Congruence

Excerpt from upcoming book Clear and Beyond:

The fundamental two-way communication process that all scientology methodology derives its workability from existed before L. Ron Hubbard ever wrote a word on the subject of the mind.  All of its components were developed, far beyond the degree of sophistication that scientology ever treated them, while Hubbard was still engaged in black magik rituals in Pasadena.  They were perhaps best explained and demonstrated in Rogerian client-centered therapy.  It would behoove scientologists to study of it.  The best place to start would be On Becoming a Person by Carl R. Rogers (Houghton Mifflin, 1961).

What made Hubbard popular initially with publication of Dianetics was his simplifying and codifying critical principles of client-centered therapy thus potentially opening the process of self-actualization to far more people.   Hubbard himself has acknowledged that Dianetics’ fad-like initial appeal rested largely on the promise of taking therapy out of the hands of professionals and putting it into the living rooms of lay people.  Much of that particular appeal was lost as dianetics and its progeny scientology became more mass-production oriented, expensive, exclusive, and cult-like.  Not surprisingly, those negative developments can be traced to dianetics’ and scientology’s attempts to short-cut vital client-centered therapy principles in the first place.

The more failure in producing a confident, independent-minded, self-determined client, the more Hubbard introduced personality control mechanisms.  That is probably the most cardinal of sins imaginable in actual client-centered philosophy.  With pressure to deliver on dianetics’ original promises of immediate and permanent results, the training of practitioners became an assembly-line like activity.  On the one hand that helped to thoroughly crash train some workable skills, while on the other hand it omitted a more contemplative, intellectual appreciation for the agencies at work that actually create a desired effect and the responsibilities that go with such practice.

For example, for all the effectiveness of the training regimens instituted to teach the skills of counselor communication in scientology, perhaps the most important client-centered counseling ability was not only omitted but the opposite was trained in.  That is congruence.  Congruence is the term Rogers uses to describe the counselor’s natural ability to fully and comfortably be himself without imposing himself upon the client.  Congruence is being oneself as a person and not attempting to conceal it by creation of a façade, even a null one as trained in by scientology.  By establishing congruence the client has the security of the sense of knowing exactly where the counselor stands at any given moment.  Without congruence he does not.  That is critical in establishing the conditions necessary for self-actualization.

In contrast, scientology drills congruence out of a counselor to the point he can become a blank personality or a synthetic one.  Scientologists are even shown films depicting how they should ‘act’ (the ‘beingness’ they are expected to assume) as an auditor.   That is in keeping with its teaching that the way to achieve something is as simple as be, do, have.  That is, figure out the personality traits of someone who has what you want, then act them out as you do as he or she does, and before you know it you will have the fruits you sought.  Sincerity and genuineness (read congruence) are not included in the equation.   Certainly there have been mavericks within scientology who have had the courage or sense to be themselves as counselors.  And their results reflected that.  But, every single one of them was eventually caught up with and either expelled from the ranks or converted into a play-acting automaton by scientology’s policing arms.  This presages later chapters where we analyze in more depth the manifold ways in which scientology creates conforming, compliant minds.

172 responses to “Congruence

  1. I only want to say my favorite auditors I ever had were congruent.

  2. I totally agree with the concept that you should be yourself – your real self – when working with, helping, or just being with other people. I have seen many, many cases in Scientology where people donned some other, unnatural, personality when doing their work, whether it be as auditor, reg, ethics officer, or division head.

  3. Like I always say, “Nothing that a good Rogering wouldn’t straighten out!”

    Sincerely though, that is why I like guys like Trey Lotz. He is truly sincere and genuine (and has his Act One in too!) and for that I am truly grateful. If more possessed just this one quality(congruence), the world would be a much better place.

    • One can not be totally themselves while still following Hubbard. One may have left the church, but the church hasn’t left you.

      Think about these words. You are not free if you are still under Hubbard’s spell. There is no bridge. No Clears. No Guru called LRH.

      If you are still holding the cans you are not you. You are under mind control.

      If you are still auditing you are under mind control. I do not care how great your auditor is. If he is freezone, indie, Milestone2 or in the church he is only following what ” The emperor who has no clothes” set up to control you.

      Here is a real master at work. Actually 2 masters. Please watch it is very enlightening . Thank you.

  4. At San Francisco Org we had an old guy, an original Dianeticist, named Jack Spears. Congruent describes him perfectly. When appropriate, he had great acks like, “Sounds like your life has just turned to shit!”

  5. It will be an interesting exercise to go back to the Original Thesis of Dianetics and start deleting from it all that doesn’t work, to see what did work and how congruence played a part in that.

  6. The following passage from Wikipedia provides an insight into the concept of congruence:

    Rogers identified the “real self” as the aspect of one’s being that is founded in the actualizing tendency, follows organismic valuing, needs and receives positive regard and self-regard. It is the “you” that, if all goes well, you will become. On the other hand, to the extent that our society is out of sync with the actualizing tendency, and we are forced to live with conditions of worth that are out of step with organismic valuing, and receive only conditional positive regard and self-regard, we develop instead an “ideal self”. By ideal, Rogers is suggesting something not real, something that is always out of our reach, the standard we cannot meet. This gap between the real self and the ideal self, the “I am” and the “I should” is called incongruity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers#Incongruence
    .

    • Vinaire,
      I really like Marty’s post on this subject and you have added in an interesting discussion point.

      Here is a quotation from Marty:
      “Congruence is being oneself as a person and not attempting to conceal it by creation of a façade, even a null one as trained in by scientology. ”

      When I first received auditing around 1972, I wondered briefly about the real intentions of the man in the picture – Hubbard. Since this initial auditing was successful, I fell into “congruence”. I did not know at the time that the man was actually caught in a variety of identities. It all seemed inncocent enough. When I learned about the bad intentions against Paulette Cooper, I dismissed it.
      I think Marty has hit on a very key point in regard to Scientology. Hubbard could not actually be himself because of his conflicting missions. He wanted to save the world as Lucifer, and also be the savior of mankind.
      Most of the upper bridge in Scientology is solo auditing so the role of the outside auditor actually vanishes. The cult like nature of Scientology is at this point well-established.
      You wrote:
      “This gap between the real self and the ideal self, the “I am” and the “I should” is called incongruity.”
      If this is true, Hubbard was one of the most incongruous persons is history.
      His “should” was totally out of control. In the end, I see Hubbard as actually “childlike”. In Catholic school in the 6th grade, Sister Polycarpa explained Lucifer in detail. I still remember it. In 1988, Hubbard announces his great secret mission as Lucifer. Hubbard filled a gap in the society of the 1950-1990 time period. What I find interesting is that he continued with Biblical stories all the way to the end, even describing them as implants.

      George M. White

      • George,

        Thank you for your insightful post. I see congruence tied very closely with Buddha’s mindfulness. That is my favorite topic. My whole blog is built around mindfulness.

        Congruence is being oneself without any filters. The beingness is what you see. It is all natural, flowing effortlessly.

        I was lucky to start in 1969 at the small mission in Camridge, Massachusetts. The people there were quite natural and simple in the New England style. The experience there was quite dizzying that lasted a year or so. I have documented that story in my “Introduction to America” on my Blog. After that I signed the Sea Org contarct and ended up in LA. A year later I was on Apollo.

        I have tried but I haven’t able to document my 12 years of experience in Sea Org (1971 – 1983). It was a very different environment and quite puzzling for me. I am glad that I survived it in one piece with my integrity intact. I am also glad that I mostly stayed away from Hubbard. He was a very angry man. My main interest was knowledge. Attempts were made but I could never get myself to act other than what I was. So, I was fitness boarded out of Sea Org in 1983. I think I lucked out. I did not have to go through the horrendous routing out procedure.

        I never was interested in Hubbard as a man. I was only interested in his writings. And there too I wanted to see how he organized the knowledge from the East and Science from the West. I had some wonderful moments studying Scn 8-8008 and The Phoenix Lectures, but those were my own understandings.

        I had this feeling that Hubbard never understood the Eastern approach. He always looked at it through some Western filter. But that was OK with me. I got what I wanted out of my studies. It didn’t quite match all his ideas but his ideas did inspire me.

        It is interesting for me to find out about him using the framework from the Bible. He was very human after all… a product of his times.

        Vinaire

        • vinaire,
          WOW! Quite an interesting story.

