Hypnosis and Scientology

[alanzo]

I was a member of the Church of Scientology for 16 years. I have been out of Scientology for about 5 years now, and, the more I learn about hypnosis, the more it is dawning on me that Dianetics and Scientology auditing techniques are deeply rooted in Hypnosis and implanting suggestions.

I can present some of the reasons that I am beginning to see this. But first I would like to know if anyone here is familiar with Dianetics or Scientology auditing techniques who is also trained in hypnosis or hypnotherapy.

Anyone?

[Merlin]

>Dianetics and Scientology auditing techniques are deeply rooted in Hypnosis and implanting suggestions.

Excellent!
A+

[alanzo]

Well, I feel very bright and shiney now!

Hey - does anyone have a good definition for "SUGGESTION" or "State of Suggestibility"?

[Neurotic1]

Well, I feel very bright and shiney now!

Hey - does anyone have a good definition for "SUGGESTION" or "State of Suggestibility"?
Without meaning to sound facetious you could, in broad terms, define 'suggestion' as 'an influential thought' and 'state of suggestibility' as 'a state where thought is possible' but there are far better definitions, depending on what context you specifically want them in - have you tried a dictionary or hypnosis book?

[alanzo]

Without meaning to sound facetious you could, in broad terms, define 'suggestion' as 'an influential thought' and 'state of suggestibility' as 'a state where thought is possible' but there are far better definitions, depending on what context you specifically want them in - have you tried a dictionary or hypnosis book?

Oh yes.

I've read an excellent book called "Monsters and Magical Sticks: There's no Such Thing as Hypnosis" by Steven Heller and Terry Steele.

And I'm flipping through a pretty cheesy one now called "MASTER SECRETS of HYPNOSIS and SELF-HYPNOSIS" by Professor Kurt Tepperwein.

I am finding that L. Ron Hubbard was involved in the O.T.O of Alestair Crowley after WWII, and never did anything but hypnosis prior to writing Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, which itself is based on psychotherapy.

Hubbard always taught his auditors never to "evaluate" for the patient. In other words, never tell the patient what to think about their "cases" or any incidents that they pick up on their "time track". The patient was to run these incidents and tell the auditor what they meant. It is a serious offense for an auditor to evaluate, or invalidate, what a person comes up with in auditing. Even commenting on it gets very close to violating this rule.

Scientologists point to this and say that it proves that Hubbard was not applying hypnosis, nor was he implanting suggestions.

Yet Hubbard himself told people what they would find in their minds during an auditing session all the time in his books and tapes. The patient, however, never listened to these during auditing sessions, but after while studying courses or listening to them at home.

A Scientologist is expected to read and listen to these as part of the "training on the mind and life" and is told that they will not progress in their auditing unless they do.

Does anyone here see any form of suggestion and implantation?

[Charlie]

I've read an excellent book called "Monsters and Magical Sticks: There's no Such Thing as Hypnosis" by Steven Heller and Terry Steele.

And I'm flipping through a pretty cheesy one now called "MASTER SECRETS of HYPNOSIS and SELF-HYPNOSIS" by Professor Kurt Tepperwein.



You'll find both kinds ( i.e. excellent & cheesy ) of NLP/Hypnosis books out there, and much inbetween.

This web-site might be a good place to start sifting through:

http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/titles.html

HTH.

[alanzo]

I've just spent an hour clicking through those reviews.

This is a great place to start!

I was very interested to see the works on General Semantics and even Carlos Castenada listed there.

Again, thank you very much for this link!

[Charlie]

I've just spent an hour clicking through those reviews.

This is a great place to start!

I was very interested to see the works on General Semantics and even Carlos Castenada listed there.

Again, thank you very much for this link!

You're welcome.

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[alanzo]

What interests me is whether that reviewer has read "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" by L. Ron Hubbard and evaluated the hypnotic techniques in that book.

I'm wondering if anyone here has read that book, and what do they think of the techniques found there.

[keziah]

Yes, I've read it. I too pondered a connection. :)
Blessings to you and yours,
Jody
P.S. Seeking hypnosis school near Windsor Ontario/ Detroit Michigan. Rather not cross the border into Detroit, traffic is terrible. Trainers who are willing to travel please email me swontariodiva@yahoo.ca

[Simple Guy]

Keziah,

Check out www.infinityinst.com (http://www.infinityinst.com/) . This school is located in Royal Oak, MI.
Say hi to Dr. Anne Spencer from Steven.

[Andy B.]

Alanzo

Years ago I investigated (entirely informally) a number of cults, including Scientology. That included some of the literature, such as "Dianetics", but to be honest I don't really remember enough about the book to make any intelligent comments.

Be well

Andy B.

[pmdigi]

What interests me is whether that reviewer has read "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health" by L. Ron Hubbard and evaluated the hypnotic techniques in that book.

I'm wondering if anyone here has read that book, and what do they think of the techniques found there. i read book years ago - to me it sounded pretty good in theory - about becoming a "clear" and all that - something about being able to go thru past traumas until they don't bother you anymore - similar to nlp. hypnosis, psychotherapy - in practice i'v heard of too many casualties - seems like i never hear of their successes although i guess there are some.

[betlamed]

I had an interesting web discussion with a scientologist recently and have reached the conclusion that auditing is a very hypnotic process indeed (even if you apply a rather strict definition of hypnosis). I even believe that it's impossible NOT to influence the PC in the process, but of course i cannot really prove it.

There is a good discussion of this topic in the "Anderson Report" on scientology (http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/essays/anderson18.html).

What I still haven't found is a transcript of a real auditing session. That should make for interesting reading! If anyone has any pointers, I'd be more than thankful.

If anyone's interested, our little discussion can be found here:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/coscruise/634.html (warning, it's looong!)

bl

[deveera]

I would love to know of a bood book or two that I could use to start studying hypnosis and how to do it... I'm in Japan, so taking a course in person right now isn't an option.

OR is there a site that has a list of suggested readings and schools that isn't cheesy!?

THANK YOU!!

[Merlin]

>is there a site that has a list of suggested readings and schools that isn't cheesy!?

Sorry. I like being cheesy.
Consider me edible, but non-fattening ;-)

If you don't like my book list (in my FAQ)
Skip's book list (posted here often)
or Andy B's book reviews (see his homepage).
You're just out of luck.

[nUnregistered]

I would love to know of a bood book or two that I could use to start studying hypnosis and how to do it... I'm in Japan, so taking a course in person right now isn't an option.

OR is there a site that has a list of suggested readings and schools that isn't cheesy!?

THANK YOU!!

Deveera,

better than a book, you could buy the following tapes: Hypnosis I: Introduction to Ericksonian Approaches.... the team of John Overdurf and Julie Silverthorn do an excellent job of teaching the "how to's" of Ericksonian Hypnosis. on this six tape(of a live training), they provide a good introduction to this form of Hypnosis and very quickly lead right into the mechanics of it. they conversationally lead people on the tapes into trance several times and use several double induction trances to teach with. ..Jim R

[Terry (existing)]

i read book years ago - to me it sounded pretty good in theory - about becoming a "clear" and all that - something about being able to go thru past traumas until they don't bother you anymore - similar to nlp. hypnosis, psychotherapy - in practice i'v heard of too many casualties - seems like i never hear of their successes although i guess there are some. Ron Hubbard's goal in life was to amass wealth, nothing more. His method, to persuade others to buy his book, and to buy into any idea that resulted in Ron becoming weathier. I see no problem with this, it's the way the world works for many, and each has a choice to make, and a mind and imagination to make it with. Ron told his adherants what to think through his books, as someone already pointed out, and since mass hypnosis with only one goal is not possible if one is intent on doing good for others, it is unlikley you will hear of many "successes", but you certainly heard of one, since Ron succeeded in his goals..... His books however have no better result than reading any other book on the subject, and when you know the intent of the book, it seems to lack value more and more. Why would you pay to be brain washed according to Ron, rather than treated as a person with needs, and helped by that same method?

