Hubbard the Stage Hypnotist Series

Hubbard, the Master Stage Hypnotist! Index

The Anderson Report
on Hypnotism
in Scientology

Use of the "Confusion Technique" in scientology

Hypnosis in scientology - The Gradation Chart Revealed - LINK

Hypnosis Is
What Works in scientology by
Don Carlo

Hubbard Denounced by Inventor of the E-Meter

Hypnosis Demonstration and Collective on Hubbard's Use of Covert Hypnosis - Exposed

Dianetics in the 1952 Journal of Hypnosis and Instantaneous Hypnosis" by Harry Arons

scientology's Source of the "E-Meter Stress Test" and More From 1943 - George Estabrooks

A Comparison of Hypnosis and Auditing from Ex-Member who Became a Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist

Hubbard's own statements about Hypnosis from his books and Scientology official publications.

The Rape of the Mind by Joost Meerloo 1957 - LINK

Visual Fraud Tour

Help for Scientologists

Humor

Scientology's Scandals!

Support lermanet2.com

Resources & Related Links

How to Get Involved

"Never believe a hypnotist" - an investigation of L. Ron Hubbard's statements about hypnosis and its relationship to his Dianetics.

By John Atack

abbreviations used in the text:

AstSF - Astounding Science Fiction, May 1950
DMSMH - Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
DTOT - Dianetics the Original Thesis
EoS - Dianetics the Evolution of a Science
R&D - Research and Discovery, followed by volume number
SOS - Science of Survival, followed by volume I or II

There have been many assertions that "cult" groups utilize techniques
related to hypnotism. For example, Persinger, Carrey & Suess in TM and
Cult Mania. However, to date there has been little analysis of these
groups' own teachings on the subject of hypnotic technique and
manipulation.  L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Dianetics and Scientology, was
initially outspoken on the subject. He wrote a manual on brain-washing,
falsely attributing it to Beria, and in a letter offered to sell his
"brain-washing" techniques to the FBI. He was also to claim "we can
brainwash faster than the Russians. 20 secs to total amnesia" (Technical
Bulletin, 22 July 1956).

As well as showing genuine insight into hypnosis, Hubbard's statements
are a fascinating maze of contradiction and misdirection. It soon
becomes apparent that Hubbard is both eager to show off his knowledge
and determined to hide something vital: that Dianetics is a form of
hypnosis.

Prolonged and deliberate study of Hubbard's teachings makes it
impossible to escape the conclusion that Dianetics is a form of
hypnosis, differing only from that subject in the words used to describe
the procedures. Hubbard's own Policy Letter "Propaganda by Redefinition
of Words" (PR series 12) gives some understanding of the sigificance of
redefinition (something Hubbard was frequently prone to, "reasonable"
and "postulate", for instance). The power of redefinition is also
described in part in Robert Lifton MD's "thought reform model" under the
heading "loaded language", or indeed in Korzybski's General Semantics
("the map is not the territory; the word is not the thing itself").
Hubbard of course paid homage to Korzybski in both Science of Survival
and 8-8008, and borrowed the misunderstood word from him (Hubbard also
redefined Korzybski's various forms of isness). Korzybski's notions of
the power of language figure not only as a basis for Dianetics, but also
for Rational Emotive Therapy and Cognitve Therapy. Never underestimate
the power of words! They are fundamental to manipulation and are the
stuff of which positive suggestions or engrams are made.

Dianetics:

Lafayette Ronald Hubbard is known to the world through his authorship of
adventure and science fiction stories, and through his creation of the
Church of Scientology and its many subsidiary organizations. The Church
of Scientology was itself an outgrowth of the Dianetics movement which
came into being with the incorporation of the Hubbard Dianetic Research
Foundation, in Elizabeth, New Jersey, in April 1950. By this time,
Hubbard's first article on Dianetics, "Terra Incognita: The Mind", had
already appeared in the Explorers Club Journal. A second article,
"Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science", appeared in the May 1950
edition of Astounding Science Fiction ("AstSF"), and was followed within
days by the publication of the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of
Mental Health ("Dianetics: MSMH" or "DMSMH"). This book remains in print
(as indeed do the two first articles), published by Scientology
publishing houses, and it is still used as the basis for the Hubbard
Dianetics Auditor Course, sold by all Churches of Scientology.  The
current Hubbard Dianetics Auditor Course seeks to re-establish Dianetic
"auditing" as it was performed at its inception in 1950 (see The Hubbard
Dianetics Auditor Course or The Hubbard Dianetics Seminar).

In Dianetics: MSMH, Hubbard claimed to have discovered a therapy which
he had subsequently tested on some 273 individuals (DMSMH, p.51).  He
claimed to have discovered "the single and sole cause of aberration and
psycho-somatic illness" (ibid, p.68).  Dianetics would supposedly
relieve stuttering, asthma, arthritis, allergies, sinusitis, coronary
trouble, high blood pressure, the common cold (ibid, p.51-52; see also
p.92), poor eyesight (ibid, p.10), colour blindness (ibid, p.9), hearing
deficiencies (ibid, p.11), ulcers, bursitis, eye trouble, dermatitis,
migraine, tuberculosis (ibid, p.92), conjunctivitis (ibid, p.126),
morning sickness (ibid, p.156), and alcoholism (ibid, p.364f). Hubbard
also claimed that Dianetics would have "a marked effect upon the
extension of life" (ibid, p.96). Further, a Clear - an individual who
had successfully completed Dianetic auditing - would be able to do a
computation which a "normal would do in half an hour, in ten or fifteen
seconds" (ibid, p.171) and would have perfect memory or "complete
recall" (ibid, p. 171).

Dianetics will supposedly be effective on anyone who has not been "born
with a grossly malformed nervous structure" or had "a large portion of
the brain removed" (ibid, p.17).  Dianetics can be practised straight
from the book without further training, and the therapy takes between 30
and 1,200 hours (ibid, p.392).  With Dianetic auditing IQ will "soar" by
as much as "fifty points" (ibid, p.90).  The Clear is "phenomenally
intelligent" (ibid, p.312), with full control of his imagination (ibid,
p.15) and "has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to
him or anything he has ever studied" (ibid, p. 171, see also pp. 170 &
367).  He is "clear" of all irrational behaviour, compulsions,
repressions and psychosomatic ailments (ibid, pp.8 & 382).  Dianetics
will also purportedly cure neuroses and even psychoses (ibid). These
claims have never been substantiated (testimonials are not acceptable as
scientific evidence) and although Dianetics: MSMH is still sold, with no
claims withdrawn, the definition of Clear was "cancelled" inside
Scientology by a 1978 Bulletin, "The State of Clear", which instead
provides the circular definition that a Clear doesn't have "his own
reactive mind" (probably meaning that he still has myriad "body thetan"
reactive minds).

Hubbard's research:

According to his own accounts, Hubbard's research consisted of hypnotism
and drug hypnotism (see below), clairvoyance, automatic writing,
automatic speaking (AstSF, May 1950, or EoS, p.56; see also R&D1, p.106)
and faith healing (R&D1, p.186).  He also had an interest in Freud's
ideas prior to the introduction of free association, and Dianetic
technique has many points in common with Freud's early attempts at
therapy (Atack, p.108f; Freud, 1909).  Hubbard also drew upon
Korzybski's General Semantics, Wiener's Cybernetics and psychiatric
research into psychodynamic therapy - including abreaction - and drug
hypnotism.  Hubbard gave no mention of scientific experiments or
controls, and no case histories or follow-up studies have ever been made
available.

L. Ron Hubbard was sixteen when he made his first brief trip to Asia
with his mother, in 1927.  He made a second brief trip with both
parents, and returning to the United States in 1929 (Atack, pp.53-57).
He was later to claim that he had studied hypnotism in Asia (EoS, p.22;
DMSMH p.252 [also DMSMH p.95, however, Hubbard's claim to have visited
India is spurious. See Atack and Miller]).  Therefore, Hubbard claimed
to have been a practitioner of hypnotism for more than twenty years
prior to the release of Dianetics: MSMH.

Hubbard was also knowledgable about the history of hypnotism. He posited
an early date for its discovery: "The art of hypnotism is very old,
tracing back some thousands of years and existing today in Asia as it
has existed, apparently from the dawn of time." (DMSMH, p.12).  "From
India it long ago filtered to Greece and Rome and it has come to us via
Anton Mesmer" (ibid, p.252).  Hubbard also referred to the works of
Bernheim and Charcot (R&D1, p.33; Charcot is listed as one of the men
without whom "the creation and construction of Dianetics would not have
been possible" in the acknowledgments page in SOS).

Hubbard asserted that hypnotism is a "fundamental principle in several
mystic arts" and that "its mechanics were known even to the Sioux
medicine man" (DMSMH, p.252).  Knowledge of hypnotism, according to
Hubbard, is "widespread" (SOSII, p.221; "very common", R&D1, p.24).
Further, "Hypnotism was a sort of constant thread through all the cults
- or hypnotic practices" (EoS, p.22).  "Hypnotism is used in some base
religions, and is commonly employed in obsolete mental 'therapies'"
(SOSI, p.161); "Whenever shamans, medicine men, exorcists or even modern
psychologists go to work, they incline toward practices which are
hypnotic." (EoS, p.22).In his second published article, "Dianetics the
Evolution of a Science", Hubbard described a hypnotic session and said
that it had taken him nine years to understand its importance (EoS,
p.23).  Hubbard described a number of hypnotic experiments - indeed,
they constitute almost the entire of his recorded experiments.
Unfortunately, case notes have never been available.