          ” I had this feeling that Hubbard never understood the Eastern approach. He always looked at it through some Western filter”

          I had the same feeling when I read “Hymn of Asia” the first time. Although I never met Hubbard, I was asked in 1972 at the 5th Avenue New York mission if I wanted to join a project on the Apollo. One of my friends took the bait and came back but would not go into details. I later found out that Hubbard was hiding in Queens and that he was not on the Apollo. He later went to Montreal. If I had accepted, I probably would have met him in Queens. I don’t know for sure. Something told me to avoid him.
          When I first read Hubbard, I was astonished at the lack of footnotes and the lack of scholarly attention to detail. His books were so simple that you could read them without any effort. They were to me more strange than anything else.
          I served time in the US Army in Korea from 1969-1970. When I returned, I started at Columbia Business school under the GI Bill. I was stopped on the street in late 1972 and did the communications course. I moved rapidly up the “Bridge” and completed OT VIII on the Freewinds in 1988. When I read Hubbard’s Student Briefing on that course, I could see the weakness in his knowledge of Eastern religion. He had Buddhism confused with the Jains.
          However, that knowledge in itself was not enough to get me out. In the end, it was my face to face meeting with Miscavige. I said to myself: “This being in front of me is the new leader?” I figured if Hubbard could not come up with a real new leader, he had serious flaws in his own understandings. It all fell apart at that exact moment.

          GMW

          • George,

            I have been fascinated by your journey to OT VIII too and the subsequent exploration of Buddhism.

            If you read Eastern authors versus Western Authors on the same subject you’ll find a big difference. The reference point used Eastern authors is “no definition from which all definitions arise.” But the reference point used by Western authors is “a being from whom all things come forth.”

            In general, the Eastern mind has been focused on knowledge, whereas, the Western mind has been focused on self. Of course, there are many exceptions. so please don’t take my labeling too seriously. But there are these are two different foundations that are also mentioned in the TAO OF PHYSICS. The relevant excerpt is documented here.

            Ground State of Universe – History

            I believe that a lot can be learned from Hubbard when one compares his works to other works and focuses on the differences. One can see right away that Hubbard used the reference point of “a being” all along. He was quite consistent in that. He even declared himself as the “source” (basis = a being).

            Buddha’s idea of reincarnation was totally different. Just like there is the disintegration of body into molecules and reintegration of molecules into a new body. Similarly, there is disintegration of self into “spiritual elements” and reintegration of “spiritual elements” into a new self. That is why Buddha talked about non-human reincarnations as well. But Hubbard believed in complete transfer of the self from one body to another as a complete unit. This is squirreling of what is believed in the East about reincarnation.

            Vinaire

            • vinaire,
              Thanks for the affirmation. I checked out your blog and find that you
              are spot on with the analysis of Heraclitus and the later trends which emerged in opposition to him.
              When I was in Thailand in 1970, I went to see a monk at a temple near the largest city. My first question was “What is the definition of Karma?” He replied in perfect English – action. I filed it away and went on with my business. I knew about Heraclitus from college Philosophy class.
              When I got into Scientology, Hubbard was already talking about the thetan.
              This distinction between East and West is very real. I think it took my wife and I almost a dozen years to totally crack the western barrier now based on advanced technology. When I was very active in our local Vihara, the college students especially wanted nothing to do with Theravada. The main reason was always that “technology will save us”. It is the new savior. Students could not accept ancient definitions of matter which did not include CERN.
              However, if one really looks at technology, it is a “double edged sword”.
              We have television and cell phones, but we also have advanced weapons of mass destruction.
              I am looking forward to reading Sam Harris’s book on Buddhism when it is published. He is an athiest and it will be interesting to see how he deals with devas.
              GMW

              • George,

                Thanks for checking out my blog. The word “action” is the literal tranlation of the Sanskrit word “Karma”. It is the force of an action trying to complete its cycle.

                The key distinction between East and West is that West thinks of spirit (Theta) and matter (MEST) in absolute terms, whereas EAST doesn’t. It looks at spirit and matter as relative to each other.

                Let me get your reaction to the following:

                (1) My simple understanding provides me with a one-to-one correspondence between the essence and its form.

                (2) The essence denotes “spirituality” and the form denotes “physicality.”

                (3) “Awareness – light” is one example of this one-to-one correspondence.

                (4) “Self – body” is another example of this one-to-one correspondence.

                (5) Light represents electromagnetic disturbance that condenses to produce energy and matter.

                (6) Awareness represents “perception-recognition” disturbance that condenses to produce consciousness and self.

                (7) Consciousness is the awareness of the configuration and properties.

                (8) An atom has consciousness to the degree it acts as an atom.

                What do you say?
                Vinaire

                • vinaire,
                  I will try to give you my own, hopefully balanced, answer to your question.
                  First of all, I see an original method of combining western science with eastern thought. Secondly, you must understand that I am steeped in the teachings of the Buddha. However, he never had the opportunity to define electricity and electro-magnetism.
                  I don’t think anyone would argue with the definition of form as the physical. You might get some raised eyebrows on the essence is spirituality part. But if that is where you start, so be it. I had to go back to 3 and 4 to fully understand 5 and six. Might be just me.

                  ” (7) Consciousness is the awareness of the configuration and properties.”

                  This can also be seen in a way in the teachings of the Buddha. You must have a base before you can have consciousness.
                  I have tried to give it my best shot.
                  In Theravada, we start with ignorance and move into each level of detail. I am drilled in that method, and it works for me.

                  “(8) An atom has consciousness to the degree it acts as an atom.”
                  This could easily be derived from your analysis. However, you then get into the analysis of electrons. protons, bosons, etc. I don’t get involved in that.

                  GMW

                  • George,

                    I know I threw a lot at you all at once. Let’s just look at point (3) “Awareness – light” is one example of this one-to-one correspondence.

                    My background is Nuclear Engineering. I have a Master’s Degree in this subject from M.I.T. Within months after graduating from M.I.T. I joined Sea Org. By that time I had wonderful wins from Communications Course and Dianetics R3R.

                    Let’s fast forward from 1971 to today. I had given myself the job to investigate the interface between Physics and Metaphysics.

                    (1) I have documented my research into wave phenomenon and the Theory of Relativity on my blog under KHTK Physics.

                    (3) Matter seems to appear at the high frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

                    (4) If we look at matter as the condensation of energy, it appears that the electromagnetic wave condenses as energy and matter as its freqency increases.

                    (5) At very high frequencies the electromagnetic phenomenon is likely to generate fundmental particles, which then coalsce to make atomic particles and atoms, molecules etc.

                    (6) Einstein’s Theory of Relativity takes a matter-centric approach. In other words, it uses “matter” as its frame of reference to study light.

                    (7) What if we take an ether-centric appraoch. In other words, use the lowest frequency of electromagnetic spectrum as our frame of reference from which to look at both light and matter.

                    (8) Thought experiments from this viewpoint have yielded some very interesting results. It shows that the speed of the electromagnetic waves shall depend on its frequency. It predicts that the speed of radio waves shall be much higher than the speed of X-rays.

                    (9) This study led to looking at awareness also as a wave. It seems to awareness is at far lower end of the electromagnetic spectrum.

                    (10) Thus the speed of awareness is way way higher than the speed of light.

                    (11) This study seems to be leading toward the point where the subjects of Physics and Metaphysics might meet.

                    (12) Right now my postulate is that at extremely low frequecies awareness and the electromagnetc phonemonon overlaps each other.

                    (13) It almost seems that awareness is the spiritual aspect and light is the physical aspect of the phenomenon called consciousness.

                    I shall stop here to let you contemplate on it with thought experiments. Don’t worry about the math. I think that wave mechanics can be applied to awareness. But that can come later. Just check what your gut feeling says about this area.

                    Vinaire

                    • vinaire,
                      I think there are three major points which must be investigated in your presentation:
                      1.
                      “(10) Thus the speed of awareness is way way higher than the speed of light”
                      The speed of thought is far greater than the speed of the physical universe.
                      This is accepted as fact ever since the ancient times. The Buddha even used the figure 17 times faster. I think that you see awareness as a disturbance. This probably aligns with the “vibration theory” common in eastern and western thought. The jump to awareness that you are making is
                      by-passing a theory of mind or mentality.

                      2. The fact that you earlier equated spirituality with essence and the physical with form, has not been made clear enough. I think that “spirituality” might be too broad a term. You are getting into philosophy or metaphysics.

                      3. You have not mentioned quantum theory at all. This also needs to be mentioned.

                      GMW

                    • I believe that awareness is the basic “substance” out of which mind and mentality are formed. Details of this model of mind are on my blog.

                      >

      • as you state:

        “Most of the upper bridge in Scientology is solo auditing so the role of the outside auditor actually vanishes. The cult like nature of Scientology is at this point well-established.”

        But what are you auditing as a solo auditor?

        but what hubbard said to audit.

        It’s no difference than self analysis really, the book or author is auditing you, although you think it is self analysis.

        But is it auditing, or what to audit? Evaluation at it’s subtle point.

        Self analysis, hand book for preclears, solo auditing, the bridge, etc,

        is telling one what is wrong with them, and telling them what to audit

        • That is a good point.

          Hubbard worked out the things to audit. They may be right for Hubbard’s case. They may not be the right things for another person. The person should audit only those things that he doesn’t understand about himself (his inconsistencies).