[Cassandra 8]

People are free to believe in Scientology, but the universe is not obligated to keep a straight face...

[Don]

Terry, from what I've read of Hubbard, I must respectfully disagree. All of his life was about obtaining power over others, not amassing money. Money came as a result of obtaining such power, and then was used to sponsor obtaining more power. See the book L. Ron Hubbard: Madman or Messiah? by his son (with a bit of help) for some of the details.

[Terry (existing)]

Actually Don, I see no disagreement here, just the imposing of another desire in tandem with wealth. Power and wealth do indeed go hand in hand very often. My point was, Ron was purely for self, not for others, and his books were for brainwashing, rather than to give others a helping hand. I am as happy with your definition, or the one you got from his son's book, as I am with my own statement.

[Don]

Hi, Terry.

Just one thing to add, then.

Many people do not want freedom. They want someone or some set of beliefs to control them. They want everything to be simple and need simple answers to even complex questions.

They might find their answers by being told what to do by a fundamentalist religious group, a strict parent, some sort of cult, etc. For them, it's a good thing that such groups exist. The simple answers give succor to their souls. They may eventually find that such control is bad for them and leave. They may find that the simple answers lead to drinking kool aid.

If being controlled gives them their answers, who am I to tell them, "No?" The real problem, IMO, is when they move from the micro (this works for me) to the macro (this will work for everyone) and the power-mad conclusion that this must work for everyone and I'll make sure everyone believe as I do. The result is people going on TV denouncing others for getting medical care, people trying to make their religious beliefs state law, and young people strapping bombs to themselves to blow up unsuspecting others.

[deveera]

Thank you! I have made note of and/or printed out suggestions.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU THANK YOU!!

[Terry (existing)]

I get your point Don, but I also don't agree with it, though I understand why you say what you do. You quite fairly feel that you have no right to interfer with the decissions of another, and make an attempt to guide them away from what you preceive as dangerous thinking, and of course you are corrrect from the standpoint you are coming from, which I imagine is, that they have a mind to think with, and why should you impose your beliefs on them? Good thinking for a therapist, I applaude it. However, there is always another viewpoint, and I would suggest that if you saw a visitor to your community, standing on the bank of the local river, which had recently flooded, and undermined the banks, it is my bet, as a decent human being, you would quickly warn them of the danger before they fell in would you not? Now the one danger is a physical one while the other is a mental one, but there the difference ends. Yes we each have the right to make decissions for ourselves, but getting the viewpoint of others leads us to see better before reaching our own decission, so nothing is wasted by listening, and often nothing is changed.....

[Robert H]

The bottom line about scientology is in the results produced by it's technology. Judging Scientology by Hubbards personality is akin to judging NLP by Bandler's.

Don, I imagine that you do not approve of many things about Richard. However - unless I'm mistaken, you use many of the techniques and distinctions that he discovered, do you not?

Therefore, I suggest that Scientology also be evaluated independantly of the character of the person who created it.

Also, there is a distinction between the organization called the "Church of Scientology", and the technology of scientology. Just as there is a distinction between "The Society of NLP" and the body of knowledge called NLP.

I have looked this over in depth, and at length. The actual technology of scientology is actually on par with NLP and Hypnosis as a technology for human change.

Robert

[Don]

Hi, Terry.

The problem, of course, is that the person looking at the banks might be a scientist trying to determine the best way to solidify the banks and save untold numbers of lives. My "helping" him may disrupt his thoughts and he might not go back in that same thinking direction, resulting in the banks failing and untold numbers of lives and property suffering as a result.

I'll gladly try to help anyone who seeks help or advice. In therapeutic situations I won't give a non-ecological solution. Instead, I'll give alternates which I feel are ecological. If the prospective client insists on something non-ecological, I'll suggest that he or she seek assistance elsewhere.

I don't want more clients. I want successful clients.

[Terry (existing)]

Hi, Terry.

I don't want more clients. I want successful clients. You mean there's a difference? (g)

[Don]

Hi, Robert.

You're exactly right about separating the message from the messenger. All I can say is that if Scientology works for you, great!

I believe we should judge organizations by what they produce. I've seen results that are, shall we say, not so positive. It fits in perfectly with the original intent of its founder.

[betlamed]

Robert H,

It's great to see that you have studied it, and you're welcome to explain how you did so and how you arrived at your conclusion.

I, for one, choose to accept a method only after I have come to understand HOW it works. That's far more than just seeing THAT it works. As long as I don't have a good explanation how the trick works, I could easily be fooled by a good magician (or hypnotist...).

bl

[Robert H]

Hi Don,

There is a lot of bad press about scientology. Have you any first hand experience with the "less than positive results" you mentioned?

Just curious because I have met a lot of people that have formed a very solid negative opinion of scientology almost entirely based on rumor.

Robert

[Robert H]

Hi Betlamed,

There are volumes and volumes of technical details in scientology....the descriptions presented therein are demonstratable...I have done so.

Now here is a brief NLP description. this will probably lack a huge amount of context as I'm betting you have virtually no understanding at this point of scientology processing.

One of the major types of techniques involves repitively asking exactly the same question, getting an answer to it, acknowledging the answer, and re-asking the question...etc. Until the person is happy, and has an insight. Interestingly enough...in my experience the client will ALWAYS reach this point.

These questions often hve very suble presuppositions that cause submodality shifts. There are literally thousands of such questions...but let me give one quick example.

"From where could you communicate to a ______?" and fill in the blank with some person or role.

Notice - 1) the modal operator "could" that is installed.
2) the idea of from where......causes the client to repitively shift perceptual positions with regard to the object....thus enriching the landscape of representations surrounding the object / person.

The typical realization for this process is 1) That the person can communicate with whatever it is 2) that they can communicate with them from anywhere that they are. 3) that its ok to communicate with them.

This does not entirely describe what happens during scientology processing...to do so would easily take up several pages. However, this might give you some idea of how scientology works from an NLP perspective and how NLP/hypnosis and scientology are cousins.

Robert

[Don]

Hi Don,

There is a lot of bad press about scientology. Have you any first hand experience with the "less than positive results" you mentioned?

Just curious because I have met a lot of people that have formed a very solid negative opinion of scientology almost entirely based on rumor.

Robert


Yes, I have had personal experience, and know of two families ripped apart because of the membership of one person in Scientology.

[Terry (existing)]

Hi Don,

There is a lot of bad press about scientology. Have you any first hand experience with the "less than positive results" you mentioned?

Just curious because I have met a lot of people that have formed a very solid negative opinion of scientology almost entirely based on rumor.

Robert I have had some experience of scientology, all of it negative, but I have a question for you Robert, which of course you have no need to answer if it offends you. You seem from your posts to be an intelligent person, and willing to offer such knowledge as you have to others. Now we often get questions from guests asking about cancer for example as related to hypnosis. Would you suggest that those of us who have never had cancer refrain from replying on the basis of not having first hand experience? Would you pass on information read about a subject but which you had never tried or evaluated in any way? Scientology is no less a cult than other so called religions which spring up to fill a need for money for a few by exploiting the many with a vacuum to fill. Yes there are true facts written by Ron Hubbard, but even when something is true, it can be slanted in such a manner as to cause problems for those who read and follow directions. The old saying, "you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear" applies here in my opinion. Now it is my opinion, so nobody is bound by it, but after being involved with a kidnapping from a cult, I am death on anything that comes close, and scientology fits the bill very well.... You may well read and profit from his books, but others will be affected negatively, so it seems fair to warn off all who lack the knowledge and balance to differenciate the good from the bad. Is that fair, or am I being overcautious?

[Robert H]

Terry, and Don,

Thank you for your replies.

