Bookmark and Share

Scientology Axioms — a Commentary

The author of this book is anonymous, going under the name of Nomen Nescis

At the moment it is at this stage of being proof read. [Added August 2022: it's now been up on my homepage for some months and on my Books Weekly activity we have discussed it.]

A few people have looked at it in its unfinished form. Here is one comment which came in.



Comments by 

In the summer of 1956, I did the HCA course in Washington, D.C. There was a written final exam, which consisted partly of writing all the Scientology Axioms verbatim. You might imagine that this was a senseless exercise in rote memorization without understanding, but just the opposite was the case. On first reading the Axioms seemed confusing and expressed in esoteric language, such as "alter-isness”. As I went over and over the axioms, the confusion dropped away, and their meaning became clearer. I understood them, not only in the abstract, but also how they applied to my own experience. Throughout the rest of my life, they have served as stable data by which I understood my own life as I lived it

Now I am not sure that reading someone else’s interpretations of the Axioms would help or hinder someone in understanding them. Perhaps the route of memorizing them as LRH wrote them is a more effective process. I am sure that the author of this new book gained a lot by writing it. I confess that I have not read much of it, for I found it of not much interest to me at this point in my life. Skimming it, I found nothing to disagree with, and the book appears to be well written. Still, I wonder what the intended audience is. A student of the Axioms would better spend his time going over the original text of the Axioms and clearing and demonstrating each one, than by reading another’s ideas, I believe



Brief comment by Antony: in 1956, in London, I did a similar or the same HPA exam including writing out all the 50 axioms verbatim. I managed it. I have not read this book in depth but only dipped into it and am fascinated by the division of the axioms into groups and the references to other similar Scientology things like pre-logics logics, two sets of Dianetic axioms.




Comment by  Nomen Nescis


On 16-01-2021 10:44,

Hi Ant

Thanks a lot. I have experienced the same thing as your anonymous commentator: I learned the Axioms by heart (almost) and consequently happened to notice instances of them in life, so they got more and more real to me. Often I would have session cognitions and then realize that they were actually rewordings of some axiom or other.

Obviously, I have had very many cognitions on writing the book, but equally obviously, many Scientologists have given up understanding the axioms and would never bother to learn them verbatim or even try to study them again. It is for these that I have written the book. Some, like yourself who once learned them by heart, may get the idea that they can get in a comm-line to them, after all, that they can come to understand the axioms.



 From a Danish contact:

Undskyld mit sene svar, men tusind tak for teksten med Axioms og Factors. Jeg har allerede læst i den, og synes den meget spændende. Den glæder jeg mig til at dykke mere ned i.


A proofreader, Beth Guest, reports on the 26th of January:

Thank you. I'm actually enjoying doing it. I am having some cognitions and reinforcements of things I already knew along the way. One major thing is the way I look at Scientology tech. So it's good news from me. I hope the progress I am making is not too slow? I am about on page 90 of 171 pages




In August 2021 Ondrej from Czechoslovakia, who has no Scientology background, wrote the following as part of a more general letter. " I also started reading the Commentary on the Scientology Axioms book and so far I really like the first pages. I appreciate the detailed description and explanation of the meaning even for readers who do not have a great overview of Scientology. I'm looking forward to the next chapters :-)"

 Ant passed this on to Nescis Nomen and got the following reply:
That's a very nice comment. It also casts some light on an earlier comment that the book was useless as an introduction to Scn. Axioms. Well, I guess it is, on the whole, and this confirms to me that early Scientology actually does qualify as Buddhism.

Dalai Lama and other Tibetan Buddhists talk about the four seals, which are criteria for deciding whether a school is Buddhist or not:

   1. all compositional (composed of more things than one) phenomena are transient (cf. Scn: Axiom 14, stating that persistence is caused by alter-is-ness and not-is-ness, both of which produce complexity, and which, we may hope, will eventually vanish as per Axiom 16, by as-is-ness)
   2. all phenomena are without self-existence (i.e. they exist only as is-nesses and have no real existence, per Axiom 11; in the PDC, they are illusions or delusions).
   3.  all contaminated phenomena are undesirable; they are contaminated by ignorance, desire and aversion (in Scn all aberration is undesirable. Note also that Desire, Enforce and Inhibit is the source of all aberration, according to Ron (I believe it's in the London Spring Lectures, 1953, possibly in the PDC Sup lectures; he stresses it in but a single lecture, I think). Axioms of Dianetics 107 states that confusion can be caused by aberration or ignorance, meaning lack of data. Hewing closer to a Buddhistic line of thought, training, including the theory, is more than 50 % of the case gains).
   4. Nirvana is true peace (In the PDC lectures Ron says that Nirvana is synonymous with the mest universe, "We are walking on it", and that fits with some views of Nirvana. But there are other views, and Ron knew that. In an early lecture in 1952 he equates Nirvana with serenety of beingness, very high on the tone scale, which is the Tibetan view of it: It's a state of mind, not a nothingness. The state of clear, cause over mental mest, is a state of no aberration, although OT 3, being more or less the end of negative gain (before NOTs was invented), fits this e.p. better).

Of course, Ron then applied scientific methodology to align the philosophy to observable reality. He states in a lecture (mid 1952?) that when he started studying engineering, he had to integrate the philosophy of the East with western science in order to maintailn his sanity, and so he did.


Nescis Nomen