NOTs case

[Mary]

I've many questions and things that I'd love to fully understand about this subject. It's something that really deserves a thread to see if others have found answers.

My considerations range from:

I still have a strong indoctrination that it is wrong to say anything that might be "out security".

It could all be a "load of old hogwash" a product of my imagination fed by the HCOBs on the subject.

After 12 years on Solo Nots, at an of average 5 hours per week. I have made many gains. The cognitions and insights made in NOTs session were and still are incredibly real. I still feel very clear and free of aberration. It certainly seems that I am at cause and very much in control of this area of case.

If I'd never done NOTs would I feel in the same condition casewise simply because of life experience and general competence?

The actual truth of NOTs may be quite different, perhaps closer to the "Zinjifarianism": something like the infinate splitting of consciousnesses into individual viewpoints.

(Apologies Zinj if I've stated it horribly wrong).


Anyone else on Solo NOTs that would care to say how it seems to them?

[Alanzo]

I've many questions and things that I'd love to fully understand about this subject. It's something that really deserves a thread to see if others have found answers.

My considerations range from:

I still have a strong indoctrination that it is wrong to say anything that might be "out security".

It could all be a "load of old hogwash" a product of my imagination fed by the HCOBs on the subject.

After 12 years on Solo Nots, at an of average 5 hours per week. I have made many gains. The cognitions and insights made in NOTs session were and still are incredibly real. I still feel very clear and free of aberration. It certainly seems that I am at cause and very much in control of this area of case.

If I'd never done NOTs would I feel in the same condition casewise simply because of life experience and general competence?

The actual truth of NOTs may be quite different, perhaps closer to the "Zinjifarianism": something like the infinate splitting of consciousnesses into individual viewpoints.

(Apologies Zinj if I've stated it horribly wrong).


Anyone else on Solo NOTs that would care to say how it seems to them?

Good idea for a thread, Mary.

Is it a matter of talking to BTs with the intention of getting them to blow?

What happens when they all blow?

Don't some come back for a visit?

And anyway. Why wouldn't just regular ARC and the basics of valueing and keeping relationships healthy apply to BTs, as well?

[Zinjifar]

Good idea for a thread, Mary.

Is it a matter of talking to BTs with the intention of getting them to blow?

What happens when they all blow?

Don't some come back for a visit?

And anyway. Why wouldn't just regular ARC and the basics of valueing and keeping relationships healthy apply to BTs, as well?

What's worrisome to me is that, in the millions and more 'BTs' that one disposes of, little care is taken to examine what they *are* in the first place. After all, there *is* no essential difference between the 'thetan' himself and the horde of 'BTs' that infest him; except one:

The 'lead' thetan is the one that signed up for Scientology courses. From Scientology's viewpoint, that's the only important one; the one that's manipulated; the one that's coddled; the one that's recreated in 'Image of Ron'.

By the time the process is done; how much of oneself has one lost? By defining one's 'self' as only a single narrow puzzle-piece, one may approach the 'fixed and dedicated glare' that 'Keeping Scientology Working' demands, but, what has one paid?

'Have I carved enough my lord?'
'Child, you are bone'

Zinj

[Tanstaafl]

I haven't run NOTS so can probably contribute little to this thread. :melodramatic:

However, I have run plenty of GE track on a couple of PCs and even audited tooth cells. It seems that if you run a new PC on Book One first and dive straight into prenatals that they don't know it's not their track. And yet there appears to be as-isness and the resulting erasure. Is the GE "piggybacking" the session?

If someone in a body has an accident then, presumably, the GE creates his/her own engram. Does the PC run his own incident only, or both, perhaps?

I doubt we'll get beyond individual subjective reality on this topic.

I believe that theta and mest universes are far more complex than a study of LRH would lead one to believe.

Cheers

tanstaafl

[Leon]

You guys need to study the 5th ACC lectures.

[Bea Kiddo]

And anyway. Why wouldn't just regular ARC and the basics of valueing and keeping relationships healthy apply to BTs, as well?


An interesting point.

LRH says that all thetans respond to the same laws of (Affinity? was it affinity, the word he used? I think so. Its in a tech film)....

So why we kicking those guys out then?

They are just being affectionate, right?

That was something always on my mind about it.

And they are treated good and bad. It depends. They are all audited.

But they can be SP's too, you know.

Maybe your nose will get an SP declare.

Whatcha gonna do then?

(Sorry Mary, for any thread diversion. I do understand what you mean, though I did not do SOLO NOTs. I am mid OT V and have audited OT VIIs and VIII's so have some familiarity with it. It would be your own personal integrity on the issue, for lack of a better way of putting it. It really depends. But anyone getting on the NET is gonna find out easily about the materials of the levels. So its really up to you, Mary).

[Tanstaafl]

What's worrisome to me is that, in the millions and more 'BTs' that one disposes of, little care is taken to examine what they *are* in the first place.

I've had the same thought Zinj. The fact that some who have completed Solo NOTS are lacking certainty on this area does not encourage - not to invalidate their wins.

It's a long whole track and thetans have become highly individuated.
I believe some BTs, not all, are simply valences. Hubbard does talk about theta bodies and that they have mass.

What does a thetan do when he doesn't like what he's done or what he's become? Perhaps he quarantines a part of himself off and makes a fresh start with new attention units?

[Alanzo]

It also seems to me that making these entities or BTs into "other people" keeps you totally at effect.

They can come and go from you as they please. And all you can do about that is audit them using Scientology Technology at HGC and Solo CS rates, with 6 month sec checks in between?

It seems at least an inefficient way of handling this, and at worst a lie made up to fool people into paying Ron to talk to their imaginations.

[Eamonn Gosney]

I had a really good win recently from handling an entity (my first one). This entity was giving me trouble for a long time (I thought it was me). I was able to blow it and feel much, much better.

What helped me was looking at it as a (dark) entity.

The info I read at this site helped me understand entities better.

http://www.clarity-of-being.org/original-writings.htm

(I am not recommending this website, simply pointing out what I personally found useful).

______________________________________________

Part 2:


My current take on things is that Ron still had a dark entity attached at his death. That he never fully recovered from the time when he was lying on his deathbed and David Mayo (Snr CS at Flag at the time) was transported across the country to be at his bedside.

Mayo helped Ron get back on his feet, but never completed the full action. Ron was left with a dark entity (possibly more than one) still intact.

The story goes that Ron was impressed wIth what David Mayo had done for him and asked him to write it up (and the Nots material was the result).




Eamonn

[Terril park]

I've many questions and things that I'd love to fully understand about this subject. It's something that really deserves a thread to see if others have found answers.

My considerations range from:

I still have a strong indoctrination that it is wrong to say anything that might be "out security".

It could all be a "load of old hogwash" a product of my imagination fed by the HCOBs on the subject.

After 12 years on Solo Nots, at an of average 5 hours per week. I have made many gains. The cognitions and insights made in NOTs session were and still are incredibly real. I still feel very clear and free of aberration. It certainly seems that I am at cause and very much in control of this area of case.

If I'd never done NOTs would I feel in the same condition casewise simply because of life experience and general competence?

The actual truth of NOTs may be quite different, perhaps closer to the "Zinjifarianism": something like the infinate splitting of consciousnesses into individual viewpoints.

(Apologies Zinj if I've stated it horribly wrong).


Anyone else on Solo NOTs that would care to say how it seems to them?

Well Mary you rock. And I love you.

Its very clear to me that you have way more ability than before.

Do as thou wilt. :)

love you :)

bb

[Ralph Hilton]

Hi Mary,

I'd say that its better to get in comm with a C/S you feel you could trust than to post case details in a public forum.

[Eamonn Gosney]

a C/S you feel you could trust

Who would you suggest?



Eamonn

[Pascal]

I've many questions and things that I'd love to fully understand about this subject. It's something that really deserves a thread to see if others have found answers.

My considerations range from:

I still have a strong indoctrination that it is wrong to say anything that might be "out security".

It could all be a "load of old hogwash" a product of my imagination fed by the HCOBs on the subject.

After 12 years on Solo Nots, at an of average 5 hours per week. I have made many gains. The cognitions and insights made in NOTs session were and still are incredibly real. I still feel very clear and free of aberration. It certainly seems that I am at cause and very much in control of this area of case.

If I'd never done NOTs would I feel in the same condition casewise simply because of life experience and general competence?

The actual truth of NOTs may be quite different, perhaps closer to the "Zinjifarianism": something like the infinate splitting of consciousnesses into individual viewpoints.

(Apologies Zinj if I've stated it horribly wrong).


Anyone else on Solo NOTs that would care to say how it seems to them?

I had this thought once. Am I really improving with SCN or am I "growing up"?

Point is, before SCN I never would "grow up", I'd only get worse.

SCN works, why or how isn't important. Theta is not logical.

Continue until the process is flat and get in touch with Pierre Ethier for CSing.

[Pascal]

Good idea for a thread, Mary.

Is it a matter of talking to BTs with the intention of getting them to blow?

What happens when they all blow?

Don't some come back for a visit?

And anyway. Why wouldn't just regular ARC and the basics of valueing and keeping relationships healthy apply to BTs, as well?

BTs confuse you and slow you down. Learning to get rid of them and staying free of them is key to going OT and staying there.

[Pascal]

I haven't run NOTS so can probably contribute little to this thread. :melodramatic:

However, I have run plenty of GE track on a couple of PCs and even audited tooth cells. It seems that if you run a new PC on Book One first and dive straight into prenatals that they don't know it's not their track. And yet there appears to be as-isness and the resulting erasure. Is the GE "piggybacking" the session?

If someone in a body has an accident then, presumably, the GE creates his/her own engram. Does the PC run his own incident only, or both, perhaps?

I doubt we'll get beyond individual subjective reality on this topic.

I believe that theta and mest universes are far more complex than a study of LRH would lead one to believe.

Cheers

tanstaafl

The PC at first is plowed in. He thinks he is the GE or maybe he is too weak to see his own mental pictures, only the GE's. The Bridge is ment to unconfuse the being as to who, where, what and why he is. :coolwink:

[Pascal]

You guys need to study the 5th ACC lectures.

This ACC goes by the name "Universes, and the war between theta and mest."

Easily found and downloaded on eDonkey network.

[Div6]

I've many questions and things that I'd love to fully understand about this subject. It's something that really deserves a thread to see if others have found answers.

My considerations range from:

I still have a strong indoctrination that it is wrong to say anything that might be "out security".

It could all be a "load of old hogwash" a product of my imagination fed by the HCOBs on the subject.

After 12 years on Solo Nots, at an of average 5 hours per week. I have made many gains. The cognitions and insights made in NOTs session were and still are incredibly real. I still feel very clear and free of aberration. It certainly seems that I am at cause and very much in control of this area of case.

If I'd never done NOTs would I feel in the same condition casewise simply because of life experience and general competence?

The actual truth of NOTs may be quite different, perhaps closer to the "Zinjifarianism": something like the infinate splitting of consciousnesses into individual viewpoints.

(Apologies Zinj if I've stated it horribly wrong).


Anyone else on Solo NOTs that would care to say how it seems to them?
I'm just on the verge of starting Nots.

Per the III materials " Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error. " So what has resulted for so far me is that my space is MY space...and my thoughts are MY thoughts, and I no longer have internal confusion as to the internal source of those thoughts. Some chronic ones I "had" were not mine at all. Some were. Live is much simpler and more direct, with more postulates on winning, and not having a bunch of "death flows" chronically in my space.

[Pascal]

An interesting point.

LRH says that all thetans respond to the same laws of (Affinity? was it affinity, the word he used? I think so. Its in a tech film)....

So why we kicking those guys out then?

They are just being affectionate, right?

That was something always on my mind about it.

And they are treated good and bad. It depends. They are all audited.

But they can be SP's too, you know.

Maybe your nose will get an SP declare.

Whatcha gonna do then?

(Sorry Mary, for any thread diversion. I do understand what you mean, though I did not do SOLO NOTs. I am mid OT V and have audited OT VIIs and VIII's so have some familiarity with it. It would be your own personal integrity on the issue, for lack of a better way of putting it. It really depends. But anyone getting on the NET is gonna find out easily about the materials of the levels. So its really up to you, Mary).

BTs slow you down. You need to learn to free them from your body and space. End result is being you 100% as BTs usurp your "mind" since they closely match your wavelength.

The Bridge is like peeling an onion until you find yourself, native state. BTs are last level of "case". After that you get rid of old postulates.

[Pascal]

I'm just on the verge of starting Nots.

Per the III materials " Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error. " So what has resulted for so far me is that my space is MY space...and my thoughts are MY thoughts, and I no longer have internal confusion as to the internal source of those thoughts. Some chronic ones I "had" were not mine at all. Some were. Live is much simpler and more direct, with more postulates on winning, and not having a bunch of "death flows" chronically in my space.

