Who created all the stops on attesting to Clear?

(Originally published by old Auditor on Decenber 5, 2009)

There was a time, almost unimaginable now, when someone would have a certain cognition during auditing and would ask for a DofP Interview and would subsequently attest to having gone Clear.

There would be a lot of congratulations, a Clear Cert would be presented at the Friday night graduation and the new Clear would start looking at his next auditing or training cycle.

Sometimes the PC would have a cognition out of session or while studying and would request a DofP interview and attest to Clear.

In the rare event that someone falsely attested in order to gain “status” or because of misunderstoods, the error would be picked up in later auditing and the person would get an appropriate repair.

In the mid 1970s when it became apparent that PCs were going clear on Dianetics, this was about as complicated as it got. Thousands of PCs attested and went happily up the Grade Chart to OT.

Then in the late 1970s it somehow became more important to stop people from attesting falsely than to properly acknowledged an ability gained. The Clear Certainty RunDown (CCRD) appeared and attesting to Clear was no longer enough. Some of you had to argue with people who were determined to invalidate your knowingness.

First there was a DCSI (Dianetic Clear Special Intensive) which was supposed to remove any UNCERTAINTY about attaining the state of Clear. This was replaced by the CCRD which was mandatory in order for you to be ADJUDICATED  Clear.

This meant that you had to complete this CCRD Rundown successfully before you could be certain you were Clear enough to attest. Your personal certainty was no longer enough. You had to have the stamp of approval  from someone in a Class IV org or above.

It doen’t make much sense that your certainty has to be approved. That’s as bad as questioning a PC origination.

Perhaps someone figured that putting stops on the line made the State of Clear more valuable and could justify charging more to attain the state.

Or possibly staff who were not getting case gain because they were perpetually unsessionable felt that some proper checks and balances should be put in on the attest line so public could not simply attest to gaining a higher state. It has been reported elsewhere that staff who are not getting gains will act to deny gains for those who are winning.

What ever the reason, the flow of attests dwindled to a trickle and far too many PCs came back from their CCRD cycle having been told they were not Clear. Funny how the orgs never followed up to see how many of these people stopped their progress up the Bridge. From my observation it was true of every “failed” CCRD I followed up. Wrong indications will do that.

I have audited a number of people to Clear. In some cases it was simply a rehab of a state attained in the last lifetime. In any event it is hard to miss FN/TA sessions where the PC comes out with the realization of his own causation .

By the 80s, I saw more CCRD “failures” than successes when sending PCs to LA area orgs. These were PCs who easily ran track incidents including overts and had frequent FN/TA sessions. The clear cogs were clearly marked in the PC folders but CCRD success was evidently based on passing a more difficult test.

I noticed also that many of the CCRD “failures” were PCs with past life exposure to Scientology.

Whatever the cause, it became apparent that attesting to Clear had become a difficult and not very rewarding experience for too many people. Those that got through the CCRD “wall of inval” were often still angry at the invalidation of their knowingness years later.

Tales of roteness on part of CCRD auditors lend credence to the idea that the true significance of the State of Clear has been lost and arbitraries have been substituted.

I feel that the independent scientologists in the field should look at all of the failed CCRD cycles as a golden opportunity to rehabilitate people who once had a reality on the Bridge only to see it denied.

I see the CCRD as a solution to a problem that didn’t exist. It is a tool used by Church Management to make a readily available state scarce.

It has no place in the field of Independent Scientology.

8 Comments

Thought provoking  on December 5th, 2009 Edit comment

And some of us just got so confused/invalidated that we don’t want to originate anymore. I have attested twice (DCSI and CCRD) and I am currently not clear but Grade O release.

I at least know what the reactive mind is and that I have had at least a substantially stable release for many years. The gains that I have made have been so huge that I have often felt that it would be okay if I didn’t get anymore auditing this lifetime. Although that is a great recognition of auditing, I see that there is an outpoint in not caring to take my next step.

This post made me growl a bit, I’m sure it will affect others as well. But you are right, a good point in which to start a rehabilitation campaign.

Fellow Traveller  on December 5th, 2009 Edit comment

Awesome identification of the present contradiction of stating the goal of making a person more certain, then questioning, or worse invalidating, the heck out of him.

Wasn’t the DCSI replaced by current mgmt with CCRD because it was at least in part authored by Mayo? Their rationale anyways.

Anita Warren  on December 5th, 2009 Edit comment

The DCSI was one of highlights of my life! Then I was “forced” to have a CURD (Clear UNcertainty RunDown). After about 5 intensives at Flag rates (because I kept insisting I was clear) I was told I could not have my L Rundowns until I attested to “not clear.” I wanted my Ls, so I cried uncle and attested to Not Clear.

John Doe Lurker  on December 13th, 2009 Edit comment

I enjoy many of your posts. But on this one, I do have some disagreement.

I’ve been around for several decades now and I’ve seen the “clear pendulum” swing from readily available to scarce as hell.

The period of time you describe, from approximately the release of the first Dianetic Clear HCOB in 1978 to to the beginning of the CCRD in the early 80s, was the Wild West of Clear Attests. I was on staff then and I saw the whole thing unfold.