I understand very well that the organization called "the church of scientology" has had, and may continue to have some practices that are unhealthy. In every case that I am aware of - either the church later - either a) revised it's policies -- where the "unhealthiness" was a direct result of policy or b) the specific actions - even when initiated by Hubbard himself or Senior Executives were in violation of the churchs own policies or c) Were due to a certain culture inside of the church that has gradually developed, where certain actions (specifically those known inside the church as "ethics actions" ) flagrantly abused as way to manipulate the parishioners -- usually into contributing money. and d) in about half a dozen cases the church continues to maintain certain policies that in my personal opinion are ridiculous.

So, in some cases the church has corrected itself, in some cases there were "rebel" elements responsible for things, in some cases in order to meet quota's or for other reasons "ethics technology" was incorrectly applied, in some cases the church is in need of an overhaul...which, unfortunately, will not happen in the foreseeable future.

At one point I was even on staff with Scientology. I learned a ton of extremely valuable, worthwhile information....and made numerous personal gains. However, because I refused to abandon NLP and Hypnosis, Because I intermingled Scientology with NLP and Hypnosis in everday life, and because I looked at "confidential" scientology materials on the internet I ran into a conflict with the formal church of scientology, and chose to leave it.

However, I still practice the techniques, and methodologies of scientology, and consisitently get great results with them.

I am in no way making a posture to defend the church itself.

However, I am saying that the techniques of scientology and dianetics -- when looked at as a seperate entity from the church itself, have a great deal of value.

I think people can benefit from officially studying and receiving processing from the church --- HOWEVER --- those that do so need to exercise a certain amount of good old common sense. Which is I think what you are saying Terry.

As I hope my earlier post that analyzed one Scientology process alluded to --- there is a TON of value that can be gained from the techniques themselves.

As far as Terry's warning of the possibility of people damaging themselves by reading and studying scientology...there is no greater danger of this happening with scientology techniques than there is with a person reading an NLP or Hypnosis book. The main danger in both cases is that a person would incorrectly, or inappropriately apply a technique, or not know enough to know the proper response when something unexpected happens. The same cautions should apply to all three technologies.

In scientology there is perhaps one other caution --- just as in engineering, law, medicine, computer programming, and so on -- scientology has evolved it's own technical jargon...in studying it -- just as in studying any other technical discipline it is important to keep the terms clearly defined as one goes along.

I am willing to privately make freely available scientology and dianetics materials. Just drop me a note.

Because it is somewhat of a subtle point - I want to restate that what I am saying is that it is very possible to study and practice scientology techniques completel independantly from the formal church of scientology. Furthermore, I strongly believe that these techniques when evaluated, and tested seperately from the formal organization will be found to have merit equal to that of hypnosis and NLP.

Most people define scientology as the church of scientology. When I refer it I am refering to the body of techniques --- independant of the church.

Most people do not know the actual definition of the word scientology --
It comes from the Latin Scio and the Greek Logos, with Scio the most emphatic statement of know we have in the Western world. And ology (from Logos) means "study of." Scio is "knowing in the fullest sense of the word". Thus, the definition of scientology is "the study of knowing how to know".
Essentially, it is a epistemlogical endeavor.

All the best,

Robert

[Don]

I understand very well that the organization called "the church of scientology" has had, and may continue to have some practices that are unhealthy. In every case that I am aware of - either the church later - either a) revised it's policies -- where the "unhealthiness" was a direct result of policy or b) the specific actions - even when initiated by Hubbard himself or Senior Executives were in violation of the churchs own policies or c) Were due to a certain culture inside of the church that has gradually developed, where certain actions (specifically those known inside the church as "ethics actions" ) flagrantly abused as way to manipulate the parishioners -- usually into contributing money. and d) in about half a dozen cases the church continues to maintain certain policies that in my personal opinion are ridiculous.
[quote]

This is not limited to Scientology. I've seen many groups that end up having leaders who accumulate so much money and power that they don't feel the rules of their organization apply to them.


[quote]
At one point I was even on staff with Scientology. ...
However, I still practice the techniques, and methodologies of scientology, and consisitently get great results with them.


I understand that perfectly. It is safe and it works. I believe that's the same argument used by women who go back to abusive partners.


I am in no way making a posture to defend the church itself.

However, I am saying that the techniques of scientology and dianetics -- when looked at as a seperate entity from the church itself, have a great deal of value.

I'm glad that you have found help with them.


As I hope my earlier post that analyzed one Scientology process alluded to --- there is a TON of value that can be gained from the techniques themselves.

Is that like, "He only hits me when I deserve it?"

Because it is somewhat of a subtle point - I want to restate that what I am saying is that it is very possible to study and practice scientology techniques completel independantly from the formal church of scientology. Furthermore, I strongly believe that these techniques when evaluated, and tested seperately from the formal organization will be found to have merit equal to that of hypnosis and NLP.

Maybe. Of course hypnosis has been studied and evaluated for thousands of years. NLP has been independently evaluated and tested for decades, and its predecessors were tested for decades before that. No such objective testing has been done for Scientology, and considering the orgs desire to fully control Scientology (I know that there are some tiny independent organizations which are working on their own--E-meters are occasionally available on eBay) I seriously doubt that such testing will ever be allowed. This is similar to AA's refusal to allow studies of their effectiveness to be published.

[Robert H]

Under the guise of "Traumatic Incident Reduction", Dianetics has been studied. One organization that is one of the independant scientology organizations re-wrote some of the key processes to avoid copyright issues with the Church. This group - calls Dianetics "Traumatic Incident Reduction" or TIR for short.

In the latter half of the 90's it was the focus of a comparative study of effectiveness alongside NLP's "V-K Dissociation" aka phobia model, EMDR, and Thought Field Therapy (TFT).

I don't recall the exact results. However, TIR was on par with all of the above. I don't believe it was either top or bottom in effectiveness.

I found some high level details of the study in Fred Gallo's excellent book "Energy Psychology". Which, unfortunately, I no longer have, or I would post more specifics.

Robert

[Don]

I read the description of TIR and it seems no different than certain NLP techniques to me.

[HypnoSonic]

Ron Hubbard's goal in life was to amass wealth, nothing more.That is an interesting assertion Terry. Did Mr. Hubbard state this somewhere or did you make that up?

On a side note, I noticed one of my posts was removed from this thread. Is there some form of censorship on this forum that I didn't read about in the FAQs?

[Robert H]

As I've mentioned in a couple other posts. I used to study martial arts.

When a person first starts studying martial arts a kick is just a kick, and a punch is just a punch. As they progress, they learn that there are dozens of kinds of kicks and punches...sometimes whole schools of martial arts are formed around a certain grouping of techniques. for instance, tae kwon do is largely high flashy kicks to the head. Monkey style kung fu is mostly all kinds of ways to jump on somebody. shotokan karate is largely devoted to mastering the front punch and low front kick.

After a while, and as a student moves toward mastery, the martial artist eventually finds to their profound surprise that a punch is just a punch and a kick is just a kick, no matter how religously a certain flavor of punch or kick or throw is emphasized, promoted, advocated or opposed.

I think the same goes for transformational techniques, and personal development technologies.

Robert

[Don]

Your post was directly related to another post which had to be deleted as it was a post of a page that had a copyright notice on it and could not be reposted here legally without permission. Without the post you commented upon, your post didn't make any sense, so it was deleted.

If a post is a personal attack, advertising, spam, breaks the law, recommends illegal activity, etc., it will be deleted or have the offending parts removed. In some cases, editors have decided to let aspects of such posts remain and add comments within the post. Posts that reference deleted comments, since they no longer make sense, will either be deleted or, if the post covers a variety of topics, have the reference edited from their comments.

[betlamed]

Hi Robert H,

I only just stumbled across your answer to my post, which I find highly illuminating.

From what I read in your posting and those few other texts containing details of auditing sessions that I was able to find, it seems to me that auditing can be described in NLP terms. That would mean that it is actually a subset, or a mixture of NLP and hypnosis methods. (Repetition is just one way of inducing trance, for example.)

Is that correct?

Asking the same question over and over again seems tiring and boring to me. When I read Bandler or Erickson, I am always amazed by their creative openness, humour and sheer effectiveness. From what I read, auditing sessions lack those qualities.

Is that correct as well?

I would really like to get more and more detailed descriptions of auditing sessions, as I really want to find out how it works.

Thanks for your time
bl

[Robert H]

Betlamed, I'm glad you found it!!

I think NLP, Hypnosis, and Scientology share some of the same mechanisms, but utilize them differently. This arises from fundamental differences in presuppostions.

NLP and Scientology both agree that there is a structure to experience.
they both share the notion of timeline (nlp) / timetrack(scio). - identical. i have a transcript of a live tape from mid 1950's of Hubbard eliciting timeline going "point to the past" "point to the future" ...sound familiar??

this is not at all to say that Tad took anything from hubbard...although he does reference "Dianetics Today" in the bibliography of his book on deep trance....I thought that was interesting.

They both have the notion of rapport - although they describe it differently - thank God for multiple descriptions right - Bateson / Grinder / Dilts all sing that song.

In Scientology rapport is described as 1) Communication cycle: this back and forth interchange of ideas and acknowledgements. 2) Matching tone scale position - In Scientology the tone scale is hierachical arrangement of states where they have mapped out the relationship of something like 60 or so states of mind and emotion to each other. for instance - that passive aggressiveness is what they call 1.1 on the tone scale is higher than fear but lower than pure anger and anger is lower than boredom which is lower than mild interest which is lower than curiousity which is lower than cheerfulness.
The way to get into rapport - or the term used in scientology is ARC - which stands for affinity - reality - communication (combination of love / appreciation, agreement / shared reality, and open communication) which leads to understanding each other.

you reach this state of getting someone to feel they understand you, and increasing your understanding of them by 1) getting into a state of liking them by asking yourself what you like about them (this was way before Tony Robbins started teaching the same concept) 2) Thinking of what you both agree on and 3) communicating about those things from 4) a position on the tone scale slightly above where they are - which you do nonverbally
5) and what is in scientology taught as "Training routine - 4" which is being responsive to the person you are communicating with.

How similar is that to NLP's description of rapport? What is the NLP definition of rapport? A relationship of responsiveness. how do you reach it according to NLP - nonverbally matching and mirroring them - very similar to the tone scale thing.

a scientologist would describe verbal pacing and leading as building "reality" with the other person.

I believe They are different descriptions / different maps of the same territory.

a scientology practitioner is called an auditor - for one who listens. Scientology counseling is called auditing for asking a question the client can understand and answer (in session,they always check that you know what they mean by a question before they actually ask it to avoid miscommunications)

Scientology is very structured. The client mostly adapts to it. Scientology adapts to the client to a very limited extent compared to NLP and Hypnosis.

Overall Scientology has the goal of achieving certain "states of beingness" that are induced by completing a series of processes that focus on the a particular theme. The collection of processes (basically questions) oriented toward achieving a certain state is called a "rundown", as in rundown the list of questions until you reach the state of being that is the end result of the rundown.

NLP, in a session is largely concerned with helping clients to achieve their outcomes, and solve their problems. that is the focus of the session.

In Scientology attention is paid to these - they call them rudiments - cleaning up any upsets, nagging problems, transgressions, or secrets a person has their attention on so they can really get busy and do a rundown. The goal in scientology is to overall increase the clients ability - by getting them to these end states of the rundowns. The notion is that once they have these end-states they can achieve their goals better. But what they need to really do so is to get freed up - overall in certain areas.

The example process I used in my earlier response to you "From where could you communicate to (a) ____?" is from the Communication rundown - where the end state is the ability communicate with anyone on any topic...no reservations...or things a person is not willing to communicate about.

scientologists are taught to calibrate with both a GSR device they call the E-meter and sensory acuity (for instance - one of the sensory acuity (they call it obnosis - made up word for observing the obvious) drills that scientologists do is to learn to recognize when someone is too hungry or tired to be in session ...where tired or hungry would be a distraction. they have to be able to recognize in anyone - accurately whether they are tired or hungry. I'm not talking dead tired - exhausted either nor am I talking famished.

NLPers are to calibrate to using minimal cues, and unconscious communication.

Typical NLP session:

Client walks in, time spent gaining rapport, outcome elicitation, determine resources client needs, engage in processes to get client to outcome, test effectiveness, ecology check, future pace, maybe homework or tasking, end of session - usually ends with client walking out the door.

Typical scientology session:

client walks in, gets comfortable, gets on Emeter (GSR device), emeter is calibrated to client, session start is announced, Rudiments are handled - usually in about 10 minutes, the main processes (meaning questions) would be checked for understanding, then it would be ran. until the end of the session plan, or the person is so blissed out that it is meaningless to run anything else (for reference - this is called a persistent floating needle - a floating needle is a emeter indication that there is no charge/negative emotion that has been triggered (keyed in)), sometimes rudiments need to be reivisted during the session - like for instance during the main process for that session the client might remember an upset from childhood. This would be handled, then the main process for the moment returned to. The auditor would typically run some processess to get the client re-oriented on the here and now (to elicit a state called havingness = meaning you are feelling powerful, like you can have an impact on the world), the client is given a chance to say anything or ask anything they want to, the auditor announces it's the end of the session. then the client goes down the hall to the examiner who verifies both by emeter and sensory acuity that the client is in fact in a good state. If not, back into session. In other words you don't get to leave bummed out about the session. It's actually pretty cool - a safety net to be sure the auditor does a good job. at the examiner the client again gets on the meter, and they again are given the chance to say anything they want. If the client is really happy they are given the chance to write a success story.

The most evident thing is that most things are not left to chance. Therefore it's very stuctured with idea of ensuring that there are no bad sessions, and that clients actually get to these states of mind that the rundowns produce.

another rule in scientology is that you can not - as the auditor - under any circumstances invalidate (telling them they screwed up) or evaluate for the client (such as telling them what's wrong with them)

NLP practitioners often reframe things for clients. Tell them other ways to interpret something. This would be considered evaluating for a client.

In scientology you lead a client to their own insights by asking a structured set of open ended questions.

In fact sometimes these two areas - invalidation and evaluation are handled as rudiments. In addition to the four things I mentioned earlier because there tends a lot of negative emotion that people carry around on these topics.

in NLP this is a good idea, but flexibility of behavior is more highly valued.

In Scientology this is literally THE LAW - YOU NEVER tell a client what to think or how to think about something.

---------------------------------
as to same question being boring. well sometimes, sure.

a scientologist would interpret that as 1) a position on the tone scale that you are moving through as you answer the questions. 2) if said critically - an indication of out rudiments and a signal to re-check and handle rudiments

In NLP - it's largely an additive process. Adding resources. The basic NLP equation is present state + resources = desired state. although somethings in NLP aimed at removing negative charge - especially timeline therapy and the fast phobia cure.

In scientology there are two kinds of processes. Mostly it's done with the aim of taking negative charge off of topics, situations or events. And a little bit toward adding resources. With the communication rundown for instance - the idea is you free someone up to communicate about anything or with anyone by asking various questions over and over until they no longer have any negative feelings about it.

This post was a high level comparison and contrast between the two to give you some idea of the similarities and differences in terms of approach.

Sometime soon I will reinterpret the scientology session in terms of NLP.

One thing that is interesting is the meta-programs of each.

All the best,

Robert

[Don]

In Scientology this is literally THE LAW - YOU NEVER tell a client what to think or how to think about something.
Robert

Oh, I dunno. I remember getting my "free personality test" ages ago. Upon completion and analysis the person used every sort of (obvious) manipulation technique to get me to take a "communication course." That's hardly not telling someone what or how to think. Nor is intimidation very positive.

Robert, one thing I've noticed is that when believers in various groups are trying to gain converts to their group, they will often make very, very, very long posts defending their position. I've always felt this was due to insecurity on the part of the proselytizer, who thinks that quantity implies quality and can convert people—something they feel they must do because if others are not converted they might be right and the proselytizer might be wrong.