No kidding, no more low-toned ideas from "traumatized" brethren. Plus you free beings that have been fux0red for eons. :happydance:

[Free to shine]

It also seems to me that making these entities or BTs into "other people" keeps you totally at effect.

They can come and go from you as they please. And all you can do about that is audit them using Scientology Technology at HGC and Solo CS rates, with 6 month sec checks in between?

It seems at least an inefficient way of handling this, and at worst a lie made up to fool people into paying Ron to talk to their imaginations.

I'm with you on this one Alanzo. :yes:

[Pascal]

I'm with you on this one Alanzo. :yes:

Freeing other intentions from your space is causative. BTs cannot leave on their own as they are not in PT. It's important to learn how to handle to maintain a big and clean space.

[Eamonn Gosney]

It also seems to me that making these entities or BTs into "other people" keeps you totally at effect.

They can come and go from you as they please. And all you can do about that is audit them using Scientology Technology at HGC and Solo CS rates, with 6 month sec checks in between?

It seems at least an inefficient way of handling this, and at worst a lie made up to fool people into paying Ron to talk to their imaginations.


I am sorry to hear of your disillusionment, and lack of wins with handling entities.



It's important to learn how to handle to maintain a big and clean space.


Yes, It sure beats sharing with 'guests' who have moved in :happydance:




Eamonn

[nexus100]

I haven't had OT levels but have had Idenics, which addresses BT's somewhat differently. I had peeled things off during sessions, including one unbelieveable Three Faces of Eve personality. One day I was sitting at my desk. I felt a presence near me in the room, something ugly. I looked to the side, not really thinking about what I was doing, and said, get out. Whatever it was left the room and ever since I have a much cleaner space. My thinking is, whatever they are, they may hang around for awhile even after being booted. I'm confident that if I reassumed one I had ditched, however, I could spot it and dump it.

[Leon]

Booting preclears out of the auditing room is not acceptable as a technology. Better to make them more able so they can decide for themselves what they should do. Invariably they want to be free of you so as to go and live life the way they want.

[namaste]

:drama:

[Eamonn Gosney]

How I handled my entity



I have had this dark ugly thing in my space for as long as I can remember. So long that I thought it was me. I felt degraded by it, and restricted in being the type of person I wanted to be. This ugly thing was like something evil that had died slumpt in an armchair in the corner, which I felt embarrassed about and all I could do was pull a white sheet over it, and pretend it wasn't there.

Finally I made an incredible breakthrough on it after reading material on this website (http://www.clarity-of-being.org/original-writings.htm) about dark entities in one's space.

What I did was just lie down on my back on the floor for about two hours and 'BECAME' the evil entity. I just kept pouring everything of my being into this thing. And kept returning to this again and again and again. The evil was so full-on that it was in every pore of my beingness and dripping from me like the 'monster from the deep'. Eventually I lay exhausted, and must have fallen asleep.

About six hours later I partly regained consciousness in the middle of a nightmare, where I was being pursued by two evil beings who were intent on doing me no end of harm. What I did was just 'have' the evil they wished to inflict on me. Just have it without trying to flee.

It took about 24 hours, and the whole experience lifted from me and my space is now opened up. The dark entity is completely gone; disappeared into the abyss of interplanetary space. And I feel a whole heaps better.

I'm not saying this approach will work for everybody, but it worked for me.



Eamonn

[Pascal]

I haven't had OT levels but have had Idenics, which addresses BT's somewhat differently. I had peeled things off during sessions, including one unbelieveable Three Faces of Eve personality. One day I was sitting at my desk. I felt a presence near me in the room, something ugly. I looked to the side, not really thinking about what I was doing, and said, get out. Whatever it was left the room and ever since I have a much cleaner space. My thinking is, whatever they are, they may hang around for awhile even after being booted. I'm confident that if I reassumed one I had ditched, however, I could spot it and dump it.

I've been able to out-reason some of these "circuits" or have them leave with mock-ups. The funny thing is how they copy each other's valence. You get rid of one but another pops up with the same characteristics as the one you handled wich can cause you think it never left in the first place. Reading the NOTs pack was the greatest thing I ever did. I now feel I know all about case. Quite a relief.

If only I knew that much about women... or about my dog... :p

[Pascal]

How I handled my entity



I have had this dark ugly thing in my space for as long as I can remember. So long that I thought it was me. I felt degraded by it, and restricted in being the type of person I wanted to be. This ugly thing was like something evil that had died slumpt in an armchair in the corner, which I felt embarrassed about and all I could do was pull a white sheet over it, and pretend it wasn't there.

Finally I made an incredible breakthrough on it after reading material on this website (http://www.clarity-of-being.org/original-writings.htm) about dark entities in one's space.

What I did was just lie down on my back on the floor for about two hours and 'BECAME' the evil entity. I just kept pouring everything of my being into this thing. And kept returning to this again and again and again. The evil was so full-on that it was in every pore of my beingness and dripping from me like the 'monster from the deep'. Eventually I lay exhausted, and must have fallen asleep.

About six hours later I partly regained consciousness in the middle of a nightmare, where I was being pursued by two evil beings who were intent on doing me no end of harm. What I did was just 'have' the evil they wished to inflict on me. Just have it without trying to flee.

It took about 24 hours, and the whole experience lifted from me and my space is now opened up. The dark entity is completely gone; disappeared into the abyss of interplanetary space. And I feel a whole heaps better.

I'm not saying this approach will work for everybody, but it worked for me.



Eamonn

I try to get in ARC with my "horde" as I call my BTs. They are like kids wich I help to "mature" and leave my bosom. That way they don't bug me. I also "release" them on people who bug me. I've had enemies die of cancer and other get seriously injured after messing with me. :coolwink:

They just wanna be useful like everyone else...

[nexus100]

Booting preclears out of the auditing room is not acceptable as a technology. Better to make them more able so they can decide for themselves what they should do. Invariably they want to be free of you so as to go and live life the way they want.

I appreciate the commentary, but things seem to be working pretty well with what I'm doing. Just thought the story might be of interest.

[Ralph Hilton]

Booting preclears out of the auditing room is not acceptable as a technology. Better to make them more able so they can decide for themselves what they should do. Invariably they want to be free of you so as to go and live life the way they want.

I'd say would be true if one had accepted the PC or had a responsibility for their dilemna but if some entity with malicious intent comes into one's space uninvited then they have no right to require auditing.

There are quite a lot of bodiless beings still around here from the heavy fighting near the end of WWII amongst other things. Sometimes I will sort them out but its my choice not theirs and if I'm in the midst of something else then I'll send them away. Using misemotion on them just tends to make them more persistently hang around. The easiest fast way to send them off I've come across is to just put attention on a very distant object with a light sort of curiosity flow which they follow and leave.

[mate]

I think the real problem is that the NOTs issues were based upon the results achieved with the auditing of a single case, Hubbard's. It was a repair action on Hubbard who was in a serious physical condition. The NOTs' issues were based upon this single case study. How one is able to extrapolate from the results of a single repair action to the creation of two major grade chart levels, defies credibility. It is only surpassed in credibility by OT3, which is based upon the incidents recounted by a single "BT". Not only that, but the content of "Incident 1" was based on a regular church ritual for Saints in 1967 in Las Palmas observed by Hubbard (and his BTs) and his Sea Org crew. This is per a letter to Alan Walters in a letter from Neville (Chamberlain?). And the content of "Incident 2" was based upon the re-release of a comic book mid 1967 about an alien warlord Xemnu, China exploding a hydrogen bomb mid 1967, a press report mid 1967 of Paul Ehrlich's controversial theory of overpopulation which was to be released as a book, The Population Bomb and the famous Teide volcano on Tenerife, Canary Islands, some 12,000 ft high, and also Neville's letter to Alan. :eyeroll:

As I have stated elsewhere, attachments are very real and do need to be addressed. However the number is quite small no more than a handful, not the 1000's or 10,000's implicitly demanded by FSO. When a PreOT has completed New OT5, he/she has well and truly completed NOTs. New OT7 is an overrun. Did you know that gross sensations on the body will read when the PC puts his attention on them? Try it! So locating a pressure area which reads, does not mean that there is an Attachment (BT) at that location. :eyeroll:

I am not questioning Mayo's honesty, but the NOTs' issues were based upon his reality at that time, which was based upon a very very limited experience. I do believe that Mayo repudiated much of his NOTs materials, but unfortunately I can't find the reference.

The following is a quote from haiqu.
According to NOTs Series 27 an aura is "a whole package of BTs and clusters formed into the shape of a body and aura with other BTs and clusters stuck in it." One who has fully finished on NOTs should therefore have no visible aura. NOTs Series 32 also covers this. This is pure, complete, and utter nonsense. I would question the sanity of anyone who accepts this statement by Mayo, and how on earth he could draw this conclusion from doing a repair action Hubbard, astounds me. As "BTs" have auras, then per Mayo, these are BTs, and so on, so the number of BTs per person, would be infinite! "Aha!", says an FSO reg. :whistling:

In fact, the inner aura is what might be called the life field which contains a composite of the individual fields of all the cells of the body. Where an attachment occurs, the residual life field of the attachment interferes with the the life field of the host, creating physical problems in that region of the host's body. The attachment can be seen as a lump in the smooth surface of the life field.

Regards, David. :happydance:

[Ralph Hilton]

Who would you suggest?
Eamonn
It depends somewhat on one's location. Its good to be able to find a terminal in travelling distance but many people would rather fly half way across the planet to work with someone they can relate to than work with someone locally. At the moment I've got people planning visits from France, UK, Berlin, New Delhi, Toronto, South Australia and Johannesburg while Pierre. has several on his lines from UK, Austria and Germany.

[Ralph Hilton]

I am not questioning Mayo's honesty, but the NOTs' issues were based upon his reality at that time, which was based upon a very very limited experience. I do believe that Mayo repudiated much of his NOTs materials, but unfortunately I can't find the reference.
Regards, David. :happydance:
The data I have from someone very close to LRH at the time NOTs came out is that LRH authored it, not Mayo. Mayo was involved in writing up the issues for LRH but the tech was from LRH. That's the data I personally accept but given the amount of conflicting data flying around there is no way I could prove it.

[Eamonn Gosney]

Hi David,

Don't know if you remember me but you were my Case Supervisor for a time back in the early 80s at Sydney Org, while I was auditing the Happiness Rundown. I remember sending you several C/S's for the pc I was auditing.

I ended up completing the HRD Internship.

Back then I was in bloody terrible shape case-wise (probably the most scrambled up pc Sydney Org ever had on its lines---this is how I felt anyway). It seems like a hundred lifetimes ago. So much water has gone under the plank since.

Anyway, just wanted to say Hi, and to let you know I'm on cloud 9 these days.

BTW, I read some of your story postings some weeks back---really interesting yarn. I travelled around 28 States in the USA. Was over there for 14 months (not with Scn though---the Royal Australian Navy)



Eamonn

[lionheart]

How I handled my entity

I have had this dark ugly thing in my space for as long as I can remember. So long that I thought it was me. I felt degraded by it, and restricted in being the type of person I wanted to be. This ugly thing was like something evil that had died slumpt in an armchair in the corner, which I felt embarrassed about and all I could do was pull a white sheet over it, and pretend it wasn't there.

Finally I made an incredible breakthrough on it after reading material on this website (http://www.clarity-of-being.org/original-writings.htm) about dark entities in one's space.

What I did was just lie down on my back on the floor for about two hours and 'BECAME' the evil entity. I just kept pouring everything of my being into this thing. And kept returning to this again and again and again. The evil was so full-on that it was in every pore of my beingness and dripping from me like the 'monster from the deep'. Eventually I lay exhausted, and must have fallen asleep.

About six hours later I partly regained consciousness in the middle of a nightmare, where I was being pursued by two evil beings who were intent on doing me no end of harm. What I did was just 'have' the evil they wished to inflict on me. Just have it without trying to flee.

It took about 24 hours, and the whole experience lifted from me and my space is now opened up. The dark entity is completely gone; disappeared into the abyss of interplanetary space. And I feel a whole heaps better.

I'm not saying this approach will work for everybody, but it worked for me.



Eamonn

Very interesting.

Much of my work since leaving Scn has been using simple accepting or allowing techniques, which seems to be what you did in the above case.

Based upon the idea that resistance causes persistence, simply allowing or accepting, watching and letting it be seems to end the suffering that the resistance caused.

I would be interested to hear how NOTs auditees relate to this. Do you feel you are accepting or rejecting "entities"?

[alex]

Booting preclears out of the auditing room is not acceptable as a technology. Better to make them more able so they can decide for themselves what they should do. Invariably they want to be free of you so as to go and live life the way they want.

