Is It Wrong to Feel Sympathy?

Another odd idea that was introduced in Advanced Procedure and Axioms was a negative view toward the feeling of sympathy.

SYMPATHY is commonly understood as a feeling of pity or sorrow toward some misfortune of another.

It obviously depends on one’s ability to recognize and form perception of the suffering and misfortune of another, and then to be able to feel something about it.

While there are some subtle differences between the three, SYMPATHY, EMPATHY, and COMPASSION are all derivatives from the Greek’s root word PATHOS which means “feeling” or “suffering.” The word “compassion” comes from Latin’s compassio and is “an ecclesiastical loan-translation of Greek sympatheia (i.e. sympathy) [Online Etimology Dictionary]. While there are some differences in the common understanding and usage of the words, sym-pathy and com-passion basically mean the same thing – to suffer together – and hold comparable definitions in most dictionaries (though additionally, sympathy can also mean a sharing or agreement in feeling or understanding). Empathy means “the ability to understand and share the feelings of another” [Oxford Dictionary].

The view of “sympathy” is quite simple when relying on standard word derivations and common sense, but here comes Hubbard to override both with his own definitions and explanations:

Chapter: Self-Determinism Processing
. . .

It is the role of the auditor to discover, with the pre-clear, the moments when the pre-clear postulated conclusions of any kind on any subject. These conclusions are occasionally smothered by mis-emotion, such as sympathy, and by general ARC [interaction with other people]. They can also be smothered by physical pain.

Chapter: Advanced Procedure
. . .

THE ELEVENTH ACT consists of running out ALL sympathy on everyone and anyone in this lifetime, every dynamic. This is done by running the sympathy as a lock for its duration over and over until the sympathy is erased.

Chapter: Emotion
. . .

Sympathy is commonly accepted to mean the posing of an emotional state similar to the emotional state of an individual in grief or apathy. This is a secondary reaction and has its own peculiarity but is nevertheless on the tone scale between 0.9 and 0.4. Sympathy follows or is based upon overt action by the preclear.

Sympathy can be mechanically considered as the posing of any emotion so as to be similar to the emotion of another. This, in view of popular usage, should have a special designation, comparitism.

Chapter: Service Facsimiles (subheading: Sympathy Exciters)

A sympathy exciter is any entity on any dynamic for which the individual has felt sympathy of the variety between 0.9 and 0.4.

Sympathy is an excellent occluder and valence shifter. It also involves and freezes the emotion of the individual.

The ordinary course of action leading to sympathy is action against the entity which will receive sympathy or action against an entity earlier than the sympathy exciter.

Sympathy is a non-survival apology for action against entities on any dynamic, which action has failed.

A sympathy exciter is easily located in any case. There are many in every case.

The auditor can enter the sympathy chain from many angles. One is to locate “to whom the individual has been mean”. Another is, “When did you fail to control another by action?” Another is simply, “For whom have you felt sympathy?”

Sympathy exciters are most commonly parents, allies and pets.

Childhood stories are cunningly laid traps for sympathy and such stories, poems or songs affect a case strongly but are locks for actual control efforts (which have failed) on the part of the child against any entity on any dynamic. Sympathy should be run from such stories.

Sympathy is run as a heavy facsimile. It is run without verbalization. It is run without accompanying effort. It is always run with the reason one was sympathetic. It is run over and over until the pre-clear extroverts. It may be run from late to early or early to late wherever it can be found.

Sympathy must be taken wholly off the case.


So here we have it: Hubbard labels sympathy a “mis-emotion” [inappropriate emotion], redefines it as “the posing of an emotional state similar to the emotional state of an individual in grief or apathy” [claiming that it is a common meaning which it is not], and asserts that it is “a non-survival apology” that is actually caused by actions against (overt acts) the target(s) of sympathy – the actions which failed.

This is obviously not correct. Sympathy is a FEELING that is connected to the PERCEPTION or recognition of misfortune and suffering of another. It does not have to have anything to do with harmful actions, though if someone did commit actions that lead to a perceived condition of suffering and misfortune that the perpetrator now feels bad about, the feeling of sympathy can also become entangled with feelings of guilt and regret over having caused the condition.

A feeling of sympathy can also be tied to a sense of guilt when someone feels like they should do something to help remedy the unfortunate condition of another and yet fail to act which then can give that person a sense of being responsible for the persisting reality of the condition. In this sense, it can also be tied to a “failure to help” as well as to mental impressions of judgment by others – if the person was somehow judged before for not being compassionate or helping enough or if such judgment existed generally in one’s culture (such as commonly the case within Christian communities, for example, that advocate help for the suffering and unfortunate).

Sympathy is not just connected to a feeling or emotion (as Hubbard asserted), it is also tied to a sense that the perceived condition SHOULD NOT BE. Hence, there is an aspect of resistance or protest toward the existence of a perceived condition and a common desire to change or resolve it. In this sense, the perceived misfortune can also be viewed as form of a problem [in line with the definition of “problem” presented on this site on page REALITY].

This “resistance” can lead one to become “attached” to the perceived reality of condition that an individual wants to change. The desire to change it and inability to do so can lead to a sense of failure and a sense of being overwhelmed by the reality of that which an individual wanted to overcome. This in turn can lead to a sense of being “overpowered” by the perceived condition which can then impinge on that individual as a seemingly persisting reality. This is how the assumption of condition that an individual had sympathy for, or a “valence shift” that Hubbard referred to, can occur [valence shift – becoming an entity for which one felt sympathy such as becoming poor, unhappy, lonely or developing some kind of a health condition – whatever it is that an individual sympathized with which then impinged on him or her as a form of reality].

Enforcing an idea that a feeling of sympathy, in itself, is somehow wrong and a result of harmful actions (as opposed to PERCEPTION of misfortune) and then instituting measures to wipe sympathy from the psychological construct of an individual is actually very destructive and dangerous as it is likely to lead to the formation of psychological construct that lacks an ability to empathize with others all together which in turn leads to a general INABILITY TO PERCEIVE the reality of others to its fullest extent.

LACK OF EMPATHY is also the basis for the condition of PSYCHOPATHY and “liberates” an individual to actually be able to cause suffering onto others with a seeming lack of spiritual consequences to oneself (as an individual now has no concept of feeling for another sentient being and so does not experience the pain inflicted on another). [Read more about psychopathy and other conditions on page Psychopathy and Conditioned Psychosis.]

This may very well be the state that Hubbard actually intended to create in his followers so they would eventually become 1) oblivious to the suffering and injustices perpetrated by Scientology itself, and 2) be willing to commit harmful acts in compliance with Hubbard’s orders, and think nothing of it.


The solution to the possible negative “side effects” in relationship to sympathy (as was described above) lies in the direction of addressing PERCEPTION of that which one sympathized with. A potential “impingement” of the sympathized condition is effectively resolved when an individual takes responsibility for CREATING THE VISION (perception) of such a condition to begin with.

In this way, “scanning sympathy” within the confines of an auditing session in Dianetics may, in some cases, have actually produced some positive results since it would motivate an individual to (re)create the perceived conditions related to sympathy and hence come to cause over them.  But this positive gain is ultimately overshadowed by Hubbard’s negative view and misleading explanations behind the experience of sympathy and its indicated cause (i.e. overt acts).


Because sympathy caries with it a vision of an unfortunate condition, it could actually reinforce or even create the reality of such condition for whom the sympathy is directed. In this sense, sympathy can actually feed the unwanted condition. Hence, there can be a rational negative reaction toward the receipt of “sympathy” by those that disagree with the vision of reality that it carries (for oneself and one’s condition).

Leave a Reply

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