I'd like to detail an interaction I had with a prominent Field Class VIII some months ago. I'm not sure what exactly it illustrates, but we'll talk about that later. I will not be naming the Class VIII involved.

At some point a few years ago, a Field auditor did a D of P with me to determine what would be needed to get me from where I am (Clear) on to the OT Levels. At least I assume that was the purpose. At one point, she asked me a question more or less along the lines of whether I had any attention on any of the Grades. I answered the question, but it puzzled me why it had been asked. Did it mean I'd have to do those Grades I had attention on?

Some months later, I was ruminating on this D of P in some comments on a blog posting. This Class VIII cited at least 3 quotations from LRH where he said unequivocally that one could not make it on one's OT levels unless he'd had his Grades.

For what it's worth, I was part of the 1978 world wide Dianetic Clear recovery evolution. For those unfamiliar, in 1978 quite a few remarkable technical breakthroughs occurred. One of which was that you couldn't run OTs on Dianetics. This, in turn, led to New Era Dianetics, NED for OTs, and the broad realization that we (Scientology) had been unknowingly making Clears for 30 years. By now, there were thousands of such cases, many of whom had died in the intervening years without having their Clear states acknowledged. Up until 1978, it was assumed that one must do the Clearing Course in order to go Clear. But the discovery of all these unacknowledged Clears made it obvious that this was true only some of the time. Some would go Clear on the Clearing Course, but some would go Clear without it, in the course of regular Dianetic auditing. The remainder of 1978 and for a few years thereafter would be spent finding those who might have gone Clear, and determining whether they had or hadn't. Once found and verified, their Clear states would be acknowledged. This was at first accomplished by D of P interviews. I had my first Clear acknowledgement in this fashion. Later came the Dianetic Clear Special Intensive (DCSI), which more or less accomplished the same thing. I also did the DCSI, with the same result. This was later replaced by the Clear Certainty Rundown (CCRD).

So I was one of those people who had gone Clear last lifetime without knowing it or having it acknowledged until the late 1970s. As it happens, I had not done any Grades except ARC SW and Grade Zero.

Back to the LRH quotes cited by this Class VIII. And his excerpts made it appear as though I would have to go back and complete Grades 1 to 4 before starting my OT levels. But something about this wasn't right. I knew I had read about this somewhere. So once I saw these citations, I started doing research.

I came up with HCOB 23 Dec 71RA Solo C/S Ser 10RA C/S Ser 73RA The No-Interference Area Clarified And Re-enforced. That reference specifically forbids Grades on Dianetic Clears.

There could be some argument on the veracity of this reference.

Revision R was done 2 October 83 in light of the NOTs levels.

Revision RA was done 1 July 85 to align with HCOB 27 Mar 84 C/S Ser 119 Stalled Dianetic Clear: Solved.

An RB revision exists, but was done after LRH died and so is questionable. I believe I have that version on paper. The RA revision I have as a PDF.

Also C/S Ser 119 indicates what may be done on Dn Clears. I have this as a paper issue. Nowhere in it does it indicate that Grades are needed or legal to run on Dn Clears. The overall message is that, unless a Dn Clear is stalled, you let him get on with it. If he is stalled, you do the minimum necessary (which really comprises various minor actions) to get him moving again. Actions included are things like word clearing, post purpose handling, O/W, interiorization, etc.

In any case, the data in C/S Ser 73RA align with that in C/S Ser 119.

I cited this C/S Ser 73RA to the Class VIII, and made the point that the reference was quite clear in prohibiting the running of the Grades. His reply was to again refer me to the pre-1978 bulletins insisting on Grades being run before OT levels.

So what was the right path? Here is where some reflection is needed, some common sense and some actual reasoning. The bulletins which insisted on the Grades were written before 1978. So it would have been assumed that anyone who was Clear would have become so by doing the Clearing Course. And at the time, the Bridge was structured so that you did your lower Grades, then Grade V (Power) and Grade VI and then the Clearing Course (technically, Grade VII). Completion of the Clearing Course would have made you Clear. So insisting you get your Grades done first would have been natural.

However, these bulletins obviously did not foresee the events of 1978, and the discovery that there were thousands of Clears simply waiting to have their states acknowledged. Most of whom had never done the Clearing Course. Once these people were discovered and their states handled, the scene would have changed completely. Thus the need for the revisions to the No Interference Zone bulletin. Suddenly you had thousands of Clears on your hands, and a desperate need to get them swiftly through OT III. In light of this situation, LRH forbade the running of Grades in the Clear to OT III No Interference Zone.

All of this makes complete sense when you reason it out. But in insisting on Grades in this Zone, our Class VIII appears to have been completely unable to reason through this contradiction. As a Class VIII auditor, he would have read the No Interference Zone bulletin. It would have been considered a High Crime to continue to audit without a study of this bulletin.

His insistence on following the former HCOBs and ignoring the latter one which specifically addressed the issue at hand speaks of a sort of robotic, literal "understanding" of what he has studied. I use the word understanding in quotes because it appears this issue was approached with nothing resembling a true "understanding". Again, there appears to be a decided lack of understanding and a seeming robotic or literal "understanding".

Let me add here that Class VIIIs are groomed to consider themselves the final technical authorities in whatever zones they operate. Thus, they are disinclined to debate with "lay" people on technical points. And yet in this case, it's clear our Class VIII was wrong, and I was right. I don't say this to gloat. I would be perfectly happy to be wrong. But in this case, I'm not. If you reason through this issue, and consider the context of the references and bulletins involved, the answer is obvious.

On this Class VIII's behalf, it happens that he has the opinion that far too many people have made it onto the OT levels without adequate preparation. Thus, things like requiring the Grades before OT would be something he would be sympathetic to. In addition, the Solo I course checksheet for the Field which he collaborated on includes a prerequisite of the Professional TRs Course. The original checksheet for the course (before Miscavige) does not include such a demand. In any case, from this it's clear why our Class VIII's sympathies lie in this direction. None of this, however, excuses his literalism.

So what lesson is to be learned from this? It is not that all Class VIIIs are wrong. In this case, on one issue, one was wrong. But that is by no means an indictment of all Class VIIIs. But it also means that you don't simply take the word of a Class VIII just because he has a Class VIII certificate. And you don't even necessarily take his word if he trots out numerous references to back his position up. He could be lacking a crucial one which changes the entire complexion of the argument.

No matter what anyone says, there are contradictions in the Tech. This is completely understandable, and LRH even remarks about it from time to time. New discoveries shed light on older phenomena, and the Technology changes over time. None of which necessarily invalidates older Technology. Tech, when issued is workable. But time may reveal that newer Technology is more workable.

What's important here is your ability and willingness to research issues yourself, and reason through what you study, based on the context of each issue. You must seek not only to know the nuts and bolts of each piece of Technology, but also why that Techology works that way. It's not enough to simply robotically repeat commands you studied on your course. You must understand the theory and why it is that way. Should you find a "contradiction", make sure you fully understand what you've studied, and then consider the history and context of each reference.