Possibly Helpful Advice

Including what we found in Scientology before it became a cult

A New Spiritual Technology for the 21st Century?

Why is this needed?

After 30 years of using LRH’s auditing and administrative technology, I am ready for some spiritual technology that works more reliably for a wider range of people and has less potential for destroying lives.

I have seen highly motivated PCs who never were able to address what they wanted to address because the Bridge defined by LRH was pretty much a one-size-fits-all proposition. Too many people I know got to their OT levels and never handled what they came into Scientology to handle.

I had some great wins receiving and using Ron’s auditing technology but I saw too many cases where I was prevented from helping others because applying LRH tech could conceivably make them worse.

The main reason for identifying “illegal PCs” is to protect the church against litigation. This may be good for the church but it denies gains to many who could benefit from some help.

I am beginning to see that there are alternatives to LRH tech which do not have the same liabilities because they don’t present the same risks to the individual receiving them.

From personal experience I can say with certainty that the Tech and its delivery has gone to hell since the early 1980s. As a result, I can understand the certainty that some have about the Tech not working on them or the people they know.

How did we get by up to this point?

I was extremely fortunate to have received auditing starting in 1976 from a lot of different auditors and I had stable gains from my auditing all the way up to the OT levels. It wasn’t until I got to Flag that I began to see auditors who go solid when I would originate something beyond their reality.

Good auditors and spot-on CSing were the exception, not the rule, at Flag.

The auditor presence was so ethics-officer oriented that it actually inhibited communicating anything significant in session.

An auditor who is actually there for the PC and is adept at two-way comming situations that come up is usually able to work around processes that were not biting or were wrongly programmed. Unfortunately those good people left the organization when the GAT garbage began.

The rigidity of current tech application coupled with the robotic TRs that are now in vogue makes for a disastrous combination that invalidates a PCs knowingness.

I spent 20 years in the chair delivering Scientology auditing and found that in the years I audited in Class V and Advanced orgs that  I spent too much time battling CSes on behalf of the PC. Auditing at my mission was far more effective because we cared more about our PCs than arbitrary stats.

The Bridge is a hodge-podge of actions that were assembled on the run by LRH to handle problems that came up. In many cases, he based entire rundowns on his own case or a unique situation.

It is no wonder that his one-size-fits-all approach does not work on all PCs. The miracle is that is worked on as many as it did!

What would make for a better future technology?

The future lies in a more open source approach to refining and replacing LRH’s duct-taped Bridge with processes that play to the PCs knowingness and validate the being, not the bank.

I think we will see a growing interest in all of the new independent developments that have appeared since the church morphed into a monolithic cult.

I have been researching them and feel that there is a place for all of them whether the service mimics early Scientology, or follows more innovative paths like Idenics, Knowledgism, or Paul’s Robot Auditor.  There are many more that competent people are working on.

Now that the CofS is doing a Titanic, it is time to get our best and brightest auditors working on solutions that will do the following:

- Must be deliverable in a way that puts the PC at cause

- Should be deliverable by telephone or webcam connection when needed.

- Must be tailored to address what the PC wants handled and nothing else.

- Must not overpower the “minds protection”.

- Should not require years of training to become a competent practitioner and produce repeatable results.

There are more, but this is a start. I think we need to stop cursing the darkness and light a few candles.

Finally, we should not go around attacking efforts to accomplish the above.

There is no Gold Standard to measure new efforts against. The “Gold Standard” that existed in the CofS produced sheep, not lions and these poor souls were no match for Miscavige or for LRH in his declining and degraded years.

Proof of that is that many of our “best and brightest” have agreed to spend the last few years as prisoners at the Gold golf course and concentration camp.  Prior to that LRH was not able to use his own technology to prevent himself from falling into a degraded condition from which he could not be rescued.

These are not signs of a technology that frees beings. These are indicators that something is dreadfully wrong with or missing from the technology we were trained in.

