: “One above has been done.” One should think this over a little more. “Has been done.” What does that mean? It should mean that we in actual fact are “having the correct technology”. Now, why then is the current management making continuously changes, releasing new LRH issues, and is even introducing new procedures? This consideration all by itself simply is odd. These are some of the things I have been digging into.

There is this quotation:
        
“PRICE OF FREEDOM: Constant alertness, constant willingness to fight back. There is no other price.”          LRH
(source of quotation unknown, but it is frequently displayed in the periodical of the International Association of Scientologists)
        

And there is this:
        
“Hammering out of existence incorrect technology.
  Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 7 Feb 1965 “Keeping Scientology Working”)
        
This involves doingness. This is not just sitting around till someone acknowledges you for your findings. To do otherwise is not living up to the responsibility needed. And you also don't rely on someone else taking care of it for you, that is even if you may have reported it to some people. You have to do a follow-up, and if needed act again, and again, and again .... hammer, hammer, hammer out of existence ....... and closing, closing, closing the door .......

You should be safe with this:
        
“IF ONE KNOWS THE TECH OF HOW TO DO SOMETHING AND CAN DO IT, AND USES IT, HE CANNOT BE THE ADVERSE EFFECT OF IT.”          LRH
(from HCO PL 30 Jan 83 “Your Post and Life”)
        

When encountering any deviation from the technology you may also want to inform:
        
Religious Technology Center
1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1001
Los Angeles, California 90028
USA
        
Or it may just be for expressing your worries.

 
Historical

Back to Main Index The source of the name of ‘Scientology’ (1)

 
Go back A short history as seen from the publications

'Handbook for Preclears' (1951)Who made up the name? This does not seem to be revealed to us. Although some tell that it came about with the help of Mary Sue Hubbard. To that effect there in fact exists a little pamphlet issued ca 1966 that actually relates this. Mary Sue Hubbard was also one of the 3 trustees of the first Church of Scientology ever to be founded (see later on this page chapter “The founding of the ‘Church of Scientology’ and its ‘Creed’”)

The first time the name appears to have been used is in the publication ‘Handbook for Preclears’ (first published December 1951). In the early editions of this release the name of Scientology is also still found on the front cover, but not in present editions. In the publication itself the word is used only one time, this is on page 41 (quote): “Culmination of research in what is popularly known as this new science and more correctly known as ‘scientology’ has yet to occur. But in 1948 a thesis was written and submitted to the medical professions which demonstrated that workability of alleviating physical ills by an address to mental problems.”  LRH.  More explanation about this new science is then found in the Publisher's Note which was placed foregoing the title page. Early editions of this publication do have this included, the present edition available however does not. You can read this original Publisher's Note in full here (pop-up window).

As all this was still in development we had to wait little before a more proper explanation of this new science of Scientology was put together. This appears to have been accomplished in the publication ‘Scientology: 8-80’ (first released November 1952). The Editorial Notes as it was included only in the early releases tell something about how things had developed thus far. You can consult this in full here (pop-up window). Then the FOREWORD of this release tells us the following:

“WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY?  
        
‘Scientology’ is a new word which names a new science. It is formed from the Latin word, ‘scio’, which means KNOW, or DISTINGUISH, being related to the word ‘scindo’, which means CLEAVE. (Thus, the idea of differentiation is strongly implied.) It is formed from the Greek word ‘logos’, which means THE WORD, or OUTWARD FORM BY WHICH THE INWARD THOUGHT IS EXPRESSED AND MADE KNOWN: also, THE INWARD THOUGHT or REASON ITSELF. Thus, SCIENTOLOGY means KNOWING ABOUT KNOWING, or SCIENCE OF KNOWLEDGE.
        
 
A science is not merely a collection of facts, neatly arranged. An essential of a science is that observations give rise to theories which, in turn, predict new observations. When the new observations are made, they, in turn, give rise to better theories, which predict further observations.
 
 
A science grows. Its most important growth is not in numbers of facts but in the clarity and prediction-value of its theories. Many fields which call themselves sciences substitute fact collecting for theorizing, others substitute theorizing for observation. Without both, there is no science.
 
 
The ‘exact’ sciences contradict each other daily. This is not because their observations are wrong, but because they cling to old theories that conflict instead of finding the newer, simpler theories.
 
 
Scientology has introduced new simplicities of theory into the field of human thought and has brought the study of human thought up to a level at which it begins to embrace all thought and all life, not only of man, but of all organisms.
 
 
Scientology is not a therapy for the sick, although from Scientology such a therapy may be derived.
 
 
Thought is the subject matter of Scientology. It is considered as a kind of ‘energy’ which is NOT PART of the physical universe. It controls energy, but it has no wave length. It uses matter, but it has no mass. It is found in space, but it has no position. It records time, but it is not subject to time. The Greek word (and letter), THETA, is used as a symbol for thought as an ‘energy’.
 
 
Technique 8-80 is a specialized form of Scientology. It is, specifically, the electronics of human thought and beingness. It is basic in answering the riddles of life and its goals in the MEST universe.
 
