I have recently reached an epiphany about the Scientology OT levels. I have come to a new conclusion as to what is actually being handled and why the processes work. Having gone all the way to the top of what Scientology can offer in spiritual improvement, I can see an interesting pattern that puts the upper levels in a new perspective.
As I have written before, I have had excellent gains on these spiritual levels. But with my new viewpoint, there are reasons to believe that my gains could have been faster.
With my new take on these levels, there is no need for the confidentiality or mystique or any of the sci-fi.
However, I am hesitant to publish my views because it would include getting into the confidential materials of the OT levels as they are described by Hubbard.
I invite your views on how I should proceed here.
Update: The post where I revealed my views on the OT levels generated more than 1200 comments: A radical new view of the upper Scientology levels; OK here goes…
Geir Isene - uncut 
Perhaps considering publishing the majority of it in PDF format, rather than as blog entries. Include upfront disclaimers & summary info so that confidential material doesnt until several pages into the dox.
Then apply light shading to tint the page background color on any pages where confidential stuff is quoted directly or scrutinized heavily. That way concerned readers can skim the document at a glance, skip the shaded pages and still be able to make an informed decision if they want to read the whole thing.
This is an excellent advice. Thanks.
I think AnonLover has it right. Really looking forward to this!
Great idea Anonlover. Can’t wait to hear your comments, Isene.
Confidential data may be published in blog entries using “white” text. Such text would be invisible against white background. It would become visible only when highlighted by dragging the cursor over it. No one can highlight such text unknowingly, especially when warned about it. So, it would be safe to present confidential OT materials using white text for those who do not want to be inadvertantly exposed to OT Level materials.
.
That’s a great idea.
Well I am in the process of begining my spiritial journey. For the last 15 years I have been an atheist, but for some reason I started seeking out faith. I have studied many different religions and I am currently studying the Tao Te Ching. As far as scientology goes I am a bit turned off by the process. The concept that you gain higher spiritual levels based primarly off how much money you give seems like a scam. I could be wrong because my knowledge here is limited
Well, you are not completely off the mark. My new view may abolish also this.
Well…I couldn’t agree more on that…….whenever money is involved in exchange for Truth …..hmm, how do i say it gently……well,,, itz one thing to have come across a seer who is willing to bestow Enlightenment upon you out of pure Love and service to humanity and for free as its happened in India and the eastern lands since time immemorial and quite another thing alltogether to go the Scientology way in a step by step manner where the efforts of an Auditor are involved as a profession and one has to study data…..i mean its all together another Reality…..but then from my understanding, Truth is Infinite and so are the ways and means and so are the Rules in Universes…..and as they say, its quite ok for two Parallel yet opposite Truths to exisit and still be Truths in their own Right!!
Truth is Infinite !!
Sure, but there is also the matter of making a living and feeding one’s family. If an enlightened One can help others to enlightenment and also make a living, then that is for the good.
@Tim
“The concept that you gain higher spiritual levels based primarly off how much money you give seems like a scam. ”
I agree Tim … when I got in, auditing had just gone up from $15 to $25 per hour. It was reasonable and the average joe on the street could afford this. I never heard anyone complain about high pricing until many years later.
I can understand a trained auditor, C/S, Crse Supervisor or Worclearer charging to provide a service, but when it gets into 100’s or 1000’s per hour, that a bit much.
Personally, I think the technology should be widely available (unaltered) and can be studied as one chooses. A good supervisor/coach & C/S would greatly enhance the quality and results and give a great foundation to studying and being able to apply.
I think a good auditor can keep rates easily affordable & still make a good buck to put some pasta on the table.
Agreed.
Get it out!!! I believe that the truth does not hurt but helps to see what is there. There will always be people who do not share ones reality – not only dealing with the upper level material. And how can you have personal integrity if there are data that are unavailable for you? I believe it is up to everybody to decide for himself.
It is true that truth does not hurt but helps to see what is there. But there is one caution.
It is completely safe to look at an area of the mind for as long as one wants, provided one does not start searching for explanations. A person who is routinely digging into his mind searching for explanations is definitely exposing himself to harm. He will do himself a big favor by learning to look without thinking and letting the mind un-stack itself.
For full explanation please visit this link: KHTK 1F: LOOKING: COMMENTS
.
Just name the post “Confidential data OT-level discussion”?! Then participation is voluntary.
Publish two versions formatted differently.
Version #1. Full On Spoiler Version with a direct link (spoiler alert prominent.)
Version #2. Version Similar to what AnonLover describes (using formatting to circumvent the problem of confidentiality.)
I was going to suggest to make it available upon request only, but I like AnonLover advice more.
Congratulation with your epiphany – way forward could be to point out to others where the prerequisites can be obtained so they can reach their epiphany and suggesting the direct line to follow as your experience now reveal.
OT levels are confidential to make them more interesting and hence make society aware of them more! Everyone knows Xenu right? Point is all the OT levels are in the Basics and tapes, all of them. Even the unpublished ones. To claim you have done all Scn could offer is wrong, I doubt you have done every single process. I myself have no must have on the Bridge or uber-secret unreleased crap. It’s all in LRHs writings and tapes. The rest is PR crap custom-made to seduce the riff-raff. So say what you have to say you timid Viking!
I wasn’t implying I’ve done all that Scientology has to offer – but all the Bridge levels.
Are you including the “original” OT levels, which had definite EPs in terms of specific “abilities gained”?
Of course not – only what the CoS has to offer. But I have read the old OT levels, and my epiphany does not touch on those.
Geir, you are already familiar with my thoughts on the OT levels. I don’t think you need to be coy about your views, as it is obvious by now that the ‘confidentiality’ was a scam to keep people from realising what a bogus piece of second-rate science fiction they were in the first place! All these materials have been widely viewed on the Internet; no-one has been harmed, many have laughed!
From my older and more experienced perspective, you are gradually going through a process of de-programming yourself; this will take years, I assure you, but it is great that you are making progress, my friend. It is always hard to admit that we have been duped, especially when that involves a loss of status!
I read only today that Marty Rathbun claims that LRH had lately suggested omitting OTIII.
I look forward to your new opinions with the greatest interest!
Warmest regards, Robin & Adrienne
You seem a bit arrogant as well as pretty evaluative of Geir – and I don’t know if you’ve even got it right. For one thing, I never got from reading his posts about Scientology that he feels he has been duped, particularly. But I may be missing something – or a lot. You did imply having been in comm with him and he “knows your thoughts” on the OT levels.
Anyway, I wish he would have responded to your comment. But I’ll stay tuned for the coming attractions…
You’re right. I do not believe I was duped. As for the “you are in a recovery phase, etc”, that’s not the way I see it. I see it all as forward progress. And it is still progressing.
Marildi – this is a reply to your post of 2/11 below, my friend.
I quite agree that the flagrant out-Tech, misapplication of Ethics, and constant invalidation (not to mention the financial rip-off) has muddied the waters even further as far as the OT levels are concerned.
But I personally did both sets of OT levels (old and new) before it got this bad. While I got some wins out of them, overall they disappointed, and I eventually came to the conclusion that they were invalid.
More recently, I’ve come across the information which indicates that they were always fraudulent from the very beginning. That remains my considered opinion.
Warmest regards, Robin
Thanks. I understand better where you’re coming from now. But you had pointed out a relatively recent instance as an example of how so-called OT’s act (the one’s “handling” Paul Haggis), who I imagine are actually perfect examples of the out-tech and brainwashing going on and are not LRH OT products at all. So that didn’t support your general viewpoint about OT levels, for me.
You know, I don’t have any trouble believing that LRH may at times have been up to some shenanigans or may have used some shiftly methods to promote what he was selling. But that doesn’t prove anything about his basic intentions or, more importantly, the value of what he produced. In spite of all the data there may be against him, I just know that I’ve observed for myself the changes in some folks after doing OT Levels (especially VII). Their change of beingness, including greatly increased ARC, is very apparent. So I tend to go with my “look” instead of my “listen” to whether the OT levels are basically “bogus” or not.
Anyway, it seems you will be a valuable part of this discussion, having done both “new” and “old” OT levels. I”d be interested in when you did each, too.
Hi Marildi – interesting conversation!
I did the old OT levels 1979-80 in the Sea Org at St Hill, then the new OT levels at our AAC in Scotland 1984. Both sets rely heavily on the OTIII scenario for their basic structure. I haven’t done OT8 and, to be frank, have little or no interest in doing so.
If either set of OT levels lived up to expectations, then by now we would have thousands of true OTs – and we wouldn’t be in the mess that we’re in!
Like you, I have tremendous respect for LRH and admire most of his material, while not being blind to his human failings. The bridge up to Clear is excellent and workable. But in 1966/67 he was under pressure to develop levels that would lead on from Clear to OT. At that point, he reverted to his science fiction background and came up with material that is literally incredible – and fraudulent.
I trace the decline of Scientology, and LRH personally, to that point. That’s where the whole thing lost the plot, sad to say. We’re living with the consequences of that mistake.
Warmest regards, Robin & Adrienne
Thanks, Robin. I’m curious what the “pressure” was that you say resulted in LRH coming up with the sci fi. In relation to that (the sci fi stuff), I elaborated a bit more about my thoughts on LRH’s “fabrications” in a couple comments together near the bottom of the page here.
On your point about OTs not living up to expectations, you blame it on the tech itself, but it seems you are again disregarding all the gross mis-application of tech, ethics and admin in the Church. Maybe OTs *would have* created a big effect on the planet by now – had things been different.
Getting a bit personal, I can’t help but wonder if you were audited (even now) by an in-tech auditor, to handle your specific BI’s – you might have a whole different point of view. It’s happening to others in the Independent field these days, apparently. 🙂
Hi Marildi – in response to yours of Feb 13, according to eye-witness reports, LRH had 73 paid-up pre-OTs waiting for the OT levels in Spain!
And, no, I don’t think you can say that it was the outnesses that have caused the bad results on the OT levels (including my own). It’s the OT levels that have caused the outnesses, my friend.
Simple as that.
Hi, Robin. Sorry, I didn’t get what you were trying to say about 73 pre-OTs, pre-paid and waiting for OT levels in Spain. What was your point about that?
You re-iterated that you don’t think the bad results on OTs is because of outnesses but because of the tech itself. Other than your own experience and maybe the experiences of a certain number of others you know of, what do you base this on? Come to think of it, you could ask the same question of me and I would have to admit that my idea that the tech works is only based on being around the orgs (for a couple decades, from about 80 to 05) and hearing about a lot of good results, but that doesn’t really proove anything either. I guess neither of us actually has enough overall data to come to a sound conclusion.
Wow, I just had a win. This discussion got me thinking and looking, and I know I need to keep looking. 🙂 Thank you! And Geir too, for being here.
Holy cow! Just when I was starting to lose certainty in my “sense” of LRH and his tech, I read a comment on Marty’s site under his most recent post. The commenter’s pseudonym is “OnceUponATime” and he signed his post “Michael”. I’ve excerpted parts of it that articulate so well the kind of thing I myself have taken away from my study and experience in Scientology:
“… If you read the factors and the axioms, you’re looking at a description written by someone who has experienced this stuff. It’s not written from the viewpoint of someone extrapolating possibilities. If you listen to enough LRH lectures, you know without a doubt that this is a man who has experienced the basic tenets that make up Scientology. It’s not a guess.
“Sure, LRH was an entertainer also. He made up stories to enhance the materials he presented. He told stories that made what he was talking about interesting. But, beyond the stories was a truth you could actually understand and experience.….
“Granting beingness depends on such an honest observation of the other being that you completely understand him/her. A study of Scientology reveals a jaw-dropping grasp of what makes a person tick. LRH could not have developed the tech he did without this honest ability to grant beingness. His observations would have been faulty…
“Craving money and wealth and power is all MEST related crap. The being who developed Scientology was completely aware of the irrelevance of MEST to an immortal being…”
The whole post is in about the middle of the comments.
This fixation on LRH, either for or against, doesn’t make sense to me. Why not discuss the axioms, logics and factors themselves? See here:
Axioms, Logics and Factors
This fixation on beingness instead of having a love for knowledge is amazing.
.
Vinaire, I totally agree with you that fixation either way is baloney. I myself am not actually fixated on extolling the virtues of LRH. But when I read comments about his supposed negative characteristics and past activities, regardless of whether they’re true or false, I’m moved to protest. Those comments tend (and often INtend) to invalidate the Tech – which I don’t think should be impeded (in this or any other way) from reaching its enormous potential for good.
And this viewpoint is based on the truth I perceive in LRH’s words and his tech – not on anything about LRH himself The post I referred to above, by OnceUponaTime, really articulated my sentiment superbly. I probably should have posted the whole quote.
Anyway, you were so right to emphasize the Axioms, Logics Factors. 🙂
If I may evaluate, I would say that you are moved to protest because you are attached to beingness.
Beingness is the characteristic of existence. It is not permanent. It changes as if in a flux like anything else, as Buddha said. Just sit and watch the waves in the sea some time. Compared to beingness, knowledge seems to be more stable and valuable; especially when it can help you simplify the existence, or beingness, by as-ising the complexity of it.
To me, criticism of LRH, or his tech, has no bearing on my gains from LRH’s tech. The tech is also in a flux. LRH did not conjure it all of a sudden out of the blue. The knowledge has been there since the Vedas. LRH organized it a bit better. Now somebody else may come along and make it still better. If you look at the course that knowledge has taken over thousands of years, you would not feel attached to mere 50 years of progress.
It is just a matter of viewpoint.
.
Thank you for your interest, Vinaire. Truthfully, I don’t understand what you mean by “attached to beingness.” (Or, for that matter, a lot of what you are saying on your different posts! I suppose that’s because I don’t know the Buddhist terms and concepts you’re coming from.)
But I’ve essentially been saying the same thing as you – that criticism of LRH himself has no bearing on gains. My protest is, as I said above, against the willful or inadvertant impeding of the use of his tech because I do believe its workablity has great potential for making a better game, as he put it.
And I guess I don’t think a person necessarily has to make a full study of all ancient knowledge, since that is pretty well incorporated into Scientology – LRH credited it as where he began, and whatever study I myself have done of Eastern philosophy I see in LRH’s writings.
The search for knowledge doesn’t necessarily have to be carried on just for the sake of it, if the basic truths are already uncovered and this is the main thing I am attached to. But I would say that the *application* – the tech- of Scientology may very well be improved on. It would need to be researched, just as LRH did.
Anyway, I think what you said is right – it’s a matter of viewpoint. 🙂
Marildi; I like you.
🙂 Well, the feeling is certainly mutual!
Marildi,
One is not attached to something when one can have that thing or not have it without feeling any resistance. There are all kind of critics out there with varied opinions. You can neither control those opinions nor should you want to. Let people have their freedom. All you can do, if you love knowledge, is to use it to help others and promote it as best as you can. Nothing comes out of putting resistance to what others are saying. If there is truth it will get home sooner or later. Simply promote truth. That is what I try to do, even when I am not always successful. That is my policy.
As far as the knowledge in Scientology goes, there is plenty of scope there to simplify it. That is my viewpoint.
.
I guess I’ve basically been thinking with the KRC triangle, where control is totally linked with responsibility; and put that together with the datum that we thetans wouldn’t be in the soup we’re in if we had taken responsiblity.
But your policy of simply promoting truth does have an appeal. Reminds me of the principle of non-violent protest, which has proven workable. Your own policy may be an “indirect protest,” in effect – might be workable too!
But I’m also reminded of the datum about a balance of force and intelligence – that neither alone will guaranty freedom.
Well, what do you know about that, Vinaire; I think I just now sort of applied your policy. What do you think? 🙂
kay, something for me to think about.
Marildi,
Thinking in terms of controlling others is very downscale in my opinion. If one can control one’s own considerations then that is very upscale. When I look at C in the KRC triangle I do not think in terms of controlling others. I rather think in terms of helping others with knowledge so they gain better control over their own considerations.
To me force comes in to the degree intelligence has failed. That tells me that I have a long way to go.
.
Interesting idea, Vinaire. It does seem plausible that if intelligence were high enough, it would be possible to turn the Game around by that alone. Sort of a tautology, I guess. But very appealing, and maybe valid anyway.
Now that I think about it, though, according to LRH there has never been an OT on the track who also had the necessary data (a component of intelligence) to reverse the dwindling spiral. And that was exactly the level he was trying to get us to – not just back to OTs again but *trained* OTs. You could even say that LRH himself, like you, was trying to handle the state of affairs with intelligence, essentially. At some point in his quest he may have realized (using his intelligence, now) that force was necessary in the game we find ourselves in.
Anyway, I sure like it when a person can say something like you did, “I have a long way to go” – shows an intellectual honesty. Good on you! 🙂
Marildi,
LRH’s path was knowledge. He as a Jnana Yogi. “Jnana” means knowledge. That has been my path, and I think that has been the path of many who got attracted to LRH. So, the core idea is knowledge. Responsibility and Control of oneself (discipline) may follow as one learns.
Data is not a component of intelligence. According to LRH, intelligence is “the ability to recognize differences, similarities, and identities,” (See Data Serie #1). It has nothing to do with the amount of data one remembers or knows. So, to the degree one can observe intelligently, to that degree one has a choice to get involved or not, And, if one does get involved then one can at least chose solutions that minimize force. A person who cannot observe intelligently has no such choice. He just becomes a part of this force universe.
I would question LRH’s claim that there have been no OTs in the past with data to reverse dwindling spiral. I think Buddha accomplished much more compared to what LRH did. Buddha was out among the people till the end of a life of 80 years. He was much loved. LRH, on the other hand, hid from the people, went out of communication, and died suffering from anxiety and paranoia.
But, no doubt, LRH did make his mark. He reorganized and simplified knowledge to a great degree. I feel indebted to him. I hope LRH felt indebted to all those who came before him, and whose work he used.
LRH’s writings, and those of Swami Vivekananda’s, has helped me understand Buddha and Hinduism much better, and that understanding is now being expressed as KHTK and other philosophical essays on my blog. I would like to get some feedback on what I have written. I may be totally off, but what I have expressed is consistent to me.
According to Hinduism, there are four paths – the paths of devotion, action, mind, and knowledge. The path of knowledge is the most difficult to follow. Scientology lies on the path of knowledge, but it got diverted to the path of devotion when it was made into scriptures and clothed as a Church. It became corrupted.
Anyway, excuse me for this rambling post.
.
Your’re right, rather than saying data was a *component* of intelligence, it would have been better if I had said data is *required* – better yet, KNOWLEDGE is required (and knowledge includes data in the broadest sense). That was my concept.
But it wouldn’t be possible to observe much knowledge directly, by personal observation, as you seem to advocate. That’s why we study the knowledge of others, like Buddha or LRH, and maybe build on it. And, by the way, LRH did credit – highly – the knowledge that came before him, and built on it.
As far as who accomplished more, I think that if we give LRH’s contribution some more years – hopefully, not as many as the 2,500 Buddha has had so far- our civilization will hopefully be looking a lot better than it does now. But as for “personalities” you and I have already agreed that the *source* of knowledge is beside the point, right?
I liked your idea about solutions that minimize force. And overall your comments on this post were very interesting.
I agree with Robin on this,,and I’m very interested in this discussion Geir;))
((now U talking)
Thanks for your comments, guys – very interesting. I know I come across as a bit arrogant and rather evaluative – and I apologise for that – but Geir and I have already had a lot of comm on this, and I wanted to keep it short. My main point is this:
The OT3 scenario is now well-known worldwide on the Internet, so no real point in any more secrecy (there never was). It is bullshit, and was invented by science-fiction writer LRH at very short notice, when he had a lot of paying customers waiting! It is extremely harmful to make people believe in an incident in their past that is untrue (that’s an implant). A lot of OTs have become sick and died as a result of this over the years, sadly, several of my own friends
While I note your comment, Geir, that it is all ‘forward progress’, I view the OT levels as a dangerous cul-de sac, from which one needs to reverse, in order then to make forward progress, my friend. They say men never admit they’ve taken a wrong turning!
I think we were all duped, and it takes a lot of humility and intellectual honesty to admit it. That’s not to say that there wasn’t a hell of a lot of good stuff in Scientology, especially up to Clear; but I believe it was with the OT levels that LRH lost the plot and compromised his own integrity – leading to all the current troubles with the Church.
I would be very interested, Geir, to read your latest thoughts on this subject, my friend, when you’re ready to divulge.
