Scientology pages index  |  Contact

Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard - An introduction  or       A closer look at Dianetics and Scientology fundamentals (Includes various historical notices)

(to other Scientology pages)

1) G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w / i n t r o d u c t i o n :   M i s s i o n   s t a t e m e n t ,   o v e r v i e w ,   r e s e a r c h   s p e c i f i c s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   L R H K e e p i n g   S c i e n t o l o g y   W o r k i n g ,   f u n d a m en t al s S c i e n t o l o g y   i n   m e d i a   a nd   I n t e r n e t   ( +   f o r u m s ,   W i k i p e d i a ) S c i e n t o l o g y :   I t s   t r u e   h i s t o r y   e x p o s e d ? S c i e n t o l o g y   Q & A   ( F A Q ) E x t e r n a l   l i n k s M a t e r i a l s   w a n t   l i s t R e c o m m e n d e d   l i s t   o f   m a t e r i a l s 2) R e s p o n s e s   ( w i t h   a n n o t a t i o n s ) : A p p r e c i a t i v e   r e s p o n s e s   t o   m y   p a g e s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 1 )   f r o m   c h u r c h g o i n g   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d   ( 2 )   f r o m   o u t - o f - c h u r c h   S c i e n t o l o g i s t s C r i t i q u e   r e c e i v e d    ( 3 )   f r o m   a n t i - S c i e n t o l o g i s t s 3) T o p i c s   o f   p a r t i c u l a r   i n t e r e s t : (a): G e n e r a l   t o p i c s H o l y   S c r i p t u r e s   v s   S c i e n t o l o g y L R H   v s   D i c t i o n a r i e s L R H   v s   t h e o r y   o f   e v o l u t i o n L R H ' s   w o r k s   o f   f i c t i o n (b): O r g a n i z a t i o n a l   t o p i c s A   p r i n t i n g   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   m a t e r i a l s   o f   S c i e n t o l o g y S c i e n t o l o g y   M e m b e r s h i p :   H A S I   v s   I A S L R H   v s   p r i c i n g   p o l i c i e s T h e   c o p y r i g h t s   i s s u e   a n d   l i c e n s i n g (c): T e c h n i c a l   t o p i c s H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   a )   G e n e r a l H i s t o r y   o f   G r a d e   C h a r t :   b )   D e t a i l e d ‘ C l e a r ’   d e f i n e d N E D   f o r   O T s T h e   ‘ P r i m a r y   R u n d o w n ’ 4) C o n t r o v e r s i a l   t o p i c s : M i s t a k e n   i d e a s   o f   ‘ E t h i c s ’   c l a r i f i e d T h e   F a i r    G a m e   L a w P r a c t i c e   o f   D i s c o n n e c t i o n S e c u r i t y   C h e c k i n g F r e e l o a d e r s   v s   E x - s t a f f   m e m b e r s T h e   ‘ R e h a b i l i t a t i o n   P r o j e c t   F o r c e ’   ( R P F ) 5) C h a n g e s   i n   t h e   f l o w   o f   ‘ i n f o r m a t i o n ’: (a): A l t e r a t i o n s   ( L R H   o r   n o n- L R H ? ) L R H   v s   A l t e r a t i o n s N o n - L R H   t u r n s   i n t o   L R H ?   &   P r o p o s a l   t o   s o l u t i o n T h e    ‘ C r a m m i n g   S e r i e s ’   -   L R H   o r   n o t   L R H ? B a s e d   o n   L R H   p u b l i c a t i o n s (b): G e n e r a l   o v e r v i e w L R H   v s   A   N e w   O r d e r   ( i n t r o d u c t i o n ) → A d m i n i s t r a t i v e   a n d    o r g a n i z a t i o n a l   m a t t e r s S e t u p   o f   t h e   p r i n t e d   m a t e r i a l s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 6 ) T h e   R T R C ,   t h e   u n i t   t h a t   w r o t e   L R H   i s s u e s   ( 1 9 7 3 - 8 2 ) T h e   d a w n i n g   o f   R T C   a n d   n e w   m a n a g e m e n t   ( 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 ) → T e c h n i c a l   m a t t e r s I n t r o d u c t i o n   t o   t h e   e v e n t   o f   l o s i n g   a   B r i d g e ) A n a l y s i s   o f   H C O B   “ T e c h   C o r r e c t i o n   R o u n d - u p ” L o s t   B r i d g e :   T e c h   c h a n g e s   d u r i n g   1 9 7 8 - 8 2 T h e   h i s t o r y   o f   t h e   o r i g i n a l   O T   V I I I ‘ G o l d e n   A g e   o f   T e c h ’   ( G A T )   a n a l y s i s D r i l l i n g   i n   S c i e n t o l o g y (c): T h e   m a t t e r   o f   D a v i d   M a y o S t o r y   o f   D a v i d   M a y o ‘ S O   E D   2 3 4 4   I n t’   a n a l y s i s T r a i n i n g   d r i l l s   ( T R s ) M a y o   r e f e r e n c e   l i s t 6) C o n s p i r a c i e s   -   I n   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ' s   f o o t s t e p s S c i e n t o l o g y   v s   a   N e w   W o r l d   O r d e r → W h e r e   i s   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d ?   ( c h r o n o l o g y   o f   S c n   h i s t o r y ) W h e r e a b o u t s   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   c h r o n o l o g y T h e   e r a   o f   a d o r a t i o n ;   P r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   L .   R o n   H u b b a r d L .   R o n   H u b b a r d   i n t o   a r t i s t r y :   M u s i c   &   F i l m → W h e r e   i s   h i s   w i f e   a n d   f a m i l y ? S t o r y   o f   M a r y   S u e   H u b b a r d T h e   l a s t   s t a n d :   T h e   G u a r d i a n   O f f i c e 7) S c i e n t o l o g y   u n d e r   a t t a c k (a): A   p r e m e d i t a t e d   s e r i e s   o f   o c c u r r e n c e s ?   ( ’ 8 0 s   c o n s p i r a c y ) I n t r o d u c t i o n   &   R o n   D e W o l f G e r r y   A r m s t r o n g   ( ‘ a f f i r m a t i o n s ’ ) R u s s e l l   M i l l e r    ( ‘ B a r e - F a c e d   M e s s i a h ’ ) A   r e l i g i o n   c r e a t e d   f o r   t h e   m o n e y ? (b): B a t t l e s   f o u g h t   a n d   t h e   i n t e r n e t   ( 2 0 1 6 -   ) L e a h   R e m i n i :   S c i e n t o l o g y   a n d   t h e   A f t e r m a t h   ( T V   s h o w )