We have more horsepower in the field than ever before. It’s time we started linking up and using our experience to develop technologies that will carry out the promise we expected from Scientology.


Fellow Traveller  on January 23rd, 2010

I am sure I will have more to say later. But for now, I put forward the results of my own personal battles regarding KSW: The philosophy has never wavered. The axioms and codes are solid. Hell, I was reading someplace a “deprogrammer” regimen. They used the auditor’s code! The technology portion is where scn and Ron have had issues. I cannot find where those (axioms, codes, etc) were compromised or altered. Even Ron said he was the great organizer or compiler at some point. Something like that. And while he was operating on the philosophical foundations of the subject, reports are that he was a joy to be around. A scoundrel perhaps, but one who was enjoying life and apparently it was contagious. So, as long as we maintain adherence to the philosophic foundations, are we not actually in accordance with KSW? The spirit of it anyhow. (Yes I wrote all this for that really bad pun!)

Fellow Traveller  on January 24th, 2010

Fair use quote from Lafayette: “People look on this as being ‘my science’. Yeah, I own all of your postulates. I bought them one day at a raffle. Like the devil I did! About the only thing, as I told you the other day, that I have done is organize and put together, and maybe I can look a little bit better than anybody else has been looking for a long time, and so I can see it. But if you can see it, well , so help me Pete, it’s yours. Got that?”

From LRH tape lecture 1MACC-26 of 25 Nov 59, titled “Individuation”.

alex  on January 26th, 2010

“…. or follows more innovative paths like Idenics, Knowledgism, or Paul’s Robot Auditor.”

I’ve had an Idenics session. And interacted with Knowledgists. Perhaps it is true that the ratio of good products to bad is not 100% with scientology technology, but there are products out there in number to evaluate by. Not so with those other two “ics and isms”. Knowledgists are a most secretive bunch, hiding their activities as corporate coaching, and performance enhancement, and not acknowledging the degree their technology is basic scientology as learned by Alan Walter before his schism with Hubbard.

Idenics seems to be dianetics run solely on the identity component of incidents. Knowledgism is scientology and gpm technology targeted at material success rather than spiritual. The knowledgists always seem to tout some discovery of Alan Walter, that was documented before in Hubbards materials.

Do we need a new technology? Or qual on a workable one.

Unusual solutions are a sign of lack of understanding.


OldAuditor  on January 26th, 2010

I think you make some interesting points and you have at least tested the waters.

I haven’t tested the waters since my 33 yrs in Scientology, but I think that Hubbard’s materials have not stood the test of time very well on their own.

When LRH was alive and engaged, there was some shifting of priorities and actions to handle situations as they came up. Since he has passed on, we are seeing what technology on autopilot produces.

- OTs that no longer can think for themselves and meekly submit to the most degrading existence imaginable.

- A madman in charge who can steamroller all efforts to contain him because LRH policies do not allow input from those below the top echelons.

- A money-mad organization that thrives on emotional blackmail and exerts enough pressure on Scientologists that they routinely commit financial overts.

- OTs under so much stress that they are subjects of pity, not admiration.

You suggest qual actions on a workable technology. Did you have one in mind?

My take on it is that most alternative solutions have already found parts of the technology that are workable and are doing what is neccesary to make them as reliable as possible. The fact that they are derivations or offshoots of Dianetics or Scientology processes makes them no less valid.

LRH did not invent or create the technology, but adapted and modified the work of many others. Once he had a large organization, he spawned many different research projects and took the results he needed at the time. There were several promising lines of research that he abandoned because he didn’t have the time or attention units to spare as he was fighting battles on many different fronts at the same time.

As time went on, he didn’t even have time to take care of his own case and I’m sure that contributed to his poor state of mind at the end.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the proof of a spiritual technology is in the products it produces.

We have a huge package of ethics, auditing, and administrative technology which produces downstats, ruined lived, psychotics, suicides, murderers, and demoralized staff members and public.