Nice viewpoint!!

alex

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I've been able to out-reason some of these "circuits" or have them leave with mock-ups. The funny thing is how they copy each other's valence. You get rid of one but another pops up with the same characteristics as the one you handled wich can cause you think it never left in the first place. Reading the NOTs pack was the greatest thing I ever did. I now feel I know all about case. Quite a relief.

If only I knew that much about women... or about my dog... :p

"The Tao of Love and Sex", is 'standard tech' on women.

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

The data I have from someone very close to LRH at the time NOTs came out is that LRH authored it, not Mayo. Mayo was involved in writing up the issues for LRH but the tech was from LRH. That's the data I personally accept but given the amount of conflicting data flying around there is no way I could prove it.

What I don't understand is the concept that just because it worked for LRH or a few other people why does that mean it is now supposed to work for and be applied to everyone?

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I had a really good win recently from handling an entity (my first one). This entity was giving me trouble for a long time (I thought it was me). I was able to blow it and feel much, much better.

What helped me was looking at it as a (dark) entity.

The info I read at this site helped me understand entities better.

http://www.clarity-of-being.org/original-writings.htm

(I am not recommending this website, simply pointing out what I personally found useful).

______________________________________________

Part 2:


My current take on things is that Ron still had a dark entity attached at his death. That he never fully recovered from the time when he was lying on his deathbed and David Mayo (Snr CS at Flag at the time) was transported across the country to be at his bedside.

Mayo helped Ron get back on his feet, but never completed the full action. Ron was left with a dark entity (possibly more than one) still intact.

The story goes that Ron was impressed wIth what David Mayo had done for him and asked him to write it up (and the Nots material was the result).




Eamonn

One of my viewpoints of that is Ron practiced black magic, therefore he had black magician case, which involves dark entities. He probably gave more than a few to some thetans too. He was obsessed about BTs.

Geoffrey Filbert claims that Ron accidentally exorcized himself instead of one of his Targs. Read all about it in "Excalibur Revisited".

[Zinjifar]

What I don't understand is the concept that just because it worked for LRH or a few other people why does that mean it is now supposed to work for and be applied to everyone?

But, that's the whole *point*, and why the 'Tech' is supposed to be 100% Standard...

It's all about 'duplicating Ron'! :)

Zinj

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I haven't had OT levels but have had Idenics, which addresses BT's somewhat differently. I had peeled things off during sessions, including one unbelieveable Three Faces of Eve personality. One day I was sitting at my desk. I felt a presence near me in the room, something ugly. I looked to the side, not really thinking about what I was doing, and said, get out. Whatever it was left the room and ever since I have a much cleaner space. My thinking is, whatever they are, they may hang around for awhile even after being booted. I'm confident that if I reassumed one I had ditched, however, I could spot it and dump it.

I'm very curious to see what my upcoming Idenics sessions will reveal. I had a friend who during an FPRD discovered that some of the entities were electronic. Once he examined and admired the craftsmanship of their electronics they blew.

When I was writing up O/Ws I saw an electronic swarm above my head. They all had vicious mouths and were talking incessantly.

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

How I handled my entity



I have had this dark ugly thing in my space for as long as I can remember. So long that I thought it was me. I felt degraded by it, and restricted in being the type of person I wanted to be. This ugly thing was like something evil that had died slumpt in an armchair in the corner, which I felt embarrassed about and all I could do was pull a white sheet over it, and pretend it wasn't there.

Finally I made an incredible breakthrough on it after reading material on this website (http://www.clarity-of-being.org/original-writings.htm) about dark entities in one's space.

What I did was just lie down on my back on the floor for about two hours and 'BECAME' the evil entity. I just kept pouring everything of my being into this thing. And kept returning to this again and again and again. The evil was so full-on that it was in every pore of my beingness and dripping from me like the 'monster from the deep'. Eventually I lay exhausted, and must have fallen asleep.

About six hours later I partly regained consciousness in the middle of a nightmare, where I was being pursued by two evil beings who were intent on doing me no end of harm. What I did was just 'have' the evil they wished to inflict on me. Just have it without trying to flee.

It took about 24 hours, and the whole experience lifted from me and my space is now opened up. The dark entity is completely gone; disappeared into the abyss of interplanetary space. And I feel a whole heaps better.

I'm not saying this approach will work for everybody, but it worked for me.



Eamonn



About the web link, I agree with the author's assessment of channelling and his decision to ignore it. Smart move IMHO.

I've never encountered a disembodied being who did not leave when I asked it to one way or another. Some I just told to "scat", and others I gave my standard speech about the sensual pleasures of the earth that they were missing out on, reinforced with mocked-up perceptics.

It is the one's that I don't perceive (why?) that get to hang around. Of course if one pretended to be an angel of light I might let it stay.

[Pascal]

What I don't understand is the concept that just because it worked for LRH or a few other people why does that mean it is now supposed to work for and be applied to everyone?

The Bridge is there to make sure everyone gets to OT. Handling NOTs is crucial, whether your NOTS case is big or small. Solo NOTS has to do with cleaning your space of BTs and that can involve BTs light-years away from your body.

I heard about people on Solo NOTs blowing up HUGE ridges in the universe, far from where harm could be done.

[Pascal]

One of my viewpoints of that is Ron practiced black magic, therefore he had black magician case, which involves dark entities. He probably gave more than a few to some thetans too. He was obsessed about BTs.

Geoffrey Filbert claims that Ron accidentally exorcized himself instead of one of his Targs. Read all about it in "Excalibur Revisited".

"Magic" is postulates conditioned by rituals. Postulates on a via. Black magic is a misnomer created by religious monopolies like the Catholic church or Islam.

For a Catholic a Scientologist would be a "satanist" possesed by "demons".

Superstitions...

[Pascal]

About the web link, I agree with the author's assessment of channelling and his decision to ignore it. Smart move IMHO.

I've never encountered a disembodied being who did not leave when I asked it to one way or another. Some I just told to "scat", and others I gave my standard speech about the sensual pleasures of the earth that they were missing out on, reinforced with mocked-up perceptics.

It is the one's that I don't perceive (why?) that get to hang around. Of course if one pretended to be an angel of light I might let it stay.

NOTs handles BTs that are way below 0 on the tone scale and thus very hard to confront. They are "dead". Once your "attention" is high enough, you can "light them up" and handle them. :coolwink:

[Alanzo]

"Magic" is postulates conditioned by rituals. Postulates on a via. Black magic is a misnomer created by religious monopolies like the Catholic church or Islam.

For a Catholic a Scientologist would be a "satanist" possesed by "demons".

Superstitions...

Which are the superstitions?

The Demons or the BTs?

And why?

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

The Bridge is there to make sure everyone gets to OT. [snipped]

That statement is not enough to convince me about the Bridge. And I don't know any "OT"s who are OT. I'm just about the only "OT" I know and I never did this CofS bridge.

[Pascal]

But, that's the whole *point*, and why the 'Tech' is supposed to be 100% Standard...

It's all about 'duplicating Ron'! :)

Zinj

I think you are confusing Standard Tech (the form in HOW to audit) with a "Standard Case" wich doesn't exist. All cases are different, but they all respond to Standard Tech.

Again your countless years of training and practical experience with Scientology should have told you that right? :coolwink:

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

"Magic" is postulates conditioned by rituals. Postulates on a via. Black magic is a misnomer created by religious monopolies like the Catholic church or Islam.

For a Catholic a Scientologist would be a "satanist" possesed by "demons".

Superstitions...

Exactly, magick is agreed upon postulates on a via. I've never needed that via and I have plenty of track being around magicians and thinking they were still in kindergarten. That didn't keep one from poisoning me though. Boy was I mad.

Black Magick refers to the ill-intention of the person using these magick vias.

[Pascal]

Which are the superstitions?

The Demons or the BTs?

And why?

Catholics and other primitive religons are superstitious. They fear the unknown and satanize other beliefs.

In Scientology there is no unknown. All is explained and can be experienced.

[Zinjifar]

I think you are confusing Standard Tech (the form in HOW to audit) with a "Standard Case" wich doesn't exist. All cases are different, but they all respond to Standard Tech.

Again your countless years of training and practical experience with Scientology should have told you that right? :coolwink:

It's my *lack* of years of 'training' and indoctrination and implantation that allows me to comprehend the actual purpose of Scientology :)

Zinj

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I think you are confusing Standard Tech (the form in HOW to audit) with a "Standard Case" wich doesn't exist. All cases are different, but they all respond to Standard Tech.

Again your countless years of training and practical experience with Scientology should have told you that right? :coolwink:

"Standard Tech" means only that no matter what Org or mission you go to you will receive the same case handling. McDonalds has a standard tech too.

That is all that "Standard Tech" means.

[Alanzo]

Catholics and other primitive religons are superstitious. They fear the unknown and satanize other beliefs.

In Scientology there is no unknown. All is explained and can be experienced.

Dude.

Wow.

Wow, dude.

That's all I can say.

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

Speaking of McDonalds, has anyone tried their new Angus Burger? Yummy.

[Pascal]

Exactly, magick is agreed upon postulates on a via. I've never needed that via and I have plenty of track being around magicians and thinking they were still in kindergarten. That didn't keep one from poisoning me though. Boy was I mad.

Black Magick refers to the ill-intention of the person using these magick vias.

Yes, beings with "karma" implanted heavily would use vias to commit overts instead of doing so outright by postulate.

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

It's my *lack* of years of 'training' and indoctrination and implantation that allows me to comprehend the actual purpose of Scientology :)

Zinj

Right on!

[Alanzo]

Speaking of McDonalds, has anyone tried their new Angus Burger? Yummy.

Where's that on their "Bridge to Total Fatness"?

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

Catholics and other primitive religons are superstitious. They fear the unknown and satanize other beliefs.

In Scientology there is no unknown. All is explained and can be experienced.

They are all cults, per the compleat definition of a cult.

Scientology existed long before the Church of Scientology existed so please differentiate CofS scientology from all of the scientological research and discovery that occurred before LRH and after LRH outside of CofS. Scientology is much much more than the Bridge that LRH devised, much much more. And remember "more is less".

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I think this was the point that our overly sensitive Class XII was trying to make. He is implying that he is thinking outside the box, and no one pulled that string.

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

Where's that on their "Bridge to Total Fatness"?

Gulp, burp, what?

[Mary]

:drama:

Yeah, really fascinating posts!

A few more questions:

The Cof$ goes to great lengths and vast expenses to keep the upper levels secret, yet if anyone wants to know, all they have got to do is spend a few minutes on the internet with a search engine.

Why would they still bother with all the heavy security?

Assuming that it's not a load of hogwash, that there are vast quantities of disembodied beings all over the place and everywhere that you could possibily imagine;

Then how could anyone actually complete the level?

The human population of earth has varied enormously over the last 40,000 years. It perhaps went as low as thousands, at times, to many billions. Earth and other planets can sustain an infinate amount of humans and other life forms;

Where do all these beings come from and where do they go when there are few or no bodies to inhabit?

Animals, plants, cells, viruses etc are all alive and do have individual viewpoints - really, why is this type of life form any different. The same question as above goes for them too.

[Tanstaafl]

Where do all these beings come from and where do they go when there are few or no bodies to inhabit?


If they are English then they form a queue. :)

(Sorry, nothing intelligent to add)

[Alan]

Where do all these beings come from and where do they go when there are few or no bodies to inhabit?



In Oz they come from the sheep and Kanga's - then when they leave they are mixed with blood and redistributed as Vegamite!:whistling:

[Bea Kiddo]

If they are English then they form a queue. :)

(Sorry, nothing intelligent to add)


In Oz they come from the sheep and Kanga's - then when they leave they are mixed with blood and redistributed as Vegamite!:whistling:

The intelligence of this board astounds me.

They go back to the factory as a recall. Duh.:yes:

[Pascal]

It's my *lack* of years of 'training' and indoctrination and implantation that allows me to comprehend the actual purpose of Scientology :)

Zinj

Your scientific and empirical viewpoint is an example for all humanity.

:coolwink:

[Pascal]

Speaking of McDonalds, has anyone tried their new Angus Burger? Yummy.

No, here they serve only yummy soylent green burgers. :omg:

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

No, here they serve only yummy soylent green burgers. :omg:

:omg:
IT'S PEOPLE!!

[Zinjifar]

No, here they serve only yummy soylent green burgers. :omg:

Soylent Green is Meat Bodies!

Zinj

[Leon]

Where do all these beings come from and where do they go when there are few or no bodies to inhabit?



As Vinaire would perhaps confirm, they don't "come from" anywhere nor do they "go" anywhere. They just are. They do not get fewer in number nor do they increase in number - they have neither number nor quantity.