>> 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’
		Dianetics vs. Scientology
			(Includes: Dianetics, medical treatments, and ‘promises’...)
	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)
	‘Keeping Scientology Working’  (on separate page)
		The matter of ‘Keeping Scientology Working’:  How to go about it & Present-day situation
			(How a technology was lost and how to get it back)

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. It was a program hosted by Frits Bom, they had gone into the church with hidden cameras and such things. As I traveled frequently to Amsterdam, I got these warnings from my father about it. Not that long after that 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 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 bulk of the Scientology parishioners are no exception to this occurrence. 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!

 
Development of a technology

Introduction to a technology ... (1)

A somewhat interesting person is L. Ron Hubbard (13 Mar 1911 / 24 Jan 1986 [official date]). 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, pop-up window). 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 comes under 2 names: Dianetics (addressing the mind, or the physical body if you like) and Scientology (addressing the spirit). These are circumscribed as techniques that would enable you to look at your past. In a sense it is looking at things that reside in your mind this 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. In short these techniques make you aware of what is found in your mind and how this interacts with your present life. You regain analytical control over these with help of this person referred to as the auditor*. Scientology also does offer this 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 this Scientology thing 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 found 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.

“That mind which understands itself is the mind of a free man.”          LRH (from book ‘Dianetics 55!’ (1955))

 
‘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

(video clip begins slightly later than transcript) “No, psychoanalysis, they lay back—don't associate Scientology with such people! That's terrible, that's bad manners, you know. I mean that business about sex and all that sort of thing. ... But that's psychotherapy. That's for the neurotic or the person who is insane or something like that. It has nothing to do with Scientology. Scientology is for an able guy like you, or like me, able to function in life, able to make his own way, does his work and so forth. All right, that's the man that should be helped. That's the man you should help out, because that fellow is having a hard time and he's got his problems. Now, if you put him in a position where his intelligence is up to handling his problems, where his ability to confront life is increased, you'll find out that he is bettered, he can better his environment, he can take care of his family better, he can do his job better, he can live better and so forth. And that's all we want in Scientology. The insane, and so forth, somebody else can have them. They've already failed.”          LRH

 
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 fast-paced 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.

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

• The interviewer, Mr. Tony Hitchman
• Sections of text removed from the 2006 DVD release
• Translated in 72 languages
• Additional left out information worthwhile knowing and copyright notice

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).

 
The interviewer, Mr. Tony Hitchman

Sound snippet

 
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).

Sound snippet

Sound snippet

Sound snippet

 
Translated in 72 languages

 
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 aim to broadcast it. It does carry some weight in the scale to know the background of it, what was happening at the time, enabling the listener to understand 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.

 
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 something that resembles that. So what about it?

The goal of the subject matter of Scientology can be said to be to make a person aware of these filters and give him a means enabling him or facilitating to remove these. An uncoordinated belief about something will instead nourish and maintain these filters.

	“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 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)

 
Dianetics vs. Scientology
(Includes:  Dianetics, medical treatments, and ‘promises’...)

It is my intent to touch upon some essentials in regards to doing things in a proper sequence. And to reflect on a basic flaw in thinking about cures.

Why do we have Dianetics and Scientology? Well, first there was Dianetics (1950) and then there was Scientology (1952).