Scientology is considered to be the Yugo “Iron Maiden” of psychological counseling techniques, a laughingstock for much of the worlds population, and is the best example I know of a “broken brand”.

It is hard to consider alternatives to Scientology “unusual solutions”. The “unusual solution” today is going on hoping that scientology will work if we only give it “more time”.

There is a definition of insanity that involves doing things over and over again in the hopes of getting a different result.

You spend your time fixing scientology. I would rather spend my time taking the parts that work (about 15-30%) and building something new.

alex  on January 26th, 2010

Many good points and not any I would care to disagree with.

And you are not alone in wishing at least to “clean up”, streamline or refine “the tech”.


My opinion is based more on the idea that many if not all of the basic concepts have already been codified in the scientology tech.

And on top of that the current perversion of the bridge by current and past management, have left us in a bad position.

Its like the tools are strewn all over the shop floor, rather than a lack of tools.

LRH did a good job of organizing them into a workable system, that has been degraded.

I see value in “it” all being under one name, a homogenous collection, not bits of things strewn all over. That is part of the workability. Others contributions…..hurt egos by his usurping?

But if you want some other solutions, I’ve been off the ranch, scientology wise, and have seen things that have promise.

I am a fan of Gangaji, a blond woman from the American south, who has a simple message that seems to have some efficacy…

I use Monroe Institute audio technology to drive my brain waves into meditative states…

I want to learn Matrix Energetics just for the fun it would be at parties…(for kicks watch some of the youtubes of it, http://www.matrixenergetics.com/Videos.aspx then watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvU-DislkI …. and this…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVIPF_PmHuQ )

As I said I tried Idenics, and spent too much time looking into Knowledgism, (though never practiced it). But LRH’s scientology is still the best compilation of workable stuff.

By all means build your own version. Many many others have…yet somehow they either migrate back to “scientology” (Ralph Hilton for example) or give up.

You say “…taking the parts that work (about 15-30%)”… and if I have understood this right, it would imply 70-85% doesnt work?

I don’t see that. Only bad application….non application etc.

again imo.

Perhaps scientology the church is the Yogo….but Sarge Gerbode seemed to adapt it well into the contemporary Psychology scene in a very recognizable form… http://www.tir.org/ TIR and Metapsychology are both accepted academically and fairly analogous to standard dianetics and scientology.

If by “scientology not working”, you are commenting on the church….well never mind. Thats not working at all. No arguement. They are an implant station. (of which I am still a member in good standing….)


alex  on January 26th, 2010

Perhaps a useful exercise would be for you to identify the 70-85% of the tech you feel does not work even if applied correctly.

That could be a though provoking blog post.

Old Auditor  on January 26th, 2010

You use the phrase “even if applied correctly”. What good is a policy letter or bulletin if it is not applied at all by those in charge?

How many HCOBs and HCOPLs are being ignored every day by Int Mgmt?

We could start a “discard list” by identifying all of the policies written or rewritten by Miscavige and include the Golden Age of Tech material as well. :)

In my next post on Word Clearing I point out the results of early Policies and HCOBs that invalidate knowingness.

There is almost too much of this to count once you start looking in other areas of church activity.

Look at the policies on Comm Evs and other justice actions and see if any of that works as it should.

I think it would be more useful to identify and list the tech that produces uniformly excellent results and build on that.

This would exclude all HCOBs and HCOPLs that cannot be executed as written or are not being executed as written.

I reread your comment and see that you are still in “good standing”. I wonder how long you will be able to maintain that condition. It has gotta be a strain on all of your dynamics. If there is anything I can do to assist you, please do not hesitate to ask.

alex  on January 27th, 2010

Well thank you for the offer of help!

I don’t insist that any HCOB or HCOPL can be applied to a good result in isolation from the whole of the system that is scientology.

Many of both are conditional on many others.

The one abberration I see most dramatized in the church is the lack of evaluation of importances.

The notion that if LRH said it, it must be true.