I watched with fascination as different staff would go over to AOLA and come back as attested to Clear, some with little or no auditing, many with communication difficulties still rampant on their cases, low cause level, and other manifestations of abberation. It was interesting to note that many of these guys and gals rushed out to get their silver clear bracelets immediately.

The effect all this had on me, someone who had actually had over 100 hours of HSDC dianetics, was to NOT want to be part of that crowd. I didn’t want to be associated with people who I felt were swept up in a massive quickie. (Ironically, as it turned out, I HAD gone Clear during all that auditing, but before the Dianetic Clear HCOB had been released, so what had actually occurred in session was missed by the auditor.)

At that time, I wrote to LRH about my concerns of Clears being quicked, and he replied it was correct of me not to comment on or invalidate anyone who had attested to Clear. So I left it at that, but for me, the VALUE of the state of Clear was greatly diminished because it seemed like any schmuck could be Clear and so what was the point?

I mean, really Old Auditor, if it was that easy to say, go on course and read something, and then go Clear, I think thetans would have solved this dilemma of the reactive mind eons ago.

If someone doesn’t make it to Clear, they are gonna fall on their heads trying to audit on the subsequent OT levels. I think SOME kind of check needs to be in place to protect the state of Clear from the devaluation I described, but mainly to protect the individual who will fail trying to go forward without actually having made it.

I do acknowledge and sympathize with those who have had their actually attained state of Clear roughed-up with inval and eval and that certainly DOES occur. It happened to me 5 years ago too, so I DO know the feeling!

OldAuditor  on December 13th, 2009 Edit comment

Dear John Doe Lurker,I am truly sorry that your state of Clear was roughed up with inval and eval. That should never have happened.

You have achieved a singular state of beingness as a Clear. Don’t let your concerns about others diminish your certainty on that state..

Fortunately, you are now a free range Scientologist and have access to auditors who can easily clean up any remaining charge on mishandled attest cycles.

People who are into stopping things would deny the state of Clear to thousands in order to prevent one false Attestation. Stopping people on the Bridge is a suppressive activity, while false attests are routinely caught and cleaned up in auditing.

Most of the aberrations you saw in the Clear attests you doubted could have been from unrun or unflat Grades. You do know that out Grades are not handled by Dianetics or going Clear? OT’s with Service Facs are not a pretty sight either.

I have seen the spectacle of someone loudly insisting, “I am a Natural Clear!” in the Dining Room at Flag. Most of us just rolled our eyes and let it go. If the person was clear, there certainly was some charge associated with not being properly acknowledged. If the person wasn’t Clear, it would be eventually caught and handled before they caved in on the OT levels.

The value of Clear can be devalued only in the eyes of those who view it as a status thing. It is an ability, not a status.

When you know you are Clear, it doesn’t matter WHO claims to be Clear. It does not affect your ability in any way.

Just like completing OT VII, those who have achieved the ability that comes with that state, cheerfully ignore orders to “redo” the level because someone at Int has a bright idea.

Tom  on December 15th, 2009 Edit comment

There has been TREMENDOUS confusion about Clear, all the way back to the 1950′s. The stable datum for me was the issue re: the 1974 Grade Chart, where LRH discussed MEST Clear, Theta Clear and Cleared Theta Clear. I consider MEST Clear to be the “Dianetic Clear”…at cause over the picture track. Theta Clear was simply “exterior”, but as we know, there were complications to that in that it was not a lasting state and PC’s became “unauditable” unless it was addressed. Cleared Theta Clear I would imagine would be the goal of a full and complete Solo Nots (not there yet myself). But in addressing the spiritual phenomenon, it has been my experience that one CAN run the Clearing Course materials successfully after “Dianetic Clear” and in some cases it helps resolve unwanted and recurring pressures and somatics that otherwise get bypassed.
And like you said, once you have that “freedom”, no one can take it away from you, except yourself. Thanks for the post.

John Doe Lurker  on December 21st, 2009 Edit comment

OA,
Thanks for your thoughful reply.

Re: “Most of the aberrations you saw in the Clear attests you doubted could have been from unrun or unflat Grades. You do know that out Grades are not handled by Dianetics or going Clear? OT’s with Service Facs are not a pretty sight either.”

This is an area I am confused about. It seemed for awhile, that Clears could get their grades, then it seemed that “programming down the grade chart” was forbidden.

What actually is the LRH reference for this? I don’t even remember the time periods when grades were and then weren’t given to Clears.

Fu Dog  on January 1st, 2010 Edit comment

Reading various other posts of yours (The trap of Unrealistic Expectations, Is there a More Realistic… ),re-reading The Nature of the Being and reading an article by David Mayo in Ivy issue 1, I think LRH was burdened by the unfair expectation of others to come through on promises and definitions that were changing as fast as his own awareness was changing. Symbolic communication as words, can have such a finite quality that we can start to get a sense that what they represent is also so finite or even absolute – the symbol becomes the thing. I don’t think the state of clear was truly devalued so much as our awareness of how much there was to handle, expanded!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *