> > And if not, isn't it time to wonder why, and to explore other - better
> > - ways to accomplish the objectives you described?

     Yes of course.

     That is in fact what we are doing.

     However Hubbard got much of it right, perhaps in spite of himself
or perhaps he was higher tone in the beginning.

     Thus one takes up where Hubbard 'left off' so to speak.

     The basics of Scn are based on

     1.) MEST is a dream

     2.) The being is totally responsible for own condition, for being
in that dream and for inviting others in.  Further the being's state
is a direct result of his own creative or agreeing postulates and
nothing else, and thus by spotting those postulates and releasing
them, the state in question vanishes.

     3.) Persistence in MEST is caused by lies.

     4.) Truth causes vanishment of all mechanical conditions of

     5.) Charge results from failed desire and not-isness.  Resistence
causes persistence etc.

     6.) Case progress is as follows.  First you get the not-isness
off the case, then the alter-isness, then the as-isness.

     Result is a native state being free to engage again in persisting
shenanigans on his own choosing.

     Now if any of the above is wrong, we got a problem, the roots of
Scn are rotten.

     But if its all right, then the only thing wrong with Scn is
specific approach to HOW we do each step in the clearing process.

     There is what to clear and how to clear.  I believe Hubbard got
the what to clear mostly right, but how to clear can be very personal.

     As to historical mythology born of people talking about the
incidents they ran on the whole track, or worse forcing others to run
the same incidents, its a clear violation of the auditor's code.

     On the other hand nothing wrong with pioneers reporting what they
found to be real.


> That's mighty presumptuous of you. You would be better off taking your
> anti-Hubbard, anti-Scientology buttons to ARS.
> --
> Ted

Mon Jun 19 18:47:06 EDT 2006