Hubbard was versed in various approaches to  hypnotism.  "It is often
possible to waken a sleeping person into a deep trance simply by
speaking to him quietly several nights in succession at the same hour
and finally getting him to respond to the invitation to talk."  Hubbard
described his obviously frequent use of "amnesia" or "deep" trance,
claiming that his conclusion about "amnesia trance" was "substantiated
by a large amount of experimentation" (R&D1, p.184; see also DMSMH,
p.385; R&D3, p.118).

Dianetics and hypnotism:

Despite such admissions, Hubbard made several adamant statements about
the use of hypnotism in dianetic practice: "hypnotism is not used in
dianetic therapy" (DMSMH, p.12), and "'Is Dianetics a kind of
hypnotism?' Absolutely not." (R&D4, p.345; see also EoS, p.96 and DMSMH,
p.413).  Alongside these denials comes the statement that hypnotism "is
not used to any extent in dianetic therapy" (emphasis added. DMSMH,
p.56).  Hubbard flatly contradicted his statement that hypnotism is not
used by saying that if a preclear drops into a "hypnotic trance ... the
motto is: Work with him where he lies.  If he drops into a half
hypnotized state just by closing his eyes, work him there." (R&D 1,
p.336).  Hubbard also asserted that "The mechanism by which the mind is
able to cause physical disability or predispose the body to an illness
and perpetuate sickness is, in its basic cause, a very simple thing ...
A series of simple tests can be made on drugged or hypnotic patients
which will prove clinically in other laboratories this basic mechanism.
A series of these tests were run in the formulation of dianetics with
uniform success." (DMSMH, pp.93f).

Hubbard called hypnotism "an excellent research tool in Dianetics"
(R&D1, p.332; see also DMSMH, p.385). He was also to say that he "used
an awful lot of hypnotism in early research" ("Methods of Research - the
Thetan as an Energy Unit", Hubbard lecture, 6 November 1952). This
conflicts with his assertion that the investigation which led to the
discovery of Dianetics "was not approached through hypnotism", adding,
however, "and hypnotism is just another tool, a tool which is of only
occasional use in the practice of dianetics" (my emphasis. DMSMH, p.58).
 To further confound the picture, in the same text Hubbard explained how
to hypnotise someone in their sleep (see above) and added "Dianetic
therapy can then be entered upon and pursued and will succeed" (DMSMH,
p.385).  Again in the same text, Hubbard said "Hypnotism was used for
research, then abandoned" (DMSMH, p.201, cf p.58). A few months later,
Hubbard said "A renowned hypnotist is currently running a series of
tests" (R&D1, p.337).

In a lecture given three months after the publication of Dianetics:
MSMH, Hubbard attributed a major discovery - prenatal memory - to a
session in which he placed a volunteer in "amnesia trance" (R&D3,
p.118).  In the same lecture, he also credited his use of
"deintensification" - where a patient goes through the memory of an
incident repeatedly - to his study of hypnotism.Having denied that
Dianetics came out of hypnotic research (DMSMH, p.58, cf p.201), Hubbard
proceeded to regale his reader with tales of his hypnotic work.  Many
general statements were made about his work with hypnotism. External
evidence supports Hubbard's practice of hypnotism (e.g., Miller,
pp.140-141), and even taking into account Hubbard's propensity for
exaggeration, it is evident that he had considerable experience as a
hypnotist.  Don Rogers, one of Hubbard's few close associates during the
year preceding publication of the first book, has said that Hubbard used
"deep trance" until he was commissioned to write the book in January
1950.  He abandoned the practice because he thought it was unpopular
(Rogers correspondence to Atack).

In his second article, Hubbard admitted "I knew hypnotism was, more or
less, a fundamental" (EoS, p.22) and said that "hypnosis was examined"
(ibid, p.23; see also EoS, p.96; R&D1, p.183).  Hubbard also claimed to
have used "hypno-analysis" (EoS, p.24) - psychoanalysis practised on a
hypnotised subject - and recommended a book on the subject (Hypnotism
Comes of Age, R&D2, p.12).

In an early lecture, Hubbard said that he had "worked a case in amnesia
trance" (R&D1, p.183).  He advised against amnesia trance, but added "it
has been subjected to much research" and said "if other methods cannot
be used ... amnesia trance can be employed" (DMSMH, p.385; see also
R&D1, p.183).

The power of hypnotism:

Hubbard said he had once "swamied" one young man "into a deep trance"
(R&D1, p.33).  He had also used "light trance" (R&D1, p.408) - a
hypnotic condition which is still unrecognised by the general public.
Hubbard had hypnotised a man who came to him "insisting that I drive him
crazy ... I threw him into a deep trance and gave him the full routine.
I gave him the suggestion ... wiped the whole experience out of his
mind, wiped out the experience of his coming to tell me that he wanted
it done ... woke up this patient and had a psychotic on my hands."
(R&D1, pp.338f).  Hubbard also claimed to have "worked upon" a number of
manic depressives, "most of them by straight hypnosis" (DMSMH, p.124).
He spoke of an experiment with a "gentleman" unable to absorb
testosterone, whose inability had been remedied by hypnotism (R&D3,
p.47).According to Hubbard, the effects obtainable through hypnotism are
impressive: "The heart by positive suggestion alone can be speeded up,
slowed down or otherwise excited ... blood flow can be inhibited ...
Excreta are among the easiest things to regulate by suggestion ... The
urine can also be so controlled. And so can the endocrine system."
(emphasis in original. DMSMH, pp.94 & 96; see also R&D3, p.47).
Hubbard admitted using hypnotism to alter his own blood flow (DMSMH,
p.94).  He also asserted that the thyroid gland could also be regulated
by hypnotism (R&D3, p.47).Hypnotism can be used to cure stammering "on
one patient out of ten" (R&D1, p.330), and hearing, sight and touch can
all be "extended" through the use of hypnotism (DMSMH, p.94; see also
R&D3, p.188).  "By suggestion the power of hearing can be tuned down or
up so that a person is nearly deaf or can hear pins fall at a great
distance." (DMSMH, p.94).

Having made these assertions, Hubbard added, in a book published in June
1951, "even such a degraded practice as hypnotism can, by the
implantation of positive suggestions, suppress certain physical and
mental disorders.  Though these are suppressed in one quarter they will
manifest themselves as something entirely different.  Hypnotism can in a
small percentage of cases eradicate the 'psychosomatic illness' but will
produce in its stead a lowered [emotional] tone" (SOSII, p.16).


Hypnotism still has one valid use "Anesthetic hypnosis is wonderful"
(R&D4, p.24; see also R&D1, pp.337; SOSI, p.161). Or further, "Hypnotism
may still have enormous therapeutic or anesthetic value." (R&D1, p.332;
also p.335).  However, "Any benefit derived from hypnotism is in the
field of research or the installation of a temporary manic engram"
(DMSMH, p.385) (the alleviation of "engrams" - purportedly repressed
memories of unconsciousness or pain - forms the entire basis of Dianetic
belief and practice).

In his second article, Hubbard said of hypnotism "On some people it
works.  On most it doesn't. On those on whom it works it sometimes
achieves good results, sometimes bad." (EoS, p.22; see also DMSMH,
p.56).  However, in a manuscript supposedly written prior to this
article, Hubbard said "Hypnotism as such does not work" (OT, p.69; see
also SOSI, p.161).

The dangers of hypnotism:

Hypnotism "is dangerous and belongs in the parlour in the same way you
would want an atom bomb there" (DMSMH, p.57).  It "may be sufficiently
destructive to cause the engrams to restimulate to the point of
insanity" (DMSMH, p.385).

Hypnotism "reduces self-determinism by interposing the commands of
another below the analytical level of an individual's mind ... It is the
sort of control mechanism in which an authoritarian individual, cult, or
ideology delight.  People who indulge in hypnotism may, only very
occasionally, be interested in experimentation upon the human mind ...
Genuine experimental hypnotism, strictly in the laboratory and never in
the parlour, and done wholly in the knowledge that one is reducing the
efficiency of the human being on whom one is experimenting and may do
him permanent damage, and the use of hypnotism by a surgeon ... should
end the extension of hypnotism into the society.  Submission to being
hypnotized is analagous to being raped, with the exception that the
individual can, generally, recover from being raped.  To any
clear-thinking human who believes in the value of people as human
beings, there is something gruesomely obscene about hypnotism.  The
interjection of unseen controls below the level of consciousness cannot
benefit but can only pervert the mind ... The individual who would
permit himself to be hypnotized is, frankly, a fool ... It was thought
by hypnotists that the mere remembering of ... suggestions would relieve
them, and that the power of the suggestion died out with time.  These
two ideas do not happen to be true" (SOSII, p.220f; see also pp.225f).
In Dianetics: MSMH, Hubbard said, more succinctly: "Hypnotism can be
extremely aberrative" (DMSMH, p.384).Indeed, Hubbard asserted that there
are "many suicides pursuant to the practice of hypnotism" (SOSI, p.170).
 