Warmest regards, Robin & Adrienne
I think there is “something” to the OT II-VII Case,but the “revolt in the stars” story may not be totally accurate;)) In Creation of human ability Ron says that this case doesn’t need to be handled.Ray Robles says NOTS was intended as a “assist” not an OT-level.There IS several conflicting data in the actual levels themselves..
Robin
I think your evaluation is tough, but that doesn’t make it untrue.
Geir, I think you are an extremely intelligent person who enjoys using logic and reason to reach his conclusions.
But, I also think you do not enjoy being proved wrong, or duped.
I think the only two things between you and the ultimate truth about your experiences in Scientology are time, and pride.
You may continue to assume. I for one is enjoying the ride 🙂
I don’t think anybody enjoys being proved wrong or duped by CoS, or by the critics of CoS. I think this applies to Sid too.
The solution is LOOKING, Sid… and not off the cuff evaluation.
.
My Vin 🙂
Sid,
Thanks for your supportive comment – always welcome! I couldn’t have put it better myself!
One more point of interest, perhaps:
Reading the New Yorker article about Paul Haggis’ story, I was fascinated by the group of high-powered OTs who tried to handle him and keep him in the Church. What these so-called OTs did was actually suppressive – which leaves one wondering what is the value of these expensive levels, if they produce people like that? Not my idea of OT, for sure!
Warmest regards, Robin
Hi, Robin. This is in response to your last comment on 2-9. You did come off as arrogant on the comment before that, but this one I had to admire – you can be graciously humble too!
But on your eval (sorry) of OTs, it’s hard to imagine but you might be ignoring or unaware of certain variables that seem to have been entered into the OT equation. Namely, the out-tech being palmed off on many as standard LRH. That’s possibly the least insidious reality, and maybe the worst would have to do with out-and-out brainwashing that, according to the experience and/or assessments of quite a few reliable, tech-trained sources, is now rampant in the C of S and has been happening more and more, for a number of years now. (My sense is that Geir was one of the lucky ones who got handled standardly, by the way.)
But it’s hard to imagine that you’re not already acquainted with all the posts on various blogs about this, often referring to it as Black Dianetics or Black Scientology. I guess the question is – which “OT levels” are we talking about?
Oops, forgot to click for follow-up comments.
Hye Robin,
I like when you post … interesting reading.
In your post above, you mention this:
“It is extremely harmful to make people believe in an incident in their past that is untrue (that’s an implant). A lot of OTs have become sick and died as a result of this over the years, sadly, several of my own friends.”
I find this interesting from a couple points:
1) If this incident(s) on OT3 was bullshit & invented as you say, how do you account for people dying after reading/looking/etc?
2) It appears that if in fact they did die because of messing around with that ‘invented incident’, it would indicate that there is something there to handle … does this seem so? It may not be the incident itself, but you seem to feel your friends died because of this.
If it was BS & invented, do you feel that one could mock-up a condition for himself that could be a detriment to his health & well-being, or possibly die?
Considering that Clear is as regards the 1st Dynamic, would this fall under the ‘dynamic of others?
My last line should read ‘dynamic or universe of others’
hmm … I’m rattling on here …
I guess what I’m asking is what exactly do you feel is the cause for these many people & friends you know who died? It appears you are putting responsibility for it onto an invented OT level.
Am I understanding this correctly?
First of all, I have never heard about an actual case of anybody dying. But, given the fact that millions upon millions of people have read the materials, I would find it surprising if none of them accidentally died just after reading it from some other mysterious cause that someone could claim came from reading the materials. And, I would also be surprised if we would never see a reverse placebo effect with this much statistical data (I.e. that someone got sick because they believed they should get sick). But as I said, I have not heard of a real, documented case.
People have gone mad as a result of too much digging into the mind. That much I know.
.
Geir,
Like you, I have never heard of someone dying from reading the OT levels.
Could it happen? I’m not sure.
I’ve seen a lot of people die within & without the church … but never heard of someone dying from any level.
I was trying to get an idea of how Robin came up with this.
Quicksilver – just to clarify my point:
I’m not saying that people will die from reading the materials, quite the reverse – I always thought that was nonsense.
What I think has killed people is being brainwashed into believing that the OTIII incident is real and on their own whole track. It has surprised me how harmful it seems to be to an individual – to be persuaded to believe in a false implant. That’s where the danger lies.
Hey Robin,
Thanks for the response.
You mention: “What I think has killed people is being brainwashed into believing that the OTIII incident is real and on their own whole track.”
To me, this seems like a bit of a leap. Personally I believe a person *can* mock up harmful effects which will affect him spiritually/bodily. But, I have a hard time envisioning that someone who is ‘brainwashed into believing that the OT 3 incident is real’ could harm himself unless there is something heavy in the area that actually could be audited.
I’m not saying/defending the incident itself … that to me is up to the person & what he sees on the meter. But, let’s say Ron did mock it up, or it was his own track & not mine, it seems to me that I would have to be a bit of a powerhouse of a thetan to create it myself to such a degree & start ‘freewheeling’ thru that created incident & drop the old body.
Could it be done? To me – possibly, but to say many people have done just this in response to Ron writing up an incident or believing in a false implant is quite a leap to me. Maybe I’m missing something 🙂
I do enjoty your posts by the way … great stuff here & thanks to Geir for having the blog!
Placebo is the strongest medication of all. I believe a reverse placebo is equally strong. Faith can move mountains…
Hi Quicksilver – many thanks for your questions.
(1) The OTIII incident is false in time and space (i.e: it didn’t happen where and when LRH says it did – or there would be physical evidence, which there isn’t). But it is highly restimulative in content – and actually quite frightening – so it would tend to stir up other similar charge on the case, which would indeed be harmful.
(2) The main damage, from my observation, is that it forces the person to accept a false and very negative incident at a specific point on their time track, i.e: an implant. I have been surprised to observe that this appears to have a very detrimental effect on the individual, leading to mental instability, illness and even death.
Even if someone was already Clear as regards the 1st dynamic, the person’s survival could be compromised by being compelled to accept falsehoods from others about themselves.
This claim of yours makes the whole subject of Scientology into another perspective at least for me. I really understand this. Maybe I rehabilitate LRH 🙂 In case you really found out what is happening there. And maybe even you does not have all the data.
Except the sci-fi (which is fake) I thought the levels themselves not that all “useless”. But there can be a couple of different viewpoints for sure. Some people get uncurable sick, and the theories of the electricity factor should be calculated as well in my viewpoint.
If you want to share it I welcome but maybe you should go ahead with a kind of invitational or subscribe system in the beginning.
OT materials are dangerous only to those who are prone to digging into their minds for answers while bypassing minds self-protective mechanism. Such people would get sick whether it is OT level data or something else that restimulates figure-figure.
Any person prone to figure-figure (self-auditing) should get over that tendency by getting used to the KHTK approach before diving into OT materials.
.
Where did you get the data that some people get incurably sick? I would be interested in that. Thanks.
Marildi, there are accounts on the internet, like this for example:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/accounts/bajnoczi20060617.html
It is easy to find by Google.
From the link: “the follower of the religion called Scientology is convinced that once he has reached a level called “OT 8”, he will achieve the skills of those Hindu gurus who manage to travel through space without their bodies and who carry out magical actions cancelling physical laws. Also, future reincarnations as human beings or as animals are supposed to cease — thus conquering immortality! — and the believer is supposed to meet with happiness and success in his or her present life. This is what the founder of Scientology, Ron Hubbard, has promised.”
wtf? Where on earth did she get this from? Nobody ever promised any such things to me… I must have missed out on a lot of promising ;(
The thetan is immortal and is possessed of capabilities well in excess of those hitherto predicted for Man and the detachment accomplishes in the sober practice of science the
realization of goals envisioned but questionably, if ever, obtained in spiritualism, mysticism
and allied fields.The anatomy of the beingness of Man is one of the lesser studies of Scientology where the beingness relates only to homo sapiens, for the detachment of the thetan by standard operating procedure is in common practice a simplicity.(8008)
@Tommy: Says nothing about what could be expected specifically at OT 8.
I found the link in connection with the cancer cases and I’ve learned that from other sources.
The text you quoted is strange for me as well but people see things around them differently. In my area back in time some really weird ideas similar to this was also common.
Sure – but a girl that went all the way to the top and still clinging onto such a weird promise. I dunno.
OT VIII is the first “real OT-Level” and you would expect some sort of “Real OT-Ability” from it?!
I wasn’t sold any abilities if that’s what you mean.
OT VIII = “Cause over mater, energy, space, and time on all dynamics.” I believe this pretty much sums it up for promising.
Promising and broken-promising, for me is the essence of the Church of Scientology through the years including when LRH was “on the lines.” Financial irregularities, crush reg’ing, weird and suppressive “ethics handlings,” and generally black dianetics enough to go around for everyone.
I agree that the language in the quote that you refute is also not precisely what I was promised either. However, which Scientologist reading this blog has not had these very hopes in their heart during their entire experience of being involved with Scientology? Which religion does not dangle this carrot of eternal and everlasting happiness and life?
Yet, this does not take away from the spiritual progress that I did make and with which I am happy. Then again, this was my own journey of discovery and so:
1. I may have had a parallel experience in life no matter the paths I walked because the goals are my own.
2. Like any “journey of discovery,” if we discover what we “expect” then it is not so much a journey of discovery, is it?
3. And so each of us can recount the experience of both failing to make gains in auditing for which we hoped, together with making gains and having unexpected wins in ways we had not guessed at beforehand.
4. Blogging, especially with you – Geir – is equally as important and cathartic of an experience as any other part of my own “journey forward.” Thinking through one’s thoughts and then attempting organize and write them down is an excellent process. Blogging is one step better and more complete process than journaling because of the additional element of 2-way communication. For me this is a gentle and effective way of as-is’ing mental masses and confusions and points the way toward new understandings.
Good comment.
On this: “OT VIII = “Cause over mater, energy, space, and time on all dynamics.”” : I never saw that promoted except for the old OT VIII on the old grade chart.
Chris, very interesting comments. Just one quibble – the part about “having unexpected wins in ways we had not guessed,” to some extent refutes your idea that any journey might have produced the same goals one was seeking (although I think there’s truth to that – if there’s any truth to postulates). And the other intriguing thing about Scientology gains is that many people achieve the EPs (or “goals”) as stated, not by them, but by LRH – at least according to their own perception; and for the scientist, that alone should invite scientific investigation, even if this too turns out to be “just” postulates.
Loved your thoughts about blogging! I think it was on this thread that someone (maybe Vinaire) suggested that we are running out Scientology here, and I agree – the engramic and “conditioning” parts, but not the
“theta,” the gains. And as for this particular thread, it seems that many of us have pretty much reached the EP. 🙂
Here from a C/S with long experience from the upper bridge, take heed!
http://www.ronsorg.org/tableofcontents/SeniorCS.htm
I understand that you want to keep the tech intact, but if it something that can be observed, then write it as something that can be observed, and what can be done.
You tried to say a lot but ended up saying nothing. You can’t just suggest at something important and then not go into detail. If you feel you can’t go into detail then why bring it up at all?
Go back and search for my point.
Ok…I’ll be a bit straightforward here. I ain’t against the scn tech.. on the contrary, I love the guy LRH and love listening to him and taking out fundamental Truths from his materials and have instant wins as the data is indeed incredible. However, as I had stated earler, I strongly belive that Truth is Infinite and so are the paths and the Bridge and of course the upper Bridge is a pathway – Ron’s pathway to Freedome or just a routhe which enables one to get outta the mess and create a Universe independently and feel and be FREE….however, the only problem for me was that despite the Freedome and OT magic and mysteryous charm, I got sick bored as it was too gwad dam lonely out there!!………. so i decided out and was fortunate that I already had encountered a pathway thru an Indian girl who too was an OT but the route took you in a completely OPPOSITE direction to the Scn tech !
Yesssss………and thats the Good NEWS as it serves like an anti-dote to the tech!! I have applied it for just 2yrs and am completely Healed and reversed all that the tech did to me….yessss,,,,unbelivable but true it is….I did the daring thing of going ahead with auditing and doing 6 major Bridge levels in 1.5 yrs along with major cases and catapilted myself into a very High Case state and had HUGE outta da world Wins and then on ejecting outta the church in 08 had no option but to go and reverse all that and come back to being a Homosapien like any other WOG on da street….the only saving grace and difference being that I still retain my Power of Choice and all the knowledge frm the tech…thus am far superior to the insane wog and enjoy a very balanced Life!!
If interested anyone…I’ll be glad to share with you the details about the other reverse anti-dote path to the Scn tech and the Good NEWS is its FREEEE 🙂
Geir,
If you feel it is in any way harmful to communicate about upper OT level data/thoughts/cogs, please don’t.
If you feel it is helpful and won’t in any way jeapordize one’s case reading it, please do.
That said, if you choose the latter, I think that Anonlover’s advice is spot on.
I hope you choose the latter because I’m all ears.
Having followed ( most of ) your scribblings since “Why I left” ( basically because I appreciate your love for HP calculators, humans are so complicated! ) my first reaction is: “What next?!” – Many people explained to you that leaving Scientology is a process that takes many years. This “epiphany” may be nothing more than letting go your fixation on the “-secret-” upper-levels.
You could have published your epiphany using a pen name, a writer’s alias instead of creating your own -secret- message, known only to you.
Interesting speculations 😉
The fixation you mention, is it yours?
You went to the top of the Bridge that scientology offers. I think you are capable of deciding if the information would benefit people or not. You do not need our opinions on the matter.
Greatest Good.
I for one would love to know what you have to say. I cannot afford the bridge at the moment so all information given is taken and held onto with appreciation. Opinions on the “lower levels” are dime a dozen. But for somebody who has completed the upper levels to come out and be honest about what they have learned or realized or want to say is rare indeed.
My ears are open and eyes are ready.
O O
\__/
At that moment when I knew I was leaving the Co$ I started searching on the internet – no matter what . Also about the OT Levels ( and I think every person going out at one point does read ) . Before I was never afraid of getting sick – did not even know that this should be the case – but considered could not go up the bridge because I have read something which I should find out myself and so miss the wins on it. Don´t know if that communicates…..
Now – during the time I´m out I learned that there are many ways to go in the direction of being free of whatever is unwanted in my life. So I´m not advocate in Scientology is the ONLY way . Spoke with Ex-Scientologists who went other ways happily. But also I see the OT-Levels as a way. I saw Interwiews on Bunkai´s site from people on OT VII and it didn´t work out for them but also there are many around who have done the Level and it worked out for them very well. Every person is different. About the secrets in general – it is a way to let people reach for something. But in the Cult I would never have even found your site because my interest was somewhere else.
In the end you need to be your own advisor – but the tips you got here re how to put it on the site seems very good to me.
Love reading soon what is your view !!!! 🙂
Whether my ideas will be published soon or not is up for debate – still undecided. But I am very glad I asked for other’s advice here. There are some very smart readers here and I should ask for input more often methinks.
Annegrath, there must be a mixup. I don’t have a website that contains information regarding Scientology. All I have is a blog and my professional site. I did create a spoof religious cult once called “The Most Unusual Religion on Earth” but it is currently down.
katageek.wordpress.com
williamharper.info
Yes, Bunkai, you are right, it was a mixup from my site. Sorry. It was on the site from Mark Bunker where I watched the Interviews….
I would love to hear your thoughts on the upper levels. I have interesting thoughts on them myself. Years ago – in the 1990s I reached a very interesting and powerful ep using what I had learned in doing new OTV at AOLA. After this ep I found that I no longer needed to handle the type of “charge” the folks handle on OTV and OTVII. I have read all the materials for those levels and find I don’t need to do any more of that type of auditing. It is much like going clear. You don’t need to nor can you do dianetics any longer.
Jerry,i had the exact same experience on OT II,how interesting:)
The Ron’s Org staff got an ARC-break on it,and stopped to treat me as a tech terminal.Even not commenting on the 10 div BD+ floating TA i got on the overrun, (being acknowledged by my self;)) It was definitely “as going Clear”.Geir,are you going to start the “confidential discussion” any time soon?(this is an interesting area 2 discuss:)
I am debating it with myself 🙂
Sometimes I am slow at these things….
I am also debating my new view with a couple of highly trained guys to test if my viewpoint holds water. I will keep you posted, but don’t hold your breath (as it’s not getting posted in the next few minutes 🙂
I have some idea in witch direction you are heading Geir (i think:) As there is NO prof of the OT-levels delivering any OT-abilities (not even the 48-levels of Ron’s-Org;)Hypnotism,DMT or meditation is equally “effective”.Personally i think Scientology is a workable path and that applying the basics we might get us there in the future.(If there IS such a thing as a “Thetan”;))
I should add that if this FBI investigation into DM and the church is for real, the upper level data will begin appearing more and more on the net as OT’s and many others leave the church (some of them angry, confused, feeling betrayed, feeling vengeful, etc).
This could lead to many (even law enforcement agencies) placing the upper level tech all over the net.
If you have something to say, which can assist people in any form of spiritual journey, thus allowing them to improve their own conditions in life, I would indeed suggest communicating it.
Doesn’t matter whether you support the tech or not. The only thing that matters is, do you feel that your comm will help your fellow man.
Up to you, my man.
In the New Yoker article, Paul Haggis claims to have been duped all the way to OT7, never achieving what was promised, having to “convince” himself and others of the tech’s workability. He claims that one can convince themselves it works after having spent enough time and money.
I’ve personally been told by some well-known Indies who went through 7 that it’s all bullshit.
I never made it very high on the Bridge. I was in for twenty years. I’d like to think the upper levels are true. I’m saddened by the fact they might not be, but, as you seem to be a rational person Geir, I’d be extremely interested to read what you have to say, whether in support of the tech or not.
I’m guessing I’m not alone in that view.
Thanks,
IO
Hi IO,
I remember Paul also being interviewed on some Canadian station and he mentioned that there were a lot of good things too.
I’m not sure who the other Indies are that you speak of but I expect there are some one both sides of the fence – those who will rave about every level and others who will say they got nothing.
Personally, I think each level whether lower Bridge or OT levels is tough to put into words unless the other person has also done the same level. Even then, results or wins vary from person to person – one handles whatever is there FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL at that point in time. Each level is an evolution for that person – some levels you may not have much there whereas on some other levels, one can experience big changes.
It is interesting how there are some levels that some will rave about yet others thought they were ‘just ok’. As an example, my highlights were ARC S/W, XDN, OT 2 & NOTS … for others OT 3 & 4 were a big deal.
I look at it as an overall evolution of an individual & his case … no matter where he is, there can be improvement – it may not hit him on Dianetics, but Grade 3 may knock his socks off. 🙂
Geir,
I’d like to hear what you have to say … it would definitely make for an interesting discussion of what lies ahead.
I would think that anyone who had the inkling that there might be something more to this thing called ‘life’ and got into Scientology because it indicated would still be looking … I know I am.
Even sitting as you are at OT VIII, I would think that you are still looking for greater expansion & ability … hell, that’s what I got in for.
As for the confidential aspect, I like the idea of having white text so it is not overtly visible but one has the option of scrolling over to see the text. As for answers, I think most will be able to answer or discuss in a ‘non-confidential’ manner bearing in mind some on this board may not want to see these materials or discussions.
Geir,
I’m not a techie so can offer no clever solutions to actually posting your thoughts in such a way as to avoid any possible negative fall-out. Others seem to have that covered quite creatively, anyway. I don’t personally think individuals will be exposed to anything dangerous if they read it; my own bridge level was, shall we say “medium,” and I am trained as an auditor. In reading all the higher level materials I could find on-line, I experienced nothing more negative than thinking some of it was very silly, and read like a bad ’50’s sci fi paperback. I would think a simple warning, that the following analysis contains reference to “confidential materials, would be enough, but I appreciate your caution.
What I want to say to you is that part of your particular genius, in my opinion, is that you posses an extraordinarily logical and keenly analytical mind, and I admire that a great deal. That you have had a realization about this part of the tech is fascinating to me and I’m probably going to be checking your site hourly now that there is a chance of seeing it in print. PLEASE feel free to share your insights with the rest of us. I am genuinely very interested to hear them.
lunamoth
🙂 Thanks.
I am not at all worried about people getting in some way hurt by reading the upper level materials. I am positive that such is a reverse placebo.
