ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

My Thoughts on OT Levels

Discussion in 'Scientology Technology' started by Vinaire, Jun 10, 2012.

  1. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    My thoughts on OT Levels


    Hubbard establishes right from OT Level 1 that you must go by what the e-meter tells you in response to your questions. In other words, your body reactions must be trusted over and above your thoughts or feelings.Thus, Hubbard puts one's thoughts and feelings under suspicion and as something that cannot be trusted.

    To me this is an inconsistency. Why give priority to body reactions (to which the e-meter responds) over something that one can clearly see. It is true that one need not be judgmental in looking at one's case. One should simply look and see what is there. But, do the body reactions meet this criterion? They certainly bypass one's overt judgment. But are these reactions truly representaive of what is there, and are not influenced by one's deeper expectations?

    Where do body reactions come from? They must come from some deep seated programming. That programming must respond to one's unconscious, as well as conscious thoughts. So, one's judgment (and programming) would filter into those body reactions. I would say that the e-meter reactions are not free of the judgmental nature of the mind.

    I would definitely trust LOOKING over the E-METER, and would work on enhancing my ability to look per the KHTK issues.


    Looking (KHTK) Contents

  2. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    Scientology's 'Analytical Mind' is only the smallest and least significant part of a person's totality. On it's own, it's pretty puny. But when it's operating as part of a person't totality, it can do some useful stuff. Basic housekeeping, etc. Don't knock the body, though - it can tell you stuff that the 'Analytical Mind' isn't powerful enough to understand. I agree about the toy lie detector - it's not worth bothering with, when compared with the totality of a person's ability to make sound judgements regarding his/herself.

  3. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Hubbard says on the original OT 1, "It is not the intention of this section to exteriorize anyone but if it happens don't worry about or fool around with the fact." Why would he say that? There is considerable mystery and expectations built around the word EXTERIORIZATION in Scientology. It would have been better not to bring it up if it was not part of OT 1. But, I suppose, it was intended by Hubbard to present these OT Levels as something mysterious. Are they really mysterious?

    First of all, is there anything mysterious about exteriorization? The Tech Dictionary says,

    EXTERIOR, the fellow would just move out, away from the body and be aware of himself as independent of a body but still able to control and handle the body. (Spec Lect 7006C21)

    Now, what is this fellow that would just move out, away from the body? Ah, it's the being. But what is a being? According to the Tech Dictionary, it is a viewpoint. But is there somebody assuming this viewpoint? Yes, it is the thetan. So, what is a thetan? The Tech Dictionary defines it in several different ways. It starts out by defining it as an abstract concept used for "source of life and lfe itself." Then it defines it as "awareness of awareness unit," "the individual who lives in the body," "something assuming a location by consideration," etc.

    The being or thetan is not something material that moves out of the body. So, exteriorization must be the freeing of some consideration attached or fixed with respect to the body.

    Any mystery attached to "exteriorization" would come from not understanding the above. And any misunderstanding of "exteriorization" can advertantly create complications with a person trying to interpret his or her experiences on OT 1.

    I would say that a person's experience on OT Levels will be messed up to the degree it is made mysterious. Hubbard says on OT 1, "A great many phenomena (strange things) can happen while doing these drills if they are done honestly." This definitely injects expectations in the process, thus coloring and corrupting one's "ability to look." It moves one away from the position of pure looking.

    Hubbard did his best to make these levels mysterious, probably for the purpose of creating a "mystery sandwich" to attract people. But this very action corrupted the ability to look on these levels.

    I doubt if Hubbard understood the concept of LOOKING as Buddha put it.

  4. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

  5. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    Do you really think it's worth spending any time on Hubbards ideas?
  6. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

  7. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    As mentioned by ITYIWT a day or two ago, there is overthinking, which I, with sheer brilliance :), identified as the One Single Cause that has held [STRIKE]Mankind[/STRIKE] Scientology cultists back for aeons. And now, after further research which left me almost dead, and which would certainly KILL any poor fellow who stumbled upon it, I have uncovered the fact that OT could stand for Over Thinking. This amazing discovery, which is the stuff of liquid lightning, will crack cases wide open and 10X our current spectacular booming clearing of the planet. All y'all reading this better get your big hairy arses down to the loan shark now and load up with loot to bring to the souper power building to exchange for something now...can't remember what, but we'll have something to bamboozle your cognitive filters by the time you get thru sec checks.
  8. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    They (the unrecoved ex-scientologists who get into threads like this) are the prisoners of their own minds, very introverted, and unaware of what harm they are doing to themselves. Thinking thinking thinking. Thinking about what? Thinking about looking without thinking. Thinking about not thinking. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
  9. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I have taken up this subject here:

    Looking at Hallucinations


    Looking is simply noticing what the perceptions provide in terms of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thought, feeling, etc. To learn to look is to learn to differentiate one thing from another. Looking is followed by a recognition of what is there.

    It seems that the first level of differentiation would be in terms of senses. What is being perceived? Is it a sight, a sound, a smell, a taste, a touch, a thought or a feeling. However, a level before that might be, ‘Is it out there, or is it in the mind?’

    Sometimes it is hard to make the differentiation, ‘Is it out there, or is it in the mind?’ This is especially so when nobody is around to confirm or deny it. Doubt may still persist even when somebody is around agreeing or disagreeing. Lately there have been many movies on this subject.

    There is hallucination. Dictionary tells us that it is a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind. The root meaning of the word ‘hallucination’ is ‘a wandering of the mind’.

    Let me put this question out there,

    “When the technique of ‘looking’ is applied to spot inconsistencies what happens to the hallucinations?”

    Or, maybe someone could provide an alternate question.

  10. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human


    See what I mean?

  11. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    And, the trick here is to look without thinking.