 
The goal is Survival. The means to survival for life is the handling and use of energy.
 
 
The ‘8-8’ stands for ‘Infinity-Infinity’ upright, the ‘0’ represents the static, theta.
 
 
A new student of this subject is referred to the Logics and Axioms and the basic processes of thought, counter-thought, emotion, counter-emotion, effort, counter-effort, attention units, and counter-units. Technique 8-80 appends but does not amend or replace any earlier material. It does the work of Scientology more quickly if used against an understanding of the basic subject.”
 

 
Go back ‘Scientologie’ by A. Nordenholz

'Scientologie' (1934) It appears that the name Scientology itself (or at least the German spelling of it) had been used by someone else at an earlier date. There is this book issued in 1934 entitled: ‘Scientologie: Wissenschaft von der Beschaffenheit und der Tauglichkeit des Wissens’, published with ‘Verlag von Ernst Reinhardt München’. The number of copies printed we are told was fixed at 600. The copyright of this publication as given on the backside of the title page remained with ‘Dr. A. Nordenholz. Las Rosas Santa Fé Argentina 1934’. It was not until 1968 that an english translation of this work saw the light: ‘Scientology: Science of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge’.

There may exist a 2nd book from Nordenholz on the same subject that was published 3 years later in 1937: ‘Scientologie: System des Wissens und der Wissenschaft’, published with ‘Neudruck München 1937. Hergestellt bei Stückrath & Co, Berlin Spandau.’.

I can positively confirm that the first book actually exists, simply because I own an authentic copy of it (see illustration). There is a site on the Internet that appears dedicated to this first publication. That site you can visit here (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). It reads on that site:
        
“Because of the name similarity and parallels in content to the philosophy of L. Ron Hubbard's ‘Scientology’, the Free Zone Association (Freie Zone e.V.) decided to preserve this book by republishing it in its original context.”
        
Per this it appears that this is the sole reason why we have that website out there. One should realize here that especially during the early decades of the 1900's the subject of the mind and its adherents were quite popular. These days the works of Sigmund Freud were attracting a lot of interest. It had awakened many persons to research further into these matters, this particularly in Germany. And so they were written primarily in the German language. We find rather many similar such publications as this little book by Dr. A. Nordenholz.
Without the name Scientologie that Nordenholz had chosen for his treatise and the fact that L. Ron Hubbard also chose that name, it would be unlikely that we today would have known about the man Nordenholz. It would also be unlikely if it had been republished and translated in much later years if he had not given it that title.

Some associations are made on that aforementioned website as if L. Ron Hubbard would have adopted the ideas and the name for his philosophy from this Dr. A. Nordenholz. Now, how likely would it be that L. Ron Hubbard would actually have known about that publication at all? Mind that it was also written in the German language, in Germany and it was a limited publication that attracted no particular attention that we know of at the time of its release. There is no information that L. Ron Hubbard either spoke or understood German, or that he would have had access to some early (predating 1951) translation (or excerpts) from this publication. None are known to exist. Two statements found on that website support this reasoning:
        
“Nordenholz' relatives stated:  ‘It is rather impossible that my grandfather knew Mr. Hubbard, or that he even had contact with him by letter. At the end of the 40's, my grandfather lived in seclusion at his country residence near Rosario and had little contact with the outside world.’”
        
Further stating that “this is, to our knowledge, the only currently available rendition of this very rare book and its translation”.

Then rather awkwardly the website a little further on nonetheless claims:
        
“The motto, ‘science of knowing how to know’ is obviously extracted from the very subtitle of Nordenholz's book.”
        
Now, how likely would that actually be, taken in consideration that the writer was living in seclusion, it being published only in Germany in the German language (L. Ron Hubbard resided in USA, unfamiliar to German) and the original publication is being acknowledged for its rarity? These phrases and the claim made on that site in fact are highly contradictive and inconsistent.
I can personally confirm, as being a collector for many years, that any of these Nordenholz publications are about impossible to find. When I by pure chance stumbled on my copy (ca 1990) it caught my attention because of the likeness with the name Scientology (at the time I knew nothing about Nordenholz). I looked at the title and the year of publication and I thought: “Where is this coming from?”. I did purchase it for fl7.50 (=$3.75). Since then I have only come across one other original copy of the book. It was on sale on Ebay asking a rather high price for it.

In the little book by Dr. A Nordenholz book we don't find the word Scientologie itself analyzed, although we can be quite certain about that also for him it had been a composition of the words science (scio) and logos. From that you would get to something like the study of knowledge. If 2 persons who do not have knowledge about each other would coin such a word, then you are still reasoning in a particular direction. Naturally you should expect that at least some similarities would arise in both the works of these 2 persons in regards to that subject that they address. And indeed these are found when compared, although with the difference that Nordenholz book is primarily a theoretical treatise. The first book that L. Ron Hubbard issued about Scientology was already issued as a handbook for practical use.

The www.scientologie.org site domain appears registered on 2 December 1995. I still have a printout from that site dated Thursday, 19 September 1996. The basic background information and text of the publication found today on the site remains the same this day. In 1996 they also intended to re-publish the 1937 publication, which still has not been done now 10 years later. Here I am not sure either if they even have a copy of that other book.