Self-hypnosis, however, "can be resolved fairly easily" (R&D3, p.105).
Hubbard classified the hypnotist as having a permanent emotional
condition ranging from apathy, through grief, sympathy or fear to rage,
indeed, of being without positive emotions (SOSI, p.161; what this says
about Hubbard himself - a hypnotist for many years - we are left to
speculate).  Having vouched for the power of hypnotism, Hubbard
dismissed the hypnotist as a "charlatan" (DOT, p.87).  He said, "One of
the chief weapons of the pervert is hypnotism" (R&D1, p.332; see also
p.270), and "about half-a-percent of all cases run have had pervert
hypnotism in the [memory] bank" (R&D1, p.24).  In contradiction to these
statements is the following "an individual in an hypnotic trance will
rarely perform an immoral act even though commanded to do so by the
hypnotist, unless that individual would normally perform such acts."
(SOSI, pp.223f).  This statement was first published in June 1951.  More
than a year before, Hubbard had said "Perverts quite commonly use
[hypnotism] despite the fact that the moral nature is supposed to rise
in a hypnotized subject" (DMSMH, p.384).Narcosynthesis and abreactive
therapy:During the Second World War, both U.S. and British psychiatrists
were experimenting with a form of therapy which induced hypnotic states
through the use of drugs.  Dr. William Sargant has left a description of
his work on soldiers with "battle neurosis" or "combat fatigue" in his
Battle for the Mind (1957).  Drs. Roy Grinker and John Spiegel published
an account of their work in 1945, under the title Men under Stress.  The
barbiturates and sodium pentothal were used in this work, which also
relied upon Pavlov's discovery of conditioned responses and Freud's
concepts of the unconscious mind and repression.  Grinker and Spiegel
called their work "narcosynthesis", because it used narcotic sedation to
assist the patient to rebuild or "synthesize" the personality.

As with Dianetics, in narcosynthesis the patient was required to
"abreact" or re-experience traumatic events. Hubbard was familiar with
this work: not only did he recommend a book which describes it (Wolfe
and Rosenthal, Hypnotism Comes of Age, R&D2, p.12), but he also referred
to narcosynthesis directly: "One will find regression if one treats
soldiers who have been unlucky enough to undergo narcosynthesis ... He
was merely sick before, but now he is crazy ... Anything which is
touched in narcosynthesis is apt to be restimulated permanently." (R&D1,
p.333f).  Hubbard even suggested the headline "Man released from
Veteran's Hospital on Tuesday kills wife on Thursday!" (ibid, p.334).It
seems eminently possible that Hubbard encountered narcosynthesis, or at
least discussion of it, during his stay at Oakland Naval Hospital in
1945.  Hubbard claimed to have treated schizophrenics with
narcosynthesis (DMSMH, p.123f), as well as doing further drug hypnotism
on cases which had already been "cured" by narcosynthesis (EoS, p.24).
In a lecture given a few weeks after publication of this article,
Hubbard warned against the practice of narcosynthesis (R&D1, p.123; see
also DMSMH, p.390 drug hypnotism is "dianetically illegal").  However, a
few days after this lecture, Hubbard said "it is allowable ... to
produce a more acessible condition by amnesia trance, and even by drugs"
(R&D1, p.184).  In one of his first lectures, Hubbard had said
"Narcosynthesis and other drug therapies have some slight use in
Dianetics" (R&D1, p.8; see also R&D1, p.48).

Hubbard's research not only included decades of "straight hypnosis", he
also gave the idea that his work with narcosynthesis was extensive:
"[tests] have been made on people who could be hypnotized and people who
could not but were drugged. They brought forth valuable data for
dianetics." (DMSMH, p.57); "one day, a multi-valent patient, under
drugs, went back to his birth" (DMSMH, p.126).

Hubbard claimed knowledge of the use of "pain-drug-hypnosis" in
espionage work (SOSII, p.223).  Whether this was simply a guess, or was
based upon the confession of a member of the small US Intelligence teams
involved with such projects as "Operation Bluebird", or indeed if
Dianetics was a U.S. Navy Intelligence experiment, we do not know.  More
alarming is Hubbard's assertion that the Hubbard Dianetic Research
"Foundation undertook some tests with regard to the effectiveness of
pain-drug-hypnosis and found it ... appallingly destructive" (SOSII,
p.225).  Hubbard then asserted that "The Foundation will accept no
further experimentation in this line" (ibid) (this attempt to prove the
"engram" hypothesis failed).

Hubbard's drug research:

Hubbard said that sedative drugs cause "the individual to walk around in
a light hypnotic trance" (SOSII, p.222), and said "Continuous
application of sedatives to an individual ... make him more
suggestible." (SOSI, p.163).  Hubbard admitted testing drugs and gave as
one of his conclusions: "So far soporifics have been tested and rejected
... That whole block of sedatives like scopolamine, opium, phenobarbital
... are of no assistance in Dianetics" (R&D4, p.137).  Hubbard's
understanding of this was personal, having explained the damage caused
in the highly suggestible state brought about by constant use of
phenobarbital, Hubbard said "I know because I made myself a guinea pig
on one of those experiments, and trying to get off a soporific was a
tough job." (R&D 1, p.124).  He named the barbiturate drug phenobarbital
as the soporific to which he had been addicted. It was probably
prescribed to him for his purported ulcer in San Diego in 1943. He was
still trying to obtain phenobarbital in East Grinstead (as "Dr.
Hubbard") as late as 1965 (Atack, p.185, where the drug is given its
British name "nembutal").

Hubbard also claimed to have administered nitrous oxide to three people
(R&D1, p.123).  He termed it "a first class hypnotic" (DMSMH, p.363).
While he condemned the use of soporifics (though his attitude seems to
have been ambivalent in light of his positive comments about
narcosynthesis), Hubbard encouraged the use of amphetamines,
recommending benzedrine in particular (DMSMH, p.363; R&D1, pp.124, 305,
313; R&D4, p.37). Curiously, although Scientology sponsors Narconon and
claims to be drug free, its best-selling publication says "Making one
drug immoral and another taxable is a sample of the alcohol engram in
society" (DMSMH, p.365). On the same page, Hubbard says that opium,
marijuana and phenobarbital are all less dangerous than alcohol. There
is no prohibition on Scientologists drinking, however.

Hypnotism and mental illness:

Hubbard asserted that it was possible using drugs and hypnotism to
"drive somebody insane by accident" (DMSMH, p.57).  Further, "we could
go down the catalogue of mental ills and by concocting positive
suggestions ... we could bring about, in the awakened subject, a
semblance to every insanity" (ibid).  "With various suggestions, one
could create the appearance of various neuroses, psychoses, compulsions
and repressions listed by the psychiatrist" (EoS, p.23).  Hubbard
abandoned such research with the realization that "hypnotism and
insanity were, somehow, identities [i.e. identical]" (ibid).  He claimed
that a "catatonic" will respond to suggestion where substitutes for
reality are given - so given a broom and told it is a red hot poker, the
"catatonic" will respond as if it were.  However, the "catatonic" will
come out of trance if presented with a real poker (R&D1, 305) (it seems
something of a contradiction for a "catatonic" to respond to anything).
Hubbard claimed to have hypnotized psychotics (R&D1, p.182), and said
"In the treatment of a real full-blown psychotic, the use of deep trance
is handy to know." (ibid; see also DMSMH, p.124; R&D1, p.307).  He also
said, however, "It is very difficult to produce hypnosis in a psychotic"
(ibid, p.308).
The knowledge of Hubbard's ideas allegedly gives considerable power to
the individual "the axioms of Dianetics (not Dianetic therapy) can be
used by a sadist to implant insanity." (R&D1, p.24).  This is more
potent than one of his descriptions of hypnotism: "A few people can be
hypnotized, many cannot be.  Hypnotic suggestions will sometimes 'take'
and sometimes they won't.  Sometimes they make persons well and
sometimes they make them ill." (DMSMH, p.56).  Though, the attempt to
hypnotize a patient can throw them into a traumatic memory or "engram"
(R&D1, p.123).

Trance induction:

Hubbard described one method of inducing trance: "A person can be
sleeping quietly and someone comes up alongside of him and says, 'I like
you, I'm very fond of you', and an affinity starts to be established.
Then he commands in a quiet, calm voice, 'You can talk to me, but it
isn't necessary for you to awaken at this moment.  You can talk to me
without disturbing yourself.'  Try it on three or four successive
occasions and you will sometimes discover that the person is coming up
into an amnesia trance, out of sleep.  He will have no recollection of
what has gone on when he finally awakens from that sleep ... [this
method] has peculiar value between husbands and wives who sleep together
... One lady whose husband was a war veteran was instructed in this
method.  He had refused therapy utterly, and was very badly aberrated.
With instruction from me she was able to awaken him into an amnesia
trance and carry on his therapy without him knowing anything about it
... It took many months to do anything for him" (R&D1, 184).
Amnesia trance:Hubbard complained that resolution of a case would take
three times as long using amnesia trance rather than his own dianetic
"reverie" (R&D1, p.335; see also DMSMH, p.385).  However, "The actual
therapeutic value one can get in working painful emotion in deep trance
is pretty good ... a whole case can be worked from beginning to end in
amnesia trance." (R&D1, p.183; see also DMSMH, p.201).  However, Hubbard
also said that "engramic commands [the target of Dianetic "auditing"]
are not reversible by hypnosis" (R&D1, p.34), and "You will learn not to
work someone in amnesia trance if you can possibly help it" (R&D3,
p.95).