          >

        • I do not think any “Way” is telling anyone “what is wrong” with him. A “Way” is a possible path of development, a possible direction in which to evolve oneself. One is not “wrong” to not follow a particular path, there are other paths one might follow, so it is not necessarily a matter of rightness or wrongness. It is like, which set of muscles do you want to build up in yourself?
          I think many of the complaints about Scientology are that it did not lead some people to the destination they thought they would arrive at – OT, or even Clear as they envisioned it, and as LRH presented it. So it became a question of, Where does this “Road” really lead?
          And I think even within the entire Scientology domain, through time and in different places, there are and have been many roads leading to different places for different people.
          Well, now that I’ve clarified THAT….. 🙂

  7. Figure out the personality traits of someone who has what you want, then act them out as she or he does to get what you want. What is wrong wiyh this picture? Well…… for one thing it keeps you from realizing who really are. It is a lie and when your life is based on a lie all kinds of ” interesting” problems will arise for you, most of them not to your liking. I know as I have tried this. Happily I am on a more truth providing journey now. Great book “On becoming a person”

  8. Clear and beyond , oh interesting wounder where it stops, or where Marty may think it ends or does it end , boots in the sky.

  9. Well written and interesting, I was very fortunate like Anita to have very natural and very present auditors.i thiNk now from what I hear isn’t the case.

  10. When I read Homer’s “The Odyssey” the scene where Ulysses’ son goes to the forum in his little community, seeking advice, that human activity of seeking smarter wiser people’s advice, seems so long range human.

    Our internet chat sites are in line with human history social arrangements where young people go seek out wiser advice on life.

    Hugh Urban’s recent book on Scientology is a good summary of almost everything Hubbard drew upon to make his Scientology subject.

    The two way comm arrangement is just asking and getting back answers, via a two person arrangement.

    Hubbard’s “self analysis” was a person doing it with themselves, also Hubbard’s “Handbook for Preclears” has some single person asking themselves general process like questions.

    This whole human activity of seeking out answers, the moment of the listening is just part of that cycle, which the Scientology auditors play that listener role. While the Scientologist member supposedly comes up with their own answers.

    I concluded, after a zillion hours of Hubbard two way comm auditing received, that going out and seeking out, via books, via the internet today, answers, is just so way much more fruitful than banging around in one’s own imagination (past lives) or the imaginary lives of own’s body thetans’ imaginary “cases” which somehow relate back to one’s problems!

    Listening, reading, watching the outside world’s other people’s conclusions about everything beats the Scientology auditing method in my opinion!

  11. This blog post helped me resolve some of the INcongruity about scientology itself! I see now that there is a fundamental importance in the “congruence” of the auditor – yet it wasn’t until 1980 that LRH isolated and wrote about it (in essence) in the bulletin “Auditor Beingness.” And, apparently, he never did give it the emphasis it should have been given.

    Whenever I’ve tried to figure out where scientology succeeded and where it failed, the closest I could come was in observing that experienced auditors were what generally made the difference – and now it seems clear that it’s because they had become CONGRUENT in their auditor beingness.

    When LRH wrote the bulletin “Auditor Beingness,” he even admitted that it “hasn’t been stated quite this way before.” After just now reviewing the issue, I would say that to me auditor beingness could be summed up as an ATTITUDE toward the pc that is both EFFICACIOUS and CONGRUOUS. Here’s the last part of the bulletin:

    —————————————

    “Your beingness as an auditor is something you yourself must DECIDE upon. It’s a step to be taken when you are certain of your auditing basics. It could be done in minutes or it could require hours or days. But if you take a look at all of this data and apply it, you actually could simply decide ‘What is my beingness as an auditor?’ and ‘Exactly what is my attitude toward pcs?’ and your beingness as an auditor might suddenly go click. Your attitude then will fall comfortably into place, and that will be reflected in your TRs.

    “These are the skills you need to acquire. But it is basic simplicities you are after, as I have described them here.

    “I’ve given you an analysis of the scene that hasn’t been stated quite this way before. It begins with certainty on technical basics, TRs and metering. It’s then a matter of assuming an auditor beingness which comes across in your attitude. At that point your TRs, already well drilled, can be brought up easily to a point of flawlessness.

    “And from there it’s a short step to your pcs, each and every one, interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor.”
    —————————————
    (HCOB 10 Apr 1980)

    The whole bulletin can be found here: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/2188

    • QED, although you are clearly incapable/unwilling to understand why I would respond like that. Incidentally, just one of the more important flat out falsehoods I noted in a quick perusal of the bulletin: “But there is not a psychoanalyst in the business who ever heard of TR 2. You want to know how someone being analyzed can sit there and talk for hours and hours on the same subject? Obviously the psychoanalyst’s TR 2 is out because he’s making the pc overrun. And all the psychiatrists know how to do is give the person another pound of tranquilizers or electric shock. That is lousy TR 2. It is not even a substitute.” On Becoming A Person will demonstrate that Hubbard and scientology so butchered and mechanized the acknowledgment as to make auditing a somewhat hypnotic process.

      • “On Becoming A Person will demonstrate that Hubbard and scientology so butchered and mechanized the acknowledgment as to make auditing a somewhat hypnotic process.”

        You may not believe it but I would actually be willing and able to look at what Rogers wrote about that and consider it with an open mind. Please direct me to the relevant part of the book and I will read it right away.

      • Not to mention the very first line quoted shows the very problem in Scientology Marty touched on in his post.

        “Your beingness as an auditor is something you yourself must DECIDE upon.”

        • I am a good auditor. I know my TR’s well and I am sure my PC’s will vouch for it, but I would never train higher than Class VI in the RCS. You can’t get anywhere auditing in the church. All an ED has to do is find out that you are a “good auditor” and the “unusual requests” start pouring in. Altered C/S’s, omitted actions to save time and money, keying in upstats, and the whole 9 yards. It is enough to make a person sick.🙂

    • ““I’ve given you an analysis of the scene that hasn’t been stated quite this way before. It begins with certainty on technical basics, TRs and metering.” ~ LRH (as quoted by Marildi)

      The latter part of the above statement is what I would call ADDITIVE. The appropriate beingness required of a person who is helping another has nothing to do with TRs and metering. That wrong emphasis has prevented the development of congruence by making auditing so mechanical.

      .

      ________________________________

      • It depends on how you understand TR0. I was taught it meant “being there”. Taken literally, it means YOU are there – not some decided upon and assumed beingness. YOU, with your full attention on the student and in two-way comm with him/her, not with any attention on yourself.
        THAT is what I was taught TR0 was all about.
        And I still think so. Any other interpretation is WRONG, as far as I’m concerned.

        • I believe that you were allowed to understand TR0 in the natural way as I was at the Cambridge mission. My whole idea of Mindfulness is based on that original experience I had on TR0.

          Unfortunately, others at Flag looked at TR0 differently and tried to force me to learn TR0 their way. You might agree with me that LRH could have been clearer in explaining TR0.

          My understanding of TR0 is expressed here. It includes earlier drills on mindfulness on my blog.

          Mindfulness 12: Let it be effortless

        • Valkov: “Taken literally, it means YOU are there – not some decided upon and assumed beingness.”

          I agree with your understanding of TR0. However, I don’t think this word “decide” in reference to auditor beingness conflicts with TR0, if you compare the idea of deciding on one’s beingness to getting in your “Act One”, which you mentioned on your earlier post. In describing “Act One,” LRH used the word “postulate” instead of “decide” and there is no actual difference in the meaning:

          “THE FIRST ACT of the auditor concerns himself. He assesses the task rather than the preclear and assesses the matter within himself. He establishes whether or not he desires the preclear to become established under the preclear’s own center of control. To do this the auditor may find it necessary to straight-wire himself for the removal of any reason why he does not want this preclear to be owned by the preclear. He then postulates to himself what he wants to happen with this preclear and postulates as well that he can do this task with this preclear. He must feel these postulates solidly. If he cannot he must discover why he cannot. Thus the first session’s first minutes with the preclear are concerned with the auditor himself. He should take time out from the preclear until he himself is established in his task and then readdress the preclear.”

          • This part of the quote is especially equivalent to “deciding” or determining (that’s even closer to “postulating”) one’s auditor beingness.

            “He then postulates to himself what he wants to happen with this preclear and postulates as well that he can do this task with this preclear. He must feel these postulates solidly. If he cannot he must discover why he cannot.”
            (*Advanced Procedure and Axioms*)

          • I think that postulation adds to beingness, whereas the idea of congruence is to simplify back to one’s natural beingness by taking away additives.

            The additives to beingness are the filter’s (bias, prejudice, fixed idea, etc) that one may be looking through. These filter’s needs to be removed. TR0 helped me in getting rid of many of my filters.

            LRH’s much talked about affirmations were his effort to change his beingness through postulations. That was not natural. LRH developed a synthetic beingness that is so visible in the inconsistencies and reversals of concepts in his writings.

            • Vinaire: “I think that postulation adds to beingness…”

              Yes, it does. But if an auditor simply goes “back to one’s natural beingness” and adds nothing more to it, his natural beingness would not necessarily include (to quote from the First Act again) “what he wants to happen with this preclear and…that he can do this task with this preclear.” These aspects of the auditor’s beingness may have to come about as a decision – a postulate – if they do not already exist as part of it.