A further interesting development here is though that if you point at an association between the name that the church had chosen and this little book by Nordenholz then in fact you can challenge the monopoly of the Church of Scientology for the use of that very name. You can thus challenge the trademark claims of the Church of Scientology.

So, did L. Ron Hubbard stole the name Scientology from Dr. A. Nordenholz, as some driven individuals out in the Internet persistently claim? You may have to make up your own mind about that.

Go to index

 
Back to Main Index Scientology: ‘Science versus Religion’ (2)

A chronological overview of how it has been addressed through the years. Interesting is that it in the early years primarily was referred to as being a science. It being a religion was even denounced for quite a while: “Scientology has opened the gates to a better world. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion.” (from ‘The Creation of Human Ability’ (1955), pre-1974 edition). The first book addressing the subject of Scientology was ‘Handbook for Preclears’ which publication was repeatedly referring to it as “a new science” (see previous chapter). Various persons out on the Internet make the claim that L. Ron Hubbard has said at some time that if you want to get rich, you have to start a religion, or something along these lines. And so these critics confide to us that this is the reason why he started with Scientology. It may indicate that the critics have lost an argument here. It took a while before Scientology started to be addressed as being “a religion by its basic tenets”. In addition, getting rich would involve asking for much money for services. This was not the case at all at least prior to 1977. It was in fact very cheap, and cheaper than any comparable therapy of sorts.

The initial approach set forth by Scientology is not entirely new. We had something somewhat comparable with the early Christians. We had these groups that called themselves the Gnostics. Gnosis is defined as knowledge especially in regards to the spiritual. [γνώσις (gnósis) - investigation, find out; γιγνώσκειν (gignóskein) - know]. Various of their books surfaced in Nag Hammadi in 1945. Since that time these have been translated and published. They gave a whole new insight in the subject. More about this you can find here (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013). More recently we have had Theosophy (1875) that also implemented a sort of scientific approach into their studies. The outcome here may not always be strictly scientific though. In regards to that respect Scientology was actually new, as it worked with making predictions from exact observations. Only these procedures were accepted that repeatedly provided for this predicted outcome. There was even a paper especially written to present the subject of Scientology to scientists: ‘A Summary on Scientology for Scientists’ (1969), consult here (pop-up window).

Some interesting information is relayed in HCO Information Letter 24 Nov 63 “Essential Information Every Scientologist Should Know”, compiled by HCO WW Staff. It was issued for reason “To correct certain misconceptions held by newspapers and areas of the public”:
        
SCIENTOLOGY AS A RELIGION  
        
 
HASI was incorporated as a Religious Fellowship in 1952, two years before there were any discussions about churches or ministers.
 
 
Philosophy dealing with the individual as a spirit is normally classed as a religion. The same type of material as Scientology was attempted about 2,500 years ago by one Gautama Siddhartha and became the world's oldest civilized religion, known as Buddhism. Laws of life, exteriorization and other materials of Buddhism are similar to Scientology. Scientology, however, is able to achieve results even in early stages that Buddhism could not. This does not make Scientology buddhism but it does place it firmly in the area of religion.
 
 
Theosophy, organized as a body of knowledge similar in text to Scientology has been declared a religion by U.S. Federal Courts.
 
 
Scientology is therefore a religion. The only question was whether or not its organizations should be formal churches and auditors ministers. Some Scientology Organizations have become Churches, some as in Australia have remained simply religious fellowships. There has never been any serious question of Scientology being a religion since by definition knowledge and study of man as a spiritual, rather than an animal, being is of course religious.
 
 
That Scientology organizations use ‘religion for tax purposes’ is quite false as the majority of the organizations, while religious, do not enjoy tax exemption and pay their taxes. So the the argument has no point.”
(also found reprinted in ‘Ability 158’, Feb 64)
 


From ‘Scientology: A History of Man’ (1952), chapter 8:
        
“Theta clearing* is about as practical and simple as repairing a shoe-lace. It is nothing to do with hypnotism, voodooism, charlatanism, monkeyism or theosophy. Done, the thetan can do anything a stage magician can do in the way of moving objects around. But this isn't attained by holding one's breath or thinking ‘right’ thoughts or voting Republican or any other superstitious or mystic practice. So, which is the reason I've brought it up, rule out, auditor, any mumbo-jumbo of mysticism or spiritualism or religion.”          LRH
        
Theta clear:   An individual who, as a being, is certain of his identity apart from that of the body, and who habitually operates the body from outside, or exteriorized. This is a relative not an absolute term. It means that the person, this thought unit, is clear of his body, his engrams, his facsimiles, but can handle and safely control a body.


From ‘The Creation of Human Ability’ (1955), chapter 12:
        
“Society, thirsting for more control of more people substitutes religion for the spirit, the body for the soul, an identity for the individual and science and data for truth. In this direction lies insanity, increasing slavery, less knowingness, greater scarcity and less society. Scientology has opened the gates to a better world. It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion. It is a body of knowledge which, when properly used, gives freedom and truth to the individual.”          LRH
        
Important note: This line “It is not a psycho-therapy nor a religion.” is left out starting with the 1974 revision of this book.