[mate]

Hi David,

Don't know if you remember me but you were my Case Supervisor for a time back in the early 80s at Sydney Org, while I was auditing the Happiness Rundown. I remember sending you several C/S's for the pc I was auditing.

I ended up completing the HRD Internship.

Back then I was in bloody terrible shape case-wise (probably the most scrambled up pc Sydney Org ever had on its lines---this is how I felt anyway). It seems like a hundred lifetimes ago. So much water has gone under the plank since.

Anyway, just wanted to say Hi, and to let you know I'm on cloud 9 these days.

BTW, I read some of your story postings some weeks back---really interesting yarn. I travelled around 28 States in the USA. Was over there for 14 months (not with Scn though---the Royal Australian Navy)



Eamonn
Hi Eamonn, I do remember your first name, in fact, on your first post, I followed the link to your home page, only to discover you were in Perth, and I decided it was a coincidence. So there you go. :eyeroll: It's good news that you are doing well and I trust you'll go from strength to strength. :happydance:

Regards, David.

[Terril park]

"Standard Tech" means only that no matter what Org or mission you go to you will receive the same case handling. McDonalds has a standard tech too.

That is all that "Standard Tech" means.

Lol!

Much easier to do standard hamburgers.

Your comments re " standard" are theoretically true no doubt. In
practice the nearer you get to int management the crazier the tech gets.

Recently posted a story on the success stories thread from Anita Warren.
27 years being stopped re OT 1 at Flag. Done real quick in the FZ. :)

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

Lol!

Much easier to do standard hamburgers.

Your comments re " standard" are theoretically true no doubt. In
practice the nearer you get to int management the crazier the tech gets.

Recently posted a story on the success stories thread from Anita Warren.
27 years being stopped re OT 1 at Flag. Done real quick in the FZ. :)

I don't know...the first angus burger I ordered McDonalds overcooked it. The second one I ordered it was too dry. The third one I ordered extra sauce and they put mustard on it. I hate mustard. The real sauce is a mild cucumber/garlic sauce. One really has to QC this....:D

Yes Anita really thumbed her nose at CofS. The Freezone rocks!

[Terril park]

I think this was the point that our overly sensitive Class XII was trying to make. He is implying that he is thinking outside the box, and no one pulled that string.

Maybe Alan started to get into that?

He is prepared to be flexible. His website is down momentarily, but he wrote
a de-construction of the infamous " Pain and Sex" HCOB. Probably back up in a day or two.

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

Maybe Alan started to get into that?

He is prepared to be flexible. His website is down momentarily, but he wrote
a de-construction of the infamous " Pain and Sex" HCOB. Probably back up in a day or two.

I am really glad that got deconstructed. That was the first policy letter someone at the church showed me. I did not know what to make of it, except that I remembered the feeling I had when that frenchman slapped me in the face. :coolwink:

Right, I remember he was interested in Alan's telling of holographic recalls.

[Terril park]

I am really glad that got deconstructed. That was the first policy letter someone at the church showed me. I did not know what to make of it, except that I remembered the feeling I had when that frenchman slapped me in the face. :coolwink:

Right, I remember he was interested in Alan's telling of holographic recalls.

Someone has a real weird idea of what HCOBs to show a virgin. :)

Next you'll tell us the second issue you were shown was KSW1.

" Keep Slapping Working. :)

PS
If you want to do a standard smiley, like I use, type colon, and then appropriate bracket. This one )

:] This is an experiment.

[Div6]

Maybe Alan started to get into that?

He is prepared to be flexible. His website is down momentarily, but he wrote
a de-construction of the infamous " Pain and Sex" HCOB. Probably back up in a day or two.

I can reach it no prob.

http://www.upperbridge.org/8thsin.html


I'd cut and paste it but I don't have his explicit permission to do so, per his request at the bottom of the page...

[alex]

I can reach it no prob.

http://www.upperbridge.org/8thsin.html


I'd cut and paste it but I don't have his explicit permission to do so, per his request at the bottom of the page...

Yes I wanted to do a fair use cut and paste myself. Pierre makes some very good points about how evaluation of importance of Hubbards writings has fallen to the a = a level.

And that sex has a perspective that is not as simple as sex = pain = psychs = evil= devil = ?

It also looks as if Pierre is upgrading his site!

It will be a hell of a read if he ever finishes the "forthcoming articles".

His Lisa McPherson eval is so rational.

His screed against the treatment of MSH's memory touching...

and his postulate for DM's ladder of goal terminals devious.

He tears the Golden age of tech a new asshole.

I'm kinda pissed that he uses one of my family members name....

Now if he can just learn to talk to "mere mortals"...(or even Ralph)

alex

[Veda]

I can reach it no prob.

http://www.upperbridge.org/8thsin.html


I'd cut and paste it but I don't have his explicit permission to do so, per his request at the bottom of the page...

Pierre's attempt at communication, on this Forum, flopped with hot stinky steam.

Amongst other things, Pierre has Hubbard becoming a near vegetable in late 1981. That doesn't line up with other views.

Hubbard wrote a lot of bizarre stuff, long before the 1980s.

Is Pierre ("Class 12") going to do a "PR handling," rationalization, re-write of history, and "deconstruction" of that too?

Jeez.

[Eamonn Gosney]

I'm very curious to see what my upcoming Idenics sessions will reveal. I had a friend who during an FPRD discovered that some of the entities were electronic. Once he examined and admired the craftsmanship of their electronics they blew.

When I was writing up O/Ws I saw an electronic swarm above my head. They all had vicious mouths and were talking incessantly.



My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots," artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience...

In his thesis, "Intimate Relationships with Artificial Partners," Levy conjectures that robots will become so human-like in appearance, function and personality that many people will fall in love with them, have sex with them and even marry them.

Sex and Marriage with Robots by 2050 (http://www.mindpowernews.com/RobotMarriage.htm)





Eamonn

[Ralph Hilton]

Pierre's attempt at communication, on this Forum, flopped with hot stinky steam.

Amongst other things, Pierre has Hubbard becoming a near vegetable in late 1981. That doesn't line up with other views.

Hubbard wrote a lot of bizarre stuff, long before the 1980s.

Is Pierre ("Class 12") going to do a "PR handling," rationalization, re-write of history, and "deconstruction" of that too?

Jeez.

I disagree somewhat with Pierre's article on "Pain and Sex". I'd say Hubbard wrote it exactly as published and that Hubbard was actually on the tech lines until much later than 1981. 1985 is more like it. The vegetable scenario is a fiction which some use to further their own agenda such as becoming source.

[Headend]

An interesting read until I got to the last part http://www.upperbridge.org/8thsin.html

"The reward for those who have truly mastered a complete and honest understanding of the technology through years of hard work and applied study, (as opposed to those who merely assert an empty claim of having done so), is a great ease in successfully separating the wheat from the chaff.

Here lies the true key to fully understanding the late works of Hubbard and of Dianetics and Scientology.

Copyright 2007

Pierre Ethier

Class XII"

Good old Pierre, he's "truly mastered a complete and honest understanding of the technology through years of hard work and applied study" and now he holds the "true key to fully understanding the late works of Hubbard and of Dianetics and Scientology." Those of us not as special as Pierre can all sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge we can rely on Pierre to sort the wheat from the chaff for us all.

The real reward of years studying the works of the late Hubbard seems to be a really solid identity as a "Master" of self importance. This can only be a limitation & Pierre is not alone.

[Bea Kiddo]

The real reward of years studying the works of the late Hubbard seems to be a really solid identity as a "Master" of self importance. This can only be a limitation & Pierre is not alone.

HEY!!!

All people are created equal.

Its just that some are more equal than others....

(That was something I started to notice: The more training I got, the more seperated I felt from people. From my friends. I felt like they didnt trully understand and needed to know more. But they would NEVER understand as I did, not without years of courses and training. So, in my own mind, I looked down on them. And that got to me eventually and I saw that it was not right. Probably a little of that in all of us, eh?)

[Zinjifar]

HEY!!!

All people are created equal.

Its just that some are more equal than others....

(That was something I started to notice: The more training I got, the more seperated I felt from people. From my friends. I felt like they didnt trully understand and needed to know more. But they would NEVER understand as I did, not without years of courses and training. So, in my own mind, I looked down on them. And that got to me eventually and I saw that it was not right. Probably a little of that in all of us, eh?)

One of my first 'spiritual' cogs, back when I was 18 and first realized that other people actually existed was something like that. I wandered around for days telling people, 'hey, you think you're better than me!' Mostly they didn't get it, because what had actually happened was that I realized that we *all*, in one way or another 'think we're better' than everybody else. We *are* the center of the universe :)

Zinj

[Alanzo]

One of my first 'spiritual' cogs, back when I was 18 and first realized that other people actually existed was something like that. I wandered around for days telling people, 'hey, you think you're better than me!' Mostly they didn't get it, because what had actually happened was that I realized that we *all*, in one way or another 'think we're better' than everybody else. We *are* the center of the universe :)

Zinj

Yeah?

So?

[Div6]

This is all very highly amusing to me...I have been looking at the track areas where bodies have been enforced on beings as "rewards" as well as "punishments".

Hubbard was talking out of his ass with KSW1. "This is a deadly serious activity." "You are here on the same terms as the rest of us: Win or Die in the attempt."

I wonder how many volts of electricity were pouring through him when he was given THOSE ideas. And of course, he then turned around and implanted his "followers" with the same.

"Expert texpert joking smoker don't you think the joker laughs at you..."

[Zinjifar]

Yeah?

So?

Well, for *me* it was a big deal :) A kind of reverse-Scientology. Instead of learning that I was the universe, I discovered that there was a whole universe out there that *wasn't* me. I've found that 'win' valuable :)

Zinj

[Alanzo]

Well, for *me* it was a big deal :) A kind of reverse-Scientology. Instead of learning that I was the universe, I discovered that there was a whole universe out there that *wasn't* me. I've found that 'win' valuable :)

Zinj

Well, that would be good for someone like you to figure that out.

I wish more of you people would have that cog.

[Div6]

Well, for *me* it was a big deal :) A kind of reverse-Scientology. Instead of learning that I was the universe, I discovered that there was a whole universe out there that *wasn't* me. I've found that 'win' valuable :)

Zinj

MY GOD...ZINJ is "IN SESSION" (Interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor.)

Quick! Where's Alan?

[Emma]

"Look at that wall" - "Thankyou"

[Bea Kiddo]

Well, that would be good for someone like you to figure that out.

I wish more of you people would have that cog.

So obnoxious.

You must really love yourself.

And be proud of it.

[Tanstaafl]

An interesting read until I got to the last part http://www.upperbridge.org/8thsin.html

"The reward for those who have truly mastered a complete and honest understanding of the technology through years of hard work and applied study, (as opposed to those who merely assert an empty claim of having done so), is a great ease in successfully separating the wheat from the chaff.

Here lies the true key to fully understanding the late works of Hubbard and of Dianetics and Scientology.

Copyright 2007

Pierre Ethier

Class XII"

Good old Pierre, he's "truly mastered a complete and honest understanding of the technology through years of hard work and applied study" and now he holds the "true key to fully understanding the late works of Hubbard and of Dianetics and Scientology." Those of us not as special as Pierre can all sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge we can rely on Pierre to sort the wheat from the chaff for us all.

The real reward of years studying the works of the late Hubbard seems to be a really solid identity as a "Master" of self importance. This can only be a limitation & Pierre is not alone.

I haven't met Pierre, just exchanged a few e-mails with him, and I was taking my sabbatical from ESMB when he came and went.

He may be an arrogant prick - I don't know. It's more important that he gets products from his C/Sing and auditing. Nevertheless, an interpretation of the tone of his comm is based on our individual prior experience of similar viewpoints.

What do you do when you know you are good at something and that fact is relevant to what you are trying to communicate? I'd prefer a direct and honest assessment of that person's own capabilities (whether borne out in fact or not) than false modesty.

It's a loooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnng road to OT - if there is such a thing. :)

Cheers

tanstaafl

[Zinjifar]

MY GOD...ZINJ is "IN SESSION" (Interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor.)

Quick! Where's Alan?

Tch. Under normal circumstances I've never been known to be loathe to talk about myself :)

Is that 'being in session'?

Zinj

[Div6]

So obnoxious.

You must really love yourself.

And be proud of it.

Arent you going to send him to Ethix and write a CRAM on his BLATANT flaunting of the Auditors Code?

Oh..oops....sorry.

Wrong program loaded....never mind...

[Veda]

This is all very highly amusing to me...I have been looking at the track areas where bodies have been enforced on beings as "rewards" as well as "punishments".

Hubbard was talking out of his ass with KSW1. "This is a deadly serious activity." "You are here on the same terms as the rest of us: Win or Die in the attempt."