What I am weighing in my mind is the social consequences – that I will no longer reach those who think they will get hurt.
I see. Well, I know you’ll make the right decision, but again, I
very much hope you’ll decide to share your insights!
lunamoth
The way I view the mythos of the upper levels (I have never done them, so I don’t have direct experience with them) is that they can be used to create what I call “Body Metaphors.” These are experiences that use mythology and spiritual practices to create meaning that manifests itself in ways we can directly feel and know.
The amount of benefit someone gets depends on the way they use their imagination and their trust in the processes. That’s why I identify with Geir’s statements about how much the upper levels helped him.
Thing is, we can create these effects with all kinds of mythologies. Here is an off the wall example.
EXAMPLE: Let’s say you want to use the mythology of the force in Star Wars to create body metaphors. But before you unleash your “force powers,” you have to absorb all the “metachlorians” into your body from the space around you. So you meditate and imagine touching virtual metachlorians with your mind and drawing them into your body – increasing your force power. Now, you learn in the next level that there are DIFFERENT KINDS OF METACHLORIANS and different techniques for drawing each into you.
Now if someone actually did such exercises with a supervisor who trained in it for years, they may gain amazing spiritual benefits by virtue of their imaginations creating experiences in their body. People could actually experience sensations of increased force power – but strangely STILL find it impossible to move objects with telekinesis like Luke Skywalker.
But isn’t creating our own meaning on our own terms what being a free being is all about?
And in my opinion, the power of story is the greatest power of all.
Interesting.
And story is art.
And if multiverses exist with infinite versions of our lives, then we can connect to versions of ourselves in other universes through our imaginations.
And we can experience these realities THROUGH OUR IMAGINATIONS – fully – even though we cannot physically touch them. If any group knows this, it’s Scientologists.
Real worlds. Touched and experienced through real imaginations.
Mark Twain understands how powerful such ideas are, but his cynical nature didn’t fully embrace the positive side.
“I’ve had many trials and problems in my life . . . most of which never happened to me.” – Mark Twain
OT III and above and other such processes I personally term “Imaginary Processing.” And what one experiences depends directly on the story one creates.
And if multiverses exist:
WE ARE ABLE TO ENJOY THESE REALITIES HERE THROUGH THE POWER OF IMAGINATION.
And many think of such notions child’s play.
LOL.
Yes,this is the nuts and bolts of it..
(will that pen move?;)
@Tommy
I have moved lot of pens. 🙂
I am moving one right now as I type.
.
And that is factually magic.
We could also look at this in another example where the person already has this ‘Life Force’ but, due to his own imagined considerations, solutions, stops, mechanics, other miscellaneous bric-a-brac, has covered up or suppressed this Life Force to the degree he doesn’t even know he has it anymore.
It is true that one could create ‘metachlorians’ and absorb them from the space around you and ‘feel’ an energy,, but I’m not sure why one would absorb them into your ‘body’. The actual mechanism it seems would be creating something (energy) outside of the body, pulling it in to one’s space or a body part, and then ‘feeling’ the energy there.
This seems like a bit of a via when – if I could create this outside the body, why not simply create that energy directly into the body to start with.
Two viewpoints here:
1) One has innate ability & awareness that one can uncover to ‘re-gain’ these abilities/awarenesses
OR
2) One is nothing and these abilities & awarenesses need to be sought out elsewhere and ‘added’ to the person so he can experience them.
Personally I like the former 🙂
CORRECTION:
“People could actually experience sensations of WHAT FEELS LIKE increased force power – but strangely STILL find it impossible to move objects with telekinesis like Luke Skywalker.
Correction?
You best re-read what I wrote rather than give your imaginary friend, Luke Skywalker, as your baseline to correct others from.
The correction was to my post above QS.
And my “process” is totally BOGUS.
But even with a bogus process like the one I wrote above, some people may get big wins on it – especially a Star Wars nerd.
People get wins off of all kinds of wacky stuff.
I would say that the power of imagination is the greatest power of all. That is how a thought itself is created. Please see
Essay #4: THE NATURE OF THOUGHT
What kind of thoughts are created in response to reading OT materials? Those thoughts are primarily made up of one’s expectations.
.
Quote:
“What kind of thoughts are created in response to reading OT materials? Those thoughts are primarily made up of one’s expectations.”
Huh?
You must have done a different set of OT levels than I did.
A process is there only to guide your looking. A process does nothing. It is simply looking, which creates the gains.
If people are attributing some mysterious power to these processes it is because of their expectations. Even gains can be created out of expectations.
But gains obtained from pure looking are the greatest gains of all.
.
Bad Idea, restimulating charge from these levels, without giving the person the chance to
flaten the incident/process is highly supressive.
That depends if they are an accurate description of reality. There are reasons to question just that.
“That depends if they are an accurate description of reality. There are reasons to question just that.”
Geir,
A wise man once said “What’s true for you is true for you.”
You would do well do to *really* understand that saying.
I believe I do. Read my essay “On Will” and see for yourself.
However, claiming that something historical happened contrary to evidence can hardly be justified by “what is true for you…”. Also the general view on the Case that is being handled on the OT levels does have a big gaping hole begging for evidence.
My personal integrity tells me that I do not need to seek evidence for what I already know is true for me. And for me, it’s simply as simple as that. Whether or not something has historical evidence or not is not relevant to me.
It’s like someone walks up to me and says “Your name is Bill and you’re from the moon. I have the evidence here, in these documents showing a picture of you with the name Bill and describing how you took a spaceship to get here from the moon twenty years ago.” I am already certain that I’m not Bill from the moon, and no amount of evidence that you stir up can ever convince me otherwise. Call it stubbornness. I’ll keep calling it personal integrity.
I already know that, whether the contents of OTIII occurred as described or not, the truth about the Case you refer to is true for me. I know the auditing does what LRH said it does, because I have experienced these things *first hand*, and that’ll ***always*** be good enough for me.
I read in an argument in a thread on your forum that you, Geir, are certain (yes you used that exact word) that past lives are real, and that your personal certainty is enough for you. This is exactly the same thing. Certainty is certainty – and it’s as simple as that.
Have a good day.
It is curious to me how a person would defend a certain piece of data against something that may challenge it – without even knowing what that “something” is. May it be that such a need to defend arises not form certainty but from uncertainty?
Whenever someone presents a view that challenges my own certainties, I try as hard as I can to be interested and not get into the knee-jerk reaction of defense. I try hard, but sometimes I fail.
To be clear: I am not challenging anyone’s wins on the OT levels here, not even my own. My new view on the OT levels expands on the gains I’ve had and validates the processes run – But; I am certain that the processes work for a different reason than what the materials explain, and that the events described in the OT III materials is not a representation of history as it happened.
And, I am having an excellent day. Going skiing with the family 🙂 How about you?
@FriendOfARC
Your personal integrity should also tell you to look closely where your win came from.
First of all any win comes from actual looking and not from any theory. A theory may simply assist you in where to look. The result from looking does not validate or invalidate the theory.
It is important to understand that one can easily be convinced of a wrong theory by attaching a win to it.
A theory should be examined on its own merits without associating it with any win.
.
Do you know what restimulates charge? It is not OT materials that restimulate charge. It is digging into the mind that does that. Please understand the difference.
.
How would one know if he was actually restimulated? Most are aware of the obvious restimulations … pains, unwanted sensations, unwanted attitudes, unwanted identities …
But what if the restimulation was one that was so much a part of him that he didn’t realize it was there until he lost it?
Just to add a bit more …
I always found my biggest gains in auditing were the ones where I got rid of something I had no idea was there.
Yes, it was nice to get rid of that ‘pain in the zorch’ but for me, to remove an identity/valence that I was living and using to survive and had no idea of its existence (I considered it was ‘ME’), was truly eye-opening. I’d walk out of session with a very different viewpoint …
Quite like a viewpoint I would get rid of the next session 😛
oops …
The last line should read
Quite likely a viewpoint I would get rid of in my next session 😛
One can uses the definition of “restimulation” to determine if he/she is restimulated after reading OT materials. The point I am making is, what restimulates a person is what that person does… and that is the action of digging into the mind in response to OT materials. This is also called self-auditing. If the person does not dig into his mind as he is reading OT materials, no restimulation would occur.
So, those who are prone to digging into their mind at the drop of a hat (instead of looking per KHTK), have no business reading OT materials or for that matter anything that may launch them into figure-figure.
.
One doesn’t have to dig anywhere to be restimulated.
Most people walk around restimulated day by day whether they know it or not.
Just by looking they restimulate … a car, a bird, a snake, a Welcome mat 🙂 – each has their own restimulators.
You dig into your mind and it happens that the incident is not as stated. Or there is no such incident. And you feel you are wrong as the person who speaks of the incident speaks from authority. But it is not the digging which restimulates. Not self-auditing which is again a Scientology phrase. But the person’s own relative weakness and lack of actual data. Roughly stated.
@ Overdrive
Of course, the person is lacking data. That is why he digs into the mind.
.
@ Overdrive
Why would any restimulation just stay there and not discharge? It is because one is resisting it and not looking.
Why do people “walk around restimulated day by day whether they know it or not”? It is because they are resisting and not looking.
If “Just by looking they restimulate … ” then if they continue to look they would de-stimulate. The problem is that they don’t continue to look, instead they resist. “Looking” and “Resisting” seem to be opposite of each other in some way.
.
ok, Though not being OT, I had the “pleasure” to read some of this stuff. It caused strange somatics I never experienced before.
So i closed the page and decided to end reading. I assume it caused a lock on the true incident. Finally you wanted a view
and I gave it to you. I did not expect that you give me advice
what to do or not to do to handle or to avoid damage…..
@ Sidewinder
I have not had the pleasure of doing OT Levels either. I procured all the OT materials through friends a few years ago and went through them thoroughly. I have acquired my own reality on these levels. It didn’t cause me any somatics. In fact, I did run some of those processes with KHTK approach and had some excellent wins. I believe I can talk about one of those wins here. I am not going to talk about the actual process, but one of the processes was equivalent to LOOKING AT EXPLOSION. Basically, what I did was thoroughly word clear the word EXPLOSION. Then I held the concept of explosion in my mind and simply looked at what the mind brought up in response. I didn’t force the mind in any way. I didn’t expect anything to happen. I didn’t search for any answers. I simply observed what the mind brought up without adding anything to it.
Lo and behold, I suddenly woke up. You may say that I had gone into a very deep meditation. Or, you may say that I was running out a period of unconsciousness, or whatever. But it was like having gone into a very deep sleep without knowing it, and then suddenly coming out of it feeling very refreshed and relaxed. What I ran out, I don’t know. I don’t think I need to know it either. So, that was one of my wins from experimentation with OT levels.
.
Its ok. Do it. I am not going to invalidate or evaluate
your experience. I just communicated my experience.
Thats all.
@Sidewinder
Yes, I understand you communicated your experience. My expreience has been that nothing can hurt a person who is wide awake and looking, no matter how ominous something seems. If a person simply experiences without resisting what the mind presents on its own (no digging into the mind) then that “restimulation” simply discharges, and the person comes out of it more awake.
.
Restimulation on OT levels is equivalent of getting restimulated after reading a horrible science fiction story. Most people won’t get restimulated because they will look at it as a horrible science fiction story. But some people will get restimulated only because they believe that it really did happen to them in the past.
A person who would believe anything that is fed to him has no business being on OT levels. He needs to go back and do the lower levels until he learns to examine what he is looking at and not blindly believe in what he is being fed.
The correct action is to learn to look and simply observe what is there without expecting anything, or attempting to get an answer.
.
@Sidewinder
I don’t think you really understand what suppression truly is. The most suppressive is the person himself who is letting his perceptions, memories, and visualizations to be suppressed by not using the tool of looking. Please see
KHTK 4: LOOKING AT THE MIND
If you think that I am promoting my ideas then you are right because I am doing just that. Just look around and see who is not promoting his/her own ideas. But my ideas are free and for the taking unlike Hubbard’s.
.
Its ok if you promote your stuff. Its ok if you “think that I don´t
have understanding about suppression”. I am just speaking about
my own experience and evals I did. Of course behind my first statement the data is is the following: An SP is always interested in restimulation/enturbulation…never flatening a process…or trying to get ARC in. NOW its of course LRH data but it became true for me because I observed it. As an artist (back on the track) and working in intel ops (also back on the track) i met and had to worked with some quite evil individuals.
I know how they operate and I worked out a way to survive in their near.(also in the past) Its not just the above datum which applies. There is more to the subject “SP”. I am able to spot, admire and even granting them beingness. In short I really can have those guys in my space and therefore they usually dont enter (my space)
Finally I can grant you beingness regarding your ideas and your plans and activity. Go ahead I am not trying an never tried to to blame you.
@ Sidewinder
Here you are promoting your own ideas; so, I guess, we are even. 🙂 Let’s discuss suppression. Per Dictionary.com:
sup·press
–verb (used with object)
1. to put an end to the activities of (a person, body of persons, etc.): to suppress the Communist party.
2. to do away with by or as by authority; abolish; stop (a practice, custom, etc.).
3. to keep in or repress (a feeling, smile, groan, etc.).
4. to withhold from disclosure or publication (truth, evidence, a book, names, etc.).
5. to stop or arrest (a flow, hemorrhage, cough, etc.).
6. to vanquish or subdue (a revolt, rebellion, etc.); quell; crush.
It seems that on a personal level, suppression would be subduing somebody. A subdued person would not be able to express himself or herself in a natural way. The natural beingness of a person is debatable. Does criminal feel suppressed when he is arrested and jailed? I would say yes. Can we regard the discipline exerted by parents on their children as suppression? Maybe. So where does one draw the line? It all boils down to the viewpoint of survival. Look at Hubbard’s viewpoint of survival. It was quite narrow. Today the viewpoint of the Church extends primarily to the survival of itself.
So, I would not give much weight to suppression from outside as it would depend on the viewpoint of the person. The suppression that really matters, in my opinion, is the suppression of one’s own mind. The primary responsibility for that lies within the person himself or herself.
.
ok, there is no doubt that these definitions apply. And I agree with your view completely.
And let me add this: Of course in first it depends on the view of the person, but the person must have agreed BEFORE that specific circumstances are supressive.
Suppression is a gradientscale and also applied (wittingly or unwittingly ) by social persons. “You are a bad piano player,give it up”. The piano player has two choices, he agrees or he don´t. So if you did not agree that reading or discussing Ot materials is supressive its fine and it will probably have no effect to you. But I agreed. Therfore I don´t touch it. Can you grant me beingness on this view?
@Sidewinder
The piano player has a third choice, which is to look. If he looks he may find that the invalidation he is getting is coming from the insecurity of the other person. A better understanding will prevent him from feeling suppressed.
.
I would like to establish a baseline here.
What are the OT abilities actually promised in Scientology? And what are the OT abilities merely suggested from public relations/business viewpoint as possibilities but not actually promised.
There seem to be a lot of conflicting data floating around. A lot of it is exaggerated by people’s wishful thinking and expectations.
.
.
Indeed.
I didn’t really look at what was promised, nor did I assume anything.
I went into each level with no preconceived ideas – I guess that’s being a bit more of a realist. I got what I got at that instant in time. Pre-conceived ideas, I would think, would ‘box one in’ to a certain mode of thinking – already expecting what would happen or not. I have never been the type who liked being in a box – I’d rather push the agreed upon boundaries.
As for a baseline … in a subject such as this, I think the only real baseline is where one considers he is at in the present. From there, one would have the want to improve or not. I think most want to improve in some fashion … money, helping others, business, or spiritual enlightenment … each to his own.
I always looked at the Bridge as an evolution … whatever I got, others may not have got and vice versa. It’s a personal journey in many respects.
Sure Quicksilver. But is that what you get when you take other types of courses?
When you take a speed reading course, you expect metrics (like the doubling of your reading speed). When you take a math course, there are metrics to test your understanding (A,B,C,D or F).
You are basically saying you entered into these courses sans any metrics.
So how do you know you achieved what you wanted and not what somebody else wanted? How do YOU own the outputs if you don’t know what they are?
Ha … oh Bunkai – some of your arguments are hilarious.
If I took a speed reading course, I would get out of it whatever ‘I’ got out of it. Someone else may be able to read faster than me at the end of the course … so what. I took it to improve.
Similarly, I took courses to learn a skill, which I did. I achieved a skill that I was happy with and could apply in life. Nothing more, nothing less. Can I get better at that skill? Of course.
As for auditing, like I said, it is a personal journey. You seem to consider that everyone comes out the other end with the same thoughts or experience.
Sorry to burst you bubble, but you don’t. What you gain from auditing will be different from me. We may have some similar viewpoints, but your’s are your’s & mine are mine.
If one loves being a robot & a follower – that’s ok. It’s not my cup of tea, but ok for others – it’s their game.
Regarding metrics …Sure if one decided that he wanted to ‘double’ his speed reading – he can go for it.
My only metrics were … and this is based on my viewpoint that ‘I can improve and be more able’
Did I improve?
Did I learn something useful that I can apply in life? (and I might add that what ‘I’ find useful may be totally useless to another)
Can I use what I have gained to help others?
One can also set oneself up for failure … as an example in speed reading; If my current reading speed was 50/minute & I went in with the fixed idea that at the end of the course I would read 100 words per minute, but, at the end I could only read 80 – that would be a fail for me.
If, on the other hand, I go into the course looking for improvement, then my end speed of 80 is a gain – that’s a win.
INTERVIEWER: “Could I just stop you here, did I understand you to say that a person’s IQ can be raised through Scientology?”
LRH: “Oh yes, yes this is the one thing that Scientology has upset the world’s Universities with. They used to say that IQ never never changed nobody nobody had ever changed nobody could ever be different than anybody ever was. And this was quite interesting because when we demonstrated this with their own IQ tests they became very very upset and they began to test more widely. And they began testing before Scientology Processing and after Scientology processing and uniformly found that their IQ was raised.”
Who’s ‘they.”
Other professors … uh … the fields, the schools of philosophy the schools of psychology and so on.
DOX?
Scientology Introduction Video
The discussion about IQ begins at the 7:00 mark.
The only DOX I had were probably the same as you Geir … numerous OCAs & a few IQ.
Most of the OCAs were done on XDN back in about ’75 where one is C/Sed off one’s OCA after the rundowns.
Other than that – the usual smattering of OCAs from Day 1
Just to add … I frankly didn’t care about my IQ … it did go up quite a bit but I sure didn’t have any interest in joining MENSA 😛
@Quicksilver
Yes, that was the right way to go about it. That is also captured in KHTK.
.
In my day (1980) the description of OTIII ‘The Wall of Fire’ (no less) was ‘Freedom from Overwhelm’.
OT8 was ‘Total Freedom’.
The rest were unrealistic expectations raised by the Advance mag; I remember a story by Fred Hare claiming to have prevented a truck from hitting his car, using tractor beams – or some such!
‘Exterior with Full Perception’ is an oft-quoted but much misunderstood phrase in this context.
OT levels have a lot of mumbo-jumbo. But it all boils down to looking. I tested out the application of OT II materials with KHTK approach while doing my treadmill. No e-meter nothing. And I achieved some interesting results.
.
Sweaty platens? 😛
No! It was much more than sweaty platens. Actually I threw away the platen and simply used LOOKING per KHTK. I just described one of the wins I had in another post on this thread. I am sure you can find it.
.
Yes, I saw it Vinaire … nice win!
Btw Vinaire,
I really got a kick outa this method:
OT levels have a lot of mumbo-jumbo. But it all boils down to looking. I tested out the application of OT II materials with KHTK approach while doing my treadmill. No e-meter nothing. And I achieved some interesting results.”
Man, that’s one heckuva way to do OT 2 even though you’ve never done the OT levels as you mention below.
Hell, when I did OT2, I by-passed something and felt like someone had seriously whacked me across the face with a 2 x 4 (that’s a piece of wood 2 inches x 4 inches for you metric fans).
I got a great kick out of it … you’re really livin’ outside the box 🙂
@Quicksilver
The kind of wins you are talking about having on OT II, I had them on Dianetics in my first 25 hours. I attribute that to LOOKING.
Maybe, I should post my story here someday. But you can find it on ESMB if you are not afraid of seeing OT materials being discussed there.
Vinaire’s Story
There is lot of mumbo-jumbo and useless chatter on ESMB, but one can dig out the useful bits.
.