From ‘Scientology Translator's Edition’, 1 May 1956 (published in PAB 82):
        
“The term SCIENTOLOGY is taken from scio (knowing in the fullest meaning of the word) and ology (to study).
        
 
Scientology, used by the trained and relatively untrained person, improves the intelligence, ability, behavior, skill and appearance of people.
 
 
It is a precise and exact science.”          LRH
 
Note: The ‘Scientology Translator's Edition’ was a pre-release of ‘Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought’.


From ‘Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought’ (1956), chapter 6:
        
“Probably the greatest discovery of Scientology and its most forceful contribution to the knowledge of mankind has been the isolation, description and handling of the human spirit, accomplished in July, 1951, in Phoenix, Arizona. I established along scientific rather than religious or humanitarian lines that that thing which is the person, the personality, is separable from the body and the mind at will and without causing bodily death or mental derangement.”          LRH
        


From “The Appositions of Scientology by Alphia Hart, B.Scn.” (included in new 1957 edition of ‘Scientology: 8-80’):
        
“SCIENTOLOGY – Scientology is ‘the science of acquiring knowledge’, and is formed from the Latin word scio, which means know or distinguish, and the Greek word logos, which means the word, or outward form by which the inner thought is expressed and made known. Therefore, Scientology is not parallel with the sciences which merely collect data, arrange and classify it, and give it a name. A true science, which Scientology seeks to be, makes predictions from its observations, and in turn, predicts new observations which give new and better theories, more observations, more predictions, etc. By this chain of knowing, the theory of human thought – which is the manifestation of life – is being simplified and brought within the understanding of man.
        
 
Scientology, because of its scope, cannot be locked within the boundaries of a therapy for those who are ill. However, when you learn why man is ill, you automatically have to key for his release.”
 


From HCOB 18 Apr 67 (HCOB of 21 Jun 60 Revised) “Religious Philosophy and Religious Practice”:
        
Scientology is a religion by its basic tenets, practice, historical background and by the definition of the word ‘religion’ itself. The following will help clarify the philosophical and practical aspects of religion.
        
 
Religious practice implies ritual, faith-in, doctrine based on a catechism and a creed.
 
 
Religious philosophy implies study of spiritual manifestations; research on the nature of the spirit and study on the relationship of the spirit to the body; exercises devoted to the rehabilitation of abilities in a spirit.
 
 
Scientology is a Religious philosophy in its highest meaning as it brings man to Total Freedom and Truth. Our Confessional relieves the being of the encumbrances which keep his awareness as a being limited to the physical aspects of life.
 
 
Scientology is also a Religious practice in that the Church of Scientology conducts basic services such as Sermons at Church meetings, Christenings, Weddings and Funerals.”          LRH
 


From ‘Supplement to “Communication”’, September 1964:
        
Scientology is a religion in the oldest sense of the word, a study of wisdom. Scientology is a study of man as a spirit in his relationship to life and the physical universe.
        
 
It is non-denominational. By that is meant that Scientology is open to people of all religions and beliefs and in no way tries to persuade a person from his religion, but assists him to better understand that he is a spiritual being.”          Mary Sue Hubbard
 


From ‘LRH ED 4 Int’, 22 Feb 69 “Attachment (letter to doctor)”:
        
“Our main activity is of course Scientology which concentrates upon the betterment of normal awareness, intelligence, communication and so on. It is fundamentally an applied religious philosophy.”          LRH
        


From BPL 6 Mar 69 “Scientology Is a Religion”:
        
“L. Ron Hubbard's treatise on Scientology as a religious philosophy and a religious practice is given in Hubbard Communications Bulletin (H.C.O.B) of 21 June, 1960 ‘Religious Philosophy and Religious Practice’ (as revised 18 April, 1967).
        
 
It is highly important that all promotional literature and Church literature reflect the fact that Scientology is a religion.
 
 
For instance one promotional piece of recent time stated ‘Scientology is a philosophy and a science.’ There was no mention that Scientology was a religion.”          Kevin & Jane Kember, Mary Sue Hubbard
 


From HCO PL 6 Apr 69 “Dianetics”:
        
Scientology is a religious practice applying to Man's spirit and his spiritual freedom.”          LRH
        


From BPL 15 Apr 71R “Auditors Associations and S(aint)H(ill) Orgs”:
        
Scientology is an applied religious philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge, which through the application of its technology, can bring about desirable changes in the conditions of life.”
        


From ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition), chapter 1, page 4:
        
  “The word ‘Scientology’ is taken from Greek and Latin roots and it signifies ‘the study of knowing, in the fullest sense of the word.’ One who studies Scientology learns to know how to know. Knowledge is defined in Scientology as certainty.
     In its practice, Scientology is an applied religious philosophy. ‘Applied’ is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘Put to practical use; practical as distinguished from abstract or theoretical’ Everything in Scientology is directed towards workability and effectiveness — that which when applied correctly and exactly works to bring about the desired results for individuals and their environments so as to improve conditions of existence for all. Anything which is not workable (doesn't bring about desired results which better conditions) is not Scientology.
     ‘Religion’ is defined as ‘Any specific system of belief, (worship), conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy’ (Webster’s New World Dictionary). The word religion itself can embrace sacred lore, wisdom, knowingness of gods and souls and spirits. Scientology deals with the human spirit; the spirit is you existing with but actually independent of your mind and your body, and it is addressed because it has been found through research conducted on the most rigorous scientific basis that the soul or spirit does exist and has the capacity or potential capacity to resolve all problems which affect it, whether physical, mental or spiritual.
     Scientology is a philosophy. It is the study of and contains knowledge of ‘the principles of human action or conduct; ethics’ and is part of ‘that department of knowledge or study which deals with ultimate reality, or with the general causes and principles of things’ (quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary) and is in fact the philosophy which most exactly and fully answers to such a description.
     ‘‘Religious Philosophy’ implies study of spiritual manifestations; research in the nature of the spirit and study on the relationship of the spirit to the body; exercises devoted to the rehabilitation of abilities in a spirit.’ (from the Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary) The technology of Scientology is the means by which the philosophy of Scientology is put to practical use by an individual.
        

 
Back to Main Index The founding of the ‘Church of Scientology’ and its ‘Creed’
        
“Why is Scientology a Church?
        
 
Both the modern day usage of the word ‘church’ and the historical root justify the use of this word when referring to Scientology’s organizations. It is not a word monopolized by Christian organizations. In modern day usage an extension has taken place whereby people speak of the Buddhist or Moslem Church, simply meaning the whole body of believers in a particular religious teaching.
There were churches ten thousand years before there were Christians, and Christianity itself was a revolt against the established church.
A church is simply a building that houses religious activities, a place of learning and attaining knowingness, and knowingness has always been considered sacred lore. As we are dealing with helping Man become more spiritually aware of himself and his family, as well as God, Scientology therefore is a church. In the most ancient tradition, it is symbolic of the thrust towards life of the dynamics or parts of life which total the number eight. We have a road that has been traveled by many. Traveling this road, they have found that they have, indeed, achieved greater success in life and greater happiness in the search for truth. Religion means basically the search for truth. Seeing that, Scientologists in the early ’50s voted that a church be formed.
Scientology has been adjudicated a church by the various courts and government agencies of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and many other countries as well as experts on religion.”
 
            (from ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition), page 198)   

 
Go back Founding of the Church  (includes some notes about the ‘Mother Church’)

The publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition) says on page 130:
        
“Given the inherently religious nature of Mr. Hubbard's work through these years, it was only natural that those surrounding him would come to see themselves, not only as students of a new philosophy but also as students of a new religion. And so, in 1954, Scientologists in Los Angeles established the first Church of Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard founded the subject—early Scientologists began the Church.”
        
And on page 630:
        
1954:  In recognition of the spiritual nature of Ron's philosophy, a number of Scientologists in Los Angeles, California from the first Church of Scientology in February.”
        
And on page 639:
        
18 February 1954:  The first church of Scientology founded in Los Angeles, California.”
        


John Galusha, 1957
John Galusha, Sept ’57

On the day of 18 December 1953 the certificates for 3 corporations were signed and sealed in New Jersey by notary. The first one was the (1) Church of American Science which was to function as the Mother Church. Secondly the (2) Church of Scientology, New Jersey. Thirdly the (3) Church of Spiritual Engineering which was to accommodate the research that was to be supplied to the 2 aforementioned churches. The trustees selected for each of these 3 churches were L. Ron Hubbard Sr., Mary Sue Hubbard & John Galusha (started in 1980 Idenics (external link) (last checked: 10 Apr 2013), loosely based on the research of Hubbard). The witnesses (that signed and sealed) for all of them were L. Ron Hubbard Sr., L. Ron Hubbard Jr. (known as ‘Nibs’), Henrietta Hubbard (wife of ‘Nibs’), John Galusha, Barbara Bryan & Verna Greenough.

According to what I have understood is the founding date the day that it had gone through all the steps of the bureaucratic routine and the Certificate of Incorporation was finally Filed and Recorded. There is also a record for the founding of this Church of Scientology, Los Angeles. Below I have listed these 4 churches and their characteristics. If you click on the filing number you can consult a transcript of the actual Certificate of Incorporation of each of these (pop-up windows).