I wonder how many volts of electricity were pouring through him when he was given THOSE ideas. And of course, he then turned around and implanted his "followers" with the same.

"Expert texpert joking smoker don't you think the joker laughs at you..."

Hubbard, and now L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, used, and uses, "enemy tactics" on Scientologists.

Now if you can manage to separate that insight - which others have been saying for years - from your belief in Implantology, and Implanters behind every rock, you'll be ready for your next step: "Put that e-meter in the closet."

Best wishes.

[Div6]

Hubbard, and now L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, used, and uses, "enemy tactics" on Scientologists.

Now if you can manage to separate that insight - which others have been saying for years - from your belief in Implantology, and Implanters behind every rock, you'll be ready for your next step: "Put that e-meter in the closet."

Best wishes.

Good wishes to you too.


I know you think "swinging needles" while running "platens" and all is just a Bridge to total Wheedom. I can even say that to a certain degree it is true..jacking oneself through different tone levels based on electrical responses to certain words and concepts is kind of 'odd'.

But, I guess, as they say, the Tone Arm is moving, the PC is changing in his own estimation, so Good Indicators are "IN". Money is flowing in, love springs eternal in the heart, life is good.

AND....I don't have any pesky drones to cull my folders, or write session reports on me. I can think my own thoughts without having to worry about whether it is a "missed withhold" or "critical of LRH".

So I guess I am trying to say that I am still getting mileage out of it....

Perhaps when that ends, it will be time to "put the meter away".

Of course, YMMV.

[Veda]

Good wishes to you too.


I know you think "swinging needles" while running "platens" and all is just a Bridge to total Wheedom. I can even say that to a certain degree it is true..jacking oneself through different tone levels based on electrical responses to certain words and concepts is kind of 'odd'.

But, I guess, as they say, the Tone Arm is moving, the PC is changing in his own estimation, so Good Indicators are "IN". Money is flowing in, love springs eternal in the heart, life is good.

AND....I don't have any pesky drones to cull my folders, or write session reports on me. I can think my own thoughts without having to worry about whether it is a "missed withhold" or "critical of LRH".

So I guess I am trying to say that I am still getting mileage out of it....

Perhaps when that ends, it will be time to "put the meter away".

Of course, YMMV.

Fair enough.

IMO, skin galvanometers have their uses, in a limited way, as stress detectors, and stress release detectors, but not as "case gain"-measurers, or as "truth-detectors."

Within their limitations, e-meters, IMO, are perfectly dandy fun devices.

[mate]

The data I have from someone very close to LRH at the time NOTs came out is that LRH authored it, not Mayo. Mayo was involved in writing up the issues for LRH but the tech was from LRH. That's the data I personally accept but given the amount of conflicting data flying around there is no way I could prove it.
Hi Ralph, I think Mayo said that he was auditing misconceptions on Hubbard and Hubbard had him write up what he was doing but stressing the handling of BTs and it was called NOTs. The issues were written by Mayo but how much came from Mayo and how much from Hubbard, I don't know. But there can be no doubt that it was Mayo's idea to address misconceptions, as he was the C/S cum auditor.

___________________________

As there are those who are having, and have had, problems with OT3/NOTs, and as there are those about to embark on NOTs, I would like to add a few more comments about NOTs. I am not trying to thrust this information down anyone's throat, I am simply putting it out there for those who may be interested. These comments are based in part on my own experience, but mostly from the work being carried out in a center, known as Casa de Dom Inácio, in the town of Abadiania, some 130km south of Brasilia. There are hundreds of thousands of case histories available for researchers, of the work carried out there.

In my comments here, I am going to use the term "attached entity" rather than BT, because it is much more descriptive.

1. Now, if one is standing in a crowded elevator or on a bus, the auras of persons standing next to each other, will have overlapping life fields, without there being an attachment. In reality, there are excarnated beings, as in disembodied spirits, around us much of the time and often their residual life fields will overlap with those of incarnated beings, such as you and I, without there being an attachment. An attachment is the inter-locking of life fields. It is an intentional action by the attached entity.

2. Attached entities are usually family members or close friends of the family and sometimes, pets, who have passed away. The motivation for the deceased to attach to a family member is commonly either the fear of the unknown or a desire to protect the host-to-be.

3. An attachment can only occur if the host has a weakened life field, which is the result of a weakened immune system.

4. When a person dies, he/she is helped by "guardian angels", usually former family members, to get established in his/her new environment. If he/she becomes an attached entity, the "guardian angels" remain with him or her, but they do not become attached entities, themselves. The idea of having them "blow", is stupid. It is purely an action of detaching.

5. One communicates with an attached entity in exactly the same way that one communicates with a close family member or friend who has passed away, that is through thought sharing. And you address the attached entity in the same way you would address any family member who has been away. Asking "What are you?" and "Who are you?" rotely, is insane. These came from the Catholic Church exorcism procedure.

6. Can an attached entity become a "possession"? Yes they can, but it is extremely unlikely. When it does occur, is usually when the attached entity feels very threatened.

7. Addressing excarnated beings, that is entities which are not attached, is a complete waste of time. If they are not attached, they have absolutely no effect on the host. For example, do you feel that by auditing everyone with whom you are sharing a crowded elevator, would result in a direct benefit for you. Of course not, and yet this is what occurs on NOTs. :whistling:

I trust the above comments may give you another viewpoint about NOTs. The key to handling attached entities, is thought sharing and it would be worth your while, to practice it. There will be those of you who are convinced that Mayo/Hubbard team has got it right, as a result of their mutual experience. So be it, but do your homework! :eyeroll:

Regards David. :happydance:

[namaste]

Good post Mate.

It makes sense.

Thanks.

[Leon]

Nuts

[Eamonn Gosney]

Hi David

I was wondering if you might like to give your thoughts on what this guy at Casa is doing. He appears to have these entities working for him. What is your take as to what is actually going on?



The Casa is a holy site where healing takes place on many
levels. João incorporates over 30 entities who were physicians,
theologians, therapists and notable figures in their lifetimes.
João sits in-entity (unconscious, taken over or "overshadowed"
by an entity from the spiritual plane) and scans you, sees what
you need and uses various healing methods to help with your
healing. He receives all who come to see him. No matter how
long the lines, no one is turned away . No one is charged for
João's services. Healing is a personal and transforming process
which generally unfolds over a period of time.

http://www.casamiracles.com/about_the_casa2.html



João is one of the world’s most powerful mediums and spiritual healers and has performed healing and cures for, literally, millions of people during the past 30 years. As a channelling medium, he incorporates more than 33 spirit entities who do the actual healing work at the Casa De Dom Inácio, the sanctuary and spiritual hospital João has built in the small village of Abadiânia on the high plateau of central Brazil.

http://www.rupertdrew.com/index.htm



Eamonn

[Alan]

Hi Ralph, I think Mayo said that he was auditing misconceptions on Hubbard and Hubbard had him write up what he was doing but stressing the handling of BTs and it was called NOTs. The issues were written by Mayo but how much came from Mayo and how much from Hubbard, I don't know. But there can be no doubt that it was Mayo's idea to address misconceptions, as he was the C/S cum auditor.

___________________________

As there are those who are having, and have had, problems with OT3/NOTs, and as there are those about to embark on NOTs, I would like to add a few more comments about NOTs. I am not trying to thrust this information down anyone's throat, I am simply putting it out there for those who may be interested. These comments are based in part on my own experience, but mostly from the work being carried out in a center, known as Casa de Dom Inácio, in the town of Abadiania, some 130km south of Brasilia. There are hundreds of thousands of case histories available for researchers, of the work carried out there.

In my comments here, I am going to use the term "attached entity" rather than BT, because it is much more descriptive.

1. Now, if one is standing in a crowded elevator or on a bus, the auras of persons standing next to each other, will have overlapping life fields, without there being an attachment. In reality, there are excarnated beings, as in disembodied spirits, around us much of the time and often their residual life fields will overlap with those of incarnated beings, such as you and I, without there being an attachment. An attachment is the inter-locking of life fields. It is an intentional action by the attached entity.

2. Attached entities are usually family members or close friends of the family and sometimes, pets, who have passed away. The motivation for the deceased to attach to a family member is commonly either the fear of the unknown or a desire to protect the host-to-be.

3. An attachment can only occur if the host has a weakened life field, which is the result of a weakened immune system.

4. When a person dies, he/she is helped by "guardian angels", usually former family members, to get established in his/her new environment. If he/she becomes an attached entity, the "guardian angels" remain with him or her, but they do not become attached entities, themselves. The idea of having them "blow", is stupid. It is purely an action of detaching.

5. One communicates with an attached entity in exactly the same way that one communicates with a close family member or friend who has passed away, that is through thought sharing. And you address the attached entity in the same way you would address any family member who has been away. Asking "What are you?" and "Who are you?" rotely, is insane. These came from the Catholic Church exorcism procedure.

6. Can an attached entity become a "possession"? Yes they can, but it is extremely unlikely. When it does occur, is usually when the attached entity feels very threatened.

7. Addressing excarnated beings, that is entities which are not attached, is a complete waste of time. If they are not attached, they have absolutely no effect on the host. For example, do you feel that by auditing everyone with whom you are sharing a crowded elevator, would result in a direct benefit for you. Of course not, and yet this is what occurs on NOTs. :whistling:

I trust the above comments may give you another viewpoint about NOTs. The key to handling attached entities, is thought sharing and it would be worth your while, to practice it. There will be those of you who are convinced that Mayo/Hubbard team has got it right, as a result of their mutual experience. So be it, but do your homework! :eyeroll:

Regards David. :happydance:



Excellent post mate! :happydance:

I would add one more factor to addressing excarnated beings, that is entities which are not attached- as one rises up the scales of games playing - there is often - counter-groups of excarnated beings that oppose your expansion - usually they are from old games - but still have some line or field to stop one.

These are easily handled - with where - whats - and who's - sometimes intents both-ways - usually this ends up with positive thought sharing.

Only needs to be handled when needed. :)

Alan

[Bea Kiddo]

What about those you dont want to leave? (Maybe this host is nuts? Ha ha).

Take 'em out for a drink every once in a while?

Chat with them?

Treat them to nice dinners?

I guess there are certain people that I lost through death and I would not mind one bit if they hung around a while.

I have not perceived that to be the case. But if they did, they would be welcome.

I guess the welcome COULD be overstayed, I dont know.

(please ignore Eamonn's questions, he is just a troll).

[Free to shine]

I trust the above comments may give you another viewpoint about NOTs. The key to handling attached entities, is thought sharing and it would be worth your while, to practice it. There will be those of you who are convinced that Mayo/Hubbard team has got it right, as a result of their mutual experience. So be it, but do your homework! :eyeroll:

Regards David. :happydance:

Thankyou for that. It makes the most sense of anything I have read on the subject. Not having done OT levels, what I have read on thousands of BTs just doesn't align with anything I have experienced or studied. :)

[Ralph Hilton]

Hi Ralph, I think Mayo said that he was auditing misconceptions on Hubbard and Hubbard had him write up what he was doing but stressing the handling of BTs and it was called NOTs. The issues were written by Mayo but how much came from Mayo and how much from Hubbard, I don't know. But there can be no doubt that it was Mayo's idea to address misconceptions, as he was the C/S cum auditor.

Hubbard treated his auditors and C/Ses as secretaries to keep notes. Otto Roos shows that on
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/roos/roos-story.html .

[Div6]

Hi Ralph, I think Mayo said that he was auditing misconceptions on Hubbard and Hubbard had him write up what he was doing but stressing the handling of BTs and it was called NOTs. The issues were written by Mayo but how much came from Mayo and how much from Hubbard, I don't know. But there can be no doubt that it was Mayo's idea to address misconceptions, as he was the C/S cum auditor.

___________________________

As there are those who are having, and have had, problems with OT3/NOTs, and as there are those about to embark on NOTs, I would like to add a few more comments about NOTs. I am not trying to thrust this information down anyone's throat, I am simply putting it out there for those who may be interested. These comments are based in part on my own experience, but mostly from the work being carried out in a center, known as Casa de Dom Inácio, in the town of Abadiania, some 130km south of Brasilia. There are hundreds of thousands of case histories available for researchers, of the work carried out there.

In my comments here, I am going to use the term "attached entity" rather than BT, because it is much more descriptive.

1. Now, if one is standing in a crowded elevator or on a bus, the auras of persons standing next to each other, will have overlapping life fields, without there being an attachment. In reality, there are excarnated beings, as in disembodied spirits, around us much of the time and often their residual life fields will overlap with those of incarnated beings, such as you and I, without there being an attachment. An attachment is the inter-locking of life fields. It is an intentional action by the attached entity.