Of amnesia or deep trance, Hubbard said "This method has many things
wrong with it.  The entire duration of treatment is very long and
difficult.  The patient ordinarily speaks very slowly, is unable to
contact [traumatic] incidents, his computational ability on his own life
is very poor, and he will be uncomfortable during almost the entire
period that you are working with him" (R&D1, p.183; see also DMSMH,
p.385).  Hypnotism also "carries with it transference" and "enormous
operator responsibility" (DMSMH, p.201).


Hypnotic induction:

In a lecture given a few months after the publication of Dianetics:
MSMH, Hubbard described an hypnotic induction thus: "The hypnotist will
seat the person in a chair or have them lie down, and he will start off
his patter something like this: 'Now, I want you to relax. There is
nothing to be afraid of.  There is nothing wrong with being hypnotized.
You're going to sink into a little sleep.  It's going to be more
relaxing and a deeper sleep than you have ever experienced in your
life.'   If the subject is at all suggestible, he is already about half
hypnotized merely by suggestion.  Then the hypnotist starts in and says
very calmly, 'Go to sleep ... go to sleep.'  He may then make passes
across the person's face.  'Go to sleep.  Now you can feel your muscles
relaxing.  Now all through your body you can feel your muscles relaxing.
 Now, first your toes are going to relax.  And now your legs are going
to relax.  And now your hips are going to relax.  And now you can feel
your back relaxing.  You can feel your hands relaxing. You can feel your
arms relaxing.  You can feel the back of your neck relaxing.  You can
feel your mind relaxing.  You can feel your face relaxing, and your eyes
are closing.  Your eyes are closing and they are closing more and more.
It is very difficult for you to keep your eyes open.  In fact, you will
find it impossible for you to keep your eyes open when I have counted
from one to five (or from one to ten, or some other such series; or he
merely makes passes).  Then he says, 'Go to sleep, deeper ... deeper ...
deeper ...deeper sleep.  Now lie there quietly and go to sleep.  You can
only hear the sound of my voice telling you to 'go to sleep'.  All you
can hear is the sound of my voice.  Nothing else will disturb you. Go to
sleep.
"He keeps this up for a while and then as the subject drops off into a
light sleep he lets it deepen.  There are many ways to deepen that
sleep, one of which is to put one's index finger and thumb on the
patient's closed eyelids and say, 'I am going to press you back to a
deeper sleep.'  This is very interesting, because to 'go back to sleep'
is a phrase which makes a person whenever he goes to sleep, travel back
down the time track [i.e. the sequential record of memory] and is not
the natural method of sleeping." (R&D1, p.329).

Hypnosis defined:



From: Jack Parsons
Subject: Never believe a hypnotist (2 of 3)
Date: 1996/05/20
 newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology




According to Hubbard, hypnosis is a relatively simple mechanism, "By
deep trance or drugs we take a patient into amnesia trance, a state of
being wherein the 'I' is not in control but the operator is the 'I' (and
that's all there is, really, to the function of hypnosis: the transfer
of analytical power through the law of affinity from subject to
operator, a thing which had a racial development and survival value in
animals which ran in packs)." (DMSMH, p.94).

Although Hubbard was adamant that "Hypnosis is not sleep, it is another
mechanism" (R&D 1, p.182), he also asserted that "The hypnotist has
'success' where he does because he is able, by talking to people about
'sleep', to put into restimulation some engram which contains the word
sleep and shut-down analytical power." (DMSMH, p.75; see also R&D1, p.8
& R&D3, p.241).  While Hubbard asserted that most people cannot be
hypnotized, he also said: "The person who does not have 'Go back to
sleep' in his [engram] bank someplace is a rare one and should be put in
a museum, because he is a strange creature." (R&D1, p.330).  Having said
all of this, Hubbard recommended the use of the phrase "go to sleep" in
Dianetic auditing, as a phrase to be repeated by the patient (or
"preclear") (R&D3, p.156).

Hubbard gave various descriptions of hypnotism, for example: "Hypnotism
is the entering of the hypnotist's personality and desires below the
choice level of the individual." (SOSI, p.16); and "Hypnotism is the art
of implanting positive suggestions in the engram bank." (DMSMH, p.384).
By the time Science of Survival was published, in June 1951, Hubbard
asserted that "Hypnotism never has and never will raise an individual on
the [emotional] tone scale" (SOSI, p.161).  Which is to say, hypnotism
can have no positive emotional effect.In Dianetics: MSMH, Hubbard was
eager to differentiate between hypnotism and Dianetics: "Once upon a
time an art known as hypnotism used what was called 'regression' on
hypnotized subjects, the hypnotist sending the subject back, in one of
two ways, to incidents in his past.  This was done with trance
techniques, drugs and considerable technology.  The hypnotic subject
would be sent back to a moment 'entirely' so that he gave every
appearance of being the age to which he was returned with only the
apparent faculties and recollections he had at that moment: this was
called 'revivification' (re-living).  'Regression' was a technique by
which part of the individual's self remained in the present and part
went back to the past." (DMSMH, pp.12-13).  Hubbard said that his method
is different: "Returning is substituted for 'regression' here because it
is not a comparable thing and because 'regression', as a word, has some
bad meanings which would interrupt its use.  Reliving is substituted for
'revivification' in dianetics because, in dianetics, the principles of
hypnotism can be found explained and hypnotism is not used in dianetic
therapy" (DMSMH, p.13).  The difference between the hypnotic forms and
the new dianetic forms is not made clear in the text, only Hubbard's
insistence that they are different.  As we have seen, prenatal memory
and deintensification, two ideas essential to Dianetics, both derive
from hypnotic practice (R&D 3, p.118).

Positive suggestion:

Hubbard made various assertions about suggestion: "positive suggestion
means in hypnosis a suggestion which is given to a hypnotized subject
which will result in some change in the manifestations and actions of
that patient" (R&D 1, p.48); "It is a suggestion by the operator to a
hypnotized subject with the sole end of creating a changed mental
condition in the subject by implantation of the suggestion alone.  It is
a transplantation of something in the hypnotist's mind into the
patient's mind.  The patient is then to believe it and take it as part
of himself." (R&D 1, p.237; see also R&D 1, p.33); "Shut down the
person's analyzer [the 'analytical mind' of dianetic hypnosis] and what
follows goes in as positive suggestion just as though he were
hypnotized.  He cannot reason on this data, he can only react, and he
reacts as dictated by the engram." (R&D 3, p.244).  Hypnotic suggestion
is very powerful: "No matter how foolish a suggestion is given to a
subject under hypnosis, he will carry it out one way or another ... Any
suggestion will operate within his mind unbeknownst to his higher levels
of awareness.  Very complex suggestions can be given" (DMSMH, p.56).
Hubbard went on to say that neuroses, psychoses, compulsions and
repressions can all be perfectly imitated through positive suggestion.
Hubbard assured his followers, "We never give positive suggestions" (R&D
1, p.48).

According to Hubbard, "if one put a hypnotic suggestion on the time
track [i.e., in the person's memory] which says 'You can write', and the
next day put another positive suggestion on the time track saying, 'You
can't write', the person will go on writing." (R&D1, p.34).  This agrees
with Freud's assertion that later trauma is held in place by earlier
trauma.Paraphernalia:

The depth of Hubbard's research into hypnotism is also evident in his
ideas for improving hypnotic technique. He referred to the use of a
"flashing light" or a "Charcot mirror" (R&D 1, p.123) and added that
fixation of attention can be achieved "with spinning mirrors and light".
 Further, "This could be reduced much more easily on a technical basis
by having a type of mask tipped over the face that has a spot of light
in front of each eye that flashes" (R&D 1, p.307).  However, Hubbard
asserted that this device would not induce a hypnotic state (R&D1,
p.183).  He advocated the use of this device when applying Dianetics to
the "severely neurotic or psychotic person" (R&D1, p.182).

Informal trance inductions:

Hubbard was well aware that the formal hypnotic session is not the only
way to induce so called trance states. In his second article, he spoke
of "hypnotic practices" as distinct from "hypnotism" (EoS, p.22).
Hubbard's awareness of "fixating attention" is of special interest
(R&D1, p.307, cf TR-0), but he also gave examples of specific methods
for inducing trance: "You can actually hypnotize a person with sound
alone." (R&D 3, p.129); "Then there is the proposition of setting up a
carrier wave by pounding monotonously on a dishpan with a spoon and
saying with each clang, 'Sleep' ... which will often put a catatonic
into hypnotic trance." (R&D 1, p.308); and "There is another brand of
hypnotism whereby the hypnotist grabs the patient by the throat, clamps
him on the back of the head, shuts off the blood flow to his brain,
rocks him back and forth about three times, shouting at him 'Sleep!
Sleep! Sleep!' ... it works on quite a few patients" (R&D 1,
p.335).Obedience to authority as trance:

According to Hubbard, trance states are common, and can even be induced
through the normal procedures of education: "In altitude teaching,
somebody is a 'great authority.'  He is probably teaching some subject
that is far more complex than it should be.  He has become defensive
down through the years, and this is a sort of protective coating that he
puts up, along with the idea that the subject will always be a little
better known by him than by anybody else and that there are things to
know in this subject which he really wouldn't let anybody else in on.
This is altitude instruction."  As an aside, it is worth mentioning that
Hubbard was later to assert that every major tenet in Scientology and
Dianetics was his exclusive discovery (see HCOPL "Keeping Scientology
Working", February 1965).  Hubbard continued, "And in order to get
people to sit very alertly and do exactly what he says, he has another
trick: he gives them examinations ... So there is this anxiety around a
person's grades, and this comes forward until he finally gets up to a
point in education where when somebody says the word examination to him
it not only push-buttons him but it also threatens Mama, Papa, love and
general survival.  It is a terrific whip.  It keeps people in a state of
confusion, and when their minds are slightly confused they are in a
hypnotic trance.  Any time anybody gets enough altitude he can be called
a hypnotic operator, and what he says will act as hypnotic suggestion.
Hypnotism is a difference in levels of altitude.  There are ways to
create and lower the altitude of the subject, but if the operator can
heighten his own altitude with regard to the subject the same way, he
doesn't have to put the subject to sleep.  What he says will still react
as hypnotic suggestion." (R&D 4, p.324; see also R&D 3, pp. 246 & 248).
This is a point which should be considered long and hard by anyone who
has been involved with Dianetics or Scientology.