  
 File #:  Corporation:  Place:  Signed & sealed:  Received & recorded by clerk:  Filed (& recorded):
Y31315 Church of American Science        New Jersey  18 Dec 1953  21 Dec 1953  22 Dec 1953
Y31316 Church of Scientology (NJ) New Jersey  18 Dec 1953  21 Dec 1953  22 Dec 1953
Y31894 Church of Spiritual Engineering New Jersey  18 Dec 1953  21 Dec 1953  18 Jan 1954
283196 Church of Scientology (LA) Los Angeles    4 Feb 1954     18 Feb 1954

The documentation is there, it seems that it can not be claimed that L. Ron Hubbard founded the subject but not the church (=co-founded). In spite of that this is what the publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition) specifically claims. L. Ron Hubbard may not have founded the Los Angeles branch on 18 February 1954, but he was involved in founding the New Jersey branch on 22 December 1953 that obviously was first. This is also in concordance with the 2 times that it is mentioned in the 1978 edition of ‘What Is Scientology?’ that he actually founded (=co-founded) the Church of Scientology (see page 106, 5th paragraph & page 183, 4th paragraph). Although it may be considered a miss also in that book that it does not mention 22 December 1953, New Jersey in its chronology. I also found that it says in the 1978 edition near the end of page 197: “The Church of Scientology was first registered in 1954 in California”, and on page 187, last paragraph it mentions that the “Church was formed on 18th February 1954”. That it says on page 198 of ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition) that “Scientologists in the early ’50s voted that a church be formed.” still may very well be correct. It's then just that L. Ron Hubbard would have followed up on that to furnish that need.
The person(s) from the Church of Scientology that compiled the 1978 edition of the book may have slipped in some errors, they may have been youngsters that had no knowledge of the history of the New Jersey branch, were not given this information, or simply missed out on it. The compilers of the later 90's edition of the book may have taken the 1978 edition as a base, they may have assumed it being correct/complete. They then found that L. Ron Hubbard was not involved in founding the Los Angeles branch and for that reason they concluded that he did not found the actual Church, not realizing that there in fact had been an earlier corporation of the Church of Scientology. Although this Los Angeles branch as per the Articles of Incorporation of this church also subordinated itself to the Mother Church that is named as the Church of American Science. As I said, I don't know why this has been missed, or if there is another explanation to this. It may even be so that various were mislead because of this stamp that appears on Executive Directives such as LRH ED's and SO ED's (see illustration). The magazine ‘Source 14’, Feb-Mar 78 also missed it as it says on page 7 in article entitled Biography of L. Ron Hubbard Part II: “An historic milestone in the history of Dianetics and Scientology was passed in February, 1954, with the founding of the first Church of Scientology.”. Either way, this is quite a miss nonetheless! Obviously these New Jersey churches are an interesting piece of history worthy of noting, as is the fact that the official publications all appear to have looked past them!

The early critical magazine entitled ‘The Aberree’ (this run april 1954-april 1965, 10 numbers a year) also does make mention of this event of these 3 churches. The first number of volume 1, issued April 1954, has an article on its first page entitled: “Three Churches Given Charters by New Jersey”. It makes notice of the following:
        
“In February of this year, rumors that Scientology would become a religion lost their swaddling pantlets and became a full-fledged fact. Copies of charters to three organizations, known as the CHURCH OF AMERICAN SCIENCE, THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, AND THE CHURCH OF SPIRITUAL ENGINEERING, chartered under the laws of the State of New Jersey, were proudly displayed in the Phoenix offices of the Hubbard Association of Scientologists. The Church of American Science is the parent organization for the three churches.”
        

On page 4 of this magazine it makes mention of the Church of Scientology, Los Angeles and names J. Burton Farber of Glendale who indeed is found on the Certificate of Incorporation of the Los Angeles branch, it also names other branches of the Church of Scientology that had come into existence:
        
“With the formation of the Church of Scientology in the State of California by Dr. J. Burton Farber of Glendale, ... . On March 5, Dr. Farber appeared in Phoenix, and before an audience of more than 30 clinical students, taped a ceremony in which L. Ron Hubbard was made a Doctor of Divinity and awarded Certificate No. One. This gives him legal authority to lecture, perform marriages, baptisms, and other religious rites.
        
 
At the same time, as part of this ceremony, Dr. Farber, a minister in another church, was made a Doctor of Divinity in the Church of American Science under the New Jersey charter. Other ministers to be ordained will be graduates of the clinical courses.
 
 
The Church of Scientology also has been chartered in Arizona, giving it legality in three states.”
 

I will note here that the 1978 edition of ‘What Is Scientology?’ does not make mention of the founding of the Church of Scientology in Phoenix, Arizona. So far this is unverified.  This book does make mention of one other Church of Scientology being founded prior to the issuance of this number of ‘The Aberree’ (the only other one in fact listed for 1954). The one mentioned is Church of Scientology of Auckland on 28 February 1954, apparently this was in error as the 1992 edition of ‘What Is Scientology?’ corrected this founding date into 28 January 1955. This seems to confirm that the 1978 edition may very well have contained further omissions and errors. In 1992 the Auckland error had been caught, but what about the New Jersey omission, and may be the Phoenix, Arizona branch?


The Mother Church

Some changes occurred in regards to what was to be the Mother Church. In December 1953 it was the Church of American Science. The publication ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1978 edition) says on page 198:
        
“What is the Mother Church?
        
 
The Mother Church is the Church of Scientology of California. It is the Scientology group where the highest levels of spiritual counseling may be attained and where research is conducted into as yet undeveloped areas of Scientology. Its headquarters are at St. Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex, England.”
 