Not true in certain situations as described earlier in the tech, or conditioned upon other elements not mentioned in that specific issue, but just plain true.

That is an A=A.

Lot of that going on in the church.

It is my opinion that the problem lies in the people acting on tech and policy rather than the concepts and actions they call for.

And the root of this is the same “case” elements that effect us in life.

The solution seems to be to persist on our course as much as possible rather than go off looking for new solutions.

Corrrect the church, not fight it and abandon it. We created it after all!

I dont have hard feelings for people who want to explore, do their own research, but I have drank of the KSW coolaid….


Thanks for your continuing interaction on this subject.

(I have been in good standing with the church since 1975, with a couple years in there where I was not, but I remain so now as it is my belief that who I comm with should be my choice)

Mike  on January 27th, 2010

First off, thanks for doing this blog. I like it very much.

Your posting brings to mind a point I have been thinking about a lot lately. It is amazing that anyone who has received services in the church in the last 30 years and left would still be interested in scientology. Especially anyone who has only known the GAT version.

Let’s face it, the majority of those who are leaving the church in droves will need extensive reviews of their auditing and if not retraining at least untraining of flawed ideas they may have. As one example of this — Hubbard’s definition of an F/N as opposed to DM’s.

How successful can ones auditing be if you are not receiving it in a safe space? Or your auditor is afraid to call an F/N for fear if it is wrong he will be put in a lower condition?

I would think that a SHSBC grad or a VIII would know enough to handle the pc in front of him with no regard to stats, regging, or a carved in stone grade chart. Put a pc on a program to handle HIS case. I thought that was standard tech.

I think that using KSW without the bullshit “only one” parts might be a good idea. The process didn’t work? Well then, what did you do? Get that corrected first, thoroughly, then and only then look into other solutions.

I’m afraid with all the charge that many may have on retraining and retreading anyone delivering outside of the church will run into a few ridges with their new public. A Scn. Correction List would be a really good idea. Those who went to Flag and got their Grades in a week may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

I could go on here, but I think you get my point.

Oh, and alex, thank you for the link to the posting by Ken, I hadn’t seen it before.

alex  on January 27th, 2010

Ken is a nifty fellow. I am a big fan of his since reading his rebuttal to Jon Attak’s “A Piece of Blue Sky”.


He seems unafraid of honesty. And generous in his appreciation of his fellow man.

Fellow Traveller  on January 28th, 2010

The Pilot has done quite a bit of work regarding scn. His superscio/self clearing work does seem to include what the formal co$ regards as confidential. My guess as it’s above my formal education. Link:
There is an earlier work by him called superscio which has some interesting info regarding what is and what is not scn.

alex  on January 28th, 2010

Just to be clear, the Ken I was referring to was Ken Urquhart, Not Ken Ogger.

Ken Urquhart is both still alive, and continues to help others with his skills as well as being the nifty fellow as previously described by me.

But my fav Pilot (Ken Ogger) stuff is: http://www.freezoneearth.org/pilot/reformer.html (sort of in the vein of ” http://www.friendsoflrh.org/ “)


Maria  on January 30th, 2010

Over a period of 35 years, I’ve done the grade chart auditing up to new OT4.

I did my bridge honestly and fully. No quickie grades, no brush-offs on objectives, thorough and complete PTS actions when needed. The gains were fantastic. FANTASTIC.

I cannot tell you how many times I have had to tell the D of P. NO I have nothing I “want handled,” I just want to do the grade chart auditing.

I cannot tell you how many times I have told an auditor, this repair does not indicate to me. I don’t want it. I want to do the grade chart, not repair.

I cannot tell you how many times I have taken out of town work so that I could truthfully tell C of S staff that I am not a PHYSICAL location near to an org and therefore cannot come to numerous events, be on course all the time, be IN THE ORG whenever I am not working. It was and still is the only way I could handle the insane pressure and push for MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE.