              • Didn’t Hubbard say, “Man is basically good?” All that the first act is about “clearing up one’s filters” so he can see things as they are and then organize his actions. It is about being mindful per Buddha’s definition of mindfulness.

                The idea of postulating as used below is weird. To me it is simply organizing one’s actions.

                “THE FIRST ACT of the auditor concerns himself. He assesses the task rather than the preclear and assesses the matter within himself. He establishes whether or not he desires the preclear to become established under the preclear’s own center of control. To do this the auditor may find it necessary to straight-wire himself for the removal of any reason why he does not want this preclear to be owned by the preclear. He then postulates to himself what he wants to happen with this preclear and postulates as well that he can do this task with this preclear. He must feel these postulates solidly. If he cannot he must discover why he cannot. Thus the first session’s first minutes with the preclear are concerned with the auditor himself. He should take time out from the preclear until he himself is established in his task and then readdress the preclear.” ~ ADVANCED PROCEDURE AND AXIOMS
                .

                • “All that the first act is about ‘clearing up one’s filters so he can see things as they are…'”

                  That is the way I see it too. You added: “… and then organize his actions.”

                  The question I would ask is, organize them around what purpose? That is where it seems to me a decision/postulate is needed. A person may not be aware of assumptions made in the past that were possibly based on false data (e.g. “men were born evil”), or that were based on his own narrow purposes – or even ser facs. So he might not be able to spot those particular “filters.” Thus, s/he would need to work out a new purpose, based on what he now understands about auditing, and “post” it – put it there.

                  • Yes, I think he should be able to organize his actions with the view to help the other person in his goal to improve. He does not have to postulate “what he wants to happen with this preclear” in any more specific terms than that.

                    • “…he should be able to organize his actions with the view to help the other person in his goal to improve.”

                      This is all I’m saying too – i.e. that there does need to be that simple view in place, which might not be there already if the person has some other purpose going.

                    • I agree with you, Marildi. but I would not refer to that action as “postulating”.

              • Postulate (regular dictionary)
                1. to ask, demand, or claim.
                2. to claim or assume the existence or truth of, especially as a basis for reasoning or arguing.
                3. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted.

                Postulate (Scientology)
                to conclude, decide or resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past. (HFP, p. 155)

                Scientology uses “being” as the basis. This makes it easy in Scientology to justify arbitrariness. Postulate in Scientology justifies that arbitrariness.

                The rest of the world uses “the logic derived from reality” as its basis. It calls out a postulate rightly as an assumption, or something arbitrary.
                .

              • Marildi quoted: “back to one’s natural beingness”.
                Please go over my comment on viewpoint, identity.
                Mark

          • Thanks mar. I take that quote to be saying, in essence, the auditor (or coach) needs to have his own TR0 in so his natural intention to help the student/pc is not blunted by counterintentions he might have had within himself.
            The point is he is himself, not some other adopted beingness.

  12. Very insightful. Thanks. I had some great auditors over the years, and they exhibited congruence. Whether chatting with them before or after session, they were just who they were.

    I had some robots too. I’ll make up an extreme dialogue to illustrate how robotic a session could get.
    PC: So then the axe murderer finished killing my parents and came after me. I tried to run but I was frozen with fear. Then the police got there and shot him dead a split second before he would have whacked my head off. The crazy man’s blood splattered all over me. (Sobbing and trembling.)
    AUDITOR: Thank you. (Expressionless. Looks at the e-meter and probably sees the TA rising.) Is there an earlier similar incident?

    But even the good auditors were stifled from giving context and interpretation. So the “standard” Scientology auditor is cut off from self (typically, no congruence), which hinders the PC’s growth, and is cut off from bringing any broader knowledge into the session which could easily help PCs in many situations.

    You know, I really wished Scientology worked. What an awesome world it would be if there were truly Clears and OT VIIIs as defined by Hubbard.

    But the world, despite all its mix of beauty and pain, is still incredible without Clears and OTs. Just by being conscious, at the very least we have won some sort of cosmic lottery — even if that were all there was.

    But I do think/believe/feel intuitively that there is much more to the universe than meets the eye. However, I don’t think that greater numinosity is even approached by a trite Buck Rogers type story of the type of Xenu, prison planets, freight trains on Venus, and glycoled spirits.

    It become impossible to achieve congruence when you know you are supporting lies, improbabilities, unproven claims, and so on.

  13. I have always said, that L. Ron Hubbard did not need the permission of the Church of Scientology in order to discover Dianetics and Scientology. Why should any one else?🙂

    • Hi Lawrence, what happened to your blog ?

      • Hi Rafael. It was not a blog it was a website (that has been itself blogged and quoted elsewhere on the internet community). It is available for download in .PDF format in several torrent communities and Anonymous has done a very good job especially in New York City in helping the church to realize more than they did how treating others unfairly never pays in the long run. Plus I am glad I got to tell the story and as-is the content!🙂 But, I no longer maintain that web site. I had thought of creating a new blog, but with the thousands upon thousands of people scouring the web for information about Scientology and OT levels, I would have to spend too much time maintaining all the communication. Plus I have a responsible career for many years. So my days of “web siting” are over and my days of blogging never began!🙂 But thank you Rafael for remembering that time and place when it did the most good for the greateast number.🙂 No Q & A either. I EP’d on that facet of the game and I learned so much in this life that in my next one it really would be shame if that happened again wouldn’t it? Flourish and prosper!🙂

  14. Fascinating stuff Marty.

    • Yes, very interesting.

    • Yes indeed Tony, quite fascinating. Quite fascinating indeed. As-is David Miscavige’s trademark “Square Front Wheeled Tricycle”. Truly an invention of the future destined to shape the church’s future.🙂 I wonder how long it would take for him go down Powell Street in San Francisco to the Fisherman’s Wharf on his new invention?🙂

  15. I recall a Briefing Course lecture where LRH basically invokes the concept of congruence. Paraphrased, he says that when the session is going to hell and you are at your wits end, just let your humanity take over and operate from that. There are lectures or parts of lectures on the SHSBC where you really get the sense that LRH was trying to figure things out to help people. He wasn’t always the jovial cocksure charismatic leader. Sometimes he went beyond that and was sincerely trying to impart what help he could.

    • No question about your assessment. But, it begs the question why default to ‘humanity’ only after the session is going to hell. Where was the fellow at before he defaulted to humanity? I think I’ve got a number of credible answers to that question coming up in Clear and Beyond. Did you watch any of Indiana Pacer playoff games, where it became routine for the commentators to speculate whether the good Lance Stephenson or the bad Lance Stephenson would show up that night?

      • “No question about your assessment. But, it begs the question why default to ‘humanity’ only after the session is going to hell. Where was the fellow at before he defaulted to humanity?”

        Amen.

    • Ending the session with the pc not even on the meter, but the pc all happy and the pc even dropping the cans (electrodes) and patting his stomach where his ulcer just disappeared, I seem to recall in that Tech Film that you Dan Koon starred in, you as that actor auditor acknowledged the ulcer-gone actor and said “End of Session.”

      Did you, or did you not, call an F/N?

      I recall also listening to that coaching recording of LRH coaching you and Waldo on “appropriate acknowledgements” which ended up leading to the TRs bulletin revision.

      Not that still the mechanical TRs being all broken down into regimens has proven “workable” for the Scientology pseudo-therapist trainees, I think the system of passing and grading TRs, as another Tech Film discusses, and other TRs issues by Hubbard tried to regulate, that seems doomed also.

      The church training of ministers and priests, who counsel members of their denominations, the presence and attitude of the priest minister takes some experience to gain.

      I’m not sure that even regular auditor TR training will do it uniformly. It takes as long as it takes, or some people are truly not suited to the human compassionate role as minister.

      I think Scientology’s or Hubbard’s breaking down and trying to train this into people isn’t sufficient.

      Some people are auditors of the year type of type of ministerial trusting understanding character, they gain that presence, some never will.

      Auditing giving and receiving is not some universally desired human activity, as I look at it, neither was priest counseling a universally desired subject.

      Some people do better to learn wisdom and get over life’s troubles in other ways.

      anyways, did you or did you not call the F/N Dan? What’d the script say and what’s you say?

  16. “The more failure in producing a confident, independent-minded, self-determined client, the more Hubbard introduced personality control mechanisms. That is probably the most cardinal of sins imaginable in actual client-centered philosophy.”

    -Marty Rathbun.

  17. Joan Rivers Died, she got scammed.

  18. Scott Campbell, I am with you on singing Trey Lotz’ praises. He is truly being himself (his wonderful self) and being there in PT with the pc and delivering the auditing as naturally and effortlessly as taking a breath. Trey Lotz! May your tribe increase!

  19. And by killing this Congruence the drills also killed the ability to REALLY LISTEN and UNDERSTAND the client’s communications, achievements, changes, desires and so on.

    The ‘beingness’ became so installed that a cardinal sin was committed as a result of it- one was not listening, one was constantly ‘evaluating’ and that, for me, is a major departure in a therapy practice.

    Your post also reminded me the ‘Mood Drills” which, as you noted, were designed to break the auditor’s chronic tone level (or whatever) and made him become part of the ‘standard’ expected behavior of a counselor. Deadly indeed.

    • Sylvia, that is what astonishes me, because what I was taught the purpose of the TRs is, is to enable and empower the student auditor to be MORE “congruent”, not less! To be more natural and present, not less.
      How in the world did this get so inverted??
      Is it the word “confront” that led to turning these drills in that “confrontational” rather than “congruent” direction?

      • I think that Hubbard’s original thesis failed to work as he had postulated. He failed to find the right reasons for his theory not working.

        His efforts to tweak his theory then led to inversion of the parts that were working right. I recently decided to study the Origial Thesis, and this is what I found.

        Time Track and Un-stacking of Mind
        .

  20. I only have my own experience to guide my comments on this issue. As a pc I may simply have been very lucky, as most of my first decade of auditing was on three co-audits throughout the 1970s, and so my auditors were friends and fellow staff members. I knew them all very well of course and so never felt that they were anything but genuine and sincere in session (certainly not anything approaching robotic or being a blank or synthetic personality as auditors). By and large I also felt very in comm with the auditors I had in the following decades as well. I always felt I was also a pretty good auditor and was in very good comm with all my pc’s (and I had a few pc’s in the HGC who were not easy to audit). I was friendly in session and in genuine comm with my pc’s, always doing my very best to help them.

    As a full time CS for 11 years at a busy org, I CS’d thousands and thousands of sessions and trained hundreds of auditors on their internships as well. The successful auditor was always someone who had a great desire to help and a firm postulate to do so, and was definately NOT robotic, but friendly and caring and in great communication with the pc. And genuine and not synthetic. (Yes, those who had TROUBLE auditing did tend to be robotic and stiff and unsure of themselves and did not inspire confidence in the pc, BUT my job as the CS was to train them to GET more confident and more in communication with the pc and BECOME a good auditor).

    My understanding of the training drills and then the beingness of the auditor was to minimize greatly the attention that the pc had ON the auditor. (what if the auditor in “being himself” raised an eyebrow or frowned when a pc got off a withhold? The purpose of any session or therapy is not to “please” the auditor or to gain the approval of the therapist – or shouldn’t be.

  21. Marty, I so much appreciate your comments. Thank you very much.

  22. The very last auditing I had was in November, 2011. I had stopped in 2008 after 10 years on VII, firmly believing I was being harmed and not helped.
    The congruence I experienced with that auditor was unlike any I had experienced going up the bridge. It was an enjoyable series of easy conversations and I was able to look at some things which were simply handled. When I returned home to continue my Soloing, I realized after two sessions what I had realized long before – that what I had viewed as my “case” was a fabrication of my own – a fabrication constantly enforced by the “tech”, by D of P’s by CS’s, my fellow Scientologists, and above all, by myself. When I communicated that to this auditor, he was very supportive and happy for me. It was a perfect acknowledgement. Had any of those people in the church really listened,or had I valued my own awareness, I would not have wasted so much of my time and money. I have been “tech free” since that Fall of 2011, never happier, and never more productive. Marty was that auditor. As I read his evolving insights, I’m able to clearly see how and why I was caught in the labyrinth that is Scientology, and why I had come so close to destroying my “self”. And Ralphie, Norton feels the same.

    • That’s really nice.

      >

    • Once I thought that doing OT levels would expand your level of intention to the world .. picking up the ideas why you do not want any longer be an OT for others .. but found out that people who push you to OT are not know what an OT is .. not founding out that an OT will postulate for you ..

    • Michael I remembered first reading about your leaving Scn at the Village Voice with Tony. I am so proud of you. I am proud that you looked at the abuses going on inside the church and left.

      You were a high profile Scn and thank you. I can’t imagine how many left because of you. I’m glad that you got the opportunity to meet with Marty. What a great way to get your last auditing. Congrats on making your way out of the mire. Bravo.

      You are one of the many faces that I think of when I think that there is truly life after Scn. I couldn’t be happier for you. I am a critic, but I do have a heart.

      I am always happiest when I hear the words..” I’m Done..” Thank You

  23. Sheeple.

  24. There is something called a “zero attitude” which are drills done to train the auditor to have absolutely no friendliness, unfriendliness, nada, nothing, emphatically no friendliness. This is harshly implemented from OT V onwards.
    In more recent years, the auditor (counselor) is downright adversarial especially when asking for witholds, crimes and overt acts.
    No Congruence there.

  25. A very good friend of mine told me that one of the
    best sessions this person ever had was when the
    auditor put down the pen and took the thumb off
    the meter and just intently communicated to this
    pc.

    Another point on this subject is the reason(s) the
    pc is coming in for auditing. Marty has mentioned
    this many times but it begs to be repeated. You
    take this problem, mess or whatever he/she is
    sitting in and handle THAT. Then let him go. Poff,
    that’s it. Usually life repair used to handle that.

    • Jean-Francois Genest

      Nice anecdote and statement.
      Having been one of his PCs, I can also testify that Lars Aasplund HAS congruence. 🙂

      • About the auditor putting down his pen and getting in comm with the pc–reminds me of the year I spent at Mace Kingsley auditing children. You HAD to be congruent with children. Renee Duke taught me to never be formal with children. If they slouch all over the desk, you slouch all over the desk, etc. Sometimes the child would want to be the auditor so I would switch sides of the desk and let the child “audit” me. Boy, I found out what I sounded like! ha I remember one little girl that wanted to get some overts off. She said, “Don’t write this down.” So I put the pen down, listened, and acked her. I didn’t write down her overt later, either. I simply wrote down what occurred and that she gave an overt. Also, I would let children eat, draw pictures, play with toys, roll around on the floor while being audited. They never missed answering an auditing question. It was a wonderful year I spent at MK auditing children in spite of the suppression from Flag.

  26. Great post, Marty. Thanks so much. I’ve done some auditing off the meter and it’s a blast understanding what I do know about communication, but also still being myself–someone who wants to help the person I’m auditing, and feels a love for that person, and makes it safe for them. So glad I’m not on camera….I’d flunk on my robot beingness.

  27. Right Marty,

    But Ron enhanced 2WC by saying that all subjects MUST READ in order for 2WC to be taken up and MUST be taken to F/N, Cog, VGIs – THAT is a huge difference to just yagging along on any subject…

    There is nothing as misunderstood as TR’s, Zero attitudes etc. which are all additives to just being naturally there. Listen to some of Rons model session auditing tapes and you will know what I mean. “Putting TRs IN” is a statement from someone who has absolutely no idea what TRs are all about.
    I got “my TRs” casettetape-approved by Ron on the very first Pro-TRs course at Flag and I remember his comments on the tapes from two very well know to all tech persons: “Doesn’t sound as he ever read the TRs bulletin” – “This guy doesn’t sound as if he has any idea of what’s it all about” – oh boy did the entire course (100+ people) go in glee…

    • Great antidote about the first Pro TRs course and your pass on TRs from Ron. A somewhat similar thing happened to me on my first Pro TRs course. There was uncertainty by the Sup about my video, because at one point in it I had dropped tone when the coach mocked up grief. In the end, the Senior C/S gave it a pass because he said I had simply remained in ARC with the pc. Years later, when I did Pro TRs at Flag during the release of GAT, I became nothing but confused about what was considered “natural TRs.”

  28. As a beginner auditor I had been non congruent. As I had zero experience in talking with people or how to handle the auditing session. After a view sessions I gained confidence and could be the auditor. In session or in the academy clearing words. I loved to get the person in front of me, look at the person and the trouble popped up instantly. Seniors did not like my style. My last session as an auditor in 1982 I can clearly remember. I had someone sick in front of me. He did some training drills listing and nulling. He had been the coach and the “auditor” asked him questions to train listing and nulling like “whom of your former girl friends you would like to….” and stuff like that. They had no worksheets and the student auditor indicated some items to the coach. What a mess. It took 1 or 2 hours to sort it out, get the listing question, clear it, re list it and correct it. After that he had been well. I got the longest cramming I ever had seen for making that person well and sorting out that mess. I refused and that stopped me being and auditor. They even did declare me SP in the attempt to get me to agree.
    By the way, I did act that way not because I am soo good or whatever. At that time I had been a cocky asshole. I am now a pride cocky asshole for not toeing the line.

  29. With the lectures “Responsibility and the State of OT” .. I understood what LRH did want .. good idea, good concept ..

  30. Marty, thank you for speaking out about the reality of Scientology as a derivative “technology.” Hubbard lifted from numerous preexisting thinkers who are the real “source.” I often read comments here from Indie auditors and think that they would make amazing therapists if they could step outside the Scientology mindset. It is like driving a race car but only using first gear!

    • http://www.carolineletkeman.org/archives/6395

      excerpt:

      Looking over its project, I find a son of a luckless millionaire here has taken to drink and the millionaire wants him cured bad. Might undertake it for ten grand some afternoon.

      Don’t know why I suddenly got the nerve to go into this again and let it loose. It’s probably either a great love or an enormous hatred of humanity. Just a few months ago I would now and then decide [to] use it and start right in to apply and I would lose my nerve. But lo! courage rose and the book is going out before it sinks again.

      So here you have the dope.

      Looking at all the fantasy movies, how about you contacting Laura Wilck in poisonally and making her scout around when we go in hard covers.

      So far what’d Bill Crawford do about assembling the TRITION. Did he like MAN EATS MONSTER?

      Best regards my friend, don’t Kroshak the little kids in the neighborhood.

      Love and Kisses,

      Ron

      P.S. This here epistle is confidential, pard.

    • Hubbard seems to have tried to reshuffle the deck of philosophical knowledge up to his time with Dianetics, and then spent the remainder of his life trying to stack the deck for his own glory.

  31. Marty –

    I think your use of Rogerian client-centered technique is an excellent parallel study to Scientology, and an excellent application of Korzybski’s principle of using a datum of comparable magnitude to better understand something.

    By comparing Scientology therapy to client centered therapy you are providing the proper context in which compare and contrast, and thus increase perception and judgement on the strengths and weaknesses of Scientology.

    Without this wider context, it does not matter how highly trained of an auditor a Scientologist is – they can not properly understand Scientology.

    Hubbard was always taking those data of comparable magnitude away from the Scientologist with statements like “Dianetics was a bolt from the blue”, and putting down “the psychs” as THE ENEMY so that no Scientologist would ever study them.

    In this way, (and many others) Hubbard could create a cult where he was more in control of his follower’s thoughts, feelings and behaviors and they had less of an ability to properly understand Scientology itself.

    It could be said that the main thing that cripples a Scientologist is his lack of a proper context for Scientology.

    You are providing that proper context for Scientologists to think with.

    Way to go.

    Alanzo

    PS. Can’t wait for your new book. I really enjoyed “Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior” and came to have a much greater understanding of you and what you are trying to accomplish through reading it. I have an idea that “Clear and Beyond” is going to be even better.

    • “It could be said that the main thing that cripples a Scientologist is his lack of a proper context for Scientology.” Well put.

    • Alanzo, so true with comparing scio with other data.
      In the 70’s, while on the BC and later auditing in the
      field, I moonlighted as a researcher for a large company.
      I read tons of books, periodicals (including “Psychology
      Today”) journals etc.and found so many parallels in other
      fields, including advances that could have helped an
      auditor but when relaying any of this to a scientologist
      I invariable got something like; “what are you talking about?”,
      of course in various lower tone levels.

  32. The sins which led me out of congruity: pretending that I was fully informed while never having read any of the materials which went into the creating of dianetics and scientology; believing that all I need is Ron’s version of it all; to some extent joining in with the scoffing and negating of other fields and endeavors; trying desperately to fit all that I saw in the world into Hubbard’s constructs even when the incongruity was staring me in the face and screaming at me.

    The tipping point for me was back in 2008 when I read The Four Agreements. “Never assume anything.” I had to confront how much assumption was completely blocking my ability to advance. That’s when the real deconstruction of my former belief system began. It’s still a work in progress.

  33. Oh , this post takes me back to my days in grad school. Rogers’ book is a first-year text where I studied. Becoming a therapist requires that one first become a whole person — you cannot guide others safely on a journey you yourself have never taken. A great deal of our training was focused on this very thing — learning how to be present with the client in congruence, and establish a therapeutic bond via the trust generated by that presence. It was hard work and as much as you must learn the practical skills of therapy, most of the learning requires dealing with your own self so that you are capable of the self-awareness necessary to maintain a healthy therapeutic container for your clients.

    The work of therapy, when it is done well, is so dependent on establishing trust, and that elusive bond that supports healing. It is a real challenge, it takes time, and no therapist will be able to create a good working bond with every one of their clients. A good therapist must have the humility to admit when they are not the right match for a client, and refer them to a colleague or recommend another approach. Any system that offers, in place of this, some cookbook formula of routines or techniques ostensibly guaranteed to work, will be very appealing simply because it is a shortcut around the time-consuming work of establishing the therapeutic connection. Also, you never have to turn away a paying client, and be deprived of that income. As a bonus, when you fail, you can blame the client for not wanting to get better, or even having a nefarious agenda to deprive the world of your help by making you look bad! Yikes. Off the top of my head I can think of a couple of psychotherapy cults, centered around some charismatic egomaniac therapist, where this is the norm. In those cases, it is all about glorifying the therapist-guru as some kind of savior or bodhisattva, and the fate of mankind — or the chosen few — always depends on protecting their reputation in whatever way necessary.

    I think your post does a good job of illuminating the human cost of such practices. In scientology, the focus on results, the need to reify the “tech” at all costs and get results that validate the process, that was the giant flaw in the machine Ron built. I see it as a direct extension of Hubbard’s personality — the man had many traits, but humility was not one of them. This idea that auditing is the answer for everyone everywhere — the megalomania of taking responsibility for rendering the “entire planet” sane — these are incompatible with the simple humility of acknowledging that one cannot have all the answers. That humility is a key part of the difference between a safe and sane therapeutic environment, and a toxic space of control and compartmentalization. IMO any therapist, teacher, or system of healing knowledge that claims to have all the answers should be regarded as toxic, and avoided.

  34. I agree with this congruity idea and I can see how doing TR’s could train this out of someone.
    An interesting point for me is the Auditors Code. The idea of not invalidating or evaluating for a person while they are discussing something is a positive thing and I can see it being a negative thing too maybe at times. I have had many times when I have been talking to my auditor and then come to my own conclusion and really liked it and felt rejuvenated. If I had someone “being themselves” and deciding that they didn’t like my solution and decided to “handle” me on it would not be acceptable to me. So I assume the philosophy behind the therapy would almost be included in the beingness issue. There is no argument from me that if I was going to be helped by someone then I would want them to be their selves. If they were being their selves and they weren’t a good counselor then that would be a separate issue.

  35. Babybunker said: I have determined that many are taking the parts of what Marty has been saying and making it ” Fit” into their deeply ingrained world of Hubbard.

    Yes — unquestionably. I was not able to initially really study buddhism because I automatically “measured” it against scientology datums. Little by little I could see I was doing that. It stopped being automatic.

    HOWEVER some people are luckier than I was and were/are able to let go and deconstruct faster. It has taken me over 20 years to deconstruct my Sea Org and Scientology life SO THAT I do not embrace extremes. Moreover, it is something I constantly work at … constantly.

    Marty is one of the rare people in my life who CONSTANTLY walks his talk and is always looking, it seems to me. He shares what he finds and then I can find ANOTHER piece of my basically very fundamentally oriented mind set if I am willing to read what he recommends and work with it.

    It’s been very difficult for me to not have “an authority” to guide me … and have JUST ME to guide me. And a “just me” that isn’t a person with endless layers of valences or habits or patterns.

    I’ve found that walking the middle way is much harder to DO than talking about it🙂

    Windhorse

    • Windhorse.. first thank you..

      Never measure the amount of time that it took you to deconstruct / decompress with another. You did it!

      I started college in 1965 and finished in 1981.. But it was always in the back of my mind to finish. I am proud of you. I am proud of me. We did it!

      and you work at it. That is also good. It is always good to peek in to our old life and to examine how we are doing now as opposed to how we once lived.
      And to improve along the way. The past becomes more distant with every success.

      We all have layers Windhorse. I was trapped in a loveless marriage for 30 years.. I left. He was abusive, but I just figured that was just easier to stay than to leave. I didn’t want to upset the apple cart. So I just kept on keeping on.

      I was a counselor who ” Fixed ” everyone, but me. Last night I heard a song that reminded me of him. I thought how sad he must be.. how much I hurt him when I left. I discounted everything that he had done to me. I only remembered him crying when I left. And I felt bad.

      Our minds are very, very complex things. I am so happy and in love with my husband of 10 years, but just once in awhile I wonder ” What if?” How fucked up is that ? ..hahahha

      Middle road.. it is hard. But look how far you’ve come on your journey. All you have to do is recognize that you will always have habits..and memories.. but not Valences.. cause that’s too much of a Scientology word..haha

      • I do want to add that I didn’t suffer physical abuse. It was a very gradual insidious mental and emotional abuse. I didn’t realize that I had been walking into a fog until I couldn’t find my way back to me.

        I had to do my homework to find myself again. I thank God everyday that I had the strength to leave. I thought my old life was a comfort zone, until I actually found what a true comfort zone is.

        It is a Safe Place to land. And that is exactly where I am.

  36. The visible time-track of a human life starts from birth and moves forward through childhood, adolescence, youth, adulthood, old age and death.

    When one is searching for the cause of some unwanted condition, one starts to look earlier and earlier on the time-track. Freud looked for reasons in early childhood. Hubbard looked for reasons in birth and also in the earlier pre-natal period in Dianetics. Today, scientists are looking for reasons in the Genetic Code.

    Hubbard also went looking for reasons farther back in past lives in Scientology. He projected the time track backwards to trillions of years. Was he really discovering incidents in the life of a single individual that far back?

    Bible does not believe in past lives. It believes in a sort of storage system identified as purgatory, heaven or hell for the spiritual elements of a person (soul). Hubbard changed the definition of soul from “spiritual elements of a person” to the “person” himself. He insisted that the soul is a single permanent unit which is the person (thetan), and this thetan moves from body to body.

    The original eastern idea of reincarnation is very different. Just like there is the disintegration of body into molecules and reintegration of molecules into a new body. Similarly, there is disintegration of self into “spiritual elements” and reintegration of “spiritual elements” into a new self. Buddha never looked at self as a single permanent unit. Buddha talked about non-human reincarnations as well.

    But Hubbard assumed that if a memory came from an earlier life, then it meant that the whole person (thetan) came from an earlier life. This supported Hubbard’s idea of a linear time track. But this idea has never worked in Dianetics, where the “basic-basic” was never found. This idea of a liner time track has only served to produce delusional states in Scientology.

    The truth is that mind is a matrix of definitions and logics. The logics connect the definitions in multiple dimensions. Such connections are far from being linear.

    The linear “earlier similar” methodology of Dianetics and Scientology is therefore very limited. To address the multi-dimensional matrix structure of the mind one needs to apply the un-stacking methodology of mindfulness.

    Time Track and Un-stacking of Mind

    .

    • . Vinnie said..”Was he really discovering incidents in the life of a single individual that far back?”

      NO

    • Actually Vinnie, “reincarnation” was an active belief of many in the early days of Christianity. One of the ‘founding fathers’ of Christianity, Origen, was definitely a believer in what was called “the preexistence of souls”, and there are references in the Bible about reincarnation, but most were eventually edited out, it is believed.
      Even in recent times, there have been Catholic bishops who believed in it.
      http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen03.html

      • “But Hubbard assumed that if a memory came from an earlier life, then it meant that the whole person (thetan) came from an earlier life. “

        Bible always said, “Person has a soul.” Hubbard changed it to, “Person is the soul.”

        .
        .

    • A Scientology preclear I met in the 1960s told me a ‘thetan’ could have as many as 12 or 13 ‘memory banks’; all but one were not originally his, but were ‘borrowed’, ‘stolen’, or ‘copied’ from others

      • “Thetan” is a construct. There is no permanent core to a thetan as I see, or as Buddha saw.

        Even Bible sees a person to be made up of a soul and body. A soul is simply constructed out of impressions. Soul and mind were not differentiated in early Christianity.

      • Valkov said: “PC said….12 or 13 ‘memory banks’; all but one were not originally his, but were ‘borrowed’, ‘stolen’, or ‘copied’ from others.”

        Please go over my paper “From the Beginning” again. It thoroughly covers the basis of this idea, phenomenon. Will send it to you if you need.

        Hint: That statement is both true and not true.
        Mark

  37. Does ‘granting beingness’ not automatically lead to ‘congruence’?
    Is ‘granting beingness’ not key?

  38. Great post Marty. I have been wondering all along how and where and when and eventually why, from my viewpoint, Scientology went astray, and you are helping me put those pieces together.
    I think one point where it was going of the rails is in failing to teach effective coaching for the very basic TRs, as on the Comm Course.

    It turns out I may have been very fortunate in having been coached in “how to coach” by someone who was very “Rogerian” in approach, and taught careful obnosis during coaching in order to apply the correct gradients and also the application of Act One, which you posted about a couple of years ago.
    Thus I had the experience a couple of years ago, of meeting again someone i had coached on his TR0 15-20 years ago, who was very happy to see me although I was at he org to get my monies on account back, and he was the Treasurer! He was simply glad to see me because he still remembered my coaching as “good” and helping him to win at it, by empowering him to be more himself. This was a real contrast to what I read on critical sites that describe the TRs being done in a destructive way, as an overwhelming beat-down of the student rather than as client-centered.
    I always felt, when I first started, coaching was scary because it was felt as a HUGE responsibility. You are literally determining a person’s present experience and future success and happiness.
    I really can’t say enough good about the person who coached me on how to coach. But that was 1972. However I can’t help but think there were a lot more people back then, who approached it with that kind of thoughtful, constructive attitude.
    It also seems to me that it cuts across and is incompatible with, the kind of “managing by statistics” that results in any incentive for “stat pushing” and quickie-ing.
    Hubbard himself at some time said “It takes as long as it takes.” He had it right, there; that is so true of self-improvement and self-development. And if the very basic approach to coaching the student on TRs is wrong, then all is lost at the outset. And it looks like that is part of the failure of Scientology, right there.

  39. For some reason this post reminded me of “Advance” magazine from years gone by. They would always have a longish but reasonably factual article about one belief set or religion that concluded with a paragraph to the effect that “now, with Scientology, the promise of [x religion] can be realised in actuality…” The underlying message being “don’t even bother studying all that off-Source crap; this is the real deal…”

  40. A person comes to Scientology to handle his unwanted condition. Somehow that purpose gets traded with another purpose of “going clear’.

    His original purpose then does not get handled. He thought he would get his unwanted condition handled by going clear. That does not happen.

    He then thinks that he would get his unwanted condition handled by going OT. That does not happen either.

    Why does Scientology not focus on handling a person’s unwanted condition?

    This is non-confront.

    At least Idenics of John Galusha focuses on handling a person’s unwanted condition.

    • Right Vinnie, it IS ‘non-confront’. Yet the very basic drill is supposed to help a person become more able to confront! (Be there comfortably and perceive).

      • Correct. So, we have an inconsistency here. I wonder why Hubbard did not address it. If he did try to address it then how did he go about it?

        Hubbard failed here didn’t he!

        • I can’t really speak to it very well because I haven’t been in the Sea Org. I have the impression that the deviations grew from that time, when LRH set up the Sea Org. They seemed to have a ‘different’ attitude at times.

          My own theory is that overall, LRH had about 3 different goals/purposes involved in his activities, involving different dynamics, like get rich, get famous and remembered in history, provide a legacy for his children, etc. The “product” he chose to create to sell to accomplish these goals/purposes was “the tech”, which really was intended to help as many people as possible.

          But by 1966 or 1968 apparently most of the research was done(he thought), and he was shifting gears to “establishment” of the delivery organizations, which he decided needed a very dedicated militaristic unrelenting management, to protect and provide for the preservation of the whole shebang. It became like a jihad or crusade and perhaps he was designing and inculcating ‘different attitudes’ in the “few who were chosen”.

          However he did foresee the possibility that Scientology was capable of creating a monster. So this Sea Org “clay pot boy” monster has pretty much eaten the whole thing by now. And as LRH foresaw its time to smash the clay pot boy into little pieces.

          But I think he kinda expected the auditors to be auditors, the C/Ses to be C/Ses, the Supes to be Supes, and have their Act Ones and TRs in, instead of everyone in the ‘choich’ becoming ‘fundraising’ Idle Org and IAS reges…… After all, the IAS was not his brainchild and neither were the “Idle Orgs”….

          • It is too late now to worry about Hubbard intentions. He set a certain wheel of Karma in motion. The wheel is going to grind on to its way to completion.

            What we see now is a lot of interest generated in the subject of self-help and spirituality. Even when Scientology is treated as a laughing stock, it cannot be pushed aside easily. So even when forces are in motion against the activities of the current Church of Scientology, there are also forces in motion to improve the work started by Hubbard on a more scientific basis. The seed sowed by LRH may grow into a subject that may contain much improved technology than what currently exists in the Church.

            One thing is for sure that KSW policy will be thrown in garbage can. Squirreling will turn into a scientific study. Scientology may not advance, but the subject of self-help and spirituality shall advance.

            That is what my crystal ball indicates.

  41. In defense of LRH, I will say that he created a construct that many people found very valuable. It went astray no doubt, but it was quite an accomplishment in many ways.
    If someone asked me if I would have preferred that Scientology and Dianetcs never existed compared to how things turned out? I would prefer things the way they are now to never having it.

    • I think you are right, Tony. And you are brave to say it so outright!🙂

    • Tony, I would agree to what you said.

      I look forward to a much improved subjet, that would be built from the lessons learned from Scientology.
      .

    • Hello Tony.
      Ron pointed out a trail to me. I’m now walking in the woods alone, making my own trail. But Ron got me walking. I thank him for that.
      Mark
      PS: Others have pointed out which leaves and berries are edible and which are poison. Some suggested which shoes to wear, but still, Ron got me walking.

  42. Very informative post, Marty! Going to look into that book. Keep it up.

  43. Hi Tony

    I agree but from a different perspective..