Now, it could have been overlooked here as well that the Church of American Science at least once had existed (or still existed if only on paper). At some point then the Church of Scientology of California (which is the Church of Scientology of Los Angeles) turned to being the Mother Church. The logical calculation then could have been made that the Mother Church automatically was considered being the First Church, which then also was considered (assumed) being the First Church of Scientology ever to be founded. The New Jersey churches just ended up only playing a role in the background and were forgotten about. I don't actually know these things, I attempt to explain how things could have evolved.

Another note in regards to a Mother Church is found in ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 edition). On page 508 it tells about a situation with the Guardian Office (“a small unit ... to protect the church from external threats”), that “had become entirely autonomous” and that the “corruption was so extensive it had been hindering Church expansion internationally—inhibiting both public staff from advancing”, and so it got “disbanded”. On page 509 it then continues: “To safeguard these administrative changes, the corporate structure of the Church was updated and the Church of Scientology International was formed as the international mother church.”.
On page 358 it says: “to assist individual churches, and ensure the overall expansion of Scientology there is a mother church for all Scientology—the Church of Scientology International (CSI), located in Los Angeles”.
On page 662 it tells that the “Church of Scientology International was founded” on “November 1, 1981”.

It appears that this change was incorporated on November ’81 as per HCO PL 25 Nov 81 II “Corporate and Other Changes” in where the then Executive Director International (Bill Franks) says: “The Church of Scientology of California is reorganized and is no longer the Mother Church. The Mother Church will be the Church of Scientology International, which will include ecclesiastical management units such as Senior Management, IMO and ITO (International Management & Training Organization).”.

 
Go back The ‘Creed’

Both the 1978 as well as the 1992 edition of ‘What Is Scientology?’ note a relevance with the founding of what they address as the first Church of Scientology in Los Angeles. The 1978 edition refers to it “as laid down when the Church was formed on 18th February 1954” and on the following page we see this ‘Creed’ quoted in full with the words “L. Ron Hubbard, Founder” underneath it (pages 187-88). The 1992 edition says that it “was written by L. Ron Hubbard shortly after the Church was formed in Los Angeles on February 18, 1954” and “the Church of Scientology adopted it as official because it succinctly states what Scientologists believe” (page 578). After these notices followed this ‘The Creed of the Church of Scientology’ in full.
But then the very first ‘Creed’ was found in the Certificate of Incorporation of the Church of American Science. It was signed and sealed by notary on 18 December 1953. This ‘Creed’ was adopted by the Church of Scientology as is mentioned in its Certificate of Incorporation which was signed and sealed on the very same day. The ‘Creed’ was extended upon in the Certificate of Incorporation of the Church of Scientology, Los Angeles which was signed and sealed on 4 February 1954. A document that became valid on 18 February 1954 on which date it was Filed and Recorded. We then find that ‘The Creed of the Church of Scientology’ as we find in both these ‘What Is Scientology?’ publications (1978 & 1992 edition) is a rewritten version that in essence is the same but nonetheless quite different to the ones that appears on these previous Certificates of Incorporation. We don't know actually who compiled the original version, it may have been L. Ron Hubbard or some other, but it is more probable that it was more of a group effort. The final version that it turned to be however will have been approved and/or was rectified by L. Ron Hubbard. All that we actually are being told is that both the ‘What Is Scientology?’ publications attribute this new version to L. Ron Hubbard. No mention is made of the earlier versions where it has derived from.
Noteworthy is that on page 188 in the 1978 edition of ‘What Is Scientology?’ we find a ‘Creed’ that has been attributed as that of the “Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. formed as a religious society on 21 July 1955”. It is noteworthy as it matches fully the first part of the ‘Creed’ as was found on the Certificate of Incorporation of the Church of American Science (#1-7, #7 only the first part of sentence), which indicates that the compiler(s) of the book was/were not aware of the existence of the creeds found in these Certificates of Incorporation. If we consider this then how would he/they know for sure who would be the author of the ‘Creed’? That what we find printed in both the old and the newer edition of ‘What Is Scientology?’ do raise questions in regards to accuracy of what we find written in them.

For comparison I have below printed the ‘Creed’ as it is found in the Certificate of Incorporation of the Church of Scientology of Los Angeles signed and sealed on 4 February 1954. It added #5 & 6 as compared to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Church of American Science signed and sealed on 18 December 1953. #13 was moved from another location into the creed. It exchanged also “The Church of American Science ...” into “The Church of Scientology ...” in #12. (full transcripts of all these Certificates of Incorporation are provided for in previous section which include the creeds)

The ‘Creed of the Church of Scientology’  (4 Feb 54)

        
“The Church of American Science insists upon the following creed which is adopted as the creed of the Church of Scientology of California, with the additional tenets provided for in number 5 and 6 below:
        
         1. That God works within Man his wonders to perform.         
  2.
That Man is his own soul, basically free and immortal, but deluded by the flesh.
 
  3.
That Man has a God-given right to his own life.
 
  4.
That Man has a God-given right to his own reason.
 
  5.
That Man has a God-given right to his own beliefs.
 
  6.
That Man has a God-given right to his own mode of thought and/or thinking.
 
  7.
That Man has a God-given right to free and open communication.
 
  8.
That the human spirit is the only truly effective therapeutic agent available to Man.
 
  9.
That a civilization can endure only so long as both spiritual and material needs find place within its structure.
 
  10. 
That a civilization is lost when God and the Spirit are forgotten by its leaders and its peoples.
 
  11.
That Man and the Nations of Man carry with them their own Salvation and that teachings exist sufficient to effect it.
 
  12.
The Church of Scientology exists to assist the strong and the weak, to suppress the wrongdoer and to champion the right and Godly. Its mission is to carry to Man, revelations and teachings and practices of the present and the ages past and to assist him, his family and communities to live in greater peace and harmony.
 
  13.
To practice the teachings and beliefs and propagate in accordance with its tenets the healing of the sick and suffering by prayer or other mental and/or spiritual means without the use of drugs or material remedy.
 
  14. 
The Holy Book of the Church of American Science consists of a collection of the works of and about the Great Teachers, including the work, St. Luke.
 
  15.
The Saints of the Church of American Science are the messiahs and religions philosophers.
 
  16.
The specific teachings of the Church of American Science concerns its Holy Book and those contributions on the Mind and Spirit made in more recent times as a result of scientific investigations concerning the human spirit and the physical universe.”
 

   
Back to Main Index L. Ron Hubbard about ‘My Philosophy’ (some quotations)

An older L. Ron Hubbard“Common man likes to be happy and well. He likes to be able to understand things, and he knows his route to freedom lies through knowledge.
I like to help others and count it as my greatest pleasure in life to see a person free himself of the shadows which darken his days.
I have lived no cloistered life and hold in contempt the wise man who has not lived and the scholar who will not share.
So my own philosophy is that one should share what wisdom he has, one should help others to help themselves, and one should keep going despite heavy weather for there is always a calm ahead. One should also ignore catcalls from the selfish intellectual who cries: ‘Don't expose the mystery. Keep it all for ourselves. The people cannot understand.’
But as I have never seen wisdom do any good kept to oneself, and as I like to see others happy, and as I find the vast majority of the people can and do understand, I will keep on writing and working and teaching so long as I exist.
For no man has any monopoly upon the wisdom of this universe. It belongs to those who can use it to help themselves and others.”          LRH   
(from “My Philosophy” [ca 1965])


“I am always willing to help. By my own creed a being is only as valuable as he can serve others.”          LRH

(from HCO PL 18 Dec 61 “Standing Orders”)


And then I arrived at the end of my introduction.....

Michel

February 2004

 

Vocabulary:

     ..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published. If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on.
     audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code.
     bank:
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”. (HCOB 30 Apr 69)  See also at ‘reactive mind’ in vocabulary.
     BPL:
Board Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Policy Letters written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for policy and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as Policy. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
  This issue-type was established in January 1974. In October 1975 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPL's. By 1980 all BPL's had been revoked.
     engram:
1. Simply moments of physical pain strong enough to throw part or all the analytical machinery out of circuit; they are antagonism to the survival of the organism or pretended sympathy to the organism’s survival. That is the entire definition. Great or little unconsciousness, physical pain, perceptic content, and contra-survival or pro-survival data. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 68)  2. A moment when the analytical mind is shut down by physical pain, drugs or other means, and the reactive bank is open to the receipt of a recording. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 153)  3. The word engram is an old one borrowed from biology. It means simply, “a lasting memory trace on a cell.” It may be engraved on more than the cell, but up against Dianetic processing, it is not very lasting. (Science of Survival, p. 10)  4. A recording which has the sole purpose of steering the individual through supposed but usually nonexistent dangers. (Science of Survival, p. 10)  5. A mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content. (HCOB 23 Apr 69)  6. A complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  
     HASI:
Hubbard Association of Scientologists International’.
    HCO PL:
Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window).
     lock:
1. An analytical moment in which the perceptics of the engram are approximated, thus restimulating the engram or bringing it into action, the present time perceptics being erroneously interpreted by the reactive mind to mean that the same condition which produced physical pain once before is now again at hand. Locks contain mainly perceptics; no physical pain and very little misemotion. (Science of Survival, p. 112)  2. A situation of mental anguish. It depends for its force on the engram to which it is appended. The lock is more or less known to the analyzer. It's a moment of severe restimulation of an engram. (Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, p. 84).
     LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’.
     org(s):
Short for ‘organization(s)’.
     PAB:
Professional Auditors Bulletin’. Scientology periodical (monthly) send to all members to keep auditors informed about the latest discoveries concerning processing procedures and other.
     preclear (pc):
1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20)  2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69)  3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62)
     Qual Library:
Qualifications Library’: Located in Division 5 (Qualifications Division), Department 14 (Dept. of Correction). The Qual Division monitors not only technical quality and honesty but the administrative quality and honesty of the entire organization. HCO establishes the org, but Qual makes it run.
     reactive mind:
1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11)  3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary)  4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58)
     Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor.
     SHSBC:
Saint Hill Special Briefing Course’. See at that entry in vocabulary.


Go to top of this page


Advertisement