	“Dianetics is Dianetics and Scientology is Scientology.
	They are separate subjects. They have in common certain tools like the E-Meter, TRs and auditor presence. But there it ends.
	Dianetics addresses the body. Scientology addresses the thetan.
	While a thetan can produce illness, it is the body that is ill.
	Thus Dianetics is used to knock out and erase illnesses, unwanted sensations, misemotion, somatics, pain, etc. Scientology and its grades are never used for such things.
	Scientology is used to increase spiritual freedom, intelligence, ability, to produce immortality.
	To mix the two has been a very bad error.
	Dianetics came before Scientology. It disposed of body illness and the difficulties a thetan was having with his body. This was a Present Time Problem to the thetan. In the presence of a PTP no case gain results (an old discovery).
	When a thetan has body discomfort or upset solved, he could then go on with what he really wanted which were the improvements to be found in Scientology.”          LRH (from HCOB 22 Apr 69 “Dianetics vs Scientology”)

Dianetics, medical treatments, and ‘promises’...

(from ‘L. Ron Hubbard: An Introduction to Scientology’ (1966)) “When you know the basics of human existence and so forth, you could apply them in almost any sphere. For instance, a great many people think that Scientology does medical treatment and so forth, simply because people who are processed and so on tend to get well and recover from certain illnesses. That's a secondary action. A person who is able, of course, is more able physically also. However, when a person turns up who is ill and so forth, we just send him to the doctor. We are not interested in treating human illness. Interviewer: You said it could help certain illnesses, though. What kind of illnesses? Oh, it is not—it is not in actual fact a medical treatment. So to say what illnesses it helped and so forth would be—well, if a person has psychosomatic illnesses and that sort of thing, they'd tend to fall away as he increases his ability. But this is no treatment of those illnesses.”          LRH

	“Psycho, of course, refers to mind and somatic refers to body; the term psycho-somatic means the mind making the body ill or illnesses which have been created physically within the body by derangement of the mind. Naturally such diseases, when one has resolved the problem of human aberration, become uniformly susceptible to cure.
	Arthritis, dermatitis, allergies, asthma, some coronary difficulties, eye trouble, bursitis, ulcers, sinusitis, etc. form a very small section of the psycho-somatic catalogue. Bizarre aches and pains in various portions of the body are generally psycho-somatic. Migraine headaches are psycho-somatic and, with the others, are uniformly cured by dianetic therapy. (And the word cured is used in its fullest sense.)”          LRH

Now, where do you seek to go for your exact physical uncomfortabilities?

I once received Standard Dianetics and after running some things, and I had gone out of session, went outside, I suddenly noticed I was able to see very sharp at great distance. This was in the Seattle area and there were mountains far off, which outlines appeared very clear to me. Prior to this Dianetic session this was always a blur. I don't even know what in the session did this, but it is still with me...

Are you getting it...?

The source of the name of ‘Scientology’ (1)

• A short history as seen from the publications
• ‘Scientologie’ by A. Nordenholz

 
A short history as seen from the publications

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 circa 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:

	‘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.”

 
‘Scientologie’ by A. Nordenholz

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.’.

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 website domain appears registered on 2 December 1995. I still have a printout from that website dated Thursday, 19 September 1996. The basic background information and text of the publication found today on the website 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.

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).

	“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 argument has no point.” (also found reprinted in ‘Ability 158’, Feb 64)

	“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

	“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.”

	“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

	“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

	“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

The founding of the ‘Church of Scientology’ and its ‘Creed’

• Founding of the Church  (includes some notes about the ‘Mother Church’)
• The ‘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)

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

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).

The documentation is there, it seems that it can not be claimed that L. Ron Hubbard founded the subject but not the church (=cofounded). 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 (=cofounded) 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 ’90s 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 persons were mislead because of this stamp that appears on Executive Directives such as LRH EDs and SO EDs (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!

	“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 Feb 1954, apparently this was in error as the 1992 edition of ‘What Is Scientology?’ corrected this founding date into 28 Jan 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

	“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.”

It appears that this change was incorporated on November 1981 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).”.

 
The ‘Creed’

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)

	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.”

L. Ron Hubbard about ‘My Philosophy’ (some quotations)

“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:

     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 PLs not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BPLs. By 1980 all BPLs had been revoked.
     Bridge, The:
1. The route to Clear, the bridge, which we call the Clasification, Gradation and Awareness Chart. On the right side of the chart there are various steps called the states of release. The left-hand side of the chart describes the very important steps of training on which one gains the knowledge and abilities necessary to deliver the grades of release to another. It is a guide for the individual from the point where he first becomes dimly aware of a Scientologist or Scientology and shows him how and where he should move up in order to make it. (The Auditor 107 ASHO)  2. A term originating in early Dianetics days to symbolize travel from unkowingness to revelation. (Auditor 72 ASHO)
     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)
     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)
     thetan:
1. The living unit we call, in Scientology, a thetan, that being taken from the Greek letter theta, the mathematic symbol used in Scientology to indicate the source of life and life itself. (Ability Magazine 1)  2. The person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind, or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The thetan is most familiar to one and all as you. (Auditor 25 UK)