[betlamed]

Robert H,
thanks for the detailed description. I'm getting a clearer picture now.

Don,

well, whatever the intention - to me it's only important to get the information about auditing sessions... ;-)

bl

[Robert H]

Don,

Well - at that point you were not a client yet, at the rules of session did not apply.

As far as the other point...I did have some feelings come up as I read your comment...so I will look at that closer...thanks for pointing that out.

B -

you're welcome.

[Don]

Don,

Well - at that point you were not a client yet, at the rules of session did not apply.

Ah. Sort of like the way the U.S. can now torture people we capture because they aren't enemy combatants and don't fall under the rules of the Geneva Convention?
:eek:



As far as the other point...I did have some feelings come up as I read your comment...so I will look at that closer...thanks for pointing that out.

B -

you're welcome.


No prob! I have difficulty in sounding didactic and pompous when droning on and on and on and on and....but I digress ;)

Brevity is the soul of wit.

[alanzo]

I'm glad to see this thread evolve.

I have 16 years of experience as a Scientologist. I was on staff in many different organizations and I am highly trained in its "ethics" and administrative technology. I have audited others for hundreds of hours and been audited myself for thousands of hours.

I am an ex-Scientologist.

Since you all have experience with hypnosis, and Robert H has provided an overview of Scientology auditing techniques, and their similarities with other hypnotic techniques, let me just provide what Hubbard said about hypnosis:

"HYPNOTISM 1. an address to the reactive mind. It reduces self-determinism by interposing the commands of another below the analytical level of an individual's mind: it enturbulates a case markedly, and materially aberrates human beings by keying in engrams which would otherwise lie dormant. "

LRH, 1951, from "The Technical Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology"

Now, here's my question to the group: Why would a person who was trained in hypnosis define hypnosis in this way? Especially to the people he was selling his own form of hypnotherapy?

I have my own answer, but I'd love to hear yours.

Alanzo

[Terry (existing)]

I believe you answered your own question didn't you? Anyone selling their own brand of something feels the need to destroy or put down the previous brand, for fear that comparison might do harm to the new brand, or expose it as inferior.

[alanzo]

I believe you answered your own question didn't you? Anyone selling their own brand of something feels the need to destroy or put down the previous brand, for fear that comparison might do harm to the new brand, or expose it as inferior.

Well...YEAH, but...

My answer had more to do with Hubbard's wish to divert attention from the safeguards that most ethical practitioners of hypnosis employ so that he could use hypnosis as a coercive measure to gain more compliance from his followers for his own goals.

Actually, I believe that Hubbard's main goal was to get his followers to give up their own goals, and to supplant them with his goals.

I believe that he wanted an army of somnambulent slaves, and hypnosis was one tool he used to achieve that goal.

Do you think that hypnosis, enducing suggestible states through auditing, etc can be used as a coercive tool in this way?

[Terry (existing)]

Robert, what I get from your last post, is that Dianetics and the hypnosis group are two sides of the same coin, and I wouldn't argue with that. My intent however, is not to prevent study of Dianetics via books, but care not to be sucked in by the Church, which is ever willing to bully badger, and threaten court action against anyone who disagrees with them or their actions. To say this is not so goes against all we can read in local papers regarding the rebels who are chastised openly, and secretly by high church members. Now if one wishes to study mind therapy, and they can study from books and tapes specifically aimed at teaching these methods, why would they study Dianetics, which you say is the same thing, but knowing it is connected to a "church" which bullies it's members? Each of us is free to do as we wish with our own minds and bodies, but a warning against something dangerous is just being friendly, and offering to let others learn from your mistakes. It seems you feel differently, but that's OK, Don and I can still believe as we choose without falling out with those who think differently....

[skip]

Alanzo,

"Actually, I believe that Hubbard's main goal was to get his followers to give up their own goals, and to supplant them with his goals."

Can you name any religion that doesnt have essentially this same goal?

skip

[parsa]

>Can you name any religion that doesnt have essentially this same goal?

Or for that matter a whole lot of other institutions, like schools, universities...
I once read a sentence from an NLPer in a book or an internet site, sorry I don't remember who it was, saying essentialy that (don't remember the exact words) if you don't set goals in your life there are plenty of people out there who are willing to do that for you.

[alanzo]

Alanzo,

Can you name any religion that doesnt have essentially this same goal?

skip

That's a good point.

But there is a difference with Scientology.

You don't participate in the religion without paying money. Lot's of money. It's estimated that reaching the top of the existing BRIDGE TO TOTAL FREEDOM costs an average of $350,000.

And working for the Church of Scientology is under a contract that lasts for 2.5 or 5 years, and another for a billion years. The contract states that you are not working for any recompence whatsoever. And the courses you take to learn your job will be billed to you if you ever break your contract and leave. So you have people who have worked for the Church for 25 years, who were on a billion year contract, who OWE $50,000 to the Church when they leave. Yet they usually slept in a bunk bed and worked 70-80 hours per week, with very few days off, for that whole time.

There is no health care, and there is no retirement plan.

I mean, it's not like Scientologists get together and sing hymns once per week. Involving yourself in Scientology is not like joining the cute little chapel around the corner.

And so all those goals that get supplanted are put there to get you onto the Hamster Wheel to Total Freedom, and to keep you looking forward while huffing and puffing your life and money away.

In these ways, Scientology is different.

I was wondering if you knew whether hypnosis could be used to make this kind of set up even more trouble-free and profitable for those in charge?

[Robert H]

Alanzo,

I'm wondering whether you have checked out the Freezone, and if so, what you think of it.

Robert

[LIGHT]

alanzo,

you said "Dianetics and Scientology auditing techniques are deeply rooted in Hypnosis and implanting suggestions"
You never gave an actual example of your acusation. Can you please give one with the details?

[alanzo]

Someone asked me a question about examples I have of Scientology's hypnotic techniques.

From the data I have gathered from looking into hypnosis, it appears to me that repeated trips down a person's "time track" make it easier and easier for the subject to slide into hypnotic states, and thus to be susceptible to suggestion.

In a book Hubbard wrote in 1951, "The Science of Survival" in Chapter 17, called HYPNOTIC LEVEL, Hubbard says this:

"Returning back down the track slightly increases the suggestibility of any person."

It seems well known to anyone except those who Hubbard has taught about hypnosis, that having someone focus on their minds, to the exclusion of the room, and everything else, brings about a hypnotic state in most people.

And, returning back down the track slightly increases the suggestibility of any person.

And yet Hubbard told all of those undergoing auditing that hypnosis "puts people to sleep" but that auditing "wakes them up".

Hubbard never mentioned hypnosis or suggestibility after 1951, he just kept coming up with more auditing procedures which made preclears more suggestible.
http://images.beliefnet.com/imgs/x.gif

[alanzo]

Yes, I have checked out the Freezone.

No thanks.

[Robert H]

Joining staff or the Sea Org is like becoming a priest or monk or nun in another religion. Compared to that - there is not much difference in lifestyle between being on staff or in the sea org vs being a member of the clergy or a monastic in any other religion.

Robert

[Robert H]

In my experience every form of therapy, personal development, or religion implicitly or explicitly uses hypnotic mechanisms.

So, I'm a little unclear as to how it's use in scientology means that scientology is somehow bad. Since every type of therapy or religion uses hypnotic elements - (intentionally or not is an entirely different question) ...does that make all therapies and religions bad or evil??

[Don]

Amazing.
Robert, have you actually experienced "every form of therapy, personal developmpent, or religion?"

[Robert H]

Alright.

Let me modify my statement - every form of therapy, personal development, or religion that I have experienced definitely has a hypnotic element to it. From what I can tell this is also true, of the ones I have studied a bit about or heard something about from those who have experienced them.

I have experienced quite a large assortment of therapies, personal development, and religion. I can't say every one though - at least not yet.

Robert

[Don]

Fair enough. But then, every aspect of life has a hypnotic element to it. From driving a car to reading a book, from watching television to trying to get friends to help you move, hypnosis and NLP are a part of life.

How, then, are therapy, personal development methods, or religion different from other elements in life?

[alanzo]

In my experience every form of therapy, personal development, or religion implicitly or explicitly uses hypnotic mechanisms.

So, I'm a little unclear as to how it's use in scientology means that scientology is somehow bad. Since every type of therapy or religion uses hypnotic elements - (intentionally or not is an entirely different question) ...does that make all therapies and religions bad or evil??

Yet L Ron Hubbard tells his followers that auditing is the OPPOSITE of hypnosis. He tells you that hypnosis "puts you to sleep" while his auditing "wakes you up".

He is lying about what hypnosis is, knowing all the while exactly what hypnosis is, and then telling you that the auditing he is selling you is not hypnosis and contains no hypnotic techniques or suggestions.

It isn't that auditing contains hypnosis, it is that Hubbard intentionally misdefined hypnosis and auditing in order to covertly use suggestion to control his followers.

Can you see this?

[Don]

Respectfully, Alanzo, you're mind reading.

IF your reporting of Hubbard's defintions is accurate, then I certainly agree that he has misdefined hypnosis.

However, unless you can show through documentation that Hubbard knew and accepted more accurate definitions of hypnosis, you cannot say that he is lying or that he did this intentionally.

I would point out that a great deal of work done by hypnotherapists is replacing the false information most people have of hypnosis with accurate information. One of the primary pieces of false information about hypnosis is that it has anything to do with "sleep." This is not helped by the fact that most hypnotherapists (including myself) use the term "sleep," to help instruct a person what to do during induction and deepening. Even Braid, who came up with the term "hypnosis" which is based on the name of the Greek god of sleep, took some time before he realized his mistake and tried to change the name to monoideation. Most lay people today think that hypnosis is some form of sleeping.

So can you show, through documentation, that Hubbard thought that hypnosis was not some form of sleeping?

Here's a little information about Hubbard. Before Scientology, before Dianetics, he was part of an occult order located in Pasadena, California. The leader of that group, who was living in England, had been heavily influenced by a different occult group in which he had membership for many years. This group, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, had the usual secret handshakes and initiation ceremonies. The very first initiation into that order has a strict vow (with severe penalties for breaking it) not to allow yourself to be hypnotized or lose control to the will of another. Is it not possible that Hubbard simply continued with this belief?

According to Hubbard's son in the book L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?, Hubbard held a copy of the main book by the leader of the occult group which Hubbard had been a member of in his son's face and yelled, "This is real power!" So I think there is documentation that Hubbard didn't know what hypnosis is, unless you can document something different.

[Robert H]

Alanzo,

Hi.

After studying both Scientology and hypnosis/NLP extensively, I don't get that Hubbard was that sophisticated of hypnotist.

The hypnotic phenomena that occur sometimes during auditing are done under the auditors code. This is the time people are most suggestible - when "dope off" (groggy or sleepylike ), exteriorization (disassociation), and partial age regression occur. You know full well how strongly the auditors code is enforced -- there is no making of suggestions that is allowed when the auditing techniques are used. This would be evaluating for the client (aka pc).

Now ethics -- yeah - flagrantly abused as a way to manipulate church goers to handing over more money. However the mechanisms that I witnessed at work here were more in line with Robert Cialdini's "Instant Influence" principles of contrast, reciprocity, scarcity, liking, authority, and commitment and consistency. while powerful - this is different than hypnosis.

For instance, after a good session the "client" is usually encouraged to write a success story - well --this is very well described as "commitment and consistency".

OK - if you stretch it -- The phrase "Would you like to write a success story?" is a conversational postulate and depending on the inflection might contain an embedded command. -- but come on --- so is "Can I help you find something?" when you go to a store. I don't have the impression that you are that familiar with this type of language patterning --very possible for me to be mistaken..just not the impression I get.

So -- could you please provide specific examples of the "hypnotic suggestions" you feel that are being used in auditing to get people to comply with Hubbard's intentions. I am curious --- you have a lot more experience with Scio than I do...I only have about 3 years. You probably spotted things I missed.

Thanks!!

Robert

[Robert H]

The way that auditing is hypnotic was described by hubbard - just using the lingo of scientology - rather than the lingo of hypnosis.

Hypno-analysis is very much the same process as dianetics. In fact, as you know alanzo, originally dianetics sessions included the induction of the state of reverie. Pretty straight forward hypnotic. Right out of book 1 (dianetics: the modern science of mental health.)

also book one sessions install the "canceller command - "when I say the word "cancelled" everything i have said or done will be without force with you...do you understand. very good. CANCELLED.

reverie was induced by having the client close their eyes and count to 7. Which it is no longer taught that way. And of course New Era Dianetics - and the foundation of it known as auditing Routine 3 Revised does not employ such hypnotic mechanisms.

So I totally agree that hubbard even blatantly used some hypnotic devices...So what?

In my experience Dianetics is one of the best De-hypnosis strategies available.

I think i posted this story a while back ---

Let me give an example -- several years ago -- at the day job i had then I was working with a kid who found out I was into hypnosis. He started essentially jesting me with "can you make quack like a duck?" kinds of comments. At first i played along...but after a while I lost my patience, and decided to have some fun with him.

This is when I was first starting to learn dianetics so I used the notion that pain / shock create heightened suggestibility exactly the way Hubbard describes in DMSMH. I thumped pretty hard on his chest 3 x and said - "You're a duck. your a duck. your a duck."

in scientology terms I gave him a engram.

He stood there sort of looking confused for a minute...I apologized and said I had gotten carried away, and walked away.

a few minues later he was going around saying "quack"

then he comes over to me and wanted to know why he was quacking like a duck. so I used a slight variation on the dianetics technique and said do you remember when we were standing over there ?

- yeah

- what did I do?

- you thumped on my chest

- anything else

-- oh yeah you said your a duck ...WOW -- did you put in a trance..

-- something like that

immediately at that point he stopped quacking.

Point is in the course of about 10 minutes I both did hypnosis and de-hypnosis as described by Hubbard.

I am completely convinced that auditing is de-hypnosis. Not the only means to de-hypnotize someone...there are others...but a very effective means. Yes, it uses partial age regression. Therefore it is a hypnotic route to de-hypnotism.

I have never seen anywhere that Hubbard said that auditing was not hypnotic. In fact in several places he says people go through hypnotic states as it's "running out". therefore he was implying in what he said that auditing use hypnotic mechanisms. Bottom line is the end result that I have both experienced and witnessed is that auditing produces an end state that we could easily call "de-hypnosis". Haven't you in all the auditing you both gave and received found this sort of waking up / or lifting of the veil of previous limiting "assumptions" aka "hypnotic suggestions" ??

I see the point you are trying to make Alanzo, but, with all respect, and apologies, I don't think it's valid.

Robert

[alanzo]

This is one of the reasons I originally came to this board, to speak with people who know more about hypnosis than I do.

Don - I very much appreciate the data about Alestair Crowley's attitude about hypnosis. I did not know that and it lights a fascinating new avenue for me to study. Thank you.

Robert - You are correct, I am not well versed in many areas of hypnosis. My theory about Hubbard is my own.

But I do have a very seminal quote from Hubbard that "positions" a Scientologist against hypnosis and for auditing. It is very similar to your belief, Robert, that auditing "de-hypnotizes" someone. That idea is voiced by virtually every Scientologist I know.

And that idea came straight from Hubbard.

From Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health, chapter called "Returning, the File Clerk, and the Time Track" He is describing how to audit someone:

"The patient sits in a comfortable chair, with arms, or lies on a couch in a quiet room where perceptic distractions are minimal. The auditor tells him to look at the ceiling. The auditor says "When I count from 1 to 7 your eyes will close." The auditor then counts from one to seven and keeps counting quietly and pleasantly until the patient closes his eyes. A tremble of the lashes will be noticed in optimum reverie."