Hubbard also gave advice on avoiding this induction of trance: "In
learning, study what you want to know, think what you want to think
about it, recognize institutionalism for the bogus straw man it is, and
keep the analyzer whirring." (R&D 3, p.247). This strongly suggests that
we should forget "standard tech" or a "bridge", taking only what is
useful (if anything).

Ease of trance induction:

Hubbard warned his followers to "Recognize the depth these  trances
achieve, just on no provocation.  Tell a man to close his eyes, bong! he
goes into an amnesia trance." (R&D 3, p.94).  Despite the ease with
which people go into trance (and closing the eyes is a requirement of
the Dianetic method), Hubbard said "At no time should the auditor permit
the preclear to be under the delusion that he is being hypnotized."
(DOT, p.87; see also R&D 1, p.168).


Trance in Dianetics:

Hubbard was also aware of the signs of trance: "a pre-clear after he
closes his eyes will begin to flutter his eyelids. This a symptom of the
very lightest level of hypnotic trance." (SOS II, p.227); "A simple test
is to watch the person's eyeballs.  You will find as he lies there that
the eyeballs under the closed eyelids will hunt back and forth.  You can
see the bump of them on the eyelids, and they will be wandering ... the
hunting indicates a hypnotic state." (R&D 1, p.336); "The eye moving
underneath the eyelid is the indication of when a person is lightly or
deeply tranced. That is the second stage of which the fluttering eyelid
is the first." (R&D 3, p.94); "The preclear's eyes will roll a little
bit under the lids and when he returns, particularly, the eyelashes will
flutter, which tells you immediately that he has become more suggestible
than he ordinarily would be." (ibid); "Sometimes you will notice a
tremble on the eyelids.  This means the preclear has deepened his sense
of sleep and has left some of his attention units somewhere.  This is a
very early stage of hypnosis.  Be careful of such a patient." (R&D 4,
p.38).The current use of the Hubbard Dianetics Auditor Course and the
Hubbard Dianetics Seminar is in total contradiction to these
admonitions. By returning to the 1950 method, Scientology has returned
to direct trance induction. Both of these courses give: "When the
preclear's eyes close and you notice his eyelids flicker, finish
counting..." (p.54 and p.42 respectively, step two).

These are not the only signs: "If the person begins to answer you
literally ... that means your preclear is now a hypnotic subject and you
are running him in hypnosis." (R&D 3, p.94; see also R&D 1, p.336).
These prohibitions form no part of any auditor training course known to
this author.

Regression (age regression):

Although Hubbard had said that in Dianetics "Returning is substituted
for 'regression'" (DMSMH, p.13), he reverted to the term in the
following: "You can't deliver any positive suggestions to a person when
he is regressed and have it stick very hard.  The person is regressed,
he is wide awake, he is as wide awake as he can possibly be." (R&D 1,
p.48).  In contradiction to this, Hubbard said: "Returning back down the
track slightly increases the suggestibility of any person" (SOS II,
p.228; see also ibid, p.42).

Some people are immune to hypnotism: "You cannot put anybody into a
trance when he is stuck somewhere down the track [fixated upon the
past], and is in general badly aberrated against going to sleep." (R&D
1, p.182).  This seems like a contradiction in terms, as the person
"stuck somewhere down the track" is already technically in a regression
trance.  Hubbard was insistent however that to be hypnotized, "The
person should be in present time." (R&D 1, p.308).

The discovery of Dianetics:

The key to Dianetics came from hypnotism: "when a patient was bucked
through a period when he was 'unconscious', he showed some improvement.
Then it was discovered that these 'unconscious' periods were rather like
periods of hypnosis driven home by pain.  The patient responded as if
the 'unconscious' period had been post-hypnotic suggestion." (EoS,
p.62).This was the discovery of the "engram", which according to Hubbard
is "the single and sole source of aberration and psychosomatic illness"
(DMSMH, p.68).  Which is to say, conscious thought cannot be aberrative,
and the human being would be perfect if only all the engrams were
removed.  Hubbard soon discovered that his assertion was ill-founded,
and Scientology, created in 1952, quickly went beyond engram hunting
(See also Hayakawa's remarkable review of Dianetics in ETC in 1951,
where he makes the impish suggestion that improvement can also come
through education).

The somatic, reactive and analytical minds and the monitor:

Putting aside the many contradictions, Hubbard said "Hypnotism is a
laboratory tool ... it has served as a means of examining minds and
getting their reactions." (DMSMH, p.56).  Hubbard claimed to have
discovered "a big monitoring switchboard of the body that by various
means handles such things as blood circulation and endocrine flow." (R&D
3, p.47).  This tallies with his statements about regulating circulation
and endocrine activity through hypnotism.  However, having made this
observation, Hubbard abandoned it, turning instead to the notion that a
"genetic entity" governed bodily activity (Scientology: A History of
Man).  Initially, Hubbard termed this the "somatic mind".  It has no
thought, and functions on a stimulus-response basis.  Which is to say,
it is a hypnotic mind.In Dianetics: MSMH, Hubbard hypothesised that the
mind is divided into three parts: the somatic mind, the reactive mind
and the analytical mind.  The analytical mind is the conscious, aware
mind.  It should not be confused with the "short-term memory" of
conventional psychology.  In that model, which has considerable
experimental support, the awareness, or short-term memory, is capable of
holding at most nine chunks of information (some say seven), everything
else is beneath consciousness.  The contents of short-term memory are
ever-changing in a normal person.  Hubbard's "analytical mind" is held
to be distinct from the "reactive mind", which operates beneath
consciousness.  Each has its own "memory banks".  The analytical mind is
"a computing machine" (DMSMH, p.49).  In 1950, the comparison was really
being made to a numerical calculator, not to a "computer" in the
contemporary sense of the word. Hubbard was in fact comparing the human
mind to a valve-driven number cruncher.

Above the analytical mind is the "monitor": "The monitor can be
considered part of the analytical mind.  The monitor could be called the
center of awareness of the person.  It, inexactly speaking, is the
person.  It has been approximated by various names for thousands of
years, each one reducing down to 'I'.  The monitor is in control of the
analytical mind." (DMSMH, p.43).  However, "the mind is so constructed
that there are several monitors ... they can be activated on a
stimulus-response basis but they have no concept of individuality." (R&D
3, p.160).The analogy between hypnotism and aberration:

During the course of his frequent use of hypnotism, Hubbard started to
hypothesise about the reactive mind. Indeed, the reactive mind is an
attempt to explain hypnotic phenomena: "The analogy between hypnotism
and aberration bears out well." (DMSMH, p.66).  The reactive mind is
supposedly capable of all manner of tricks: "Take the case of a person
who has been hypnotized and has been told that there is a chair in the
center of the room.  This, in effect, is an agreement entered into
between the hypnotist and the person who is hypnotized that there is a
chair in the center of the room.  The person who is hypnotized is
temporarily cut off from the rest of mankind and finds that his only
communication and his only affinity, for the duration of the hypnosis,
is with the hypnotic operator." (Tech 1, p.15). Hypnotists call this
"positive hallucination" - seeing something that isn't there (as opposed
to "negative hallucination" - not seeing something that is).

Hubbard's analogies for the human mind tend to involve hypnotic
sessions.  Having explained a particular instance of "post-hypnotic
positive suggestion", Hubbard added "In this we have the visible factors
of how the reactive mind operaes." (DMSMH, p.63; see R&D 1. p.331 for
another analogy with hypnotism).Hubbard defined the reactive mind thus:
"This reactive mind is an infestation of foreign, careless and
unreasoning commands which disrupt the self- determinism of the
individual to such an extent that he no longer has charge, through his
analytical mind, of the organism itself but finds himself under the
continual and chronic orders of unseen, never-reviewed exterior forces,
often and usually antipathetic to the survival of the organism." (DOT,
p.69).  The theory of Dianetics was confirmed for Hubbard by a
straightforward experiment, "If in hypnotic trance you examine a
patient's memory of an operation these incidents [engrams] are the only
periods in the banks you will not find." (DMSMH, p.53).Chains:

Through hypnotism, Hubbard also believed he had confirmed Freud's idea
that earlier trauma holds later trauma in place (Freud, 1909): "the
early hypnotic session is the more valid one, even if it is cancelled by
a later hypnotic session" (SOS II, p.229); the earlier suggestion has
"priority" (R&D 1, p.332); "The earlier the period of 'unconscious' the
more likely it is to lift.  That is the fundamental axiom of dianetic
therapy." (DMSMH, p.124).