What I saw happening all around me was a headlong rush to get through actions as quickly as possible with maximum attention on how much it was all costing. The attention is focused on money, not on gains.

Of course, each time people ran out of money they had to go off to make more and when they came back most of the auditing they bought was chewed up on sec checks, repairs and returns. NO GRADE CHART ACTIONS fully completed.

I have seen grown men cry when they realized they would not have enough hours paid for to make any progress at all on the grade chart.

Add to this the CONSTANT push by the CofS to get people on OT7, hurry, hurry, hurry with scant attention to the full gains available on the lower bridge.

Followed by having to go back and do the lower bridge to be able to finish the upper bridge.

No auditor training, no co-audits, poor or badly done PTS handlings and ethics handlings and on top of it CONSTANT pressure to make money and simultaneously come in to the org. Utter madness and a recipe for present time problems that destroy all gains.

At the bottom of it?

a) Prices set so high that no one can get anywhere quickly enough to get beyond the day to day problems of living and making enough money to afford to even do the bridge.

b) PTS condition resulting from continual invalidation by the C of S because one cannot make that money fast enough AND be on course every day AT THE SAME TIME. Out and out invalidation. Comments like: you are pathetic. Make it go right. You are out-ethics for not being on course, on services, in the org. IN THE ORG, IN THE ORG, IN THE ORG. COME IN TO THE ORG. What insanity makes being present IN THE ORG such a valuable thing. I’ll tell you — the statistic BODIES IN THE SHOP.

The combination of headlong rush to OT, high high prices and constant demand to give more and be IN THE ORG for services at all times creates a present time problem and PTS situation that destroys gains, isolates people from the rest of the world and puts them in state of living that allows for no expansion of an individual in any area except what the C/S orders.

The technology of auditing works great, but you HAVE TO DO THE GRADE CHART AUDITING!!!!!!!!!

The clinker in the woodpile is the insane actions of staff members frantic to keep their statistics up and obey command intention to make 10,000 OTs NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW.

Thought provoking  on January 31st, 2010

My auditing has been quite sporadic but always done intensively. Although my actual progress up the grade chart has been at a very gradual pace, I have been fortunate to have received very good delivery in all of the auditing I’ve had since the mid 80’s. It is the sheer power of how auditing can rapidly change case state that has sold me on auditing’s workability and it is why I know that I will continue to pursue SCIENTOLOGY tech, even outside of the church.

I credit the success of my auditing to really understanding the PC’s role and to having auditors with excellent comm formulas. All of my auditors were spot on, catching the changes that occurred, 2way comming at the right time and great granting of beingness…every single one of them.

LRH said that Scientology is a workable technology. My experience has shown this is true and the results have been amazing. If I never got another session this lifetime, I would not be disappointed, my auditing has been that good.

For those who have not been as lucky as I have, full correction lists and correct programming should be done.

I agree with Marie’s assesment on the many outpoints that are occuring in the church. These all are correctable without altering the basic tech. Fix these first, then look at the results PC to PC.

I am hoping that, as people start opening their eyes to what is really going on in the church they will also see one fundamental error in each of us that has contributed to the collapse of the church. We failed to keep in the basic purpose to help others.

When a person joins staff they want to contribute to the workability of the tech. Somewhere they had some big win or case change that showed them Scientology is a way out and should be supported. When management started creating arbitraries, this was the start to an altered purpose (continuous price increases, event attendees, fundraising, recruit events and buildings). We supported management by complying with them. We failed to keep in the basic purpose of Scientology, the same purpose that made us reach for it in the first place, to improve the conditions of people in life. I find it difficult to state the tech doesn’t work, when it has been so altered from its origin.

If we could each walk away from this whole debacle with the correct purpose, great delivery and a cessasion of off purpose activities (events, buildings etc.), then I think getting the tech correctly applied will be fairly easy. We already have the technology to correct every auditor and supervisor. Before we modify the tech, let’s get it done correctly and see what the true results are.

Leave a Comment

Total number of pages read by visitors: