Training 1

(Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4)



Why did I start dealing with some of the questions brought up on ars?

Partly because I felt like it and partly because  I was invited to. My first post on the 27th September 2000 was a reply to Jane Allen who had titled her post "To Any Reasonable Scientologists." It caught my attention.

Here's my reply:


Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000
Subject: Re: To Any Reasonable Scientologists


I'm a reasonable Scientologist.

Jane Allen > I know you don't recommend this, but I have read everything I could find on the "Tech" of LRH.

Fine by me.

> This includes but is not limited to the Training Routines, the Operating Thetan levels and other books such as "The Way to Happiness," "What is Art?" "The History of Man" and so forth.

> I have also read a great deal of works considered to be taboo by the standards of your group.

Well, here's an interesting thing. About 7 years ago a friend of mine (a Scientologist) had the same idea about me - she thought that perhaps I shouldn't be reading critical material. (whilst reading, I do skip over the details of the advanced levels as far as possible). She wrote to the Ethics Officer at AOSH UK for advice. He replied that he didn't have any policy that forbade reading critical data and that since I wasn't getting upset by it there actually wasn't anything further that needed doing.

A different EO might have had a different opinion, but to me it seemed a sensible decision.

On the other hand, I can see that if a new person had a lot of conflicting data it might make it difficult for them to just do the Scientology drills. They would need to be very careful to separate out the various sources of information they had studied, and then really do the procedures as written. Otherwise they wouldn't really be doing Scientology drills - and couldn't expect them to work.

> I have been "on-course" as well and have undergone auditing at both the Dianetic and Scientology levels.  This no more makes me a Scientologist than buying soap makes me a janitor.

That's right.

I guess you would be counted as one of the total number of people who have ever taken services - but that should be all. Although you appear somewhat interested, I am very happy to take someone at their word if they say they aren't a Scientologist.

>I have read many of the source materials that your Mr. Hubbard used to research his "Tech."

>I submit that those things that you claim "work" would work just as well should they be given away for free.  To prove this I refer you to the Internet where many of your works have indeed been "given" away.  I submit that there are groups that maintain that the "Tech" works (to some degree) outside the jurisdiction of the Religious Technology Center's influence (the so-called Freezone).

Well, it's an interesting point.

The existing Church structure provides a basis for wide scale delivery and promotion of Scientology training and auditing. I think there are definite advantages to having it in the form it is in.

Scientology might well work in the Free Zone - but how much of it would get done?  I really like a lot of the guys who write about independent clearing. I love reading their viewpoints on LRH and Scientology and the Church.

But . . . I went to an event at the local org recently last week (the first time I've visited for quite a while). It was one of the big international events - and I've got to say I was impressed with what I heard and saw. I think there is probably more standard auditing happening at that one org than there is in the all of the Freezone. There were over 20 full time auditors on stage.

If the Church ceased to exist, then a few things would be better, but I'm afraid that in short order things might well get a lot worse. Ideally, I'd like to see some reconciliation between the Church and the Free Zone. I might write more about this later.

> Philosophers (if Ron can be so called) do not Invent philosophy (he is referred to as "Source" is he not) they merely advance notions based on reflection, consideration and debate.

> Philosophy is for everyone.  Plato's works are readily available, as are the works of a multitude of scientists in the field of mental health--heck, I can even access the works of a variety of so- called "sacred writings" of a whole host of religious followings.

Well, you can order all of the books from your local library. These would include the Technical Volumes and the lectures which have been transcribed and published so far. That is a _lot_ of information - and in my opinion, readable, important information. I would recommend some of the early Research & Discovery volumes - start around number 5 or 6. These contain a lot of the early discoveries, and in addition have many anecdotes and examples as Ron was introducing the concepts to people for the first time.

> Why can't you allow people to discover your applications themselves?

As far as I'm concerned they can.

> I don't mean that you should open yourselves up to anyone with money (you've done so already), I mean why don't you allow refinement and testing of the Tech by independent entities?  Ron wasn't infallible and if he did discover something the rest of us should know about then hiding and attacking critics will only subvert those altruistic claims you call your own.

The Church is a big, bureaucratic organization that often gets attacked, so they are somewhat protective and wary. If they thought that someone was interested in doing something to help - well, they might co-operate. If you have the money and interest sufficient to fund such a project, then you could make a proposal.

Tricky area. A lot of the independent Free Zone guys _do_ try refining things. Speaking personally, good luck to 'em. However, Scientology, as practiced in the official centers, is workable for a lot of people. In my opinion it's safer and much better to keep it as it is.

I know the Golden Age of Tech drills have had a bad rap on these newsgroups but I actually like 'em. I think that the procedures are being followed a lot more rigorously than in the past. There has been big expansion at my local org, I've had good word-of-mouth about the higher standards from a couple of my auditor friends, and I was impressed with the course packs I saw.

> I see that one Training Routine (correct me where I veer) consists of the adherent staring for a prolonged amount of time.  This is supposed to allow one to "exteriorize."  I tried this.  I was able to keep an uninterrupted, unblinking stare for over an hour.  I was very impressed with myself.  I was certain that my eyes required more blinking than that.  I did feel a heightened state of awareness and so, intrigued, I have since investigated the phenomenon.

It's possible that some of the stuff you read on the net may have gotten in the way of your doing the drill.

Exteriorization has never been the goal of the drill, and an unblinking state ain't desired or required. Hasn't been for many, many years.

Philosophical note: if you are _trying_ to exteriorize, you probably won't. This is because if the consideration includes: "I am interiorized, but I want to. . . " it means that you are putting the desired change into the future. I would suggest the Phoenix Lecture tapes (or the book) for more information on this.

> This isn't "exteriorization" as it turns out, but merely an altered state of consciousness.  I felt deflated.  I would've asked for my money back, but I had acquired the Training Routine for free so there was no recourse.

IMO a heightened state of awareness after an hour's work isn't something to be sniffed at. If you are still interested in trying I would suggest reading the drill again and having another go.

I would also look at this question: Who told you (or where did you read) that what you experienced wasn't (x) but was merely (y)?

I can understand that it might have been difficult to keep enjoying your course if any gains you were making were being mocked or undermined.

> I then tested other Routines for validity.  Many fell short of their promises.  It seems that communication can be improved through--get this--communication.  Seems revolutionary, I know.  Saying that you are heralds of a new methodology (a "better" methodology?) dismisses centuries of open scientific testing and tradition.

Well, I know I should pretty this up some, but to be honest I don't think you really understood the drills - you certainly didn't do the simplicity of the of the one above (called TR-0).

On the other hand I think your statement: "It seems that communication can be improved through--get this--communication. " is absolutely right.

> This is the real value of Ron's studies, I believe: he has shown that there are things which are between science and philosophy, (he was not the first to do this, merely the most vocal and recent) as the centuries roll on we shall see if the freezone wins out over the Church or if both are superceded by a open forum which includes psychologists, philosophers and scientologists alike.


> I'm sure that you or your descendents would welcome this should it be proposed, after all your goal is to help humanity not hinder it. Yes?

I'd love to see more scientific studies of the value of various parts of Scientology. Such studies would be difficult to arrange, but not impossible. I don't know that they would change things all that much though. Scientologists will continue get Scientology, the ars critics will continue to criticize, and most people in the world will have ~way~ bigger problems on their plate.

>Thanks for your time and I look forward to a prompt response to my inquiries.  Please refrain from any overts or withholds in any pending discussions.

Sure, you too.

>Jane Allen
>Curious and Willing to Listen

Freddie T

Next Page



Main Index