    Scientology cannot help but be a valuable experience to each person who experienced it IF one embraces the viewpoint that it was really one’s creation.

    A product of the contents of one’s universe: Its wants, its needs, its weaknesses, its strengths, its goals (both ego and heart).

    Scientology., to me, in my goal to just be a soul (attachment and identity free is, to me, one of its qualities), was an experience I had to go through in order to free myself forever from being absorbed by those type of constructs where dependency, attachment and identifying reign supreme.

    Where truth and growing is no longer needed or searched for from an outside source, where individuals, gurus and non gurus, are seen as beautiful souls but are not empowered at the cost of disempowering me.

    I strongly see that once you view Scientology as just a place one created and visited in route to reach the accomplishment of soulhood, and lets go of it, one begins the process of opening up the door to INCREDIBLE places that will not demand one stays there..

    Regards,
    Luis

    • Hi Luis,
      I don’t see it as my creation. If you are going to tear LRH up for his wrong doings then I feel you must also give him credit for his positive creations. I didn’t create Scientology, he did. I got what I got from Scientology. I got some good stuff that I am still using today. I had to put up with a lot of crazy bullshit too to get it. I’m no longer a Scientologist but I still feel that it was a stepping stone that I am glad that I used.

      • Hi Tony.

        I am totally glad, and I mean it, that you got what you got from Scientology.

        What I am saying is that my experiences in my life, what happens and does not happen, at least for me, and with a quite high certainty manner, are mirroring what is in my universe.

        Scientology was my creation in terms of attracting what was harmonizing with my universe. Its appearance in my life was the product of what I was able and not able to bring into existence in my spiritual quest.

        Scientology, and my experience with it, were in my universe before it manifested in the physical universe.

        It was the next step in my “evolvingness”.

        What Scientology did for me is that It made me clearly see the contents of my universe, It mirrored my universe quite beautifully, Especially it allowed me to see my needs and my weaknesses in making myself attached and dependent, and to discover my practice of disempowering myself by giving power to another to guide me, to instill the viewpoints I should have (including the extremely destructive to me of what my case was all about) and to allow it to control my life.

        The value it had for me, good and bad, the wisdom it gave me (and it does have offer TREMENDOUS wisdoms) were not caused by Ron Hubbard. They were, to me, produced by my quest and by the removal of the filters and ridges and “attachings” and “rejectings” and “unwillingnesses” that prevented me from seeing more clearly.

        My quest, my willingness to recognize and own up to my flaws, to my insecurities, fears and needs in order to stop being ruled by them, to recognize and be disobeying the egos dictates, and my quite strong commitment and principal goal to just operate from the heart is what made my life be what it is being and to accomplish the awareness I have now.

        Regards,
        Luis

        .

        • Awesome summation, Luis. 🙂

          • + 1 from me, Luis.

          • Although I am enjoying your praise, I want to be very clear on this point I made:

            “What Scientology did for me is that It made me clearly see the contents of my universe…”

            I should have written my connecting with Scientology.

            Scientology’s tech did not make me clearly see the contents of my universe, the needs, dependencies, insecurities, etc, that I was carrying. On the contrary it submerged them with the false case it prompted me to create.

            What got me to see them, to start evolving, was my resigning from Scientology and begin the examination of the internal conditions that made me a Scientologist..

            I am extremely happy that my experience with Scientology, which was pretty destructive to me, I was able to make into a ‘VERY GLAD THAT IT HAPPENED” experience as it allowed to recognize, own up and get rid of the conditions that will forever prevent me falling into a similar construct.

            Thanks to my lessons learned from the experience of Scientology, I no longer seek wisdom from outside sources, although if they appear it is natural and wonderful.

            I don’t live in instant gratification land where something I don’t know and want to know has to be resolved immediately by looking for an outside source for that wisdom. I refuse to deteriorate my ability and power to come to whatever wisdom I am seeking by my own means no matter how long it takes.

            My strong viewpoint is that ultimately one will have to confront being on one’s own, relying on oneself for wisdom and growth (establishing and following one’s own unique patch) and will have to cut all dependencies if one wants to be a soul.

            Scientology and its tech does not help souls be souls.

            Regards,
            Luis

            .

            • One of the difficulties I see I am having is being clearly understood and I am glad writing on this blog has brought it out.

              This is a new attempt at what I am saying:

              1. I had before Scientology a tremendous desire for evolving as a person (I had a vague concept of what that was all about but the impulse was there) and to get rid of the unhappiness and loneliness that I felt.
              2. Those conditions produced a tremendous desire to find someone who could cure me of them (had a strong rejection to anesthetizing means – drugs, alcohol – to accomplish it)..
              3. The conditions in my universe did not allow for me to find a person who would guide to me finding by myself and thru my own means the cure.
              4. The conditions in my universe only allowed finding a person and his organization who would make me become dependent on them and to blindly be accepting their viewpoints and their promises.
              5 I became dependent and blind and lost and quite “soul submerged” while in it.
              6. I left it with tremendous terror I was doomed to suffer, but the strength in leaving it, despite that terror, got me to start seeing the conditions in my universe that were producing that dependency, the blindness, and the terror. And thus the soul of Luis was rescued by Luis🙂

    • I have come to believe that each one of us is also created. Do we create?

      It seems that what an individual creates is simply an extension of the same creation, which created the individual.

      >

  44. Interesting reading all those comments!
    If I may add: when there is no congruence, i.e. real human contact with another human being, the pc is never in-session. With a ‘zero attitude’, as Karen describes, the communication of the pc does end in a black hole, it does not resonance, it does not arrive. So there is no real communication.
    I also noticed that this dehumanized way of auditing was especially practised at Flag. How came that about?

  45. christianscientology

    Hi Marty

    I did not know what ‘congruent’ meant in terms of what Carl Rogers is talking about and found this explanation from Wikipedia most helpful.

    Psychopathology
    Rogers described the concepts of congruence and incongruence as important ideas in his theory. In proposition #6, he refers to the actualizing tendency. At the same time, he recognized the need for positive regard. In a fully congruent person realizing their potential is not at the expense of experiencing positive regard. They are able to lead lives that are authentic and genuine. Incongruent individuals, in their pursuit of positive regard, lead lives that include falseness and do not realize their potential. Conditions put on them by those around them make it necessary for them to forego their genuine, authentic lives to meet with the approval of others. They live lives that are not true to themselves, to who they are on the inside out.
    Rogers suggested that the incongruent individual, who is always on the defensive and cannot be open to all experiences, is not functioning ideally and may even be malfunctioning. They work hard at maintaining/protecting their self-concept. Because their lives are not authentic this is a difficult task and they are under constant threat. They deploy defense mechanisms to achieve this. He describes two mechanisms: distortion and denial. Distortion occurs when the individual perceives a threat to their self-concept. They distort the perception until it fits their self-concept.
    This defensive behavior reduces the consciousness of the threat but not the threat itself. And so, as the threats mount, the work of protecting the self-concept becomes more difficult and the individual becomes more defensive and rigid in their self structure. If the incongruence is immoderate this process may lead the individual to a state that would typically be described as neurotic. Their functioning becomes precarious and psychologically vulnerable. If the situation worsens it is possible that the defenses cease to function altogether and the individual becomes aware of the incongruence of their situation. Their personality becomes disorganised and bizarre; irrational behavior, associated with earlier denied aspects of self, may erupt uncontrollably.

    It seems to fit some of the characters I came across during my time in Scientology, and what incongruence will finally lead to.

    Who are you? is a question that is asked in most therapeutic situations and Scientology is no exception. The only difference being that most Scientologists believe that they have satisfactorily answered this question when in fact to truly answer “who am I” is a life time’s endeavour.

    • Thanks. You have pointed out one of the pitfalls of viewing life as static as opposed as process.

      • christianscientology

        Hi Marty

        I agree with you but Scientologists don’t view themselves as static that is the whole point. A THETAN IS NOT A STATIC. A true STATIC is the source from which a thetan emanates. I think this short piece from Rumi puts it very well.

        Your task is not to seek
        For love, but merely to seek
        And find all barriers
        Within yourself that you
        Built against it.
        Rumi

        Love and ARC
        Pip

  46. Marty wrote – “By establishing congruence the client has the security of the sense of knowing exactly where the counselor stands at any given moment. Without congruence he does not. That is critical in establishing the conditions necessary for self-actualization.”
    I trust this is true but wondering if someone would help me understand WHY it is true. Much thanks!

    • It seems that there is a consistency maintained between the client and the practitioner in terms of how they think and communicate. There is a better understanding of the gestures and nuances employed.

    • There are two factors to be aware of in any communication cycle LOVE and UNDERSTANDING. INCONGRUENCE only becomes an issue if the understanding becomes more important than the love.
      Love is our true identity a word in Scientology has no working definition, but is replaced with the word ADMIRATION.
      As long as the admiration is present in the comm. cycle then communication flows easily but should the admiration decrease for either terminal then congruency becomes an issue.
      Love and ARC
      Pip

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s