From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 4 - December 1991

Have you Bypassed the Crock of Gold?
By Antony A Phillips, Denmark

There is an old tradition that there is a crock of gold at the foot of
the rainbow.

I reckon that there is something far more valuable at the end of the

Trouble is that you never can get to the foot of the rainbow, and it
does seem a bit hard to get to the end of the bridge.

I think one of Ron's really outstanding achievements was the creation
of the bridge in the form of the Gradation chart. In the early days he
released a lot of high level processes (there was no Gradation chart
then). But it appears that he soon found out that many people could
not run them. And he then spent fifteen years mainly on making
routines which reached 'further south' (as he put it - you could say
lower down). His persistence at this, against many discouragements, as
well as his ultimate success, are truly remarkable. And in 1964 he
released the first Gradation chart, which went up to level VII -

This was the first carefully layed out bridge.

In the early 50's one was encouraged to self-audit ("Self Analysis",
"Handbook for Preclears" and more). Then it was discovered that the pc
alone was junior to the bank, and self auditing was not workable and
was - a bad thing.

Later, for people who had done the grades, solo auditing was
'discovered'. It was fine to solo audit so long as one was ready for
it, and had a case supervisor to supervise ones auditing.

I would suggest that as one's causativeness and understanding increase
there will come a time when a case supervisor is not really necessary
while one solo audits - and in fact there is evidence that some have
achieved this stage, at least with regard to some processing.

I would also imagine that there will come a time when auditing as we
know it becomes unnecessary - just as the person who has been well run
on Grade I (problems), and has an understanding of problems (perhaps
by training and auditing on level I) seldom needs to be audited when
he gets a problem, but handles it without auditing, so will other
types of auditing become nnecessary - one just handles what needs
handling directly.

What is a bridge for?

Imagine a bridge across a bog.

It is a well engineered and rather costly affair. If you fell off it
in the middle, you would get muddy, have an unpleasant time, and might
actually drown. Certainly your progress to your distant goal would be

But near the end of the bridge, if you fell off it, things possibly
would not be so bad. The bridge has passed over the bog, and has
reached a low lying but firm ground. You would fall onto dry ground,
and perhaps a bush would break your fall.

What happens at the end of the bridge? Perhaps the bridge carries a
motorway over a long and very varied plain. At the end of the bridge
the motorway continues. In fact if you are going very fast, with your
eyes on the road and not on what is happening on either side, it would
look exactly like the bridge.

Perhaps your goal is to reach a town many miles further on over the
plain. In that case keep your eyes on the road, and proceed at the
fastest safe speed.

But don't be fooled into thinking that you are still on a bridge. If
there is time enough before you have to get to the distant town, you
can stop, get off the motorway, and have a look at the scenery, or
whatever else interests you.

But what if the town in the far distance does not interest you?
Realize that you are over the bridge. The land around you is safe to
walk on, to explore, to enjoy. Raging rivers, and muddy swamps with
crocodiles are a thing of the past. (Actually it might be more
accurate to say that they may still be there, but - you - have
achieved enough causativeness and understanding to handle them

Maybe you are racing along, bypassing hundreds of crocks of gold, with
the fixed idea that you are on an endless (or terribly long) bridge,
which will blow up with an atomic explosion in a couple of minutes (or
in the next five years).

The EP of your Bridge?

So it would be wise to ask what the end phenomenon of the bridge
itself is. I guess the end phenomenon is something in the direction of
that you are pretty well cause over life, and do not get into trouble
which you can not get yourself out of. With help from others perhaps,
living is somewhat a group affair, but you have enough tech and
ability to be able to case supervise and audit yourself, if there is
need or desire. I would further suggest that those who do not have
tech training (and experience of auditing others) will never reach the
end of the bridge. And possibly a good understanding of the Data
Series is a prerequisite.

I imagine that the bridge, unlike material bridges, has a gradient
ending. You come to a stage where you need very little auditing from
others, and then a stage where you (with deep tech knowledge) can case
supervise yourself, very probably after chatting to friends who are
also around that level, but have somewhat different tech backgrounds.

Honestly, with the absolute goal of 'Total Freedom' whichthe church
had mocked up for us, did you expect to need a bridge when you were
totally free? Where did you expect the bridge to end?

If the ideas I have mooted here seem a bit unreal and unachievable, I
would suggest you read Leonard Dunn's article on postulating (one of
the 'Thoughts of a Septuagenarian Scientologist' series, in
"Reconnection" 22), and Jon Zegal's article "Religious Freedom - What
it is and what it is not" in "The Free Spirit" (USA) volume III no.3.

In the "Philedalphia Doctorate Lectures", Ron has talked about various
Eastern religions and philosophies being 90% truth, and 10% totally
inverted truth, the latter 10% turning them into traps.

What can you do after the Bridge

When you have reached the end of your bridge, you will be able to
examine and use any and all of these and many other practices without
falling on your head, and needing someone else to dig you out. I
invite you to go into Strubes Bookshop (Strubes Bookshop is one of two
bookshops in Copenhagen, whose shelves are loaded with all sorts of
books, on pyramids, meditation, out of the body experiences, life
after death, diet, etc. etc. etc. It is packed full of 'other
practices'!) one day and see all the interesting things there. There
are loads of them. Before you reach the end of the bridge, you could
be in trouble if you followed some of them. But at the end of the
bridge, with the data series tucked under your belt, they are all
yours, should they interest you.

Somehow the idea (reality we can say) has got built up that we should
not look at (confront you could say) other practices (let alone so
called squirrels), that it would be dangerous to do so.

Does that sound like progress on the so called road to Total Freedom?

But let me end on a 'loyal to Hubbard' note. There are many
Scientology techniques one can use when one is near or at the end of
the bridge. In the last few months in Copenhagen I have heard of the
following being done, all Solo: Grade 0, Suppressed Person Rundown,
GPMs as in the red volumes, PAB7 processes, false data - stripping,
Straight Wire.

The situation is very interesting, these things are more and more
being done outside the spheres of influence of orgs and centres. They
are being done (solo, which means on themselves) by trained and fairly
experienced auditors, who are in comm with others of like nature. And
the cost has been mostly in time, rather than money.

And there has been as much enthusiasm over results as you may have
read in glossy promotional material from flag. You may not have heard
of it, no doubt, because it is a sort of cottage industry without a
highly geared department of promotion. And also because folk still
have a feeling that others might think it a bit wrong to do such

The message I have is that Scientology really works - all the way. To
get all you want out of it you will need to have experience as an
auditor. And it is not (despite the impression you might get in the
old church, like I did when I did the HRD internship) difficult.

And there are many free scientologists around if you need case
supervising or a chat.

I do not believe that we have to, must, or ought to, clear the planet.
But it can be fun to help a friend or neighbour.

This article was originally published in the Danish language magazine
Uafh`ngige Synspunkter (Independent Viewpoints) in 1986 and has been
slightly revised.