"This is the entire routine. Consider it more a signal that the proceedings are to begin and a means of concentrating the patient on his own concerns and the auditor than anything else. This is not hypnotism. It is vastly different. In the first place the patient knows everything which is going on around him. He is not "asleep", and can bring himself out of it any time he likes. He is free to move about, but, because it distracts the patient, the auditor does not usually permit him to smoke."

It seems to me that all the things that Hubbard said makes Dianetics "vastly different" from hypnosis ARE THE TECHNIQUES OF HYPNOSIS, TOO!

He goes on:

"The auditor makes very sure that the patient is not hypnotized by telling him, before he begins to count, "You will know everything which goes on. You will be able to remember everything that happens. You can exercise your own control. If you do not like what is happening, you can instantly pull out of it. Now, one, two, three, four, etc."

Once I began to allow myself to learn about hypnosis, I began to see that this procedure IS hypnosis, while he is telling you it is not hypnosis.

Hypnotism, Hubbard says later in this chapter, makes the patient dependant on the auditor, causes tranference and makes them susceptible to positive suggestion. See, I believe that this is exactly what Hubbard wanted to do with his followers. So he set up this BAD THING (hypnosis) OVER THERE. While he handed you this GOOD THING (auditing) OVER HERE.

Where hypnosis makes you dependant and susceptible to implants, Dianetics WAKES YOU UP, and RUNS OUT IMPLANTS! It's the opposite!

I think this is a prestidigation technique, something for which Hubbard showed lots of talent. I think Hubbard wanted to implant suggestions into unwilling and unknowing subjects as ONE of his tools of coersion on his followers.

I'd like to get as many views on this as I can.

Anyone?

[alanzo]

Respectfully, Alanzo, you're mind reading.

IF your reporting of Hubbard's defintions is accurate, then I certainly agree that he has misdefined hypnosis.

However, unless you can show through documentation that Hubbard knew and accepted more accurate definitions of hypnosis, you cannot say that he is lying or that he did this intentionally.

You're right, Don.

I might be attributing more knowledge and power to Hubbard than he actually had. I guess ex-cult members might tend to do that with their ex-leaders.

I know that, from "Bare-Faced Messiah", Forrest Ackerman, Hubbard's literary agent, reports that Hubbard was a stage hypnotist in the late 1940's at science fiction conferences. Russell Miller, the author, posits that this training and practice in hypnosis was Hubbard's "original research" for Dianetics.

So it is well documented that Hubbard knew what hypnosis was, he was a practicing hypnotist before he wrote Dianetics, and sold that procedure as "auditing".

I would point out that a great deal of work done by hypnotherapists is replacing the false information most people have of hypnosis with accurate information. One of the primary pieces of false information about hypnosis is that it has anything to do with "sleep." This is not helped by the fact that most hypnotherapists (including myself) use the term "sleep," to help instruct a person what to do during induction and deepening. Even Braid, who came up with the term "hypnosis" which is based on the name of the Greek god of sleep, took some time before he realized his mistake and tried to change the name to monoideation. Most lay people today think that hypnosis is some form of sleeping.

So can you show, through documentation, that Hubbard thought that hypnosis was not some form of sleeping?

Well, if hypnosis is "monoideation" then auditing is certainly hypnosis!

(By the way, I'm reading an interesting book right now called "The Story of Hypnosis" published in 1948, which talks about Braid, and Mesmer and the whole lineage of cults and groups that used hypnosis as its central from of therapy. There is even evidence that Mozart was the first Tom Cruise, having been a member of Mesmer's cult way back then)

Hubbard taught, and whether he actually thought what he taught is the point you are raising, that hypnosis uses the unconscious, or "reactive", mind to implant automatic responses to external stimuli. Therefore, the use of hypnosis was making a person more unconscious, per Hubbard, while auditing would be waking a person up by taking away those inconscious commands.

Auditing was going into the reactive mind and becoming aware of those times where the unconscious was recording, and refiling that content back into the conscious mind where you could think and reason with it, and no longer be under its stimulous-response control.

It may simply be, because hypnosis has nothing to do with "sleep" or "unconscious" that auditing simply substitutes one suggestion for another. To believe that "the incident is now erased from the reactive mind, and refiled in the analytical mind" may very well equate to other hypno-therapuetuc techniques I've seen dealing with what to do with the mental incident once its been found. It may all be a suggestion only.

There is no "erasure".

I believe that auditing is a form of hypnotherapy, and the Church of Scientology follows the lineage of these hypnotherapy cults back to Mesmer. While the problems those groups caused is probably more well-known in Europe, specifically France, American culture has almost no knowledge of it.

That specific point of whether "Hubbard thought what he taught" is a very good one, Don.

I'm going to have to look into that more fully to find the specific evidence for that. I do know that Hubbard lied about virtually every area of his own life, and that he lied about many other things to Scientologists. So he certainly showed the capacity, and the willingness, to deceive others for his own gain.

[Guestman]

Amazing.
Robert, have you actually experienced "every form of therapy, personal developmpent, or religion?"

I haven't had intimate relations with every woman on the planet, but I bet they've all got breasts :)

[Don]

So Guestman, you equate breasts with religion? You must be a mamatarian.

[:-)]

So Guestman, you equate breasts with religion? You must be a mamatarian.
by the rivers of boob y lon :)

[MR behavior]

what kind of discusion is this? i dont think is relevant.

[skip]

You would lose the bet.

[Connie]

Here's a question. I wonder if it's possible to help a friend of a friend.

He's a scientologist, brainwashed to the core. He's been immersed in the cult/religion/whatever you want to call it for decades. He's a terribly unhappy person, with untreated medical and mental problems. (He's bipolar.) Scientology is hurting him professionally, and personally. He's valuable to the cult, so they're at him constantly. His family is "in," the majority of his friends are "in," his co-workers are "in." He doesn't think there's a problem. Scientology is his life, and he thinks these people are his friends. They aren't. He's being used in ways I can't discuss, but primarily it's financial.

HE doesn't admit there's a problem. Is there any way to help him escape the clutches of scientology if he doesn't see it as a problem? Even if he wanted to, could his mind and free will be restored through hypnosis?

[skip]

Connie,

Yes hypnosis and or deprograming could help.

However.

He doesnt want out, and the people who might have a legitimate right to 'kidnap' him and 'deprogram' him, dont want to.

You are dealing with issues of free choice, and free will here, and while you may be right, you do not have a legal leg to stand on.

Give this one up, and go find a fight that you have a potential to win. This one is not a hill you want to die on.

skip

[Connie]

Skip! I know you're right. It's just a sad situation, because he's a good man with a fine mind, a loving man with a kind heart, living a seriously screwed up life. That's not just my opinion. Those closest to him agree.

I guess I was just venting, wishing aloud for a miracle of sorts. It ain't gonna happen. I was wishing he could be helped. But I think wanting to be helped might be a prerequisite. Thanks for answering.

[skip]

Well I wish it were different too.

This world is full of ways to waste your life.

And if we believe in free will, I mean really believe in free will, we have to allow people to ruin theirs, if they so choose.

Such as being liberal. :) (Sorry my evil conservative side reveals itsself once again.)

The rub comes in, when we believe that the person, or people in question have not been able to exercise free will. Such as being propogandized. Or being informed only with one sided information. Or being pressure 'cooked', such as cults, and like high pressure sales pitches do. Things like that.

When we believe that is the case, we feel that 'someone' should step in and help straighten out the situation. Even if it is against the subjugated's will.

And that is a really tough call. Personally I am glad it is a tough one, because knowing the motives of the person who wants to make the 'intervention' isnt always posible. It is a slippery slope.