2. Attached entities are usually family members or close friends of the family and sometimes, pets, who have passed away. The motivation for the deceased to attach to a family member is commonly either the fear of the unknown or a desire to protect the host-to-be.

3. An attachment can only occur if the host has a weakened life field, which is the result of a weakened immune system.

4. When a person dies, he/she is helped by "guardian angels", usually former family members, to get established in his/her new environment. If he/she becomes an attached entity, the "guardian angels" remain with him or her, but they do not become attached entities, themselves. The idea of having them "blow", is stupid. It is purely an action of detaching.

5. One communicates with an attached entity in exactly the same way that one communicates with a close family member or friend who has passed away, that is through thought sharing. And you address the attached entity in the same way you would address any family member who has been away. Asking "What are you?" and "Who are you?" rotely, is insane. These came from the Catholic Church exorcism procedure.

6. Can an attached entity become a "possession"? Yes they can, but it is extremely unlikely. When it does occur, is usually when the attached entity feels very threatened.

7. Addressing excarnated beings, that is entities which are not attached, is a complete waste of time. If they are not attached, they have absolutely no effect on the host. For example, do you feel that by auditing everyone with whom you are sharing a crowded elevator, would result in a direct benefit for you. Of course not, and yet this is what occurs on NOTs. :whistling:

I trust the above comments may give you another viewpoint about NOTs. The key to handling attached entities, is thought sharing and it would be worth your while, to practice it. There will be those of you who are convinced that Mayo/Hubbard team has got it right, as a result of their mutual experience. So be it, but do your homework! :eyeroll:

Regards David. :happydance:

Indeed. The subject of "the entity case" is a bit complex, What you describe is definately on track, I would simply add that there can be other twists to this tale...less "benevolent" entities as refugees from some of the more psychotic civilizations closer to the center of this galaxy, etc. But as Alan said, you only address them when they show up. You also bring up a key difference, one where I think Hubbard had it wrong: ie: "They are trapped either by purposes or commonalties. They get firmly and thoroughly trapped by interest, senses of ethics, and emotional wavelengths, especially curiosity, That's hot stuff for them, These areas will turn on entities in people, and thus make them robotic, Of course, Hubbard uses all 6 to insure robotism in his following...." (From Filberts Last Ditch (http://freezone-america.org/excal/excal05.html))
That writeup is (to me anyway) the best summary to date of the complexities, and modalities of "the entity issue" . I doubt very many have read it all....even less have understood it.

Thanks for the post, Mate.

[Alan]

What about those you dont want to leave? (Maybe this host is nuts? Ha ha).

Take 'em out for a drink every once in a while?

Chat with them?

Treat them to nice dinners?

I guess there are certain people that I lost through death and I would not mind one bit if they hung around a while.

I have not perceived that to be the case. But if they did, they would be welcome.

I guess the welcome COULD be overstayed, I dont know.

(please ignore Eamonn's questions, he is just a troll).



Most often they come and go - as do most friends.

I used to get startled by them as it felt somewhat intrusive - but now I'm more tolerant.

Rarely when someone dies do I get a loss - usually I get a visit :)

Those we have had deep friendship with and shared adventures over a long period of time tend to look out for each other - more a team of supporters than opposers.:thumbsup:

To get a really good connection it oftens requires cleaning up any out ruds between you and them - these usually fly to view when the connection is made.

The ability to thought share and experience their holographic images and love is an important area to restore on people. :thumbsup:

Alan

[Alanzo]

I think what is being discussed by the participants here is a much saner approach to the issue than was Hubbard's.

[Zinjifar]

I think what is being discussed by the participants here is a much saner approach to the issue than was Hubbard's.

But, Hubbard was in terror of uncertainty, while the people discussing here are discussing *possible* explanations. Hubbard *needed* to pronounce absolute 'truth', because any uncertainty meant lack of control, and lack of control was something Hubbard couldn't stand. And, since he couldn't control his entities, they hadda go. Like a junkie with coke bugs.

Zinj

[beyond_horizons]

I recall the way it appeared to me in the early 1990’s was from a luminary who put it in the following terms from the awareness of oneness and interconnected aspects of the many voices that make up the singular sound of the proverbial whole. He penned;
“All those expanded parts of yourself you forgot about on the road to becoming human.”

In an instant I found my thoughts transforming. A simple phrase with a profound meaning that satisified a question I had in terms of;
Where the stuff that makes up ice bergs and ice cubes go when they melt, And where the stuff inside the bubbles go when they burst!

Based upon my own personal philosophy I've concluded;

The Greatest / Largest number in The Universe equals One.
The In-finitys within it is the I-llusions of the fractions!
Hence the 'Golden Rule' rules!

[Alan]

I recall the way it appeared to me in the early 1990’s was from a luminary who put it in the following terms from the awareness of oneness and interconnected aspects of the many voices that make up the singular sound of the proverbial whole. He penned;
“All those expanded parts of yourself you forgot about on the road to becoming human.”

In an instant I found my thoughts transforming. A simple phrase with a profound meaning that satisified a question I had in terms of;
Where the stuff that makes up ice bergs and ice cubes go when they melt, And where the stuff inside the bubbles go when they burst!

Based upon my own personal philosophy I've concluded;

The Greatest / Largest number in The Universe equals One.
The In-finitys within it is the I-llusions of the fractions!
Hence the 'Golden Rule' rules!



Good post BH! :)

I just wrote a bulletin on Wholeness :happydance:

[beyond_horizons]

Good post BH! :)
I just wrote a bulletin on Wholeness :happydance:
Damn you're quick!
:D :thumbsup:

[Ralph Hilton]

Good post BH! :)

I just wrote a bulletin on Wholeness :happydance:

Where?

[Alan]

Where?



In my super-secret files! :)

[Ralph Hilton]

In my super-secret files! :)

From where could a spiritual being communicate to a secret file ?

[beyond_horizons]

From where could a spiritual being communicate to a secret file ?
From the 4D , and I'm not refering to D as in dynamic, there are no secrets! :wink2:

[mate]

...
I would add one more factor to addressing excarnated beings, that is entities which are not attached- as one rises up the scales of games playing - there is often - counter-groups of excarnated beings that oppose your expansion - usually they are from old games - but still have some line or field to stop one.

These are easily handled - with where - whats - and who's - sometimes intents both-ways - usually this ends up with positive thought sharing.

Only needs to be handled when needed. :)

Alan
Hi Alan. Yes, I agree completely.

Most have had conversations with excarnated beings without realizing it. A typical example is where one suddenly has a bright idea and then thinks to him/herself, "Now that is a good idea!" Many have had a sudden idea that they shouldn't go somewhere or do something, only to discover subsequently that the action would have been a disaster. I'm sure those who are reading this, have had such experiences. :happydance:



Most often they come and go - as do most friends.

I used to get startled by them as it felt somewhat intrusive - but now I'm more tolerant.

Rarely when someone dies do I get a loss - usually I get a visit

Those we have had deep friendship with and shared adventures over a long period of time tend to look out for each other - more a team of supporters than opposers.

To get a really good connection it oftens requires cleaning up any out ruds between you and them - these usually fly to view when the connection is made.

The ability to thought share and experience their holographic images and love is an important area to restore on people.

Alan

Hi Beatrix. Alan has put it much better than I could. Excarnated beings do not have to be attached to converse and enjoy pleasures with you. They tend to remain in the vicinity of their loved ones and no matter where they are, they will get your thoughts directed to them. :eyeroll:

Regards David :happydance:

[mate]

Indeed. The subject of "the entity case" is a bit complex, What you describe is definately on track, I would simply add that there can be other twists to this tale...less "benevolent" entities as refugees from some of the more psychotic civilizations closer to the center of this galaxy, etc. But as Alan said, you only address them when they show up. You also bring up a key difference, one where I think Hubbard had it wrong: ie: "They are trapped either by purposes or commonalties. They get firmly and thoroughly trapped by interest, senses of ethics, and emotional wavelengths, especially curiosity, That's hot stuff for them, These areas will turn on entities in people, and thus make them robotic, Of course, Hubbard uses all 6 to insure robotism in his following...." (From Filberts Last Ditch (http://freezone-america.org/excal/excal05.html))
That writeup is (to me anyway) the best summary to date of the complexities, and modalities of "the entity issue" . I doubt very many have read it all....even less have understood it.

Thanks for the post, Mate.
Hi Div6. You do have a good point here, although I don't know that I fully agree with Filbert's take on it. Becoming attached is a bit like a kid hiding under his blankets when he thinks there is a monster in the room. Being excarnated, less "benevolent" entities will have far far greater mobility and create far greater effects. OTOH, harbouring in a host's life field may have some advantages whatever they may be, and I don't discount the possibility.

As Alan suggested, when excarnated entities become a problem, they should be addressed.

Regards David.:eyeroll:

[mate]

Hubbard treated his auditors and C/Ses as secretaries to keep notes. Otto Roos shows that on
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/roos/roos-story.html .
Hi Ralph. I had gone on Mayo's write up which of course, would be biased. I had assumed that when Mayo audited Hubbard, Hubbard was barely conscious. The I assumed that the auditing of misconceptions took place from the beginning. Of course that may not have been the case, but rather when Hubbard gained some consciousness, he then became the "C/S", and I accept that that was highly likely to have been the case. :eyeroll:

But I do know that during the original HRD training, Mayo was making changes on-the-fly as the result of suggestions during a daily end of day group discussions. And the volume of NOTs' issues written by Mayo, and there can be no doubt they were written by Mayo, would not have been done in the space of a couple of days, it would have taken weeks. Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth. :whistling:

Regards David,

[Ralph Hilton]

I'd suspect that the core of NOTs and of the HRD was Hubbard's work. The HRD tech comes from the 1st Melbourne ACC and I'd guess that Mayo played around with the sequence of steps or which were finally included. The basics of NOTs as in valence handling runs through the track of Scientology development. Adressing flows has earlier roots in the 60s and C/S27R. I'd agree there is no doubt that Mayo wrote actually wrote the issues - his name is on them.

[Dulloldfart]

Two things re NOTs authorship, from my recall:

1. Didn't Pierre say somewhere that Mayo wrote the issues based on things Hubbard dictated?

2. Several years ago I read somewhere on the Net--couldn't find it again last time I looked--that at his AAC (?) Mayo had little in writing for ages re NOTs until shortly after the NOTs pack was taken from AOSHEU by Robin Scott et al, when he miraculously was able to write out the tech again.

Sorry I don't have links. Take as rumour!

Paul

[mate]

Hi Ralph and Paul, I bow to your information. Thank you. In fact, it is a relief that the comment about the human aura being made up from BTs, was probably not from Mayo, what with him being a Kiwi and all that. :eyeroll:

Thanks again. BTW, this is a genuine acknowledgment and not an Alanzo-style posting to achieve plutonium status! :whistling:

Regards David. :happydance:

[Bea Kiddo]

Hi Ralph and Paul, I bow to your information. Thank you. In fact, it is a relief that the comment about the human aura being made up from BTs, was probably not from Mayo, what with him being a Kiwi and all that. :eyeroll:

Thanks again. BTW, this is a genuine acknowledgment and not an Alanzo-style posting to achieve plutonium status! :whistling:

Regards David. :happydance:

Mate, you are a natural plutonium.:wink2:

[Mary]

But, Hubbard was in terror of uncertainty, while the people discussing here are discussing *possible* explanations. Hubbard *needed* to pronounce absolute 'truth', because any uncertainty meant lack of control, and lack of control was something Hubbard couldn't stand. And, since he couldn't control his entities, they hadda go. Like a junkie with coke bugs.

Zinj

Yeah, I think that's correct. Real research, done in a scientific manner, was sorely lacking in Hubbard's work.

[johnAnchovie]

I think people who have no other framework with whitch to approach mental phenomena can be made to believe or assign values to that which they see or experience. Hubbard was very good at getting people to believe things about their own minds. Witch doctors and priests were always very good at getting people to believe things about their minds and phenomena that fitted to their own agendas.

I was made to believe that I had attained a level of or near clear, it now does not seem any different to that state experienced by those who have done OT VII or VIII, in reality all that has happened is that I had been able to talk about mental phenomena with a person who took interest and made me believe that I was improving. Study I did in Scientology only served the purpose of giving me a focused outlook because the apparent answers to mysteries sufficed at the time.

I have since made more subjective gain outside of Scientology from reading Durkheim, Fromm and Jung than I ever experienced doing Scientology. I operate so much better in life now than I did in scientology, using scientology. Now I just use my inate intellegence and seek to learn, stay inquisitive and most of all value every remaining day that I have stolen back from Hubturd and Messcavbitch.

This begs the question: Why are the OT levels confidential? - I have read most of them, I don't get it? I don't belive that the poor soul that spent over a hundred grand doing OT VIII is any more capable or functional than I am.

Reading posts by FZ Scientologists is disturbing because I feel that the framework and values they adopted are fictional and that they themselves are delusional in this area of 'case gain', it is my take on it, and if I could see emphirical evidence to the contrary I would be more comfortable with what I see in 'tech postings' from FZ techies. This is an open forum, I am genuinly interested in REAL information and insight into this issue.

John Anchovie

[Ralph Hilton]

One of the people that Hubbard studied was Alisteir (I always have problems spelling his name) Crowley. He said "Do what thou wilt is the law" "Love is the law, Love under will". It works as long as people understand that "thou" is referring to one's better aspect, love is not meant carnally and that will doesn't involve domination.

[Zinjifar]

One of the people that Hubbard studied was Alisteir (I always have problems spelling his name) Crowley. He said "Do what thou wilt is the law" "Love is the law, Love under will". It works as long as people understand that "thou" is referring to one's better aspect, love is not meant carnally and that will doesn't involve domination.

For Aleister Crowley, both 'love' and 'will' involved domination.

Zinj

[Alanzo]

I think people who have no other framework with whitch to approach mental phenomena can be made to believe or assign values to that which they see or experience. Hubbard was very good at getting people to believe things about their own minds. Witch doctors and priests were always very good at getting people to believe things about their minds and phenomena that fitted to their own agendas.

I was made to believe that I had attained a level of or near clear, it now does not seem any different to that state experienced by those who have done OT VII or VIII, in reality all that has happened is that I had been able to talk about mental phenomena with a person who took interest and made me believe that I was improving. Study I did in Scientology only served the purpose of giving me a focused outlook because the apparent answers to mysteries sufficed at the time.

I have since made more subjective gain outside of Scientology from reading Durkheim, Fromm and Jung than I ever experienced doing Scientology. I operate so much better in life now than I did in scientology, using scientology. Now I just use my inate intellegence and seek to learn, stay inquisitive and most of all value every remaining day that I have stolen back from Hubturd and Messcavbitch.

This begs the question: Why are the OT levels confidential? - I have read most of them, I don't get it? I don't belive that the poor soul that spent over a hundred grand doing OT VIII is any more capable or functional than I am.

Reading posts by FZ Scientologists is disturbing because I feel that the framework and values they adopted are fictional and that they themselves are delusional in this area of 'case gain', it is my take on it, and if I could see emphirical evidence to the contrary I would be more comfortable with what I see in 'tech postings' from FZ techies. This is an open forum, I am genuinly interested in REAL information and insight into this issue.

John Anchovie

Very interesting John.

That's something I noticed, too.

When someone is standing with you outside a door, and they tell you the underlying meaning of what you are about to see when they open it, then, when they open the door and you look at it, what you were told beforehand is used to control your interpretation of what you see.

Sometimes that pre-explanation is not spotted, as it was delivered when you had your attention on something else - the door and what's behind it.

Hubbard knew all about this from his days as a hypnotist.

And he applied his suggestions on Scientologists intentionally.

He told you what you were going to see in your own mind, and why you were seeing it.

And for some of us - it stuck.

[johnAnchovie]

This is what I have observed, and it is heartning to see another concur, I appreciate that Alanzo.

The Cherub thing on OTII or III? I have read where Hubbard stated that this would be seen, he described the damb thing, then people solo audit and some of them see the image Hubbard implanted. This was reavealing.

The more the time gap widens between being free of and being in (the cult), the more free, confident and self assured I become. My understanding of the mechanisms of the individual concience that of the concience collective has incrased and this has had an expidentialy positive effect on my sense of individual identity, my interactions with others and my empathy with others around me; there a comensurate increase in my quality of life as a direct outcome.

You made an increadably astute observation Alanzo, that of the synthetic personality created in order to operate, think and to interact as a Scientologist, and this observation of yours has informed much of my new found clarity of mind.

I wonder what it is that (for lack of a better descriptive) a freezone scientologist is actually trying to come to terms with in doing Hubbard derived processes?

Again, I pose the question, not out of cynisim, but out of genuine curiosity. I don't think there is anything in the OT levels except a sense of exclusiveness, or a predesigned, predermined, apparency of achievement. I can deal with being wrong, but I have to see actual outcomes in measurable, quatifiable improvement in how one deals with the mulitude of interactions inherant in living in this world here.

I would be very interested your futher comments on this Alanzo.

I know Mary, I met her, and have had some good discussions with her, so I would trust her direct input. Can you shed light on this, Mary?

John Anchovie

[Bea Kiddo]

The cherub is part of OT III. It is part of Incident One. (Incident Two is the one always talked about on forums about Xenu and his music band).

[Alanzo]

This is what I have observed, and it is heartning to see another concur, I appreciate that Alanzo.

The Cherub thing on OTII or III? I have read where Hubbard stated that this would be seen, he described the damb thing, then people solo audit and some of them see the image Hubbard implanted. This was reavealing.

The more the time gap widens between being free of and being in (the cult), the more free, confident and self assured I become. My understanding of the mechanisms of the individual concience that of the concience collective has incrased and this has had an expidentialy positive effect on my sense of individual identity, my interactions with others and my empathy with others around me; there a comensurate increase in my quality of life as a direct outcome.

You made an increadably astute observation Alanzo, that of the synthetic personality created in order to operate, think and to interact as a Scientologist, and this observation of yours has informed much of my new found clarity of mind.

I wonder what it is that (for lack of a better descriptive) a freezone scientologist is actually trying to come to terms with in doing Hubbard derived processes?

Again, I pose the question, not out of cynisim, but out of genuine curiosity. I don't think there is anything in the OT levels except a sense of exclusiveness, or a predesigned, predermined, apparency of achievement. I can deal with being wrong, but I have to see actual outcomes in measurable, quatifiable improvement in how one deals with the mulitude of interactions inherant in living in this world here.

I would be very interested your futher comments on this Alanzo.

I know Mary, I met her, and have had some good discussions with her, so I would trust her direct input. Can you shed light on this, Mary?

John Anchovie

I don't know about Freezoners any more.

I used to be adamant that they were continuing the brainwashing. But then Alan made a series of statements that indicated lots of "charge" for me.

Once he asked something like "What has LRH put you into opposition to?"

That made me "blow down" and kinda come to terms a little with Freezoners.

Then, he later made the statement that anyone or anything that represents LRH tends to bypass charge on people. And that indicated to me a lot, and I blew down some more.

And then I got a session from Paul's Robot Auditor and I remembered how much I loved auditing - even with its inherent risks.

And then other things have kind of cooled me out. I've talked to a lot of Freezoners and Independent Practitioners. They are not the Rondroidedly ill-reasoned robots that Churchies tend to be. They seem to think with the negatives to a very large degree. And they do not pretend to enforce anything at all, really, that I have seen. (But neither did the Churchies during the "honeymoon" phase, either)

Freezoners don't represent the danger to me that they used to.

I think that the real danger in what Hubbard did with his positive suggestions were to keep them uninspected and enforced by the socially coercive environment he created in Scientology. Without that socially coercive environment, a person is free to question things.

And if he can diligently question things, he can free himself from past misconceptions, and even the positive suggestions which slipped in while his attention was elsewhere.

So I've kinda made peace with Freezoners. Unless they run unchecked power over their clients and pcs and never let them question anything, then I think that people should simply be allowed to believe whatever bullshit they want. And if they believe it helps them, then maybe it does.

I know I believe plenty of bullshit.

I have my reasons for it.

And it sure helps me!

[johnAnchovie]

Thanks Bea, but is the image a (as in Jung) achetype? Or is it described and then 'revealed' in auditing that level?

I have huge respect for your analytical and critical thinking ability, Alanzo, but what are you seeking to achieve with such processes?

My girlfriend, who had never heard of Scientology until I spoke of my experiences and what I was dealing with, asked me a question, something like "What hold do they still have on you"? I cried in her arms for hours. It felt good.

Of course, I have a visceral antipathy to anything Scienetology or Hubbard, I have seen enough evidence to make me confident that they guy was a complete wanker,and I cannot believe that such a person could do anyone any good at all. Yet I am astounded that I and so many other people who I consider quite intellegent, if not brilliant, remain hooked even after having seen the true face of Hubbard and the cult he founded. What am I missing here?

John Anchovie

[Div6]

This is what I have observed, and it is heartning to see another concur, I appreciate that Alanzo.

The Cherub thing on OTII or III? I have read where Hubbard stated that this would be seen, he described the damb thing, then people solo audit and some of them see the image Hubbard implanted. This was reavealing.

The more the time gap widens between being free of and being in (the cult), the more free, confident and self assured I become. My understanding of the mechanisms of the individual concience that of the concience collective has incrased and this has had an expidentialy positive effect on my sense of individual identity, my interactions with others and my empathy with others around me; there a comensurate increase in my quality of life as a direct outcome.

You made an increadably astute observation Alanzo, that of the synthetic personality created in order to operate, think and to interact as a Scientologist, and this observation of yours has informed much of my new found clarity of mind.

I wonder what it is that (for lack of a better descriptive) a freezone scientologist is actually trying to come to terms with in doing Hubbard derived processes?

Again, I pose the question, not out of cynisim, but out of genuine curiosity. I don't think there is anything in the OT levels except a sense of exclusiveness, or a predesigned, predermined, apparency of achievement. I can deal with being wrong, but I have to see actual outcomes in measurable, quatifiable improvement in how one deals with the mulitude of interactions inherant in living in this world here.

I would be very interested your futher comments on this Alanzo.

I know Mary, I met her, and have had some good discussions with her, so I would trust her direct input. Can you shed light on this, Mary?

John Anchovie

I left the CoS over 15 years ago, having attested to Clear, and done the basic FPRD form. (Which resulted in a huge win for me.) My life was OK, but there were things going on in my universe that I had no answers for....finally, I bought an e-meter, and sat down and rehabbed my metering, and then started on the CC platens as a Solo Action. It is a different form of auditing (digging a ditch is what it is referred to). I had a huge win off of that, so I got a C\S and did OT 1-III. Total cost was just my time, really, as I continued my daily routine. I spent a fair amount of time on OT II, and when that EP'ed III just fell in my lap, so to speak, and auditing on it was quite a joy. All the stuff I had been "effect of" just kind of started melting away...insteaqd of having to "put my smiley on" and force a tone level, I could "be" the tone level. Areas of earth track and beyond just began to open up. Dates would present them selves in session, and then events on those dates would appear. After session a quick bit of research confirmed most of it.......

But this isn't just about me, and going "whee" etc. I began interacting with people in a different way...more playful, less formal.
The biggest area that "chunked into view" was my total roboticness towards beauty and aesthetics. I always was a sucker for a pretty face, but I would go totally robotic towards members of the opposite sex. Of course, the thing that you are totally willing to die for (defend at all costs) is the thing you have the most overts on. At least some really hot ones.....

So I am growing up. Part of that growth is that I just can't ignore Flow 3.

My opinion of LRH and the CoS flucutates as well. Currently the organization seems to be functioning as a containment facility for some of the most spiritually psychopathic. If it keeps them busy and prevents their dramatizing on a broad social scale, that is a plus. It also seems to me that LRH got stuck in a "trying to control" type of incident, and became an entity. The current NOTs tech is just a piece of a complex issue. So I give him points for trying, take off points for style, and keep my heart open....

[Zinjifar]

What am I missing here?

John Anchovie

The actual mechanisms of the Mind Fuck are brilliant and don't rely on only a single 'action'. There's behaviorism, hypnotism, social conditioning, and the whole gammut of orwellian 'newspeak' manipulatons. The 'preloading' of 'expected results' deliberately takes advantage of our critical thinking skills, by 'predicting' results that are then found. It's sleight of hand, since the expected result was already installed, but, most still practicing Scientologists will object that 'The auditor didn't tell me to find that!'. Because he didn't have to.

Scientology 'recalibrates' our own yardstick with all new numbers. The Scientology speedometer shows fantasy numbers. The 'philosophy' says that reality is *only* what you accept and the scientologist is trained to accept 'axioms' that are the 'stable data' and then rationalize any new data till it fits.

Once in it's not surprising how hard and onion-skinned the exit is. Nobody wants to throw out *everything*. But, as long as you try to keep that one favorite 'Tech' bangle, everything else must be adjusted to match.

Zinj

[Dulloldfart]

Of course, I have a visceral antipathy to anything Scienetology or Hubbard, I have seen enough evidence to make me confident that they guy was a complete wanker,and I cannot believe that such a person could do anyone any good at all. Yet I am astounded that I and so many other people who I consider quite intellegent, if not brilliant, remain hooked even after having seen the true face of Hubbard and the cult he founded. What am I missing here?


Auditing can be very therapeutic, especially when it is on something that comes up by itself and hasn't particularly been suggested to you.

Try a session from a YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUGCXzY74aI) or Paul's Robot Auditor (http://www.paulsrobot.com) in the comfort and privacy of your own home. Online 24/7, free of charge but not free of effort.

Wins from 37 people so far posted here (http://www.yawnguy.com).

Paul

[Alanzo]

I have huge respect for your analytical and critical thinking ability, Alanzo, but what are you seeking to achieve with such processes?

My girlfriend, who had never heard of Scientology until I spoke of my experiences and what I was dealing with, asked me a question, something like "What hold do they still have on you"? I cried in her arms for hours. It felt good.

I am not doing any processing. I simply tried a few things, like a person returning to a childhood home to settle things in his own mind after he has moved on.

I used to love auditing. And in many ways, it saved my life. (Actually, I used it to save my own life.)

That was real. And I just wanted to touch it again.

With that, I have come to terms with others who are still using auditing to a much greater degree than I ever will.

I guess, for me, it was part of the process of healing and moving on.

And I know what you mean about talking with loved ones and crying in their arms about the whole thing. It's essential.

Thanks, John.

[johnAnchovie]

Why do I find your experience so disturbing, Div 6? Open heart, I certainly have no problem with that. Your achievement, on the subjective, no problem with that either, that the tech works? Hmmm, I do have difficulty with that.

I suppose that were any of it to have validity, it would open up a can of worms that has no possibility of resolution. It would point to something deeply uncomfortable. Not sure how to take this on board at all really. I suppose I find it impossible to resolve how something so bad can produce a good and useful product. It does run contrary to my own experience.

If it could be clarified without BTs and SF then great.

I am not closed off to the concept that something of person can exist beyond the tangible world in which we live, I wonder about the relevence of this.

To function well in the now is surely the goal of any of these processes? Please correct me if I am wrong.

JA

[Div6]

Why do I find your experience so disturbing, Div 6? Open heart, I certainly have no problem with that. Your achievement, on the subjective, no problem with that either, that the tech works? Hmmm, I do have difficulty with that.

I suppose that were any of it to have validity, it would open up a can of worms that has no possibility of resolution. It would point to something deeply uncomfortable. Not sure how to take this on board at all really. I suppose I find it impossible to resolve how something so bad can produce a good and useful product. It does run contrary to my own experience.

If it could be clarified without BTs and SF then great.

I am not closed off to the concept that something of person can exist beyond the tangible world in which we live, I wonder about the relevence of this.

To function well in the now is surely the goal of any of these processes? Please correct me if I am wrong.

JA


To function in the now and create your future. To know the difference between your own goals and thoughts and those of others. To have what you want, not what others want you to have. To be able to freely create your own emotions....and share those of others.

There are many paths to enlightenment. I think the resistance to the statement "the tech works" is the packaging....that that then somehow validates the delivery vehicle. I would say that there are major amounts of context missing in the "scn package". For example, shamans have been practicing soul retrieval techniques for 1000's of years. It is historically more "correct" than the johnny-come-lately freudian analyses. Catharsis as a healing method is documented back to Greek times. There was a huge rise in spiritualism in the late 1800's..seances, talking to discarnate spirits etc.
Transcending dual-valued logic was a major contribution of the Bhuddist schools. For by holding to binary logic suffering is created. Korzybski's General Semantics is another. What is being passed off as "Scn" today is pure crap. The "leader" of the movement is a high school drop out....who appears to run his case on everyone around him.

What is important is that each person find their own way. I spotted DM as a major SP early on, and left as quickly as I could. In the few times I have "poked my head in" to see what was going on, I could only cry to myself at what I was seeing.

[Mary]

Wow! Terrific posts with so much insight!

Like many others here, I’m still trying to make some sense out of all the years of working for and auditing and training in the Church.

I’m a strong believer in the scientific method.

IMHO: It’s not a really fast direct method, it requires extreme patience and pedantic thoroughness. It can have a tendency to stifle those leaps of intuition, basic knowingness and creative thinking.

It’s greatest virtues are that it establishes proven and workable natural laws, facts and data that can be used to make further discoveries. If previously established natural laws etc are found to be in error they can be revised and corrected. It does not rely solely on the work of any one man.

Unlike Scientology.

Our science today has very little established science on the nature of our spirituality. Up until very recently this subject was made difficult to study because it kept treading on the toes of the established religions.

It seems to me that Scientology did, by whatever means, gather up, find and/or research some truths and natural laws. It did provide some workable technology in the form of auditing etc. I cannot deny that I loved the auditing and got gains from it.

One of the main reasons that I signed up was because I believed that LRH was using the scientific method, researching and making actual proven discoveries.

Later I believed (probably because of KSW1) that he must have some sort of direct line to truth, scientific data etc that others did not. And no one must question or challenge his data because;

"The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman, and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depends on..."

Now, I don’t believe that.

Maybe our hope for spiritual enlightenment and workable, proven technology in this field does lie with the work of the Freezone and Independent Field. Maybe they are doing research as part of the early pioneers and this could be developed.

[Tanstaafl]

Good post, Mary.

[Terril park]

Why do I find your experience so disturbing, Div 6? Open heart, I certainly have no problem with that. Your achievement, on the subjective, no problem with that either, that the tech works? Hmmm, I do have difficulty with that.

I suppose that were any of it to have validity, it would open up a can of worms that has no possibility of resolution. It would point to something deeply uncomfortable. Not sure how to take this on board at all really. I suppose I find it impossible to resolve how something so bad can produce a good and useful product. It does run contrary to my own experience.

If it could be clarified without BTs and SF then great.

I am not closed off to the concept that something of person can exist beyond the tangible world in which we live, I wonder about the relevence of this.

To function well in the now is surely the goal of any of these processes? Please correct me if I am wrong.

JA

As a thought on this, a tool can be used for good or bad.

If one uses the tech with the intention of helping others make a better life, that is one thing.

If one uses it in order to control and dominate that is another.

From the wordsmith:-


PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTOLOGY

The fate of any piece of knowledge man has ever been able to learn about himself, his society or this universe has [been to] sooner or later become subservient to some special interest with a curve on it to make more slaves. And this is one time when as long as I’ve got words in my mouth and breath in my thetan - this is one time that curve isn’t going to happen. And that’s all I want your help in. We want to make sure that what we know never comes to serve some special interest for the subjugation of man.

All Dianetics and Scientology attempts to do is to undo the magic spell which has made people less than they want to be. And to do that it requires that some truth be known. And that the central and principal truths of man be know, merely as truths - not as pitches and curves to serve some different reason or purpose. And that information is its own best protector. If it is itself, if it is what is known, if it is what has been learned, then it undoes its own spells. And the only possible excuse we have for training anybody, for processing anybody is that Dianetics and Scientology will undo Dianetics and Scientology. And that’s the first time known in the history of man that a subject, if it ever curved down, could also go up - that a subject undid itself. And that would be true knowledge.

We must never let what we know get into a state whereby it itself is a tremendous numbers of 'now-I’m-supposed-tos.'

L.Ron Hubbard, c59118c, Final Lecture

[johnAnchovie]

Thank you Div 6, Tal, Alanzo, Zinj, D O F and Mary for your considered thoughts on this, these reveal a fascinating disparity of views on the core subject.

I think for now the path that I am taking, working with the peer tested psychological models, works of philosophy and academic rigor will take me to a point, some work is being done to that end on claims of apparent prior life experiences, and I can't help but be interested in the 'other' work of Arthur Conan Doyle, he wrote on and studied psychic phenomena, and raised important questions. That there is ‘something’ there, beyond the physical, is indisputable, it is the route to understanding what it is, and what its relevance is, that is fraught with difficulty.

I think if there was some way for me to understand the subjective gains of others, some way to measure and account for statements to that effect, as opposed to just the personal testimony on the wins a person states he has had, these are fine, but cannot stand up to academic scrutiny.
All of us have had ‘gains’, moments where something shifted mentally, moments of ecstatic mental joy, but I had experienced such before Scientology, and have a experience a calm sense of being since getting out, I attribute for the latter, the former still confuses me.

Is there a way to measure these ‘gains’ one gets from doing a process?

[Div6]

Thank you Div 6, Tal, Alanzo, Zinj, D O F and Mary for your considered thoughts on this, these reveal a fascinating disparity of views on the core subject.

I think for now the path that I am taking, working with the peer tested psychological models, works of philosophy and academic rigor will take me to a point, some work is being done to that end on claims of apparent prior life experiences, and I can't help but be interested in the 'other' work of Arthur Conan Doyle, he wrote on and studied psychic phenomena, and raised important questions. That there is ‘something’ there, beyond the physical, is indisputable, it is the route to understanding what it is, and what its relevance is, that is fraught with difficulty.

I think if there was some way for me to understand the subjective gains of others, some way to measure and account for statements to that effect, as opposed to just the personal testimony on the wins a person states he has had, these are fine, but cannot stand up to academic scrutiny.
All of us have had ‘gains’, moments where something shifted mentally, moments of ecstatic mental joy, but I had experienced such before Scientology, and have a experience a calm sense of being since getting out, I attribute for the latter, the former still confuses me.

Is there a way to measure these ‘gains’ one gets from doing a process?


How are you doing in life, is the yardstick I use. Are you having, doing and being what you want, are you dreaming dreams and are they becoming real?

[Dulloldfart]

Is there a way to measure these ‘gains’ one gets from doing a process?

Depends on the circumstances.

If you would always get restimulated by some trigger, and react in a certain way to it; then the area was addressed with a process or series of processes; then ever afterwards (up to now, anyway) that same trigger didn't restimulate the area any more, that is one way to measure it. This can be both subjective and noticeable by others if they know you well and how you react to things.

"Feeling better" or "keyed-out" may only be temporary, but it is noticeable by self and often others who note you're not so agitated.

An ability gained or an inability lost is noticeable, and may be permanent.

TA measured on a meter, or yawns/sighs etc. on my various Rub & Yawn procedures, indicate charge coming off, but this doesn't always translate into noticeable gains.

Paul

[johnAnchovie]

Depends on the circumstances.

If you would always get restimulated by some trigger, and react in a certain way to it; then the area was addressed with a process or series of processes; then ever afterwards (up to now, anyway) that same trigger didn't restimulate the area any more, that is one way to measure it. This can be both subjective and noticeable by others if they know you well and how you react to things.

"Feeling better" or "keyed-out" may only be temporary, but it is noticeable by self and often others who note you're not so agitated.

An ability gained or an inability lost is noticeable, and may be permanent.

TA measured on a meter, or yawns/sighs etc. on my various Rub & Yawn procedures, indicate charge coming off, but this doesn't always translate into noticeable gains.

Paul

The problem is Paul, that there is a million scams out there, stuff that sounds great, and turns out to be a rip off, recent case in Ireland actually. So you come up to me and say you can handle all my psycological problems, I say no, because I don't see any peer review, I don't see any academicaly recognised primary research and test cases.

I do yoga, I find it fantastic, it is popular, it is accesable and open, it makes me feel calm and relaxed and physically stronger and more alive. it does not - apaerently - result in 'case gain' it is just good. I am not sure nnow that there was 'case gain' in my auditing. There was good moments. Were I to try to quantify this, well I would be at a loss. Is it all purly subjective at the end of the day?

[Div6]

The problem is Paul, that there is a million scams out there, stuff that sounds great, and turns out to be a rip off, recent case in Ireland actually. So you come up to me and say you can handle all my psycological problems, I say no, because I don't see any peer review, I don't see any academicaly recognised primary research and test cases.

I do yoga, I find it fantastic, it is popular, it is accesable and open, it makes me feel calm and relaxed and physically stronger and more alive. it does not - apaerently - result in 'case gain' it is just good. I am not sure nnow that there was 'case gain' in my auditing. There was good moments. Were I to try to quantify this, well I would be at a loss. Is it all purly subjective at the end of the day?

To the criminally minded, yes, it is all subjective. Look at DM....

Case gain must be measured by how someone is doing in life. Hiding in the shell of a cult may seem like survival, but as we both know, it isn't really.

Havingness......what can you have?

[Dulloldfart]

Is it all purly subjective at the end of the day?

Didn't I answer that?

From an online dictionary, one definition of many, which seems representative to me:

undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"

Examples:

You feel better--that's subjective.

Independently, different people remark on how calm you look today compared to usual--that's objective.

I assert that if you follow the instructions well and do the Rub & Yawn procedures of my YouTube videos or Paul's Robot Auditor, you will most likely get some good benefits from it. No monetary cost to you, but you have to work at it a bit. You don't have to believe in anything, just follow the instructions. If you just watch it like TV, nothing is likely to happen. :)

I'm selling an idea. It costs no more than at-home yoga, but can address issues that yoga can't.

Paul