Suggestibility:

The proposed purpose of Dianetics is "to awaken a person in every period
of his life when he has been forced into 'unconsciousness'." (DMSMH,
p.201).  It is worth noting, however, that a "strange thing about
amnesia trance is that a person can be 'awakened' into it" (R&D 1,
p.184).  Further, despite his protestations that Dianetics is not
hypnosis, and that most people cannot be hypnotised, "Returning back
down the track slightly increases the suggestibility of any person" (SOS
II, p.228).

Strengthening trance through repetition:

 In hypnotism, it is usual for the subject to enter trance more easily
with each session.  The same is true for the Dianetic preclear: "after a
person has been a preclear for quite a while, he ceases to be as well
regimented as he once was.  Then if the auditor says 'Close your eyes,'
he may start to go back on the track, even with his eyes open!" (R&D 3,
p.94). This obviously brings into question the idea in Scientology of
"model session", where sessions are supposed to "run out" earlier
sessions because of their similarity to them.

Dianetics can be used to "play on another individual like a good
organist plays on a Wurlitzer ... Knowing by observation, the push
buttons of another person - or, as in Political Dianetics, a society -
the organist can play whatever piece he likes at will.  Advertising
agencies, governments and various leaders have done this by a sort of
intuition all through man's history.  They knew that by such-and-such
stimulus they could achieve such-and-such response. In Dianetics the
matter is reduced, not to a fine art, but to a very effective science
... Unfortunately, Educational Dianetics must concern itself, in the
non-academic field, with push buttons" (R&D 3, p.241; however,
"Education, then, to be effective, no matter if it is the education a
mother gives her infant or the professor gives the collegiate, must
avoid becoming positive suggestion if it is to produce anything like an
effective being." R&D 3, p.245).
Although the Dianetic practitioner, or auditor, can "push button"
responses in others, "Short of the use of drugs as in narco-synthesis,
hypnotism or surgery, no mistake can be made by the auditor which cannot
be remedied either by himself or by another auditor" (DMSMH,
p.165).

Auditor altitude:

The auditor should adopt "an air of detached efficiency toward the
patient ... In short, teach yourself some altitude ... Exude
self-confidence" (R&D 1, p.185).  Of course, within Hubbard's own
teaching, achieving "altitude" is equivalent to becoming a "hypnotic
operator": "he doesn't have to put the subject to sleep.  What he says
will still react as hypnotic suggestion." (R&D 4, p.324).  As to exuding
confidence, Hubbard recommended a text to his followers, which gives
this advice "you must have absolute confidence in yourself.  You must
know that you will succeed. This is the first requisite to success in
this Science."  However, in this case, the Science was not Dianetics but
hypnotism (Twenty-Five Lessons in Hypnotism, L.E.Young; recommended by
Hubbard, R&D 1, p.307; R&D2, p.12. This is one of the most garish works
the present author has ever seen).

Use of hypnotism in auditing:

The auditor "must be prepared to use hypnotism, he must know how it
works, what he should do to make it function, how to regress a person in
hypnotism and so on, which is definitely very different from Dianetics
in that one produces a trance." (R&D 1, p.307).

The engram as positive suggestion:

The engram was seen by Hubbard in hypnotic terms: "A simple
approximation of the action of an engram can be accomplished by an
experiment in hypnotism whereby a positive suggestion which contains a
post-hypnotic signal is delivered to an amnesia-tranced person.  The
subject, having been commanded to forget the suggestion when awake, will
then perform the act.  This suggestion is then actually a light portion
of the reactive mind.  It is literally interpreted, unquestionably
followed, since it is received during a period of unawareness of the
analytical mind or some portion of it.  The restimulator, which may be
the act of the operator adjusting his tie, causes the subject to commit
some act.  The subject will then try to explain why he is doing what he
is doing, no matter how illogical that action may be ... The release of
the post-hypnotic suggestion into the analytical mind brings about
rational thought.  Engrams can be considered to be painfully inflicted,
often timeless, post-hypnotic suggestions delivered antagonistically to
the 'unconscious' subject.  The post-hypnotic suggestion ... would not
have any permanent effect ... even if it were not removed by the
operator, because there was presumed to be no antagonism involved
(unless, of course, it rested on a former engram)." (DOT, pp.48-50).
Hubbard asserted that hypnotism attempts to plant "positive" engrams:
"Just put another engram, an artificial one, into a man, even if it's a
manic engram - makes the subject 'big' or 'strong' or 'powerful' plus
all other perceptics [perceptions] contained - and he's all right.
That's the basic trouble." (EoS, p.96); "In hypnosis one is trying to
put in a good engram to counteract bad engrams and it doesn't work."
(R&D 4, p.24).  Positive suggestion allegedly goes "down the track" and
will "latch" onto whatever is there (R&D 1, p.33).

A hypnotic incident however, is not an engram. According to Hubbard's
theory, there are three types of incident in the reactive mind - the
engram, which is a recording made by the reactive mind when the
analytical mind is "unconscious"; the secondary engram, or "secondary",
which is a "mental image picture of a moment of severe and shocking loss
or threat of loss which contains misemotion" (Hubbard, HCOB 23 April
1969); and the "lock", which occurs when aspects of the environment
approximate those of an engram, thus "keying-in" the engram.  According
to Hubbard, "Hypnotism can be considered as a 'high-powered' lock"
(DMSMH, p.384).  Positive suggestions "may append themselves to engrams
and become locks" (ibid).  Narcosynthesis and amnesia trance are
dangerous because they can permanently "key-in" engrams (R&D 3, p.105).
Indeed, "everything that you run in amnesia trance becomes a lock." (R&D
3, p.95).

Positive suggestions only have force because they are "locks" upon
engrams: "I never found a positive suggestion capable of doing more than
reinforcing an engram" (R&D 1, p.353). Yet, suggestion "is thoroughly
permanent until relieved by dianetic processing" (SOS II, p.221), and,
"hypnotism ... may be sufficiently destructive to cause the engrams to
restimulate to the point of insanity" (DMSMH, p.385).  As already cited,
"Submission to being hypnotized is analagous to being raped, with the
exception that the individual can, generally, recover from being raped"
(SOS II, p.220).While recommending hypnotic anaesthesia, Hubbard adds
that Dianetics must be administered after the operation, because "not to
pick it [the hypnotic period] up would be equivalent to continuing a
general anaesthetic forever after the operation" (SOS I, p.161).  But
"'Unconsciousness' of the non-hypnotic variety is a little more rugged.
It takes more than a few passes of the hand to cause 'unconsciousness'
of the insanity-producing variety" (DMSMH, p.58; cf footnote pp.57-58,
which says that hypnotism can produce insanity and p.66, "Hypnotism
plants by positive suggestion one or another form of insanity.").
There are "gaps" in the standard memory banks (i.e., the memory
available to the analytical mind, as opposed to the reactive memory
banks) "which take place during moments of 'unconsciousness', that state
of being caused by anaesthesia, drugs, injury or shock.  This is the
only data missing from a standard bank [analytical mind memory bank]."
(DMSMH, p.53).Having made absolute statements about the difference
between hypnotic amnesia and the engram, Hubbard also asserted that the
"post-hypnotic suggestion needs only an emotional charge and physical
pain to make it a dangerous engram.  Actually, it is an engram of a
sort"; the suggestion is "data fused into the circuits of the body below
the command level of the analytical mind" (DMSMH, p.63).  Hubbard also
asserted that "all hypnotic commands ... are no more than artificially
implanted engrams." (DOT, p.69); "Hypnotism is simply another engram"
(R&D 1, pp.332-3); "An engram is actually a hypnotic suggestion."
(DMSMH, p.201); and "Dianetic therapy removes engrams.  Hypnotism
installs engrams" (DMSMH, p.201).


From: Jack Parsons
Subject: Never believe a hypnotist (3 of 3)
Date: 1996/05/20
newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology


Reveries and trance:

Dianetic "processing" is done with the preclear in a state of "reverie".
 His use of this word was to cause Hubbard heartache later on. "Reverie"
is a word used by hypnotists to denote a light state of trance (a state
in which the hypnotic subject can appear to be completely awake).
Hubbard recommended the book Hypnotism Comes of Age to his followers
(R&D2, p.12).  This text describes "hypnagogic reverie" as "a dreamlike
state between normal consciousness and hypnosis" (Wolfe and Rosenthal,
p.124).  While reverie is "not the only tool that can be used" in
Dianetic auditing, it is "the best tool to use" (R&D 1, p.185; see also
ibid, p.183; DMSMH, p.385).
Hubbard was emphatic, "to turn down the analytical level and then go
ahead and audit is a very bad idea" (R&D 1, p.123).  Reverie was defined
by Hubbard as "a light state of concentration not to be confused with
hypnosis.  In reverie the person is fully aware of what is taking
place." (EoS, footnote, p.98). The use of the words "light state" seems
to be a Freudian slip. It is certainly a contradiction in terms.

Dianetic reverie, per Dianetics: MSMH, is induced in the following
manner: "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.  To make doubly sure, for we want no hypnotism, even by
accident, the auditor installs a canceller ... It is a contract with the
patient that whatever the auditor says will not become literally
interpreted by the patient or used by him in any way.  It is installed
immediately after the condition of reverie is established.  A canceller
is worded more or less as follows: 'In the future, when I utter the word
cancelled, everything which I have said to you while you are in a
therapy session will be cancelled and will have no force with you.  Any
suggestion I have made to you will be without force when I say the word
cancelled. Do you understand?' ... the canceller is vital.  It prevents
accidental positive suggestion." (DMSMH, p.200). Of course, to work, the
canceller would have to be itself a positive suggestion! It is worthy of
note that Dianetics as described in Dianetics: MSMH is still in use as
an aspect of the Church of Scientology's supposed therapy system.
However, only a small portion of the individual's auditing will consist
of this original dianetics, and the "canceller" is not used with any
other form of "auditing".