Without offering it as any excuse whatsoever for what happened, are you at all framiliar with what the Nazis did with the Hitler Youth. Those kids, by the tens of thousands were taken from their parents, as infants, and raised to adulthood in a carefully controlled enviornment. It was all they knew. They never had a chance.

Very scarey business. Especially when you consider some of the sequestered groups we have now.

I am sorry for your friend, and the helpless feeling you have, about the situation. The best you can do is continue to be a friend, and keep contct if they will allow it, and plant seeds.

Fertile ground for their ideology, is still fertile ground.

I wish you, and your friend, the best,

skip

[Connie]

Fertile ground for their ideology, is still fertile ground. skip

You are so WISE! :) I mean that sincerely. I appreciate every word out of your mouth. (or fingers as the case may be) :)

[alanzo]

I was involved in Scientology for 16 years, and lots of people tried to get me to see what was happening at various times, but I interpreted all their attempts as "suppressive". Some I considered just didn't know what they were doing, trying to get me to cut myself off from the "Total Freedom" that Scientology held out for me.

Others, I knew they meant me harm.

L Ron Hubbard saw many customers come and go from his cult in the 36 years he ran it. And he developed very powerful thought-stopping techniques to keep Scientologists looking away from any information that may counteract his programming.

For me, it was not until I was able to recognize and admit TO MYSELF that my involvement was actually harming me, that I allowed myself to see and consider the MOUNTAINS of information that exist against Scientology. When others suggested that Scientology may be harming me, I was immediately so defensive that any harm I could have seen, I would refuse to see - just because someone else was trying to change me.

A friend of mine, one of the few non-Scientologists I had around me, suggested that it was important to be intellectually honest about things, and that finally resonated with my pre-cult identity. And I thought, "What the hell? If it's really freedom that I'm after, then I should be free to honestly examine these ideas that run counter to Scientology, shouldn't I?".

But then, it all just started to collapse around me. I was fired from my job, where I was a Vice President, all my Scientology friends disconnected from me, and the Church's Office of Special Affairs started following me with private investigators, and calling family members to try to get them to disconnect from me as well.

You have to realize what you are asking: the Church of Scientology exacts a very high cost for leaving, and especially for leaving and telling others that you are leaving and why.

It actually took a tremendous amount of courage. It's very difficult and very messy to completely change all the spiritual and mental foundations upon which your life is built. And to be shunned from all your former friends and business associates. I was terrified for months. And much real damage was done in my life.

But I thought that since I was on a quest for truth, then why end that quest just because I had become a Scientologist?

So now I'm free of the cult, and I'm trying to provide information for other Scientologists "with ears to hear".

Two very good books to read about this are Steven Hassan's "Releasing the Bonds" and "Combatting Cult Mind Control".

The most effective thing you can do is remain a friend - no matter what. That is why you care about the person's involvement in Scientology, right? Always keep in mind, as well, that, for some people, Scientology is a source of stability and spiritual progress. You must always allow for that to be the case with your friend, too.

Over time, those who remain true friends will begin to show through the programming, and the diminishing returns of Scientology will become more apparent to the person.

In the end, that's what wins out.

Because no cult ever really delivers what it promises. Pretty soon, even the most die-hard adherents begin to recognize that.

If you're there at that point, then you can be there for him.

[Connie]

Alanzo! I'm happy you escaped. You ARE courageous. I applaud you, and your strength of mind!! My friend of a friend embroiled in Scientology is a very extreme case, but I do think that on some level he does see that his life is not what he'd like it to be and that it doesn't all make sense. He just doesn't see a way out. I'll tell my friend (who's closer to him) the books you mentioned. Thanks!

[Don]

Connie and Alanzo, I'm going to say something that might upset you both, so I apologize in advance: some people need to be in cults.

I've seen some people who have had lives that were total wrecks. They joined a cult (different ones) and a change came over them. Frankly, in many cases I did not like the personality change. However, they improved their hygiene, they were able to hold a job and save money, they got better homes.

Who am I to say that they are wrong? I've known people who were alcoholics and who joined AA, and to them it became a cult, totally dominating their lives.

So I don't think the problem is necessarily joining or staying in a cult. Rather, it is if a person wants to leave but is prevented from doing so.

There is another cult where they shave your head, give you lower food, deprive you of sleep, make you work hard, indoctrinate you, make you think of the group before yourself. But the thing is, most of the people who join end up leaving. Many stay.

This cult is called "the military."

[Connie]

You don't upset me, Don. I like hearing what you have to say. Your comment about "the military" made me laugh. I made a comment about hypnosis and my own self-improvements the other day to someone:

I'm so pleased that I get to "be all I can be" and I DON'T have to join the Army. :)

[Don]

Hi, Connie.
;)

But here's a suggestion. Why settle for merely being all you can be? Why not choose to be all you can imagine? The imagination is far more powerful than what our conscious perceives.

[Connie]

Don! Thank you! I'll mull that over. :)

[alanzo]

Don -

I understand what you mean. In fact, when I first joined Scientology, it was a step up for me. It definitely improved my life at the time.

I needed the discipline, and the easy answers. I needed to feel like I possessed superior knowledge that would save the world. I was on one of my first, major quixotic quests of this lifetime. Scientology was perfect for that.

So yes, I agree.

To me, Scientologists need to have all the information they can get to make informed choices about their involvement. Many don't know a lot of things about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. And many, knowing those things, would never have joined.

So that's why it's important to promote the free exchange of ideas about Scientology, and to invite Scientologists to look at all the information about these things.

Many look at this information and decide to remain Scientologists.

For them, obviously, Scientology fulfills a valid need they have.

Not all people respond that way. Some come to find that Scientology was not the group they thought they were joining.

So that's why I promote the free exchange of ideas about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology - so that everyone has the information they need to make informed decisions about their involvement.

[Terry (exiting)]

Scientology is valid to many. Enough said. ;)

[parsa]

Terry(exiting)??? Why exit?

[pmdigi]

just came across this book on amazon - haven't read it - just seems good on helping someone get out of a cult. "Releasing the Bonds: Empowering People to Think for Themselves" by Steven Hassan.

[alanzo]

Yes PMdigi -

"Releasing the Bonds" by Steve Hassan is a great book.

That was one of the books which helped me to get out of Scientology. I would highly recommend it to anyone looking to release themselves from Scientology, or any other cult.

Also, I have found that anyone involved in a cult should improve their critical thinking skills. They will find whoppingly illogical thinking patterns that, once they have improved their logic skills, they will be able to spot in their own thinking and eliminate.

A very good book for that, for me, was "The Art of Deception" by Nicholas Cipaldi.

Good luck, everyone.

And thanks for talking to me.

[pancration]

Robert H

That's a cute little story about thumping some one and telling them "you're a duck".

However, Get the feeling that if a newbie to this forum had told the same story they would have been called a "troll".

[Terry (existing)]

But then you would need to define the meaning of "troll" would you not? I see a trol as intending to disrupt a board. One who has nothing to say in fact, but chooses only to forment discord. Now Robert in fact did have something to say, something that many of us disagreed with, but non the less he had a gaol, like it or not. No, I would not call Robert a troll, but rather a "one trick pony" with brain washing as his intent. What he had to discuss was connected to hypnosis, and therefor valid, and each of us has the opportunity to disagree with his outlook, or even put him in ignore.

[Simon]

There is an anecdote about Hubbart making a bet with Clarke that he can create his own religion. You can see that Hubbart supposedly won at the bet :D

[pancration]

Terry, In previous posts people have written in telling how they have induced rapid trance using a variety of methods. Such people have been new to this forum and yuo have called them Trolls and dismissed their claims.

[Pancration]

Do you not feel you can answer this Terry?

[Terry (existing)]

Do you not feel you can answer this Terry? Actually no I don't, since I don't see a question here? Each post is treated as being as unique as the poster, so if you have a question, please apply it to a specific post. Your own if you wish,since I suspect you have a problem with my reply to you at some time? I have valid reasons for all my replies, and am sure I can reassurect it when brought to my attention.