    And, while Hubbard TALKS that up a great deal, in actual fact, what most Scientologists do is "think while pretending to look".

    These doofuses imagine and conceive of themselves as hovering up near the top of the Tone Scale and the Know to Mystery Scale, when IN FACT, they exist pretty low - at THINKINGNESS (wallowing in some set of ideas, concepts or belief system). And ALL "looking" is done "through" their convoluted thinkingness.
  12. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Is thinking directly proportional to the length of post one writes?

    Then, so far, I am the biggest thinker on this thread. Rest are just looking.

    Well done!

    Best are those who are not writing on this thread. They don't think at all.

  13. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    NOTE: I am continuing with my thoughts on OT Levels at the first link provided in the OP. I won't be repeating those thoughts here on ESMB.

    I shall let this thread take its own course. It is going to be bombed sooner or later anyway. Let it be.

    Last edited: Jun 11, 2012
  14. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    He is Shiva, the destroyer of his own threads.
  15. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    That's right. Why be attached!

    It is just a dance.

  16. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    It's all in the mind. We can never know, directly, what is "out there". We only know the interpretations we have made about it.
  17. Gadfly

    Gadfly Crusader

    I concur. :yes:

    Also, our sense organs sample, select and detect only a very tiny slice of what is actually "out there". There are all sorts of energies and wavelengths that our limited sense organs do NOT detect. We perceive a highly unique and limited version of "reality", a view that is entirely determined by the parameters of the sense organs.

    There is ALWAYS "interpretation". The human senses themselves begin the process by delivering to you only a VERY TINY SLICE of the reality pie. What you see or hear is "not the way it is". It is only the way it is, RELATIVELY, and VERY relatively, from your point of view, from your location, from this time, and with the human set of specific sense organs that sample a very small segment of the energy spectrum.

    But, once the senses have created adequate representations of what it detects from "out there", then the MIND adds meaning and significance, and organizes the various energies.

    I made up some drills in the past where I would look at various things, for long periods of time, slowly removing what I was "adding to the mix", and doing this in terms of raw perception. Of course, first one has to stop the thinking about, and making comments to self about whatever one is looking at. That is a basic prerequisite. But then, one begins to notice that "where" and "how" you focus the attention (field of vision, detail, etc.) greatly affects WHAT you see.

    I would work to "simply be there and observe", without adding anything. Now, when you suddenly go BANG, and are there with bright perception of the physical universe, THAT is nice, BUT it is not "the end result". I dug further and got to a point where my mind stopped organizing the various colors, sounds and senses into "meaningful shapes ad objects".

    It all slipped back into some horrendous and random mix of undulating energies! That is what I "saw" and observed when I stopped "adding" via the mind.

    Now, there is a way to observe honestly within the framework of any reality. But, ANY reality you find yourself in is based on a series of assumptions (things that you have added to the mix).

    For example, if you want to determine whether the balling ball knocked over 8 pins or 9 pins, you really are NOT going to be concerned with the fact that your eyes and ears select a very tiny slice of the energy pie, and that YOUR own mind is organizing the energies into a consistent and meaningful pattern that you then experience as physical reality. Within THAT framework, you CAN observe "the truth". In specific contexts, the context is what is important, and one can forget about a great many other unrelated variables.

    There ARE things "out there" that exist quite independent of your awareness and consciousness, BUT in terms of your experience of any of it, it IS ENTIRELY RELATIVE. You always affect and determine what and how you experience any and all of it. This is true on a raw physical sense level, and on the level of significance and meaning (thoughts about all your experience).

    You are the key to whatever it is that you see and feel. It IS pretty much all in the mind. Both the good and the bad.

    Nobody ever experiences "out there" directly, but instead one experiences "out there" through some sensory apparatus. And, even if you leave your body, and look with "vision", you are choosing to "see in the same manner as does a human eye", you LIMIT out and ignore a great deal of OTHER energies, and again, the MIND frames it all into specific patterns.

    People who go exterior and "see with vision without aid of a human eye", are still ENTIRELY STUCK IN THEIR MINDS. It is entirely incorrect to think that a "thetan" naturally "sees with the same vision as a human eye". There are probably all sorts of sense organs, that have appeared here and elsewhere all throughout eternity, where some organism detects and samples some OTHER range of energy. Heck, bats detect and see with "radar". Other animals possess other "senses". In the end, the MIND works with whatever sense organs are available, organizes and makes sense of the "input data".

    And, if some "thetan" goes exterior and leaves the body while still seeing and hearing the SAME energy patterns and spectrum as did the body's organs, then that thetan is UNKNOWINGLY framing it all in that manner! Via the mind that thetan still is dragging around. The thetan must CHOOSE to exist and view from an exact location, a position that was previously determined by the physical body.

    It IS "all in your mind" - at least as far as of your own unique personal experience is concerned.

    Oh, Hubbard's statement about there being "57 perceptics" is absurd. There are as many percpetics as there are possible ways to sample and detect some segment of the energy spectrum. That is probably nearly infinite. Hubbard's idea of a thetan seems to be "be a body" without a body!
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  18. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    That is my viewpoint too as you can see from the discussion on this topic on my blog.

    Looking at Hallucinations

  19. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    Smilla, look, here is another thinker besides me! :)

    My thoughts are as follows:


  20. Smilla

    Smilla Ordinary Human

    Thinking is OK within certain limits, but it can prevent one from reaching the Deep Self, which is non-verbal, and doesn't use thought. The excessive use of thought is indicative of addiction. Real truths cannot be verbalised. Thought is essentially sub-vocalisation, and can't apprehend the actuality of anything. Thinking about reality is like having sex for chastity. Lol. But if you like thinking, think - just be aware that it is ultimately pointless. What does a sunny day think about itself? I'm you can take a bit of teasing and came back to your thread.