After Dianetics: MSMH was published, Hubbard withdrew the system of
counting the preclear into reverie: "Sometimes people go into a hypnotic
trance by accident with this count system ... so at the Foundation we no
longer use it." (R&D 3, p.15; see also R&D 4, p.37; DMSMH, p.201).
Unfortunately, this advice is ignored in the current Hubbard Dianetics
Auditor Course, auditing reverts entirely to Dianetics: MSMH, so by
Hubbard's own statement, the Church of Scientology is using a hypnotic
induction as standard procedure ("Count slowly and soothingly from 1 to
7", just prior to the flickering of the eyelids already mentioned.
Hubbard Dianetics Auditor Course, p.54, Hubbard Dianetics Seminar, p.42,
step two).  Hubbard was perfectly aware that counting out loud is a
method of hypnotic induction (DMSMH, p.123).

Reverie is "induced" easily "'Close your eyes.' The preclear is now in
reverie.  'Open your eyes.'  The preclear is now out of reverie ... A
person, wide awake, could be said to be in reverie." (R&D 3, pp.15-16;
see also R&D 4, pp.37-38; Tech 1, p.15; R&D 1, p.337).  "The reverie
used in Dianetics merely consists of shutting the eyes in order to help
the person to remember, recall and recount past incidents in complete
detail.  It is not induced by commands of any kind and can hardly be
called trance, sleep, slumber or even catnap.  The person in reverie is
keenly, acutely aware and analytical of everything said to him, and can
open his eyes of his own free will at any time during the session." (R&D
4, p.345; see also DMSMH, p.165).  Hubbard also said, however, that
analytical ability is "attenuated" during auditing ("anaten") and that
sometimes a preclear will be unable to recall what engram was "run"
during a session, which sounds very like hypnotic amnesia. The
disoriented "boil-off" state off auditing is also readily comparable to
the altered states of other trance inducing techniques.

"The state of reverie is actually just a name.  It is a label introduced
to make the patient feel that his state has altered and that he has gone
into a state where his memory is very good, or where he can do something
he couldn't ordinarily do before ... It is not a strange state" (R&D 1,
p.182).  Hubbard then blithely added, "Also, counting sometimes produces
a light hypnosis back of the reverie which is sometimes helpful on a
case." (ibid).  Of a preclear who had experienced burping after being
"returned" to babyhood, Hubbard said, "This is definitely not power of
suggestion, since the preclear is wide awake and alert." (SOS II,
p.164).  This statement is difficult to follow - post-hypnotic
suggestions are carried out by subjects after the hypnotic session when
wide awake.  Further, what had stimulated the burping in the first
place?  It could hardly be a conscious decision.  As engrams are
themselves held to be positive suggestion by Hubbard, the statement
seems impossible to unravel.

While in reverie, then, the preclear is wide awake, but his attention is
wholely engaged with "returning" to past events contained in the
reactive memory banks.  Again Hubbard forgot that he had abandoned the
hypnotist's term "regression" (DMSMH, p.13), saying, "You can't deliver
any positive suggestions to a person when he is regressed and have it
stick very hard.  The person is regressed, he is wide awake, he is as
wide awake as he can possibly be." (R&D 1, p.48).

Reverie is held to be far superior to all other methods: "The reverie
has a clear at its end - drugs and hypnotism have dependency on the
auditor and many other undesirable effects." (DMSMH, p.201, note the
implication that auditors use drugs and hypnotism).  But is reverie
anything other than a form of "light" trance? Hubbard is once again
ambivalent: "The matter of inducing reverie requires some judgment.
There are cases in which you might want to induce a little deeper state
of suggestibility than you have achieved.  Just have him [the preclear]
look you in the eye for a few minutes and talk to him quietly, and then
tell him to close his eyes, and you will find out that he has quieted
down considerably." (R&D 3, p.95).As to the use of counting to induce
reverie (in the current Dianetics Auditor Course and Seminar), the
following has already been cited: "Recognize the depth these trances
achieve, just on no provacation.  Tell a man to close his eyes, bong! he
goes into an amnesia trance; or sometimes using the old counting
technique and it becomes more frequent: one, two, three, four, five,
six, seven - bong!" (R&D 3, p.94).  However, Dianetic technique "is not
hypnotism in any remote sense of the word; in the process he [the
preclear] remains entirely awake" (DMSMH, p.413).  But, "You will
occasionally find severely neurotic people who don't work well, who are
very upset, and they will become quieter when you have counted at them
for a while.  But they are not in a good, solid trance." (R&D 1, p.182).
 Why the auditor would want the severe neurotic in a "good, solid
trance" is not explained.

Having said that fluttering of the eyelids is indicative of trance (see
above), Hubbard gave the following instructions for inducing reverie:
"The patient is made to lie down and shut his eyes.  The operator begins
to count.  He suggests the patient relax.  At length the patient's
eyelids will flutter (Medicine drumming will also accomplish this
without producing a harmful amnesia hypnotic state.)  He is permitted to
relax further.  Then the operator tells him that his 'motor strip' (his
sensory perceptions [sic]) is returning to a time of unconsciousness ...
With coaxing the patient will begin to feel the injury and sense himself
in the location and time of the accident." (R&D 1, p.8).  This statment,
which comes from Hubbard's first published article on Dianetics, shows
an interesting choice of words - the auditor is called the "operator",
he "suggests" that the preclear relax into a state which is not a
"harmful amnesia hypnotic state" (which does not rule out light trance,
or even "harmless" amnesia), and the engram is found through "coaxing".

The canceller:

The canceller statement is also of great interest.  After the
publication of Dianetics: MSMH, Hubbard spoke of a "renowned hypnotist"
who was "running a series of tests so that we will know exactly what
effect installing a canceller will have" (R&D 1, p.337).  Before the
results from these tests were in, however, Hubbard had already
confidently asserted "The canceller very neatly scoops up the material
as you say it to a patient, even if he is hypnotized" (R&D 1, p.48; see
also R&D 3, p.94; R&D 1, p.168).  However, by June 1951, this safeguard
had been abandoned, because the preclear was meant to systematically
recall earlier auditing sessions to remove any hypnotic influence (SOS
I, p.228).  This practice, along with the canceller, finds no place in
later forms of "auditing", nor is any mention made of the possible
hypnotic effect of these later forms.
The importance of hypnotism:

Hubbard did his initial research using hypnotism. The major discoveries
of Dianetics were made in hypnotic sessions. Preclears may already be in
a "trance" state, or may accidentally go into trance as a consequence of
auditing procedures.  In hypnotism "we have the visible factors of how
the reactive mind operates." (DMSMH, p.63).  As already cited, the
auditor "must be prepared to use hypnotism, he must know how it works,
what he should do to make it function, how to regress a person in
hypnotism and so on" (R&D 1, p.307).

Hubbard also asserted, "if you are a very smart auditor you will not
throw away the advantages of the power of suggestion completely.
Suggestion does have its uses when it is controlled and one knows what
one is doing.  I am not talking about hypnotic suggestion, I am talking
about just the simple matter of cheering somebody up and a good bedside
manner" (R&D 1, p.124).

In lectures given in 1950, Hubbard recommended three books on hypnotism
to his followers: "Anyone in doubt as to how hypnotism works need only
consult the authoritative books on the subject by Estabrooks [George
Hoben Estabrooks, Hypnotism]. In fact, this is recommended as a means of
proving that Dianetics and hypnotism are total strangers." (R&D 4,
p.345); "There is a little book by a man by the name of Young written
about 1899, which contains in it about as much hypnosis as one ever
wants. It is called Twenty-Five Lessons in Hypnosis ... Practically
everything in that book works, and clairvoyance, mesmerism and so forth
are also delineated" (R&D 1, p.307); the third, and most significant,
work recommended is Wolfe and Rosenthal's Hypnotism Comes of Age(R&D2,
p.12).

Despite protestations that hypnotism and Dianetics are "total
strangers", Hubbard several times advocated the use of hypnotism
alongside Dianetics: "it is even allowable to use actual hypnosis if it
is possible to procure any results from it.  So hypnosis has some value,
but it has value only to a professional auditor ... If he can spill
emotion in deep trance or even in narcosynthesis, he has achieved a gain
on the case.  This is for a very special tough type of case" (R&D 1,
p.182).  Hypnosis and Dianetics are not the only approaches "Faith
healing, when not practiced on the hypnotic level of 'This is not going
to hurt you any more', has ingredients that you can use." (R&D 1,
p.186).

Auditors do need to be aware of hypnotism: "it is quite usual for the
auditor to have to exhaust hypnotically implanted material received
either from some hypnotist or from the analytical mind itself when the
person has been operating under auto-control [sic]." (DOT, p.69).  Also,
"It is pertinent to diagnosis whether or not the preclear is highly
suggestible or can be hypnotized" (SOS II, p.220).  Further,
"understanding the mechanism of post-hypnotic suggestion can aid an
understanding of aberration." (DMSMH, p.56); "The next thing an auditor
should know well is the effect of hypnotism and drugs, and he should
have observed this actually." (R&D 1, p.307).  The auditor should be
aware of hypnotism, because, as already cited, "hypnotism is very common
in this society" (R&D 1, p.24).

