Banner - Exposing the con |

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

1952 Journal of Hypnosis article, "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

books scared them - canada library association poster thumbnail

charles manson thumbnail link to

Charles Manson had a scientology e-meter at Spahn ranch"

Visual Fraud Tour

Help for Scientologists

Laughing at Scientology

Persecution of Activists

Support the effort to expose Scientology today!

Resources & Related Links

How to Get Involved

Dianetics in the 1952 Journal of Hypnotism

Images of article HERE and HERE

Hypnosis and Dianetics
By Lewis J Roberts

A great deal of controversy has been caused by L. Ron Hubbard in his recent book, DIANETICS. In view of the fact that Mr. Hubbard has chosen to condemn Hypnosis in the process of presenting his theories, it seems appropriate to state here a brief rebuttal to certain aspects of DIANETICS. My purpose is not to repudiate Mr. Hubbard's theories, techniques and conclusions; rather, it is my feeling that certain of his assertions require clarification and amplification.

Let it first be said that `dianetics' is not a new theory. Dianetic nomenclature is new in its usage; but if one examines it carefully, it's the same old sofa, but with new upholstery.

Despite the provocative issues in this book, any person endeavoring to become a dianetic auditor should have a basic knowledge of the science of hypnosis and suggestion. This becomes obvious as one reads DIANETICS in spite of the fact that the author vehemently denies any connection. For instance, Mr. Hubbard states on page 384 of his book:

"Hypnotism can be extremely aberrative and may hold up a case. An auditor should have some working knowledge of it so that he can release the engram it makes, not so he can work dianetics."

This quote from the book is one of many references Mr. Hubbard makes to Hypnosis, proving time and time again that Hypnosis, and a working knowledge of it, is important and helpful in the competent practice of dianetic therapy.

On page 56 of his book Mr. Hubbard admits, concerning post-hypnotic suggestion, that:

" . . understanding the mechanism of the post-hypnotic suggestion can aid in an understanding of aberration."

A cursory reading of the book will prove that every method of auditing advocated therein is fundamentally one used in Hypnosis. True, the labels are different. . . . However, let us analyze this statement and see if we are incorrect in our conclusion.

The so-called state of `reverie' is com- parable to the various depths of Hypnosis. A dianetic patient who can go into a deep state of `reverie' can contact engrams and engrammic key-ins more readily than a patient who goes into a light state. This is also true of Hypnosis, plus the fact that many hypnotic subjects (as well as dianetic patients) work well in a light state. Mr. Hubbard says to work your patient `where you find him'-whether in a deep hypnotic trance or a state of `reverie'. Surely, one must know when a patient is in the hypnotic trance, and this condition can only be recognized by some one completely familiar with Hypnosis.

A refractory subject, as known in hypnotic parlance, is a difficult one to work with and requires time and patience to help, therapeutically speaking. In dianetics, a non-sonic patient is in a similar condition and requires the same time and patience to reach.

Let us continue this analysis a bit farther. Mr. Hubbard emphasis and reemphasizes that dianetics is not hypnosis. He points out that suggestions must never be given to the dianetic patient. On page 385 of his book he says:

"Never install a positive suggestion of any kind in a patient no matter how much he may beg for one. It has proven nearly fatal."

Here we have a contradiction which proves a little difficult to reconcile because in discussing methods and techniques, Hubbard advises the auditor to make the following (positive) suggestions to the patient:

"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."

(This last statement is a dangerous one and should have the following appendage: "Before pulling out of it of your own volition, please ask my permission first." This statement, or suggestion, protects the patient from any emotional shock due to an abrupt awakening which will undoubtedly have a definite post-hypnotic or post-dianetic effect.

But to continue with the auditor's instructions (suggestion, really) to the patient, the auditor says next:

"Look at the ceiling."

This is pure and simple hypnotic objective fixation.

"Then, when I count from one to seven your eyes will close."

This, too, can scarcely be denied as suggestion as used in Hypnosis. Hubbard has banned suggestion, and yet he uses it as the very tool with which to get the patient into a state of `reverie'.

In getting the patient on the Hubbard to the Feed-Back or Subjective method of -rime Track' of his life, a method similar this is accomplished the patient then is Hypnotic Fixation, is employed. When able to re-live the somatic experience and eventually the engram. In order to erase it completely, the experience or engram is repeated and repeated by the patient until all force of the emotion is erased or, in the vernacular, wrung out as you would a wet cloth. This same feat can and has been accomplished by Hypnosis.

The so-called `canceller' is merely another method of awakening the patient and wiping the mental slate clean. To actually awaken a dianetic patient you say (page 202, DIANETICS):

"'Come to present time. Are you in present time?' (Yes) Use canceller word. `When I count from 5 to 1 and snap my fingers you will feel alert and awaken."

What is this but Hypnosis? Furthermore, please note the positive suggestion given to the patient:


I am inclined to agree that it is not wise to mix theories of therapeutics no more than a chemist would mix chemicals knowing that an explosion may result.

Much harm has been done by this practice, especially where several schools of diametrically opposed thinking and teaching are being practiced by any one practitioner. By the same token, I cannot agree on the condemnation of any one science, because basically all are good. There is actually no panacea for everything.


Where one system will fail, another will be successful. Dianetics will have its failures as well as any other system.

Certainly mankind is searching for a science of mental healing. All thinking men welcome the contribution of DIANETICS to this search. But we must not grab at straws, strong as they may look, and discontinue the searching or cease to examine theories in a scientific light. A true science admits its antecedents and relationship to those sciences which predate it. A new science, if valid, will prove itself and in time we will see the cessation of the use of obsolete, discredited methods.

However, let us recognize the fact that suggestion (Hypnosis) is a part of our every day life. Man is a creature of suggestion.

If Dianetics aims to free man from this enslavement, certainly it is vital to know and understand the functions, accomplishments and powers of suggestion. This, fundamentally, is the study of Hypnosis.

To balance the scales, I sincerely believe that DIANETICS has a place in therapy, and much good can be accomplished for many, many people. Thoughts and ideas sink deeply into the subconscious mind, or as Hubbard calls it, `the reactive memory bank', which profoundly influence our actions and reactions every day we live. These deeply buried ideas, thoughts or so-called `engrams' can be a determining factor of our success or failure, our health or lack of it, our personality and character. This has been common knowledge for many years.

It is my contention, that any science, to completely fill the role of healing, must be able to discover the cause of illness and distractions which are hidden in the mind. If Dianetics has discovered a new way to obtain and release these aberrations from the human mind more quickly and permanently, then Dianetics should be given the opportunity to prove itself beyond a doubt. Until such a time, DIANETICS, in itself, is not sufficient reason to jettison every existing theory of mental healing or to declare Dianetics the panacea to all illness. My advice is to read the book thoroughly. Digest it. Try it. If it works for you, then it is a successful therapy.

In closing, may I reiterate, this is a defense and vindication of the age old science of hypnosis and suggestion insofar as dianetics' is concerned.

Mr. Hubbard, unfortunately, put himself in the position of being hypnosis' judge, jury and executioner. He failed to realize or take cognizance of the fact that hypnosis and suggestion are a recognized science and what he contends can be accomplished with his theory of dianetics can be accomplished as easily and better with hypnosis and suggestion.

Also in the 1952 Journal of Hypnotism, an article by Harry Arons on Instantaneous Hypnosis

My Exit page for Scientologists and ex-members

Home | F.A.Q.'s | Legal | News | Support |