Unfortunately, auditors share an ignorance of hypnotism with the general
populace and simply parrot Hubbard's calming assurance that "auditing is
not a form of hypnosis" or that "auditing removes hypnosis". Despite
their implanted obsession with the meaning of words, Scientologists are
largely unable to define the "hypnosis" which auditing supposedly
removes. They believe it to be drowsiness or lack of awareness, rather
than the heightened state known to hypnotic subjects and touched upon by
Hubbard in Dianetics: MSMH: "By suggestion the power of hearing can be
tuned down or up so that a person is nearly deaf or can hear pins fall
at a great distance". Most usually, hypnotic trance is a state of
heightened awareness which excludes certain perceptions. It is a highly
focussed state, often accompanied by a sensation that "the colours in
the room are brighter", as well as spatial dissociation (called
"exteriorization" by Scientologists and "depersonalization" by
psychiatrists).

Hubbard also wrote of the possibility of a preclear accidentally going
into deep trance (R&D 1, p.85; R&D 3, p.94).  Then there are the people
who will turn up for an auditing session already in a trance state: "A
lot of children are in light trance ... Children are quite suggestible.
The curve of hypnosis rises steadily until its highest level about 10
years of age, and then falls clear off at about 15 or 16.  Then they
don't believe anything." (R&D 3, p.319); "There are actually two types
of hypnotic states [sic] that people wander around in.  They are either
regressed back down the track someplace but not in a real trance, or
they wander around in a permanent light hypnotic trance.  Or they do
both ... Strangely enough, these people cannot be hypnotized for the
simple reason that they are already asleep.  Everything said to such a
person may be engramic" (R&D 1, p.337); "Sometimes a person will go into
a hypnotic trance in spite of anything you can do." (R&D 1, p.168);
"Some people, when told to close their eyes, immediately go into
hypnotic trance" (R&D 3, p.94); "Sometimes you find people who have been
taught to do auto-self-hypnosis [sic].  This is gruesome!" (R&D 4, p.65
- handwritten Hubbard documents submitted as evidence during the Church
of Scientology International case against Gerald Armstrong, in 1984,
make it clear that Hubbard used self-hypnosis abundantly in the years
leading up to Dianetics.  For example, "when you tell people you are
ill, it has no effect upon your health. And in Veterans Administration
examinations you'll tell them how sick you are; you'll look sick when
you take it; you'll return to health one hour after the examination and
laugh at them", Armstrong transcript, pp.1925-1927. See Atack pp.87 &
100); "the apathy case to some degree is in a permanent hypnotic trance
and will listen to and believe anything said no matter how ridiculous it
may be" (SOS I, p.170).

Suggestion:

Hubbard was ambiguous about suggestion: "We never give positive
suggestions" (R&D1, p.48); but "you are putting in positive suggestion
whether you want to or not, no matter how careful you are" (R&D1,
p.336). However, "chatter doesn't do much harm unless the patient is
hypnotized." (R&D1, p.48); however, "When an auditor finds his preclear
unusually suggestive [sic], he should be very careful what he says"
(SOS, p.227).

There is conflict about the nature of "questions", "commands" and
"suggestions": "Dianetic commands are not positive suggestions.  They
are simply outright commands no matter how persuasively put.  'The
somatic strip will go to ------.  It is there.'  That is not a
suggestion.  It is there." (R&D 1, p.237); but "All auditor desires
should be stated as questions if possible, as these are not aberrative
to the degree that commands are" (DMSMH, p.385; see also R&D 1, p.182);
and again "you are putting in positive suggestion whether you want to or
not, no matter how careful you are." (R&D 1, p.336); "When the pre-clear
is returned to some point prior to present time ... the auditor should
under no circumstances use more words than are absolutely necessary ...
the pre-clear may be receptive to hypnotic suggestions." (SOS II, p.42);
"you have got to minimize what you say to him and you have got to put
most of what you say to him in questions.  In other words, reduce the
positive command level.  Also, reduce the sharpness of your voice,
because at that moment you are putting another 'I' slightly behind the
front edge of the analyzer, and that is in essence what hypnosis does."
(R&D 3, p.94); "Anything implanted by positive suggestion or 'education'
in the course of auditing is harmful and must be cancelled if delivered"
(DOT, p.69).

Although Hubbard asserted that hypnotism can be very dangerous, and that
preclears can readily go into trance during auditing, he insisted that
Dianetics can cause no harm: "Short of the use of drugs as in
narco-synthesis, hypnotism or surgery, no mistake can be made by the
auditor which cannot be remedied either by himself or by another
auditor" (DMSMH, p.165); "The pre-clear can in no way be damaged by
dianetic technique." (DMSMH, p.413); "The mind is a self-protecting
mechanism" (DMSMH, p.165 - this being so, why are engrams dangerous?).
Seeing all of this material close together, rather than spread through
hundreds of pages is a dizzying experience. None of Hubbard's statements
have been withdrawn, indeed it is a sin to even suggest withdrawal or
correction (see the "Technical Degrades" Policy Letter, 17 June 1970: it
is a "HIGH CRIME" "labelling any material 'background' or 'not used now'
or 'old'"). Which of these conflicting statements is true, and what kind
of science could possibly consist of such a mess of contradrictions? In
Scientology the rule of thumb is "which statement is most recent?" but
the foregoing shows Hubbard gaily  contradicting himself repeatedly in
the same text, and then reversing and re-reversing his opinions from
week to week. Factually, the public are being lied to with the continued
publication of at least half of these contradictions. The caveat emptor
rule does apply - let the buyer beware, which is pointed out in the
small print at the beginning of most current Scientology books.
Scientology is a science when it's being sold but a  religion if you
want your money back.

This investigation of Hubbard's statements about hypnosis is by no means
exhaustive. A search through the indices of Hubbard books not referred
to here will turn up yet more insights and contradictions. The "false
data stripping" technique should be used first on itself and then on
Scientology, remembering that you can control that individual to whom
you have given sufficient contradictions (by the way, one piece of false
data in the "false data stripping" Bulletin concerns Socrates' invention
of the syllogism, check it out!). The ridiculous rewording of the
Buddha's Kalama Sutta into "what's true for you is true" must be
rejected. The lesson, as already quoted is: "In learning, study what you
want to know, think what you want to think about it, recognize
institutionalism for the bogus straw man it is, and keep the analyzer
whirring." (R&D 3, p.247). Or, returning to the Kalama Sutta:

"Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for
long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because
many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another
of the Sages of old, nor on the ground that a statement is found in the
books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do
not believe in that which you have yourselves imagined, thinking that a
god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of your
teachers or of the priests. After examination, believe that which you
have tested for yourselves and found reasonable, which is in conformity
with your well-being and that of others." It seems unlikely that the
Buddha would have approved of the use of hypnosis or indeed the Fair
Game law.

Having explained his own long involvement with hypnotism, and that most
of the principles of Dianetics and the Dianetic model of the mind
stemmed from that involvement, Hubbard added "A motto one could use is
'Never believe a hypnotist'" (SOS II, p.228).


References:NB: page numbers vary in later editions, and some material
may have been censored from these editions.

Astounding Science Fiction, May 1950.
Atack, Jon - A Piece of Blue Sky, Lyle Stuart books, 1990.
Freud, Sigmund - the Clarke Lectures in Two Short Accounts of
Psycho-Analysis, Penguin books.
Hubbard, L.Ronald, Dianetics - the Modern Science of Mental Health,
Hermitage House, 1950; later editions until the 1985 Bridge edition have
identical page numbering.
 - Dianetics the Evolution of a Science, 1950; AOSH DK Publications,
Denmark, 1972.
 - Dianetics the Original Thesis, 1951; Scientology Publications
Organization, Denmark, 1970.
 - Hubbard Dianetics Auditor Course, Bridge, L.A., 1988
 - Hubbard Dianetics Seminar, Bridge, L.A., 1988
 - Research and Discovery Series:
volume 1, lectures June 1950; Bridge, 1980.
volume 2, lectures July - August 1950; Bridge, 1982.
volume 3, lectures 10 August-8 September, 1950; Bridge, 1982.
volume 4, lectures 23 September-15 November 1950; Bridge, 1982 .
 - Science of Survival, 1951; Hubbard College of Scientology, 1967.
 - The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology, 1979.
Miller, Russell - Bare-Faced Messiah, Henry Holt, NY or 1987.
Wolfe, Bernard and Rosenthal, Raymond - Hypnotism Comes of Age, Blue
Ribbon Books, NY, 1949.
Young, L.E. - 25 Lessons in Hypnotism, Padell Book Co, NY, 1944.

abbreviations used in the text:

AstSF - Astounding Science Fiction, May 1950
DMSMH - Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
DTOT - Dianetics the Original Thesis
EoS - Dianetics the Evolution of a Science
R&D - Research and Discovery, followed by volume number
SOS - Science of Survival, followed by volume I or II

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them.
Hamlet (III.i.64-68)

"Again and again I therefore admonish my students in Europe and America: Don't aim at success - the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one's surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long-run - in the long-run, I say! - success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think about it."

Viktor Frankl, Austria, World renown Psychiatrist and survivor of Auschwitz

Home | F.A.Q.'s | Legal | News | Contact us | Search this site