C’mon Vinaire … not to invalidate your wins on Dianetics, but sheesh …
you haven’t done OT 2, and when you did try it, what you did was mix it with your own philosophy, didn’t have a meter, and did it while on walking/running on a treadmill! 🙂
Are you saying that you wins are bigger and better than mine? Have you written them up somewhere? If so, then I would like to read them.
By the way, my dad is stronger than yours. 🙂
.
Not at all …
Firstly I didn’t mention any actual wins I had, just that I had them. But for you to say “The kind of wins you are talking about having on OT II, I had them on Dianetics in my first 25 hours” comes across ..uhm .. oddly. 🙂
You may very well be right, but since you haven’t done actual OT 2 aside from the treadmill version, who knows what you would get from having the previous levels properly done & then have a crack at OT 2.
The wins I got, you may too get, but I found comparing ‘my wins’ against ‘anothers wins’ to be a deadend. It’s too subjective. Outwardly, yes, someone may notice how a person has changed in their manner, comm, ARC, space, etc.
I think there are too many variables to really quantify that little clinker one calls a ‘soul’.
Your dad could probably beat up mine … he definitely was not a fighter. And your mom could likely beat up my mom … especially with those army boots Yikes!! 😛
You are right. Wins are subjective and cannot be compared. What I said comes across to you as odd because you have bought into the idea of LEVELS.
Levels are part of a shotgun approach. They are arbitrary. As far as I know the mind is not stacked up according to these levels. Hubbard simply came with a bunch of processes to look and dig into the mind. He then grouped those processes arbitrarily as levels.
Mind is stacked up differently for different people. Besides communication difficulties, problems, witholds, service facs etc. are like threads that weave in and out. You cannot put them neatly into a predictable sequence. Mind will un-stack itself in the most optimum way, which may not be the way levels are sequenced. Please see KHTK 6: UN-STACKING.
Saying, “You haven’t done actual OT 2” is a stupid argument. Any level is a bunch of processes that make one look at a certain area of the mind. If that area is not ready to be un-stacked then it won’t. That is why there are so many variables in what one gets out of a level. The whole idea of EP is just for the birds. Has there been any study done to verify the consistency of those EPs. I don’t think so.
All I can see is that you are operating on the assumption that these levels have some substance. Your arguments don’t hold any water. Your arguments are neither scientific nor realistic.
.
I actually agree with you on a few points:
a) I do agree that naming a level OT whatever is likely better used to signify a collection of processes or routines to work through. As for the wins one gets – that’s totally up to the individual. Personally, I would have rather seen the Bridge as a progression of steps and one would get whatever he gets from that level. No specific EP other than what a particular process is set to handle.
b) Stacking – I think I understand the concept … in auditing, a question is asked and the preclear comes up with his answer … that is – what is available to him or within his awareness at that point in time. Yes, certain levels are geared at say, problems, but the pc is still coming up with his *own* answers … so in your terms – whatever is at the top of the stack.
As for OT 3 – different story – you are given a scenario – and I guess all I can say on that is what is true for the individual is true for him. Personally, I looked at the meter to see what read. It’s all fine & dandy to read an account of some incident, but to me, I want to know if this baby is reading on me & if there actually is something to handle.
I went thru an era where EVERY flow on EVERY process on the lower Bridge was run – interest or not. It was not fun and to top it off, I got quaded up (Flow 0) later on the same fashion & again had to verify ALL earlier flows … ugh – needless to say, I plowed into many other things 🙂
As for ‘digging’ as you put it – the way I see it, if one is having to ‘dig’, which to me is very interiorizing and appears like plowing into something, then he is not auditing. One stays in PT when auditing … the incident/picture/etc occurs in present time or in a sense is brought to present time to view. This is NOT regression where one ‘travels back’ and sinks himself ‘into something’. One then looks. Yes, one can turn on somatics, unwanted emotions, attitudes, etc – but those are not what one put attention on. They may be part of an incident but one simply looks at the incident completely, discovers any considerations he may have made at the time, responsibility/ownership issues, etc, and cognites.
This is not some regression back and results into some wild pea-soup spitting, head turning phenomena whilst one is ‘in an incident’ waaaay back. (although there can be some interesting phenomena).
I find meter to be detrimental rather than helpful if it not reflecting something that the pc can become aware of. That seems to be the case at OT III. Correct me if I am wrong, but auditing seems to become interminable and exhausting at these OT Levels because one is mindlessly and mechanically following these reads. These reads may simply be a reflection of what one is currently thinking, and that can get one into an infinite loop.
You are right about digging. It is the result of not being acknowledged for “no answer,” and so the pc keeps on looking for something when there is nothing. I went through that in Dianetics when nothing more was coming up. You seem to have gone through a similar experience on quad flows. Under such circumstances there is no auditing occurring. The end result is repairs.
.
Lawrence Wright, the New Yorker article writer, was interviewed on National Public Radio last night.
One item he spent much time on with a five-person fact-checking team was researching LRH’s war records. He ultimately found 900 pages of official US Navy documents and what they made very clear was that LRH was never injured in the war and never spent any time at Oak Naval hospital.
Further research was pitted against LRH’s claims he was involved with many special operations while serving in the Navy. Through extensive fact-checking with all Naval records, no such special ops were found. Not even the typical indications as to confidential status held by LRH.
So, while I’m no LRH hater, I am indeed thinking for myself these days. It is entirely possible that LRH simply lied…….about God knows what……..to gain a glamorous reputation.
Thus, when Geir states, with regard to the OT data: “That depends if they are an accurate description of reality. There are reasons to question just that.” I am very open to hearing anything he has to say.
Geir, if you are worried about the social conseqences of speaking out about the OT levels, you simply have to weigh how many people you will help in doing so vs how many people you will potentially lose as an audience.
In my opinion, by communicating your thoughts as a New OT8, you will attract a whole lot of fence-sitters who are very confused about what is currently happening to their religion……especially in light of the newest FBI-related developments.
Idle Org,
Very well put, my friend!
No-one admires and respects LRH more than I do – I still keep a photo of him in my office! A brilliant genius, but with feet of clay – and some very real human failings, sorry to say – however much we wanted him to be perfect!
Bottom line, he was a bullshitter, a snake oil salesman. He mixed his extraordinary insights with a ruthless line in financial exploitation. When he ran out of answers, he simply made them up! The message was greater than the man, regretably.
The New Yorker article has effectively exposed many of his lies, especially the war record you mention, as boasting and bragging – as you say, to gain a glamorous reputation. With OTIII, LRH made the mistake of making specific claims about events here in the physical universe, which bear no relation to reality, as Geir indicates. My objection to this is that the material (which I recently re-read to refresh my memory) is actually quite frightening and restimulative. So he attempted to manipulate people by keying them in, just as Miscavige does today. This is inexcusable, and for this he must be held to account, no doubt.
Best wishes to all, Robin
It is interesting how charismatic sociopaths (that people that make up nearly all cult leaders) are able to weasel their way into your heart and mind, after listening to them for long enough.
It is very common that, even after discovering that one’s cult leader was a fraud, ex-cultists continue to look up to them as some sort of hero. One may be consciously aware that the sociopath was a fraud, but thinking of him or gazing at his photo still stirs up feelings of warmth, excitement, inspiration and happiness.
After Charles Manson was convicted of multiple murders and locked away, Sandra Good (whose cult name was “blue”) continued to keep a picture of the man with her in her bedroom, despite admitted that he was a dangerously charismatic and heartless man.
What most do not realize is that being a sociopath lends itself to being charismatic (though there are non-sociopaths who are charismatic, of course). It is effortless to put on whatever face (or speak with whatever tone) you want when your own brain lacks the emotional circuitry that would make the rest of us (non-sociopaths) actually *feel* the weight of whatever emotion we are adopting. In this way, sociopaths can effortlessly act and speak any way they want without actually feeling it. That makes it very easy to charm people. Consider that Charles Manson did not kill anyone himself, but his (largely female) followers were so devoted that they murdered celebrity Sharon Tate and her baby (and others) for him.
In my opinion, one should really seek therapy after any cult experience. The ex-Scientologists that I’m personal friends with have told me that it sped up the healing process tenfold and was the main reason they were able to heal so successfully.
Generalities, assumptions and evaluations in abundance. Rein in.
How do define a sociopath or non-sociopath? Where is the line drawn?
What is corporate America?
.
Tangaku – your analysis is over-simplistic. Ron Hubbard was not a sociopath; he had many fine and human qualities, and he wrote some incredible stuff, which has benefitted millions of people around the world. To compare him with Charles Manson is not only inaccurate and inappropriate, but it is also insulting and offensive. You merely impoverish your own intellectual environment by drawing such ill-informed conclusions and making such sweeping yet unfounded generalisations, as Geir and Vinaire quite rightly point out.
I accept your point that some form of therapy is helpful after cult involvement; we ourselves found that Yoga was particularly helpful in this repect.
Kind regards, Robin & Adrienne
Robin,
Interesting how you call LRH a bullshitter, but at the same time “no-one admires and respect him more than I do.” How do you really know he made the OT III incident up? How do you know it is false? I also can’t agree with you that it is frightening and restimulative. Not to me. Perhaps you have left something unflat?
Geir, as far as discussing any part of the OT case… I just don’t do it with anyone that does not have the same reality, i.e.: studied it, drilled it, audited it, experienced the blows of mass, the wins, the cognitions, etc.
I also don’t get into discussions of 19th century Spanish Literature with people that don’t know anything about it. You follow?
Not quite. Are the reasons the same? (I.e. the reason you wouldn’t discuss 19th century Spanish Literature – is that the same reason why you wouldn’t discuss any part of the OT case)?
The war records remain a bit uncertain still I would say. I personally talked to Fletcher Prouty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Fletcher_Prouty) , the man who had the “inside scoop” on Hubbard’s military records. When I talked to him around 1984 he said that Hubbard had three different levels of military records, an arrangement reserved for those working with extreme high security covert ops. So the fact that the 900 pages of records don’t mention certain things is not necessary conclusive proof they didn’t occur. No doubt though, there are other pieces of information that are definitely not true such as his alleged study record at the university. Makes you wonder why a man of such immense ACTUAL accomplishmens would feel the need to embellish.
Ivro – I couldn’t agree more!
I am constantly astonished that a man who achieved so much felt the need to embellish his life history. This seems to stem from a lifelong sense of personal inadequacy, which required him to bullshit his way through life. The reasons probably lay in his early childhood, I imagine.
Or do you suppose it was because he was a ‘ginger’?!
All the best, Robin
This is the point I’ve stressed earlier. In case Hubbard had such a high military clearance, for sure he went through psychological and certainly psychiatrical test and handling. These two goes hand in hand. And if he was an intelligent officer of that quality that makes the whole subject of Scientology into a brand new light.
And if he was an intelligent officer and in the hands of “psychs” in one way or another he is surely disqualified as a Sea Org member.
Scientology is full of paradox.
(Part One)
Now, if he was not an intelligence officer than he was certainly a madman or a swindler to make up claims about his military records.
Or both. He was an intelligent officer and a madman.
Anyway, if he was a Sea Org member he signed a billion year contract so he certainly must come back to clear himself as the job is not finished on this planet.
I can only hope, not some fake Hubbard will present himself, maybe a clone in each Ideal Org Hubbard Office 🙂
While it looks funny, or a mad idea you can agree that it can really happen. That would induce some really fanatic religious heat and would be an actual proof of the existence of the OT levels.
Geir –
You asked for DOX on this:
The part Bunkai quoted occurs at roughly 5:40
Yes, and a classic example of LRH bullshitting when challenged with a factual question – LOL!!
Even though it’s actually true – in my experience – that auditing raises IQ.
So, he didn’t really need to lie – which is what makes it all the more interesting and complex!
Not sure he did anything worse here than what most politicians have alwayd done.
Hubbard grew up in the age of ‘madison avenue’ advertising so he may have felt it was de rigueur to colour things somewhat, bit like if you’re selling beans you don’t advertise them dribbling down someone’s chin
No, AOTC, he’s lying.
The fact that they also do that in politics and on Madison Ave is no excuse!
And he always gets that cheesy grin on his face when he’s having difficulty with the truth!
He’s mildly embarrassed – that’s his ‘tell’.
It was kind of off-hand, if he was pressed I think he’d have come clean, but maybe not
The “Upper Level Tech” I would love to see returned to our world is a rebirth of a Pythagorean bridge.
My hunch is that the Pythagoreans were knocked off because they were too smart and too dangerous.
The world needs a Mathematical Bridge that can take people young and old into the marvelous world of number and geometry. Training people to have the abilities to add and multiply large numbers in their heads, do calculus in their imaginations, create 3d images in their minds from equations, and spend hours and hours on the infinite koans of mathematics: proofs and paradoxes.
Sadly, the Pythagoreans are gone and I REALLY miss the friendship of Damon and Pythias. And our world misses the people who could have been, if their cult wasn’t destroyed.
How deep were Pythagoreans? How vibrant their minds?
Well, Plato was one. We know that now. We’ve suspected it before, but now we know. And what we know now for sure that the “Plato Code” was no joke.
Plato laid easter eggs!
To quote a thread started by Mr. Isene. “Where ARE all the amazing people?”
http://amira.amplify.com/2010/06/29/science-historian-cracks-the-plato-code-physorg/
Another article on the Plato Code.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100628111846.htm
Now think about this for a minute. No typewriter, everything had to be hand written on expensive materials. So Plato had to construct an entire book in his mind first, complete with all codes, and then write it down so that the code and book would work seamlessly on the first try.
Once again. . .
Where are all the AMAZING people?
Those amazing people are outside the Church of Scientology!
.
What is the big deal about “Plato Code”? What is that secret knowledge?
.
Vinaire, the secret knowledge hidden in the code seems to be the Pythagorean philosophy. Luckily, we have many of their ideas already.
Plato hid the philosophy in his docs to keep them for posterity. Supposedly he wrote them a hundred years after the slaughter.
Finding his code means there is most likely more to learn in ALL his writings.
I think the tech of the Pythagoreans was profoundly mystical. I also think their connection to mathematics and reality was strong. And the bid idea the world keeps passing by is that a deeply mystical mathematics need not be unscientific or irrational.
Of course, they had their share of irrational beliefs – like beans being new souls entering the universe making them holy objects one cannot touch or eat.
Beany-Thetans?
The big idea I get from them and evolve FROM them is that we can create amazing spiritual processes out of real mathematics: deep, life-changing processes for serious thinkers and not.
EXAMPLES FOR BEGINNERS NON-MATHEMATICIANS AND ADEPTS:
1. Meditate on the “math koans” like the Liar’s Paradox.
2. Meditate on Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems.
3. Co-Process on Increasing one ability to numerate in one’s head (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) while in a meditative/hypnotic trance.
4. Meditate on the Golden Ratio and its applications in nature.
5. Meditate on game theory.
6. ((INSERT INFINITE LIST HERE))
EXAMPLES FOR ADEPTS:
1. Calculating pi while in a meditative state.
2. Mental Geometry while in a meditative state.
3. Square Roots in One’s Head while in a meditative state.
4. Graphing Equations in One’s Head.
5. ((INSERT INFINITE LIST HERE))
The only Scientology related tech I have seen that aligns somewhat with math is TROM (The Resolution of Mind) by Dennis Stevens and Greg Pickering. It uses a version of game theory and a technique called “Time Breaking” to obviate the damage caused by game conditions. http://www.tromhelp.com
Coolness 🙂
Let’s talk about the pudding here. Before one can do any fo those infinite number of processes, one must know how to get into a meditative state first. What did Pythagoreans have to say about meditative state or meditation.
Besides I have done a lot of meditation on math already and written about it. You can get to my math website through my blog. Start with the Pre-Kindergarten exercises that I have written.
OK, I am going to write some KHTK essays on math. 🙂
.
Well, I don’t know for sure if Pythagoras used meditation. According to Wikipedia, there were two tiers of Pythagoreans, those who were religious and those that were serious mathematicians. So it appears there were two sets of curriculum.
I presume there were meditation and cooperative techniques, especially for those who were not serious mathematicians. Nobody seems to know what they were though.
The book “Zero, the Biography of a Dangerous Idea” lists several of their beliefs regarding their numerology, but I haven’t been able to verify if the beliefs listed are true.
And no, they didn’t understand Zero.
Of course, Pythagoreans used meditation. What is deep thought?
Pythogoreans could not have come up what they did without deep thought.
And deep thought or meditation is nothing but looking as described in KHTK.
.
LRH said that ARC is the basis of all mathematics (Dianetics 55 is one source of that datum). Add to that the datum that the basic components of theta are ARC, and you’ve summed up a lot of very broad truth. These are simple truths – and all great truths ARE simple.
But LRH also said something to the effect that he was forced to complicate things so they would be acceptable to thetans in their current state – i.e. no longer the way-up-scale simple thetans they once were. That need to complicate things may have had something to do with why he fabricated (if he did) some of the things he said.
Or he may have fabricated things, including data on the OT levels, because this was a workable means to accomplish his well-intentioned ends. I’m reminded of the metaphors he used – like “trying to help a wounded animal,” or “help a water buffalo out of the quicksand.” You might not be able to be very straightforward about it. And you might get gored.
But maybe I’m “still trying to defend LRH” because of his “cult leader” qualities or because it would make me wrong if he was made wrong. But I don’t think so. Why? Because my thinking starts out with what I know about what he achieved – things I experienced personally or observed in others – and I work back from there. And what I deduce is that his primary intentions weren’t anything other than what he claimed.
And on the note of what he achieved, there was one more point being discussed here among the commenters that I wanted to comment on too. I got the idea that some of you are thinking that it’s up to the pc to know what to do with the process. Much to the contrary – the utter genius of LRH was how he built into the tech the handling for all the various case factors and other phenomena that may be present. And if standard tech were truly applied, including repair as needed, you got results.
Maybe the tech he left us with wasn’t absolutely perfect and maybe he would have improved upon it had he been around longer (like he did so many times when he was still around). But it was pretty incredibly workable just as it was, when standardly applied.
I still think it’s a great starting point, minimally, and maybe Geir, for one, will help carry it forward from here!
Anyway, I’m enjoying the discussion. Thanks to all. 🙂
@Marildi
The biggest point in LRH’s favor is not that he intended to help because this point is debatable. But what is beyond debate is that LRH brought a subject to life, that was dormant for a long time. No matter how genuine or foul were LRH’s motivations, and matter how much he squirreled Buddha’s Vipassana (looking), he did revive and popularize the subject, which then helped many people. Nobody can deny that.
.
@ Vinaire. Thanks. Yes, I would agree that the debatable points about LRH are really beside the point, when we’re talking about the value of LRH’s contribution (even though those points may be of great interest in other contexts).
But how can we say that LRH squirreled Buddha, rather than “anthilled” Buddha, greatly improving speed and certainty of results – as he claimed and as highly-trained and experienced tech terminals would probably attest to (if they knew Buddhism well enough to compare).
I don’t think Scientology has actually been given a true long-term test, because of all the, in-fact, squirreling of Scientology itself (the out-tech, ethics, etc.). My hope is that this test will yet be done by the Independents!
By the way, I can just imagine that many of the highly-trained tech terminals around would cringe at some of the conclusions of people about Scientology, who don’t really have the training and experience, the broad knowledge to know what they’re talking about on a general basis. I don’t know if this applies to you personally , so take no offense if you don’t feel it does. 🙂
I forgot something I meant to add to what I was saying above about LRH’s primary intentions. There’s a story about him discussing with someone how to make a lot of money and the idea of starting a religion came up. And it has occurred to me that he may even have started out with that idea but once he realized what he had actually discovered – being basically good and having a very strong Dynamic – he got swept up into it and never turned back.
How’s that for a theory? I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true.
Well, Marildi, you’re a good apologist for LRH, but I think you’re brushing under the carpet two things:
(1) The current state of the C of S, unless you think Miscavige is doing a good job!
(2) A simple objective analysis of the OTIII materials, which are the laughing stock of the civilised world – something which you and Geir both seem to have trouble coming to terms with.
We were duped, if only for a while.
Robin, you have missed my points regarding this.
This is amazing…
On your (1) I thought YOU were brushing the current state of Scn under the carpet. I’ve been saying all along that they Church – i.e. Miscavige – is misapplying LRH and not getting results. Are you saying that this is LRH’s fault in some way (other than in the way that each of us is always responsible, no matter what – per def of “responsibility”)
And on (2), please see my post of 2-15 at 6:14, in the exchange between us above.
@ Bunkai
Pythagorean “tech” of mathematics is nothing but “systematic thinking.” It is creating systems out of thought that are totally consistent. Pythagoreans looked for mysterious associations, which can easily be created today with the knowledge of Number Theory. See… they LOOKED without assuming anything, and questioned anything that seemed like an assumption.
So, Pythagoreans are still here and they are still having fun.
.
🙂
Perhaps you can describe your epiphany from your own perspective without resorting to comparison. I personally believe this will be more “truthful” as this epiphany is yours, and may not be mine. It may resonate with me, but we are after all following along our own paths and in my experience the paths of individuals can be very unique to the individuals.
As well, I have noticed that the various parts and pieces of the confidential materials are strewn throughout the books and lectures — most of it is described elsewhere although in different terms and from different angles.
I guess it depends on your intent. If your intent is to present information to “expose” what you feel is misleading or even false directions then you will obviously need to compare. If your intent is to present epiphany, then it may be more fruitful to simply tell your truths and leave it for others to ponder.
It is a difficult arena — even your most sincere effort can easily be misunderstood, misidentified, and misunderstood, coming as at does from a level of expanding awareness that is uniquely yours.
If you are simply seeking dialogue from those who have shared your bridge journey, then it seems to me that you would be wiser to restrict the dialogue to a confidential section of your site, for that would preserve their choice to participate in the confidential processes and gain what they too can gain from them without “pre” explaining them. Of course, you may find that others will distribute what you say whether or not you wish them to do so “for the good of others.”
This one is impossible to reveal without also revealing the core of the confidentiality of the OT levels.
It deserves a good explanation, which is why I may opt to devote a whole chapter to it in my upcoming book rather than putting it out as a blog post.
It’s obviously a hot topic, what with all these comments.
Book or blog? Hmmm……
Either format can handle the complete comm so the real question is in delivering it wide-scale to the world for free as a blog or series of blog chapters……….or…………charging money for a book that might sell a few hundred copies at best (unless you have one hell of a PR machine working full-time selling for you), and open you up for potential legal trouble from the church for daring to mention the “confidential” data and profiting by it?
I say Blog it. We all know about Xenu already. With all due respect, I can’t imagine too many people being willing to purchase yet another book from yet another defector. And scientologists have already paid enough, haven’t they?
If it helps people, please just share it with us.
My humble opinion.
The book is coming regardless. Not doing it for the money, but to give the complete story from one person who went all the way to OT 8. It may even be the first such book. But it contains more. And possible (leaning toward that after meditating on this and reading people’s comments here and elsewhere) including my view on the OT levels as a separate chapter.
Hey Geir,
Well done on writing a book.
I would say Blog it too … reason being as Maria says: we have done various OT levels and although one person’s wins/gains may resonate with another, they may be (and likely are) different.
Discussing different aspects to me would be quite enlightening – who knows what cogs we will have listening to other views or dissecting things.
This would be good for all of us – and you may gather enough fodder for another chapter.
I do hope you will do it.
Well, darn it……now you’ve got me interested in picking up your future book, now that I understand better what the main subject matter would consist of.
And I think you would indeed be the first to describe the path all the way up the Bridge. I’d have to assume it will include how much you spent on services, IAS, Sec Checking, Idle Orgs, pressure to be a group-thinker, differentiation between LRH and DM, and the like.
I notice that you cut one particular piece out of my comment. I duplicate the reason why. Not ready to communicate that piece of tech yet. Understandable.
Looking forward to your thoughts regarding the upper levels, whether in blog or book format.
What I cut out would be a particular – relevant to my recent change in view 🙂
And yes, the book contains all of the above.
One thing i find interesting is that the OT-levels might be a 3D affair?;) (as REALITY is defined as “AGREEMENT”) What would happen if Scientology became the new world religion,if every school was turning out Clears and Auditors? If this was agreed to be real,what would happen..
Mathematics beautifully describes orientation. For example, look in a direction. There are infinte number of directions to choose from. Now look at an object or location at a certain distance from you in that direction.
Did you notice that you can describe any location in the universe relative to you by only two variable (1) direction (2) distance? The direction is defined by a compound angle relative to an axis, so it may be defined by two angles making it a 3-D system.
This system is known as polar coordinates.
This system is so fundamental that meditating on it can be quite mystical.
.
Mathematics simply provides a system for looking that is founded on a minimum number of axioms. Those few axioms are so fundamental that nobody dares to question them. Questioning these axioms is akin to being considered a fool or a loony.
But the road to freedom must go past these fundamental axioms.
.
Nicely put.
That’s fin V if God is NOT number.
But what if the Pythagoreans are right and God (ultimate reality) IS number?
How does one look then?
If you can define ultinate reality then it is not the ultimate reality. My understanding is expressed here:
Essay #3: KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE
.
My understanding of God is expressed here. You are welcome to comment on it.
ESSAY #6: THE NATURE OF GOD
God is not a number.
.
@Robin Scott
The term “The Wall of Fire” used for OT III is just a promotional term. “Freedom from Overwhelm” comes from developing the habit of LOOKING per KHTK. One cannot go any more fundamental than LOOKING. If there is any power to OT III, it comes from LOOKING.
Any process in Scientology, whether it is “ARC Straightwire” or OT III, is a formula that guides looking. That is all that a process does. It guides looking. The gains come from looking. In the absence of looking there are no gains. So, how does looking occur on OT III? Believe it or not, but those basics are captured in KHTK. I may elaborate on this statement at a later time.
I have a theory about why OT Levels were made confidential. It was purely a business decision to prevent competition. “OT levels” is simply a bridge that is parallel to Grades. OT levels can replace the Grades. If one removes all the PR surrounding OT Levels, they simply attempt to correct a glaring error that runs throughout the grades and make the gains faster. I do not see why a new person cannot start straight on OT Levels.
There has been an effort to correct that error from Dianetics to Grades to OT Levels. Why did the bank “beef up” on Dianetics? Dianetics seemed to handle some engrams right in the beginning but then it became harder to get to the engrams. Scientology grades were introduced as a gradient in order to handle that situation with Dianetics. The grades then took one up to Power and Power plus. This worked for some but not for all. Hubbard then went back to the drawing board and came up with a different approach. He called this approach OT Levels.
This approach seemed to promise a lot more than either Dianetics or Grades. Hubbard made it confidential because he wanted to keep it proprietary like any “business secret”. There is no other reason for keeping OT Levels confidential.
However, I do not think Hubbard quite knew the nature of that error that was being reduced from Dianetics to Grades to OT Levels, because he did not get rid of it totally on OT Levels either. He just had a better work around to bypass that error on OT levels.
That error is simple to understand from an “eastern” perspective, but it is built into the “western” perspective. I have talked about that error many times. That error is directly addressed on KHTK. It is very simple and right in front of your eyes. But many a times what is very hard to get across are just these simple principles. Hubbard didn’t want to look at this simplicity either, but Buddha did.
The secret is not a secret.
.
@ Robin Scott
Let’s look at the phrase “exterior with full perception.” What does this phrase mean? There seem to be a lot of mystery surrounding this phrase.
My first question would be, “Exterior to what?” People generally think in terms of body. “Who is being exterior?” People generally think of themselves as a thetan. “What does ‘exterior’ mean?” People generally think in terms of being inside or outside of a room. And that is where the inconsistency lies.
“Thetan is not a thing; it is a creator of things.” “A thetan has no location in space…” Then how can one be exterior to a body as a thetan? This inconsistency is so simple and glaring that it is overlooked. Very few attempt to dive into it and fully sort it out. What is need here is LOOKING per KHTK.
Hubbard gives clues to this elsewhere, but he never clarifies it directly. It is almost like he deliberately wanted to keep an element of mystery there. Here is one one of the curves that he talks about. One wonders what Hubbard was really up to.
Look at the definition of ATTENTION in Tech Dictionary. That is where the clue lies. What is “interiorization”? It is FIXED ATTENTION. What does being interiorized into the body mean? It means having a fixation on the body. What does “exterior with full perception” mean? It means being free of any fixations. The primary fixation is on the body. Just look at yourself. How much fixation you have on the body right now? This fixation seems to become more apparent as the body starts to get old.
So, the problem simply becomes clearer if one looks at it as “freeing of one’s attention from fixations and dispersals,” especially due to the body.
.
Yes, Vin, I would tend to agree with your analysis of ‘exterior with full perception’, my friend. There is this hidden standard that it involves floating around the ceiling, watching your body from outside – and, when you can’t do that, it tends to invalidate the exterior state!
I would go one further, and suggest that ‘exterior with full perception’ means not just being free of fixation on the body, but being free from fixation on the MEST universe. With that comes certainty of self as an immortal spiritual being. Possibly the EP of Scientology.
@Robin Scott
Ha, ha… you got it, my friend, about that fixation on MEST universe bit. That was a wonderful experience I had outside of session. I have written about it in my story. It is on ESMB. I provided a link to it on another post here, but Geir may not allow it because one is liable to get exposed to OT materials on ESMB. Anyway, anyone can check out “Vinaire’s Story” on ESMB.
.
Hi Vin
Glad we agree!
All the very best to you, my friend.
Love, Robin & Adrienne
Vin – I think LRH made the OT levels confidential for two reasons:
(1) To increase the mystery and hype surrounding the OT levels for marketing purposes;
(2) To conceal the fact that he had invented them, and make it less likely that anyone would stand up and say they were rubbish (as I finally did in 1985)!
Well I have found nothing that requires OT levels to be confidential. The only person who can be hurt by OT levels is somebody in obsessive figure-figure, and that person is already hurting.
One only needs to look at the business sense, which underlies Confidential OT levels. It is simply to protect trade secrets. There need be no more complexity. That is my viewpoint.
.
I’m not sure I agree with your take on interiorization and exteriorization. It seems to me you have added an additive – the “fixidity” of the attention, in your definitions of these words. The attention is not necessarily fixed, although it can be.
Basically these terms refer to location, that’s all. To exteriorize basically means to bring (something)outside, or when Hubbard used it as an intransitive verb, to go outside or bring oneself outside. It has nothing to do with fixed attention, except that when it does become a fixed state, it can be a problem because the person has lost control of himself, lost control of his ability to locate himself.
Otherwise, a person can be inside or outside at will as he chooses and there is no fixidity. The core issue is whether or not his attention is fixed; that is not intrinsic to either interiorization or exteriorization.
It’s the same with that great bugaboo,”identification”. Identification is not a problem. There is no reason to fight being identified with something, or to be scared of identifying with something. Identification, assuming identities, all that stuff is fine, as long as one knows one is doing so and can do (or undo)so at will.
The problems enter in when these become compulsive. If one is compulsively exterior or compulsively interior, then there may be a problem. When one wishes to be exterior and cannot be, that can be a problem.
The basic goals of scientology have to do with increasing a persons ability to be wherever and whatever he wants to be and do whatever he wants to do; I think it works pretty well for accomplishing that.
Locations and identities are all ultimately considerations; A person considers he is inside or outside his body, and he is. All location is basically a consideration that he is located there.
It’s when he can’t change his consideration that he may become “fixed” or “stuck”. Of course his inability to change is itself a consideration, but he may need help discovering that consideration, inspecting it, and as-ising it (if he wants to as-is it).
This is all basic stuff from around 1952, the lectures on The Factors and the PDC, and the Phoenix lectures.
Why spend so much time re-inventing the wheel?
The above is a comment to Vin about “Interiorization is FIXED ATTENTION”.
Valkov, I understand what you are saying. Ultimately, one is dealing with one’s considerations. It is the fixedness of those considerations that expresses itself as fixed attention. We are looking at several layers of attention here.
Buddha’s processes here lead one to a fundamentally more robust exteriorization than ever achieved in scientology.
KHTK 9: KHTK EXERCISE SET II
.
Here is the clue to the secret not so secret:
DIANETICS = heavy digging into the mind
GRADES = not so heavy digging
OT LEVELS = pretending that others are digging
KHTK LOOKING (Buddha’s Vipassana) = No digging
🙂
To get a perspective on “digging” please see
http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2010/06/19/khtk-6-unstacking/KHTK 6: UN-STACKING
On OT Levels a person is still digging, only he is pretending that something else is doing the digging. OT Levels is digging on a via.
.
I wonder why it is that you tend to invalidate other’s wins on their journey and present yours as what we should all be doing?
It’s totally fine that you promote ‘your path’, but as with Scientology, it’s not for everyone.
I would think that with any philosophy that promotes or gives a better understanding to life, your’s included, one would be more inclined to be accepting of others viewpoints than twisting words into something nefarious or useless.
Quicksilver,
If your wins would be real and stable nobody would be able to “invalidate”. Probably not even you.
If your wins are invalidatable than your wins were just illusions.
Shooting from the hip, are you?
You know about experiments were someone’s perception of hard core reality was invalidated to the point where they thought reality itself was an illusion? Yes, one can have anything invalidated, even his own identity, the walls around you, anything. Your conclusion above is patently false. Or even rubbish, but I wouldn’t be as rude as calling it just that.
@Overdriver
I wasn’t worried about being invalidated myself (I feel pretty ‘solid’ on my wins hahaha, gawd I make myself laugh).
I was looking at the overall thread being derailed a few times.
I’m all in favour of each trying their own paths … I find it very interesting. But to make statements like the OT levels being ‘mumbo jumbo’ when one has not done them and then promoting another path as the ‘right or better’ one, is really off track.
I had some hellishly good wins on the OT levels, and some hellishly good wins just observing life out of session. And I love to hear other’s wins.
To me, we are in one big session/evolution and constantly discovering & expanding (that is, if we are above 2.0 on the scale 🙂
This so far has been one of the most interesting threads to me … great contributions from everyone.
Thanks!
Isene, in case you would state your claim gently I would say, you are a correct man. But stating this way, you are a troll. What is insane.
If it can be invalidated, it is just illusion. Take this as a teaching. My last one to you.
I don’t understand your comment above, but it seems you may have gotten my point.
When you would go to a reincarnated lama and you would say to him that he is not a spirit, than he probably would go to PTS… Do not make me laugh, please. He would not care what you say. He knows what he knows. Period.
“You know about experiments were someone’s perception of hard core reality was invalidated to the point where they thought reality itself was an illusion?”
Who is this someone, Geir? And what is his hardcore reality? That Rihanna is the Only Girl (In The World)? 🙂
@Quicksilver
I am sorry that you feel that your wins in Scientology are being invalidated by what I am writing. I have no intention to invalidate anybody’s wins. My intention is to find out what has worked in Scientology and what has not worked. Being a scientist/engineer, that is what I am interested in.
First of all, a criticism of technology does not equate to invalidation of any gains one got from that technology. Scientology did work but not 100%. Many people did get gains from Scientology but many more didn’t. If Scientology had worked 100% it would not be in the straits that it is in today.
Why Scientology tech has not worked 100% has been blamed on training and other extraneous factors, but never on the tech itself. The claim that Scn tech works 100% of the time when correctly applied has been the constant refrain. It is treated as a holy cow with no criticism permitted. Why? Why one is not permitted to look at the soundness of the tech itself?
I have found that what works is LOOKING, whether it is Scientology, Psychology, Christian prayer or whatever. It is the factor of LOOKING that brings about gains, not talking. Different processes make one look at different areas. C/Ses try to determine what process should be run on a pc at what point. But, no matter what process you run, if the pc is unable to look the gains are not going to be there.
I think people have achieved gains in Scientology to the degree they looked in response to a process. Objective processes, by their very nature, got one to look. However, where subjective processes are concerned no clear guideline has been available in Scientology about what the pc should do. Answering the question is not enough. A person can mock up the answer. Clearing a command does not ensure that the preclear is set up to look.
Scientology processes insist that one should answer the question until a floating needle is achieved. What do you do when no more answers are available and the floating needle is not there? Was the process chosen was incorrect? Was the “floating needle” passed? There are so many correction lists in Scientology. That itself tells me that something is amiss in Scientology tech.
I do not think that Scientology tech should be treated as a holy cow. One should be looking into outpoints such as, need for correction lists, overruns, spotty results, etc.
To sum it up I acknowledge that people got wins in Scientology. I myself got wins in Scientology. But the outpoints, as listed above, do exist in Scientology Tech. Looking is not emphasized in Scientology auditing. The way auditing is set up, it forces the preclear to forage the mind for answers to the point of desperation.
I refuse to accept that Scientology technology is perfect and no one can come up with better technology other than Hubbard. There are lots of intelligent people out there. I may not be as intelligent as Hubbard, but I can see outpoints when they are there. I think I am capable of isolating what works in Scientology and what does not.
Or, do you think otherwise about me? Are you looking at what I am writing, or are you looking at me. Why don’t you comment on what I am writing instead of criticizing me?
.
@ Vinaire
Oh, don’t worry about my wins being invalidated … not at all – they are ‘Rock-solid’ 😀 See my answer above … rather than repeat it, you can scroll up.
I agree, Looking/Confront has a big part – a very big part.
I also realize that there are still many things that I don’t ‘see’. They are occluded, invisible, disguised within pleasure moments, words which are implanted restimulators, forgotten considerations I made, or others made which I took on as my own … hell, there’s lots out there, but I keep looking.
So not to worry on the invalidation aspect, I’m in not bad shape 🙂 although still a babe in the woods, so to speak.
You mentioned repair lists above, and to me this is not a detriment. They are a safeguard – auditors make mistakes, pcs/pr-OTs misunderstand commands, false TA, wrong items, upsets at work .. hell you name it. A repair list is simply a way to get the PCs attention where it should be – on the body of the session and willing to talk to the auditor. I remember bailing myself out on OT2 and I was sure glad I had a correction list … I (the auditor) had goofed and I was in rough shape. I also overran the level and was into other things for many days … not pleasant, but I corrected it and turns out, it was one of the best levels I did … better for me than good old OT3.
Yes, there are many that treat everything in Scientology as a holy cow as you put it. I look at your assertion of ‘Looking’ in a similar way. Is this wrong? Nah … not necessarily. To me it is what the person is looking at, or in Scientology concepts, ‘what is true for him’.
To me it’s all good … we are all interested in creating & expanding.
I find this aspect & life in general fascinating. I’d love to sit down for coffee with the people on this blog – it would be great … and yes, that includes you too 🙂
I do value your viewpoint and thoroughly enjoy your input. To me, you are an important part of this blog. I’d hate to think we were all marching to the same tune 🙂
Regards
@Quicksilver
Granted many people, including you, have great wins on OT levels. But many more haven’t. So, it becomes important to isolate what really worked at OT levels and what didn’t. And that is all that I am doing. I have isolated LOOKING as the factor that works. It is not a different path as you seem to think. On OT Levels, looking is hidden under a lot of mumbo-jumbo.
The ideal scene of standard tech would be that no correction is required. The standard tech should be error tolerant, self-correcting and easy to apply if it were to clear the planet. To make Correction Lists as part of the Standard tech in Scientology is an out-point. I work in a manufacturing facility. We do not make deviations and work-arounds as part of the standard manufacturing procedure. We find the root cause and implement counter measures.
.
Vinaire,
You mention ” We do not make deviations and work-arounds as part of the standard manufacturing procedure. We find the root cause and implement counter measures.”
Auditing is also a standard procedure – we are talking about people here vs a machine. People make mistakes, or misunderstand what they are to be doing, hence correction lists, word clearing or Qual. As in any manufacturing process, goofs happen and there are corrective measures, be it a plant shut-down to service equipment, or a routine ‘in case of emergency’, or an Auditor going to Qual for cramming after goofing in session.
You mention: “To make Correction Lists as part of the Standard tech in Scientology is an out-point.” These are 2 different things … Standard Tech IS Standard Tech, however if someone gives the wrong command/process, then it is NOT Standard Tech and corrected thru a list or cramming.
To think any system, manufacturing/auditing or whatever, is infallible I think is pie in the sky.
Then, according to your argument there is nothing wrong with examining and analyzing Scientology “standard tech” itself, such as, its shotgun approach, its absolute reliance on e-meter, etc.
Well, that, some degree, is what I am doing. KHTK isolates the basic principles underlying tech that work. KHTK does not yet prescribe a procedure of its own. It more or less provides training exercises.
.
The better one can look, the deeper are the gains.
.
It is LOOKING that works in DIANETICS, GRADES, OT LEVELS and KHTK. Looking gets suppressed to the degree one digs into the mind. But many were fortunate to apply looking at the levels of Dianetics and Grades and get great at those stages. Such people may not have much more to look at OT Levels and they may find OT Levels to be disappointing.
However, others who were not able to look to that degree at the levels of Dianetics and Grades, may then be able to finally look at OT Levels. Their gains will then come at OT Levels, and they will find OT levels to be very valuable to them.
The point I am making it is those who got major gains at lower levels may not find additional major gains at OT Levels; and those who didn’t get major gains at lower levels, may finally be able to get them at OT levels. Well, you guys can tell me if this observation is correct.
.
I got wins at lower & upper levels, but then as I mentioned above, I didn’t go in with any pre-conceived ideas or expectations. That may have been a point that could have been stressed a bit more – for a pc/pre-OT to NOT have expectations … different pc look at things very differently – what comes up for one in all likelihood will be different for another – same with what one gets off a level.
A person who has a terrible time with Communication may get big wins off Grade 0, but one who has less bric-a-brac with communication may not. A certain bug or concern with communication may also blow on other levels too.
I wasn’t in to ‘digging’ as you put it although I’m sure many did.
ARC S/W & Grades I found particularly good – whatever came up, came up … simple processes but great wins on reading items. Unfortunately when I got in, every flow of every process was run whether you had interest or it was reading or not. That was corrected some time later.
On the OT levels, OT2 & Nots were the highlights although I got great wins off the Solo Course too – just being able to watch what was going on with the needle in reference to thought/mock-ups was pretty cool.
What one gets off is what is there on one’s case. Different people may get the same or similar aberration off at different points on the Bridge. Scientology is a shot gun approach. One of those pellets are likely to find the mark sooner or later.
From what you write, you were looking without expectations. It came natural to you. But I doubt if that has been the case with everybody. I find that to be an important technical point. I feel that if this point was emphasized in Scientology, the gains would have been much greater and faster with much less repairs.
Another important factor would have been less of a shotgun approach and more focus on pc’s responses. Running every flow of every process is part of that shotgun approach. Mechanical reliance on a mechanical device (e-meter) is another outpoint when other indicators of the pc are ignored.
It would be interesting to survey what factors in Scientology were responsible for a person’s wins. I am sure the whole Bridge can be simplified greatly and new technology can be developed that is much faster and more effective.
.
This concept is “Mathematical Realism” a field so horribly insignificant in terms of a following that it appears as a sub topic of Mathematical Philosophy when you look it up in Wikipedia.
Not many of us I’m afraid.
And I do not believe mathematics is deterministic AT ALL.
Point?
.
The word MATHEMATICS comes from a Greek word, which means, “things learned.” COUNTING is a tool for learning an aspect of what we may be dealing with. So, mathematics is essentially a set of tools applied in learning. Mathematics is a system of learning. Logic is another system of learning. Actually, mathematics is looked upon as a subset of Logic, which associates what is there to develop new ideas. Visualization is another system of learning. It is used in engineering and architecture.
These tools help us know what is out there. Actually, they direct us where to look, and it is through actual looking that we know what is out there. String Theory is all mathematics. It has yet to tell us where exactly to look.
These tools also help us create things that are consistent with what has already been created. The better we understand the physical universe the better we have been able to utilize those principles to create a comfortable environment to live in this universe.
.
What undiscovered and unusual numbers are creating the self that is reading this post?
What sense of numbers are you using here?
.
Step 1. Wait 10 years.
Step 2. Use a future scanner to download your entire molecular structure into binary.
Step 3. Launch a virtual you in a computer generated world.
Step 4. Give your running code enough memory and computational power to perceive your source code and the the world currently running it and the ability to reprogram your code any way you want.
Step 5. Ask yourself, “What undiscovered and unusual numbers are creating the self that is reading this post inside this computerized world?”
Step 6. Soon you realize that you can create a DIFFERENT set of code that makes you way cooler and you can run it any time you want in this virtual world. But then will it be YOU?
Yes.
Because a being is an infinite set of selves – not ONE number. I would say, a being is an ever-evolving mathematical set that can think for itself. And if you take ONE number out of the set that can make choices in a system, the self one finds is deterministic and shallow.
I feel that Number and Tao are the same. Math shows how the Tao of Number works, but does NOT define it.
Interesting approach. I shall keep it at the back of my mind.
.
The thread has somewhat derailed. The original question was how Geir should proceed with the confidential OT data. I think the data should be open to discussion, but with a clear warning sign ahead of it, so that those who don’t wish to expose themselves can stay clear. A discussion of the topic which omits the confidential data will in all likelihood not be particularly rewarding, since you would have to stay clear of the core concepts.
Another take on this is from a viewpoint of ethics. How ethical is it to keep such data confidential in the first place? And what is the REAL reason for doing so? I agree with Vinaire here, that it is mostly for the purpose of maintaining a monopoly. But I would add that it is also for PR reasons: the data would quite possibly turn away new public by forwarding such extraordinary and outrageous claims with no proof. It would possibly undo the whole image of Scientology being science.
In an even bigger perspective, as an analogy, how would we feel if a medical doctor had managed to come up with a cure for cancer that (for the sake of argument) worked 100%, but he decided to only sell it within his own group of hospitals, and only at a very high price. Furthermore he chose to keep confidential the exact way the procedure worked. Only the wealthy would have access to it, and no other outfit could compete. If they tried (after somehow having acquired the data on how it was done) they would be vigorously pursued in court and through other forms of harassment. Furthermore, no one else would be allowed to evolve the procedure further, even though perhaps it was later discovered that it did not work 100% – some cases failed.
Well, one might counter, we are not talking about a deadly disease like cancer. True. But what is more important, “eternal spiritual life” or the survival of a mere body?
Corporations, such as Coca Cola, keep secrets, and there is no bad reaction to this. However, Pepsi and others are still allowed to compete and copy the formulas without legal intervention. A cancer cure is not supposed to be a profit-making enterprise, and neither is any other fundamental truth about life or the universe.
Is it not unethical behavior on the very highest imaginable level to pervert a supposedly workable salvation for the human spirit onto a profit-making monopoly, denying all others access to the information, and barring all but the wealthiest from availing themselves of it? Not only that, but fighting by any and all means possible anyone attempting to breach this wall of secrecy?
Would we for even a second believe that the doctor in the example above had as his life goal to “eradicate all cancer”, and that he was genuinely working for the greatest good for the greatest number? Or would we think that he was trying to line his own pockets by preying on man’s mortality and vulnerability?
I’d say that is pretty spot on.
That there post don’t suck.
I know many of you are looking at KHTK materials. I want to make sure that you understand that KHTK is not proprietary. KHTK is a cooperative effort. You have a right to criticize it and improve upon it. Your ideas shall be incorporation if they are found useful after a thorough and open discussion.
LRH had positioned Scientology in parallel to Buddhism but he deviated from Buddhist principles in a very fundamental way. He replaced NIRVANA with INDIVIDUALITY. In my opinion, that is a fundamental error. In practice, Hubbard replaced the meditative aspect of Buddhism with digging into the mind. In my opinion that is another fundamental error. Besides, Hubbard fashioned the organization of Scientology using business principles. In my opinion, spiritual help cannot be dealt as a business. Exchange is important but it should never be forced. Exchange will come about on its own as people feel that they have truly been helped spiritually. Buddha’s model was to initiate a grass roots movement. In my opinion, to treat spiritual help as a business has been the third fundamental error.
Even then, I think that Hubbard accomplished a great deal. May be these errors were deliberate to push the subject into much greater visibility in a relatively short amount of time. That visibility has been accomplished as a result of Scientology. We are all here communicating with each other only because of Scientology. I believe it is time to take care of the three fundamental errors noted above.
Maybe, KHTK has the oomph to be that vehicle, maybe not. We need a vehicle to provide a modern rendition to Buddhist principles and produce a modern grass roots movement that Buddha can be proud of. I don’t know what modifications are needed to KHTK. But, I think, that all of us together has the capability of producing a modern grass roots movement based on Buddhist principles.
I hope I have been able to express what has driven me all these years.
.
Correction:
“Your ideas shall be incorporated if they are found useful after a thorough and open discussion.”
.
Geez, Geir … this is a really long tease.
As I wrote earlier up here – I am now concluding the my view will be presented as a chapter in my upcoming book. It belongs there.
Vinaire,
You wrote,
“[LRH] did revive and popularize the subject, which then helped many people. Nobody can deny that.”
In fact it is not as straightforward as you state it.
What can be debated is whether or not Scientology helped many people, or whether or not it hurt more than it helped. Ultimately there is no way of knowing whether it hurt or helped more, and any statement proclaiming either to be “undeniable” is merely opinion masquerading as “certain fact.”
Remember, “helped” and “hurt” are matters of the subjective experience of those individuals in question, and are therefore not accessible to you or to me.
Your subjective experiences with Scientology, and those of people you’ve spoken with, are insufficient to lend objectivity to whether or not the Scientology philosophy has done more damage or good.
Also, I’ve spoken with numerous people who have told me that the Scientology philosophy harmed them more than it helped them. Larry Brennan has told me personally that it took years of psychotherapy to help him remove the scars left on his psychological state caused by the Scientology philosophy (especially those caused by Scientology’s approach to dealing with one’s psychological problems).
Regardless, none of what I’ve heard or you’ve heard can lend any objectivity to either side of the debate.
Also remember that it is far easier to focus on the negative – it gets more attention. And people want attention.
I do not know how many people Scientology helped or did not help, but it has definitely made the subject quite visible.
.
Vinaire,
As for the comparisons between Scientology and Buddhism, there is one major flaw in any comparison which I have never seen properly addressed. Please note that I am not Buddhist and only agree with some of Buddhist thinking.
In Scientology, there is a soul/thetan.
In Buddhsim, there is no soul.
There is no “essence” that carries out the actions that get translated into our bodily movements.
Here’s a related quote (dharmas, in this setting, are the instantaneous phenomena of occurrence which arise instantaneously to give one a perception):
“When it arises, it is simply the dharmas arising; when it ceases, it is simply the dharmas ceasing. When these dharmas arise the Boddhisatva does not state ‘I arise,’ when these dharmas cease he does not state ‘I cease.” This is the point that we often get trapped in, adding “I” to the circumstances of our life, making for suffering. This doesn’t mean not to respond to and work with circumstances – but when we add “I” to arising circumstances as opposed to being the bubble pushed this way and that in the ocean of life, all sorts of difficulties occur. Being this bubble on the ocean flowing, being pushed this way, getting battered, doing what needs to be done, responding, it is only adding “I” to the circumstances that perpetuates suffering. Believing and holding to “I like,” “I dislike,” “I need” perpetuates dissatisfaction.”
And yes, I have studied the subject in an academic setting. If you don’t believe me that there is no sort of soul at all in Buddhism, do some googling and look at *reputable* sources.
One must consider Buddha’s principle of “Sarvam anityam” (all is in flux/all is transient). This notion corresponds to Buddha’s observation that there is nothing in the world that is ever constant – be it the time of day, the matter that makes up your body, your location in space, your opinions, your worries, your happiness, etc. All is in flux. (Note: I’m not saying whether or not this is true, just that this is what Buddhism holds.)
When you resist this flux, you suffer. For example, when you grasp life, fearing death, you suffer when your death is imminent. Or you create a mental coping mechanism that helps you to temporarily alleviate this suffering – and this mental coping mechanism is the belief in an eternal soul. Another example, when you claim, “I am certain of ___,” you are setting yourself up to suffer when your certainty gets disrupted.
Many people wonder, at this point, “If there is no soul in Buddhism, what is it that gets reincarnated?”
In Buddhism the answer is that one’s net karma (bad or good) that they accumulated throughout their life *must* be carried on, since all karma must go accounted for. What gets reincarnated is, essentially, this leftover karma.
So, in short, in Buddhism there is no soul/thetan because that would violate Sarvam anityam.
On an aside; I find the Buddhistic focus on suffering a distraction.
Depends on how you define “suffering”. As both Buddha and Hubbard defined it, has to do with being in a reverse-vector universe – “Suffering is wanting something and not getting it, or not-wanting something and getting it anyway, or wanting something but getting something else instead”. The perversity of existence.
If every time you wanted to buy a Volvo you received a Ford instead, or worse yet a camel with a saddle, etc etc all through your lives you want and work for and wish for “x” but end up with”y”, you might start to feel you are “suffering”…..
The suffering as you stated above is a much needed part of any game. And since we apparently love playing the games, we also want the suffering. No need to resist it.
Do you believe a game must necessarily involve a reverse-vector universe?
I am not sure what you mean by a “reverse vector universe”. I believe that a game will involve losses.
Cool!
According to my understanding of Buddhism, the ultimate reality is not a BEING (either GOD or SOUL). This is so in VEDAS and HINDUISM as well. Thus, any God or soul would be just a construct subject to deconstruction. In other words, there is no eternal God or soul.
What you have written makes total sense to me. I have tried to capture it in my essays here:
CONTENTS (Philosophy)
To answer Geir’s comment about suffering, the word used in Buddhism is Dukkha. It is incorrectly translated as “suffering” in English. A more correct translation would be something like “a departure from ideal scene.” 🙂 Please see the link to WHAT BUDDHA TAUGHT in the left column.
.
Although there are schools of Buddhism that teach it the way you say, it is a great overgeneralization to say all Buddhism teaches that view.
The Dalai Lama and his school, for example is much more in agreement with Hubbard’s view. He is on record about it in some interviews he’s done:
Here is what Dalai Lama said about it:
“In Buddhism, universal consciousness is completely refuted. There is no universal consciousness. Buddhism does not accept the concept of an all-encompassing consciousness of which our consciousness is a part. It is very important to understand that individuality is on every level, as I have explained. There is nothing cosmic or universal that goes beyond this individual consciousness.”
He goes on to say this:
“Here we must distinguish between two things. When you refine, develop, and strengthen your mental potential, you are not creating a cosmic consciousness that overpowers all other individuals or other consciousnesses. That is not possible.
What does happen is that you transform your mind into an omniscient mind.
The state of omniscience is sometimes described as the mind pervading all phenomena. This does not mean that the fully developed individual mind now controls all phenomena.
Nor does it mean that each individual consciousness comes from this mind.
Rather, it means that the mind of an individual is completely enlightened and, therefore, omniscient. You know everything. There is nothing that your mind cannot know.
Pervading all means knowing all in this context.”
And finally, from a previous interview:
“We Buddhists believe in the existence of a self that moves from life to life and from an ordinary state to the goal of Buddhahood.
This self, therefore, is retained.
Even a Buddha keeps his self. Buddha Shakyamuni had his own individual identity.
This self exists, without beginning, without end. We believe that the individual identity – even that of a Buddha – is retained.
This belief is contrary to the Hindu tradition, which postulates Brahman, the universal soul, that unites during moksha, or liberation, with the individual soul, and through which the individual soul loses it’s identity.”
And just previously:
“But the basic,subtle, innermost consciousness will always remain. It has no beginning, and it will have no end. That consciousness will remain.
When we reach Buddhahood that consciousness becomes enlightened all-knowing (omniscient).
Still, the consciousness will remain an individual thing. For example, the Buddha Shakyamuni’s consciousness and the Buddha Kashyapa’s consciousness are distinct individual things. This individuality of consciouseness is not lost on the attainment of Buddhahood.
There is no such thing as cosmic consciousness into which you merge.”
To me, that sounds an awful lot like Hubbards concept of the “thetan” – the “awareness of awareness unit” –
Again, here’s what the Dalai Lama said:
“But the basic, subtle, innermost consciousness will always remain. It has no beginning, and it will have no end. That consciousness will remain.”
I do not think that there any merging of individual consciousness with some universal consciousness. There is no universal consciousness. But individuality, as generally understood, unravels itself until nothing is left that can be understood as an “individual.”
Please see:
THE DOCTRINE OF NO-SOUL
.
I was just reading this chapter on the Doctrine of no Soul and something just hit me from the following quote:
“1. Through ignorance are conditioned volitional actions or karma-formations (Avijjāpaccayā samkhārā).
“
Wow! This tells you where the WILL comes from. This seems very delicious and chewable.
.
I am not so sure it tells us just that. Tell me how you interpret this one.
Well, the first thing that hit me was the possibility if volitional actions could themselves be the result of conditioning. But I can see another interpretation that it is ignorance that conditions volitional actions into something, which is not stated in that statement. The conjunction “or” seems to equate volitional actions with karma-formations. That makes me wonder if volitional actions are some sort of karma-formations. For this reason I am leaning towards the original interpretation that hit me.
.
Vin,
I take that to explain not where “Will” comes from, but where “craving” comes from; for example the “craving to SURVIVE” which is basic to all life-forms, as Hubbard described them.
It is true that in English people speak of “the will to survive”, but I think there is another meaning of “Will” that is apart from samsara or the “apparency of existence.” Just my opinion, but I think Geir means “Will” in that other sense. Some of the Germanic philosophers meant it that way. See this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer
or Google for “will and idea”.
Schopenhauer was a “deep thinker” who much influenced later philosophers like Nietzche.
How does one differentiate “craving” or “desire” from “will”?
.
I’ve studied Buddhism all my adult life, before and after Scientology. I think LRH was perfectly justified in claiming, as he did in Hymn of Asia, that Scientology fits into the Buddhist tradition, and extends it. I see Scientology as a high-tech Buddhism.
Moreover, I do not accept that there is no ‘soul’ in Buddhism. Quite the reverse: there can be no reincarnation without a soul. I think LRH’s concept of a thetan is identical to the Buddhist teaching, and explains it very well.
What seems to be the primary misunderstanding here is that when Buddhism says there is no soul, it doesn’t mean that there is no illusion of soul either. Buddha talked about his past lives, so there is such a phenomenon as reincarnation.
Buddha basically tried to refine Hinduism and get it back to the basics as contained in the Vedas. Buddhism is totally consistent with Vedas. Vedas point out that all manifestations are MAYA (impermanent). Buddha clarified that soul is part of that MAYA. That is how I understand it.
.
The problematic word here may be the word “illusion”. The world is quite “real”, and when you stub your(illusory) toe on that(illusory) table leg, it hurts!
The fact that in Buddhist terms all of existence is “illusion” does not make it hurt any less.
So perhaps it is better to speak of the “soul” as a consideration, rather than an illusion.
I do not consider “soul” and”spirit” as referring to the same things.
But this does not address the core issue of who or what is doing the considering…….
It’s MAYA, which is incorrectly translated as “illusion”. My reality is that MAYA refers to anything created, and whatever is created can also be uncreated. A soul (being) is part of Maya.
As far as who or what is doing the considering, that is unknowable. That is what I have concluded in essays on my blog.
Seems to be a really hot item….:-)
Any ideas on when the book will be out?
Yes.
Geir says:
However, I am hesitant to publish my views because it would include getting into the confidential materials of the OT levels as they are described by Hubbard.
I invite your views on how I should proceed here.
Def epiphany:
An epiphany (from the ancient Greek ἐπιφάνεια, epiphaneia, “manifestation, striking appearance”) is the sudden realization or comprehension of the (larger) essence or meaning of something. The term is used in either a philosophical or literal sense to signify that the claimant has “found the last piece of the puzzle and now sees the whole picture,” or has new information or experience, often insignificant by itself, that illuminates a deeper or numinous foundational frame of reference.
Epiphanies of sudden comprehension have also made possible leaps in technology and the sciences. Famous epiphanies include Archimedes’ realization of how to estimate the volume of a given mass, which inspired him to shout “Eureka!” (“I have found it!”).
Dear Geir,
Great on your win !
My suggestion would be as follows, before you do as written above:
You did 50% of the bridge of Scientology and have therefore a subjective reality about it, which can greatly differ from other people that have done 100 % of it by becoming class 6, 7, 8 and 9 and therefore have also a more objective reality about it, as having audited 1000ds of hours other people.
I would, if I were you, before making any fundamental statement that should hold trough space and time, do the whole bridge and have certainty about it and have proven records of having studied and investigated the subject in the most honest and scientifical methology.
LRH has, before making any new statement always tested it on lots of pcs. He audited 10 000ds of hours and the same with c/sing.
How many hours have you audited other people, except of yourself ?
50 % of the wins on the bridge are achieved by training and auditing other people.
Lrh has his place in history because of the discovery of the reactive mind, he was 200 years in advance…in 2-300 hundred years it’ll be common knowledge.
How about you then ?
just my 2 cents !
🙂 🙂 🙂
LO
I have already discussed my new view with some very highly trained auditors. They conclude that I could indeed be right. So I proceed, but my epiphany will not be published until my book comes out.
Apart from that, remember that LRH made some very profound statements about Life, Universe and Everything in the PDCs in the early 50s without having done anything of the Bridge. He wasn’t even Clear.
But…he audited thousand of people…
Let me correct that; According to LRH himself, he made some of his most profound statements on Life, Universe & Everything already in 1938 (Excalibur) when he had audited nobody and had received no auditing himself.
That is very true. I think I read some parts of Excalibur on the net and it was mainly one cognition he had about the complexity of a being which is part of the theory of OTIII.
But nevertheless in the fifties he was auditing like mad and had lots of auditors doing experimental auditing for him, they were auditing all that OT stuff, grand tours, Exteriorisation, one shot clears, auditing the G.E. and the whole track and whole track implants (History of Man), double bodies…etc….
It’s all explained on the Briefing Course and so he was able to observe lots of phenomena.
With excalibur he had the basic realisation or truth and it ended with NOTS that is in full alignement with it.
What an adventure that must have been for him, finding his way through it !
By the way, where is Maria ?
Haven’t read any post from her lately.
So Geir still my suggestion to the matter is:
Get into the chair, get up to Class IX.. audit some dozens of people up the bridge so that you have the other 50 % of the bridge and then reconsider the whole matter.
IMHO
None of the world’s great philosophers (except LRH) had any auditing (training or processing). Worth remembering.
Auditing is just an aid to looking. Absence of auditing doesn’t imply that there is no looking.
One may look and realize truth without auditing. Buddha didn’t have any auditing.
Is auditing a must? I don’t think so.
.
Me neither.
Ah … you both make me reveal my love – meditation in motion.
There is a reason why people do Tai-Chi every morning, and why Chi-Gung practitioners often have amazing wins and why katageeks like me spend hours in kata practice.
Your body can become your owne-meter. Ahhhh – rapture! The feedback is instant…
I love to watch my teacher practice. When he enters kata I can just see his ego disappear. His eyes stare into a thousand miles.
Ciao Geir . Per le Tue comm,io le farei come per persone di 10 anni .
LRH non era sulla nostra traccia del tempo . Cosi come il Buddha,cosi come il
Damma ( poi chiamato Darma,15 mila anni fa .)
Nic ARC infinity
Dear Nic, if you can read in english, well ?, why not publish your comment in the same language.
Helps me from louse Google translations 😉
Right Geir 🙂
I must quote the following from THE DOCTRINE OF NO-SOUL. It just so mind boggling and simple at the same time.
On this principle of conditionality, relativity and interdependence, the whole existence and continuity of life and its cessation are explained in a detailed formula which is called Paticca-samuppāda ‘Conditioned Genesis’, consisting of twelve factors:
1. Through ignorance are conditioned volitional actions or karma-formations (Avijjāpaccayā samkhārā).
2. Through volitional actions is conditioned consciousness (Samkhārapaccayā viňňānam).
3. Through consciousness are conditioned mental and physical phenomena (Viňňānapaccayā nāmarūpam).
4. Through mental and physical phenomena are conditioned the six faculties (i.e., five physical sense-organs and mind) (Nāmarūpapaccayā salāyatanam).
5. Through the six faculties is conditioned (sensorial and mental) contact (Salāyatanapaccayā phasso).
6. Through (sensorial and mental) contact is conditioned sensation (Phassapaccayā vedanā).
7. Through sensation is conditioned desire, ‘thirst’ (Vedanāpaccayā tanhā).
8. Through desire (‘thirst’) is conditioned clinging (Tanhāpaccayā upādānam).
9. Through clinging is conditioned the process of becoming (Upādānapaccayā bhavo).
10. Through the process of becoming is conditioned birth (Bhavapaccayā jāti).
11. Through birth are conditioned (12) decay, death, lamentation, pain, etc. (Jātipaccayā jarāmaranam…).
I see the gain/loss as two sides of the same game/coin and not as a sequence like this.
It appears to me as a chain of conditioning. Or, one may say that it is a description of gradients of conditioning. It may be interpreted as gradients of “self.”
.
Conditioning appears to be anything added which then stays. From this point of view, from nothing to volitional actions could be a form of conditioning.
.
Alright Geir, you are going to love this quote on FREE WILL from the same source… yeah, yeah 😦
“The question of Free Will has occupied an important place in Western thought and philosophy. But according to Conditioned Genesis, this question does not and cannot arise in Buddhist philosophy. If the whole of existence is relative, conditioned and interdependent, how can will alone be free? Will which is included in the fourth Aggregate (samkhārakkhandha), like any other thought, is conditioned (paticca-samuppanna). So-called ‘freedom’ itself in this world is not absolutely free. That too is conditioned and relative. There is, of course, such a conditioned and relative ‘Free Will’, but not unconditioned and absolute. There can be nothing absolutely free in this world, physical or mental, as everything is conditioned and relative. If Free Will implies a will independent of conditions, independent of cause and effect, such a thing does not exist. How can a will, or anything for that matter, arise without conditions, away from cause and effect, when the whole of life, the whole of existence, is conditioned and relative? Here again, the idea of Free Will is basically connected with the ideas of God, Soul, justice, reward and punishment. Not only so-called free will is not free, but even the very idea of Free Will is not free from conditions.”
I covered the above in my article. But the quote above sidesteps the issue of free will and looks only at the apparency, whereas the issue of free will needs to be tackled from the point of view of Potential Free Will.
Of course. vinaire, you usually raise great points.
It seems to me that even “Potential Free Will” is an idea or consideration, which is relative to other ideas and considerations. This may be superfluous, but that is what I get from the above quote.
All ideas are relative. All thoughts are relative. We may only speculate upon how any existingness (thoughts, ideas, wills, desires, etc.) come about. All my ideas are speculations too.
All I can do is connect the dots and map the whole system, and make it as consistent as possible. But still I wouldn’t know how that system came about in the first place. “Free Will” is just a part of this system. It is not beyond it. Because anything that ic considered “to be beyond” is a consideration. As a consideration, it is part of the system.
Am I confused, or am I confused?
I have tried to capture this in my essay KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE.
.
As the physical universe is an illusion, “free will” which is based on the illusion and itself gets birth in the world of the illusion is just an illusion as well.
There is no real sense to speak of free will.
It is like speaking about thetans. It is a good model that there are thetans. But in “reality” in the ultimate reality… how could there be thetanS when even Hubbard states that quantity is the very characteristic of the physical universe? :D:D:D
You make this assumption: “free will” which is based on the illusion and itself gets birth in the world of the illusion is just an illusion as well
I take it that you understand that the above is an assumption and merely one of several possible truths in this area. Read my essay “On Will” for elaboration on this.
Instead of the word “illusion” I would rather use the phrase “manifestation.” Not everything is equal to everything else, but the common denominator is “manifestation.”
All we can do is find the consistency among all the different manifestations.
.
Hi Geir, I went up late to bed waiting for your revelation (that didn’t come), but enjoyed very much the comments.
My opinion is that you should shoot your new knowledge as broadly as you like best and others can read, avoid reading, get repaired ecc., plenty of choice.
While reading comments I thought that after one year I left €O$, where I made mere Grade I, Level IV and many many courses, all that can be done “outside” is “Scientology Tech Improved”, “Scientology Tech Altered”, “Faster Scientology Tech”, “True Scientology Tech”, “Shortened Scientology Tech” and so on.
Looks like to me that with all the suppression and alterations the best of OT Levels is still obtainable only in the €O$.
I propose that the thousand of “blows” go back to the Church and start taking services demanding real Standard Tech and correct what is been perverted. Civil war.
Beotty,
There are lots of good auditors & C/Ss in the field. Yes, you will need to shop around and find someone you trust will give you 100% source.
As for OT levels inside the church … there have been various revisions of even these.
After writing years of KRs up lines regarding out-tech (books edited, Code changes, Axiom changes, EP changes, etc, etc) and getting NO response, one is left with withdrawing his support.
When will you publish the book?
That is currently being planned. But in the not-too-distant future.
I am not giving too much information here as I know OSA would love to get their hands on data regarding this 🙂
Geir and friends,
This has been a very interesting and cordial discussion. Thanks to all – sorry if I have missed some comments, as the structure has become quite complex!
My main point remains that the OTIII scenario fails to convince. More seriously, it leaves people with a false implant on their track; I consider that this has been responsible for a disturbing number of deaths among OTs. I also consider that this is where Scientology left the rails, and is the direct cause of the current problems with the Church – more than any other single factor.
I first pointed this out in an article early in 1985. At the same time, I conceded that the OT levels may have some benefit in starting to address multiple personality disorder, a common phenomenon. That’s where the gains come from, but could probably be improved with revision and editing. Perhaps this is where Geir is heading.
Warmest regards to all, Robin
To be clear: I do not believe the OT III story is true.
I really love that you expressed your honest opinion about OT III. But please also say, from your OT VIII vantage point, what you think about how that reflects on having the level, doing the level – or whatever other repercussions it may have had and still may have. Thanks!
I ask because what really matters is the repercussions, not the fact in itself, wouldn’t you agree?
I believe the level do work. But not for the reasons given in the materials. The rest is for the book 🙂
Cool. Would you also say what you think was LRH’s motive for telling an untrue story? 🙂
I am pretty good in not speculating as to intent. And intend to remain good in that area 😉
I want to see if it matches my own ideas about it.
We don’t know that he didn’t believe it himself.
I agree with you on this point. People can gain benefits from the upper levels but it is not for the reasons they think.
I personally think the wins are a result of the power of a story (myth) to transform a human life.
I think it goes deeper than that.
And Disneyland is deeper than Mickey Mouse. But it wouldn’t exist without him.
hehe
And I think it is LOOKING, and we can look further into that. 🙂
.
Hi Vin – I just want to pick up on a point you made much earlier: that LRH was a Jnana Yogi, and that Scientology is Jnana Yoga, the yoga of intellectual knowledge. You are the first and only person I know to articulate this idea, which I have myself held for many years now. I’m delighted to see someone else reaching the same conclusion in this respect. As you quite rightly say, Jnana Yoga is one of the most difficult paths of Yoga – but clearly one that you and I have followed, my friend!
This conversation has been an excellent example of that – a most interesting and intelligent debate, without rancour or make-wrong. I have appreciated the contributions of all; my thanks to Geir for initiating such a worthwhile topic for communication.
I am proud to have intelligent and rational people like yourself commenting on my blog.
In fact we can see from much of his writings that he seemed to have fallen for the pragmatic fallacy: It works, therefore it must be true. For example just because running past lives works then past lives must be true. If any real scientific research has been done to verify this then at the very least it has been poorly reported, and there is nothing that shows that such research has followed the rigorous requirements of the scientific method. There was much research carried out into ESP and the paranormal back in the fifties, for example by Dr Rhine at Duke University. But this research has later on been found not to hold up to scientific scrutiny. Ron’s research has not been submitted to peer review at all, and throughout his writings he displays much contempt for science in general.
Ivro,
Here on my blog I’ve written a pretty long conclusion about evidence of reincarnation. This below link is a Google translation from Swedish to English, unfortunately the translation is pretty bad, but you can glance through the major posts and look at the videos, check out the literature list etc. I would say that reincarnation is the most probable conclusion on the “What Happens When You Die”-question based on EVIDENCE, not belief.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhubbardianen.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2F18%2Freinkarnation-%25E2%2580%2593-det-mest-sannolika%2F
Thank you for the link. It was very thorough. I am familiar with and have read most of the references you cite. You might be correct when you say that reincarnation is the most likely explanation. And it may also (as per Occams razor) be the simplest explanation. Still, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and even the most convincing stories are sometimes brutally brought to nothing under close scrutiny. Also, the more important a datum is, the more solid you would want the evidence to be. I can scarcely imagine anything more important than knowing whether we live again or not, and therefore the requirements for the evidence either way should be the very highest possible. In a matter of life and death I am not willing to settle for faith or belief or even “quite well proven”. I would want close to an absolute. Some counter arguments to the references you cite are covered very well in the book Flim Flam by James Randy. I’m not necessarily siding with the materialistic side of this argument, but at the same time, as I said above, I am not willing to settle for “almost proof”. And of course my hope lies in the direction of proving the spiritual viewpoint to be the true one.
There’s quite a bit of available information, for example, just Google for “Past Lives of Children”:
http://www.childpastlives.org/
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa032502a.htm
What I have never understood is why some folks want “hard evidence” of past lives…….
You will either be there in the future or not. Would you live your life now any differently, if you knew which it was going to be?
Additionally, I do not like the word “reincarnation”. Implicit in it is the idea that “I” am a tiny little pea-sized thing that goes or is put into the head of a body.
I like Hubbard’s description that the actual magnitudes of the thetan relative to a body is more like it is the body that is like a sliver stuck in a thetans’ thumb.
If one wanted to increase the relative magnitude, one could consider that the entire MEST universe is no bigger than that sliver in thetan’s thumb….
I’ve been reading about NDE:s and its very interesting how similair they are, contating about the same factors (tunnel of light, OBE, calm feeling, meeting relatives, light figures, life review etc) so the most approximate conclusion would be that it’s an implant. However, the experience doesn’t seem to be bad so I guess it’s a “nice” kind of implant. Most beings on earth are nice so I guess the same applies to other-wordly “light figures”? Perhaps only once every million years (perhaps more) or so some evil group comes along and implant some bad stuff? Or perhaps our life on earth is some kind of RPF for having done bad stuff before?
How do we become those light figures who teach those guys from earth for example? And are there levels above their levels? Michael Newton indicate from his hypnosic sessions that there are several levels of spiritual teachers between-lives.
Hubbardianen,
There is some relevant data about this in Lecture#24 of the PDC, entitled “What’s Wrong With This Universe: A Working Package For The Auditor”.
It appears those”helpful guides” do a little more to you than just helpfully guide you……
Ok, I’m actually (rather slowly) listening to the PDC right now. It will be interesting.
I’d like to add that it then seems to be a conflict here, since Michael Newton talks spiritual levels between lives and spiritual leaders, and not about evil implanters. That’s what made me think that those evil implanters “only” come along now and then and not always.
I’ve also personally spoken to an elderly man who had an NDE on the operating table and went to meet light figures at the star Sirius. He claimed he developed some paranormality after that and every now and then those beings from Sirius visit him. It didn’t seems to be an unpleasant experience…
I’ve been reading about NDE:s and its very interesting how similair they are, containing about the same factors (tunnel of light, OBE, calm feeling, meeting relatives, light figures, life review etc) so the most approximate conclusion would be that it’s an implant. However, the experience doesn’t seem to be bad so I guess it’s a “nice” kind of implant. Most beings on earth are nice so I guess the same applies to other-wordly “light figures”? Perhaps only once every million years (perhaps more) or so some evil group comes along and implant some bad stuff? Or perhaps our life on earth is some kind of RPF for having done bad stuff before?
How do we become those light figures who teach those guys from earth for example? And are there levels above their levels? Michael Newton indicate from his hypnosic sessions that there are several levels of spiritual teachers between-lives.
Is there such a thing as an implant. Is this idea specific to Scientology? This is a part of Hubbard’s theory, but is there any actual evidence for an implant? If we follow the above argument from Hubbardianen then this physical universe will be an implant too.
Is there somebody here, who believes in implants, who can answer the above questions.
.
Well, isn’t any engram an “implant”? When a stage hypnotist implants post-hypnotic suggestions in his subject, he is “implanting”. The post-hypnotic suggestions are implants.
And yes, I believe the MEST universe is itself an implant or a complex of implants, that’s why we have so much trouble getting out of it.
Implants by their nature are “below the level of awareness of the being”.
I haven’t done OTIII, but I speculate it may be an experience that takes place in an implanted pocket universe, a la The Pilot’s material on implant universes and pocket universes. The dating of 75,000,000 years ago could be built in, the incident could adapt itself to our frame of reference much the same way that Google displays ads appropriate to my geographical location by reading my IP address.
Thus inhabitants of a planet circling Arcturus could have the “same” incident implanted, but they would believe it happened on their planet just as we believe it happened on ours….
Any post-hypnotic experience can be created to have wheels within wheels, so to speak, or many layers.
There is a lot of detailed info in the PDC lectures, but the basic principles of the construction, anatomy, and behavior of implants are all outlined in some detail right there in DMSMH.
Interesting take.
I think that any implant (includes engrams) would simply be suppressed perceptions. In normal course, perceptions get converted to memory the next moment, and so we know what happened. Implants seem to be perceptions that never got converted to memory. Hence they remain beyond consciousness and unknown. Please see KHTK 4: LOOKING AT THE MIND
.
Here’s Alonzos first “big win” in auditing and I find it interesting due to two reasons. Alonzo is now a critic of Scientology and this was one of his first sessions:
“START OF SESSION!!
After looking at breakfast that morning, his first question was “You will now give me the incident necessary to resolve your case!”
I immediately ran a whole track implant! A huge black cartoon looking-guy was spraying lightening at me and I was TERRIFIED. More terrified than I have ever been in my life. I could tell, sitting there with my eyes closed, that Charles was hesitating with what to do next.
He had me take it on a gradient, and 2 hours later it was run completely out!
I felt absolutely fantastic!
I opened my eyes and said “WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT???”
We both died laughing on the floor.
The next day I was RUNNING everywhere. I had so much energy! My boss took one look at me and said – “Look at Albaby! He got LAID last night!”
Nope it was even better than that.
I was a brand new Scientologist!
When I look back at that time, I know that Scientology saved my life.
This is a truth about Scientology that, as a critic, I should never forget.
What was your first BIG WIN in auditing?”
Regarding this universe I was thinking perhaps it’s just a giant 3D POV-game with 52 perceptions? It’s VERY real, so real that materialists even believe it’s everything there is.
Goswami said something interesting:
“Our ordinary perception of time and space comes about as a result of a quantum-mechanical process whereby consciousness self-referentially “collapses” what are called probability waves so as to give rise to actuality.
I guess Hubbard has been in those areas also. The next part from Goswami could explain the idea of “one soul many bodies”?
“In the process” of collapse, one undivided consciousness see itself as apparently divided into dualities such as life and environment, subject and object.”
I do not deny reincarnation either. To me reincarnation simply means that one is trapped in a beingness.
.
About Implants vs. Engrams-
RJ posted a comment on Marty’s blog, near the end of the comments in the “Golden Age of Fraud” thread, mostly about the original OT levels,but he commented on engrams vs. implants thus:
“You see because the difference between an engram and an implant is that an implant contains significance that is held in place by force whereas an engram is purely force.
The “force” used in the more sophisticated implants is electronics.”
This is a good distinction, but it doesn’t alter the fact that an implant is a specific type of engram – one that is deliberately created, vs. an engram that happens accidentally or on purpose but does not have the intent of associating specific significances within it. And engrams are usually associated with physical pain, not necessarily electronic force.
It is also true that an engram may have some significances associated with it but these are there more-or-less accidentally or incidentally in it, not deliberately planned and crafted to be in it.
And Hubbardenian, yes, I often think of the MEST universe as that kind of game – a holographic setup with 52 perceptions.
In that same PDC lecture I mentioned, Hubbard makes an offhand comment about the entire Tone Scale being an implant which was the”reward” in a contest(!). The”winner” gets to go down a chute(think carnival ride) and in the process gets implanted with the entire Tone Scale and is subject to it from then on….
“Hubbard makes an offhand comment about the entire Tone Scale being an implant which was the”reward” in a contest(!). The”winner” gets to go down a chute(think carnival ride) and in the process gets implanted with the entire Tone Scale and is subject to it from then on…. ”
Hallelujah! Now, we all know the “truth”…!:D
Actually, what I think is that the cause that Scientology is turning into a suppressive system IS because of an implant.
And it is built into the whole system which is very similar to the ideas around those times Dianetics was born. Like Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm. Thomass Mann: Mario and the Magician. Even to Fahrenheit 451.
And when you look at the actual process of turning into a suppressive system, just look how early it begins. Third partying parents, police, even preclears… It begins with Book One. There is a war going on like in 1984 in a far distant country, like in Dianetics against “suppressives”. And what and who are these suppressives? The reactive mind, psychos… and they are everywhere…:D
What if the idea that the OT III incident happened was an implant?
“What if the idea that the OT III incident happened was an implant?”
Love the idea.
But the auditing works, does not? I am really curious why that could be. Or why did he made up the fake-story. Maybe this was his reality? Maybe this was his implant, whatever.
I know Geir, you do not speculate, that is fine, but in some detective work speculation can lead to put together the pieces and finally resolve the case/crime, whatever.
The above question is valid as a question given my current view of the OT case.
It is very interesting to view Scientology through it’s own lens. I’ve just found disconnection -33 on the Awareness chart for example.
Earlier I was speculating why there is no place for love on the tone scale. My answer was, love can be at different points on the Tone Scale, as affinity. But look at the Tone Scale. Why is Sex at -6 or eating at -5? These activities can also be done at other levels of the Tone Scale. And food despite eating is at -5 on the Tone Scale, usually gets a big emphasis in Church publications. Even in the Freewinds magazine… Promoting a -5 Tone for OTs? Just weird if it is true that -5 is eating. Now, mystery is at -8! OT III is a mystery for sure for all below that level. But all the Bridge from Grade 5 up is mystery as well. “Mystics” we know from LRH that they are in that scale… So what about Scientologist considering the secret “Advanced Levels”? Although it is mystic only for those who does not have the key. When you have the key, it is not mystical (even if not really real) anymore like the OT levels are not mystical when you do the course. I think Ron just wanted people not to look for the answers elsewhere than his religion.
And because Ron introduced the meanings: False data and Key data we all suppose that he says only True, Valid data (despite the fact we all know about “research” in Scientology.
So one should be careful even with the earlier materials in my opinion, not speaking of PDC or OT levels and cross-check the validity and authenticity of the material. Probably, one can even rely on the data series, although I’m not sure, I’ve read those long time ago, but by that time seemed to me useful stuff:)
Geir,
Looking forward to the book. I know you’re not a big fan of copyrights. Is the book going to be available on line or will it come in a print version as well? You might consider copyrighting it even if you do give it away to protect the work from being messed with.
This is (unfortunately) up to the publisher.
Why not self-publish through Lulu.com, for example? Then you could choose or design whatever kind of license you wanted to put on it?
Itis possibleyoucouldpublish a slightly different version yourself, and get an ISBN for it or not as you choose. The ISBN for your self-published version could be different from the one your publisher gets.
At this point you may need to check into any possible objections your existing publisher may have to your also self-publishing a version of the book; the attraction Lulu.com is being able to choose the license you put the book under, how much you charge for it, and what you let others do with it.
Also, if you self-publish through Lulu.com you can still get an ISBN and make the book available through retail outlets as well as in electronic version. It would require, though, some investment in promotion.
However, with the present growing interest in things scientological, it might not be too hard to get some broad publicity for it through blogs and related sites and positioning on the search engines.
blurb.com is amazing. Software is free.
blurb.com let’s you publish full color print-on-demand books of high quality. From paperbacks to coffee table books.
Geir, just out of curiosity: why do you want to publish a book when you’ve just a bit earlier (in a previous post) said “in the context of the whole world, it’s a luxury to be so fortunate (using this word liberally) as to be able to go out on a street and protest something as fringe as the CoS”
It was in the post: “Protesting the Church of Scientology is a luxury phenomenon”
So why to dedicate a book to the subject? That is even more time and effort.
You seem to still be heavily disturbed by that post.
I didn’t write the book to protest anything.
That is fine. Protest is as valid as no protest. The only thing which is not valid is the fraud and suppression the Church is engaged in. But the universe is evolving…:)
Another reason not to share my views on this as a blog post; I would spend days answering questions and comments. If published in a book, the readers would spend more time chewing on it and making their own conclusions.
Geir,
You can be no more certain that the processes work in the way you think than I can be that they work in the way I think. Perhaps in the future you will change your mind and think they work for a slightly different reason, or a drastically different reason.
In the past, perhaps you would have said that you were “certain” that the processes work for the reasons Hubbard described.
Perhaps what we are discussing should not be called “certainty” at all. After all, certainty does mean 100%, not 99.9%
Technically, nothing – no amount of evidence discovered – can ever *prove* beyond any shred of doubt that OTIII did not occur as described. Even if radioactive dating indicates that the Earth was not around back then, it still does not *prove* that the Earth was not around then.
I think the word “certainty” should be left out of these discussions, and replaced with “I strongly feel,” or “I strongly believe but cannot be certain.” Remember, even scientists – after scores of controlled experiments – do not say “We are certain that this is what’s happening here.” And the stuff we’re talking about here is based off personal experiences and suspicions. You must be aware that your mind may change at some point in the future.
However, I still remain convinced, in this moment, that I have experienced the content of the OT levels as described by L Ron Hubbard’s writings; this is what rings true for me, and nothing you write in your book will alter my personal beliefs if it doesn’t ring true for me. To me, personal integrity is *just* as simple as that.
If someone said to me, “The only reason you experienced wins from the OT levels you have done is because you expected to gain wins from them” I would reply, “This is not what rings true for me, and it does not match what I have experienced – what I have felt, what I have seen – so while this may be what you believe for yourself, this will not alter what I believe for myself.”
In addition, I have been told that my experience of going exterior was an “illusion” made up in my head. I don’t care what other people speculate about my experiences. The experiences are still mine.
Have fun skiing 🙂 . I go skiing in Vail Colorado with my family every year. The feeling that I get from gliding across the snow is what I always imagine it feels like for a free floating thetan to glide freely through MEST. Enjoy 🙂
Out of curiosity, do you no longer believe that we are ultimately thetans?
Last things first. I believe what I have written in “On Will“. Please read it and tell me what you think.
I am still curious how you so adamantly defend what rings true for you now against my unpublished view. Is this not a fixed idea, then?
Would you be interested in hearing my view?
Hi Geir, I would certainly love to hear your views on the upper levels.
Regards,
Jerry
While reading PDC 24 this para caught my eye,
“Yeah, yeah, wonderful, isn’t it? All right, uh… so I sent this… this… this – three guys as a matter of fact – I sent several of them, but I… I hate to break down and tell you about that. Uh… none of them liked Dianetics so it’s all right uh… and uh… one of them was, well, that’s all right.”
Regardless of how Hubbard felt about it, Dianetics should not be treated as a holy cow. It should be examined non-judgmentally until one develops an educated opinion about the materials. A person who does not know about Dianetics, should not be looked down upon as inferior. A person who does not like Dianetics should not be treated with contempt.
An implant would be complete acceptance of another’s idea as one’s own, and acting on it accordingly. When in Scientology, we learned to act superior and disconnect from anybody who was critical of Scientology. Some of us even made fair game out of these critics. Wouldn’t you say we were implanted?
.
What caught my eye is the strange wording of the above.
When I begun to read the PDC it was also astonishing to see that he seemingly unable to compose fluid sentences.
Regarding disconnection, that is certainly an implant.
Vinaire says: “According to LRH, intelligence is “the ability to recognize differences, similarities, and identities,” (See Data Serie #1).”
It is very interesting that before ethics recognizing similarities considered reactive. You always asked specifics regarding the incident you speak of. This is the lessening your intelligence, isn’t? By this you can’t say something reminds you to fascism for example. You have to write it down detailed, even if it is completely Totalitarian like the RPF.
Sorry, not before but in front of.
Marildi says: “And, by the way, LRH did credit – highly – the knowledge that came before him, and built on it.” LRH giving credit in my opinion is not about giving credit but making his work look shiny and more authentic. When in fact it isn’t. I’ve just asked a reincarnated lama who said exactly this. That his work is not authentic.
Now, here is this guy who calls himself Maitreya, but is not recognised by any Buddhist school – at least yet, thanks for god – and who does not follow even the most basic and profound Buddhist knowledge, the four noble truth. Incredible, isn’t? How would LRH call it? Certainly, he would call it “squirrel”.
gOD, the idea that LRH was giving credit to Buddha (and many others, by the way) to make his work look more authentic is not inconceivable. But his works do put forth the principles he got from Buddhism, and if he had NOT given credit, I can imagine the criticism THAT would have brought him – he was “damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.”
In response to your post just above this one – from my understanding, what is considered reactive is when similarities are not seen as similarites but instead are considered identities. According to the Dianetics Axioms the analytical mind “thinks in differences and similarities” and the reactive mind “thinks only in identities.”
In an ealier post you were questioning the Know to Mystery Scale, as regards the position of “eat” and others. There are a number of places where LRH gives further information about this scale and the positions on it. One explanation he gives is that at each level the individual is doing___ (whatever) in order TO KNOW, i.e. “Looking to know,” “Emoting to know,” . . . “Eating TO KNOW [my caps],” etc. (See Know to Mystery scales in Scientology 0-8.)
Overall, you seem to be committing the age-old error called “A little learnin’ is a dangerous thing.” I probably do it too (!) but maybe to a lesser degree, because I have done a fair amount of study of Scn materials, as well as some auditor training.
And, by the way, what I have noticed in reading Geir’s blog and others is that the highly trained and experienced auditors (those with LOTS of hours in the chair, especially) are the ones who have the most certainty about the truth of the basic tenets of Scientology AND the workability of the tech, even when they don’t believe that LRH was perfect. I find that very telling. 🙂
Overall, you seem to be committing the age-old error called “A little learnin’ is a dangerous thing.”
Maybe it seems so. It may look similar but it is certainly not identical. And consider this: Too much learning possibly means you already became indoctrinated and so can’t easily get out of the implanted trap.
Just today I’ve made the realization and conclusion that even the definition of reality in Scientology is somehow false.
Even the big things of reality are different from people to people. The same building can be someone’s beautiful house but the miserable workplace for a servant-girl. What is the agreement here?:)
Regarding the workability of the tech I really do not know what to say… Of course it seems to be useful for many. And obviously harmful for others. Not necessarily just for SPs. I do not beleive in the myth of “100% standard tech works uniformly for all and under all conditions”. I know I am a human being. “Tech” is not for me. Right now I use methods. Useful ones. I do not care about Total Freedom either. All I want is awakening.
If Scientology helps in that, that’s fine. But I am not a fanatic and I would not quote LRH or anyone else without serious examination of the truth of what he says.
A very interesting thing is that when you study Buddhism it is said that Buddha thought differently to different people, because different people are on different mental level, so different teaching is required. And indeed.
Only in Scientology we have this strange and false assumption that “If it is not written, it is not true.” Which also means everything is universally true what is written or said by LRH.
What a trap. And what a bypass of your judgement and thinking and intelligence. Hence you are reduced to the level of a robot. Now, the word technology became adequate to the subject.
You need to get the context on the “If it isn’t written, it isn’t true”.
Also, I believe you may have some reading to do regarding the point on “Reality”. Read “Problems of work”.
You are correct. However when I look up the definition of “reality” in the Tech Dictionary (right now actually there is not one Scientology dictionary) the definitions of reality are about “agreement” and “solid things”.
It is true I took out of context “If it isn’t written, it isn’t true” regardless Scientology’s effort is to make people to think uniform. Only the Hubbard scheme is acceptable both for Hubbard both for the Church. Roughly stated: when you are throughly trained (and audited), no unique thought is accepted. At least this seems to be the objective.
I guess at least we can agree that the third dynamic (of Scientology) is the most important thing for Hubbard and in Scientology.
I honestly have no problem with anyone using other useful methods for awakening, and I say good for you! It’s true that Scientology is not for everyone.
But, sorry, it does seem that you are quoting LRH without having done a serious examination. The reason I say that is because of your lack of understanding of actual Scientology, not because you disagree.
Geir’s recommendation to read Problems of work is perfect – it explains all the basics of Scientology in that one little book. I would be interested in whether there is anything you COULD agree with that you read there. Let me know!
FriendOfARC said: My personal integrity tells me that I do not need to seek evidence for what I already know is true for me. And for me, it’s simply as simple as that. Whether or not something has historical evidence or not is not relevant to me.
All that one can know is one’s considerations and nothing else. Those consideration are either generated by self, or generated by another and accepted by self. So a person’s integrity would depend on maintaining a status quo as regards one’s considerations. Where one should draw a line as to what considerations should be maintained and what may be changed is arbitrary. This makes the sense of personal integrity to be arbitrary too.
When one is unwilling to question what one “knows” then one is stuck with what one “knows”. One becomes static and unable to change and maneuver.
What are FIXED IDEAS? What is “personal integrity” based on FIXED IDEAS? One may say, ” I have no fixed ideas… I just know.” Well, all fixed ideas start with just that consideration.
What is true personal integrity? It is a willingness to look with no prior judgment.
.
Valkov said: “… I think there is another meaning of “Will” that is apart from samsara or the “apparency of existence.” … See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer“
I looked at the above link. It says, “Will, for Schopenhauer, is what Kant called the ‘thing-in-itself’.” Well, a ‘thing-in-itself’ would be an independent unit with no component parts, associations, or causes. so, WILL may simply appear from nowhere. That is the case with any primary manifestation.
Does DESIRE and CRAVING depend on some kind of stimulus, whereas WILL does not? I shall accept that distinction, but does that bring any clarification to the understanding of WILL.
What is there prior to the WILL? I would say, “It the background of NOTHINGNESS or UNKNOWABLE.” I would then ask, “It is some reaction to NOTHINGNESS or UNKNOWABLE, which expresses itself as WILL?”
To me, if something can be known then it is part of samsara; If it is a manifestation then it is part of samsara. Therefore, WILL would be part of samsara, but a primary one. It may, in some way, represent the “Mandelbrot set” for samsara.
This is just a speculation.
.
Chris Thompson
Very well said.
.
Sir,
You say: “With my new take on these levels, there is no need for the confidentiality or mystique or any of the sci-fi.” Yet you ponder releasing your take because of considerations of confidentiality?
How about you simply state the your data without reference to any scientology data? In a new unit of time.
LRH made many references to what is “confidential” when a part of the OT levels, in non confidential materials. If your “new take” has no need for confidentiality, it seems logical that it could also be stated without reference to confidential material.
??
🙂
I have concluded that it is impossible to relate my view of the levels without also revealing what is considered confidential in these levels.
I believe it will be part of my book, though.
I may reveal the key aspects of OT levels on my blog; and people won’t even know that I am doing it, because the element of unnecessary mystery would not be there.
Isene,
I don’t understand why you are reluctant to discuss details of the upper level materials after you have stated there is no need for their confidentiality.
🙂
OTDT
Aaah. Gene… Your brilliance is endless. There SHOULD be a continuous stream of development; how else can there be complete understanding of journey? As I understood, LRH wrote a script for a major movie called “Revolt in the Stars.” HE wanted this story shared. When I was on the Apollo in ’71, I was programmed to do OT 3 (as a VA release). Did the R6 course, went to the cage to get the materials, and was told that LRH wanted me to go directly onto the L’s auditing, if that was okay with me. I lept for joy and went into session for the most fantastic tech that has every been applied to me, EVER! When I attested to Thetan Exterior, I wanted to go back to my org (NYO) and get the show on the road as a few FEBC. I’m still parked there. Clear, L12, Grades… knowing that I need the full bridge to survive. I’m 65 now. I take on a pc now and then (as a Grad V… also did Golden Age of Tech rendition written by Dan Koon and pushed by me as the Senior C/S at a midwest org in ’96-’99.
Do you have any recommendations for me to get going? Love, John
Find an excellent auditor outside the church (there are many), and get moving with their unpressured c/s-ing.
Hey John H – What do you think would happen if you just began soloing on the low-hanging fruit of what is on your mind?
Hi Chris,
I took your advice. I gave myself the first solo session since completing Solo II at the FSO in 1995. It was sweet and calm. Also took suggestions from someone on the net who currently solo’s daily and who shared her wins with me (E. Hamre). So, thanks for helping in getting me started to actually handle the low-hanging fruit!
John
John H – You won’t be sorry. I am excited for you and I know that excitement will continue. A lot of us are cheering for you right now and are waiting to hear anything you’d like to share.
Isn’t it a strong exuberant feeling to take your case into your own hands?
Hi John, I have been solo auditing since 76, I know someone who solo’s now with fantastic gains she had less gain while in the church as you have had and doing just fine if you are real interested moving on, email me or write in my blog endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com Elizabeth Hamre.
email me when you have this info available, or better!
thanks!
Hi Geir – one of your premises is that when you dream, you are aware and that when you think of something, the dream changes accordingly. That happened to me this AM but I couldn’t tell you the mechanism. Was it my thought that entities responded to or was it my thought that directly caused the change in the dream? Or was it something else? To some extent the dream was on auto pilot till I wanted to see more and it expanded that part of the dream.
This is an interesting aspect of Scientology – it is a self proving proposition. If you see a read while soloing and you chase it down and it f/ns you think “Oh, that is what it read on. Look how it F’ned” Or did it? All you really know is it read.
It is the same thing in other religions – you pray for God to give you direction – then you hear a voice in your head and you think “God spoke to me!” It is self proving. But was it God? A demon circuit? Telepathy ? Self hypnotism? Some entity. Who knows? But the person is convinced God was speaking to him. He has proved for himself God is real. Just as your F/Ning the read proved Scn worked for you.
I think Ron was aware of this aspect of man’s makeup and used it in crafting Scientology. If you believe what Ron wrote – that there are entities that are to be handled on 7 you will likely find them. Are they real? Did you mock them up? I haven’t solved that for myself yet. But it is a slippery slope, a really dangerous question. What of subjective reality is actually real? And what of it is real because you think it is real?
So I question using your dream experiences to prove or disprove the validity of 7.
Mimsey
For me it is a clear indicator (although not the strongest one) – because I have done the mocking up of entities in my dreams in “slow motion”. I know how I create them.
Mimsey,
It might be as simple as… if a person is able to find solutions and improvement for his/her life in handling entities as the Co$ (or LRH) prescribes the techniques, then it works for them regardless as to whether these entities are only subjective to them or are in fact objective. “Consideration is senior to MEST.” Whereas, if such person does not have improvement from auditing them, then it’s the wrong action… and may just be the wrong action to take in handling entitles for that person… if you agree with the theory that we are composite beings. There are approaches different from Scn to the handling of “entities” (although they may not be identified by that word, e.g. the use of “Identities” as in Identics).
John
I like the new look of your web site – the blue look – but whatever happened to the other blog on the ot levels? It seems to have disapeared, which is why I responded on this one. I wanted to reread your original premise and it was gone.
What you say is interesting – has your perception of your dreams changed the further you progressed in scn? Are you more aware in them?
The other blog post is here.
Can’t say there has been any more or better control of my dreams as I progressed in scientology – but I think and relate what happens in my dreams to scientology tech – which is interesting.
I have never (conciously at least) was aware of creating people in my dreams. I am aware of their identities (mocked up I presume) as people in my life though they may not look quite like them. I know some of the locations but they also do not look like the actual location. Like when I dream of Flag it looks like a university (different ones in different dreams) so though I know it is Flag it isn’t physically recognizeable as such.
Did you ever try that Carlos Casenada thing with looking at your hand to gain control of the dream ( it’s been a long time and I don’t recall exactly what he said.)
I haven’t tried that, but I do quite often control my dreams – also in slow motion, and that is why I have seen myself create entities in the dreams.
I have never tried to control my dreams particularly, and have not seen them in slo mo.
My question I thought of late last night is this:
If I am creating the dream, why would I dream I am at Flag and not have it look anything remotly like Flag?
Mimsey
Who knows – the less aware you are when creating the dreams, the less controll you will have – much like the universe you see around you while awake.
I am seeing a correlation between what we refer to as “theta universe” and quanta.
Ahhh… Am I hearing a bit of the ol’ L. Kin, Chris?
Hi John,
Your reference went over my head. All I meant was that as a person practices introspection, they arrive at simpler versions of themself. Quantum mechanics similarly arriving at simpler versions of the physical universe. The wave function collapses at the point where the observer observes it. For me, this waviness of the smallest end of the physical universe is analagous to what I encounter during introspection. Is this objective reality the same as my subjective experience? This is what I am trying to understand.
1. Is there a line between subjective and objective experience, and
2. Where is the line?
Sorry Chris,
I thought you were referring to L. Kin, the author of books on scientology where he refers to “theta quanta” as pieces or elements of theta that are endowed by a thetan in various locations for different intentions, but actually belong to himself as one whole thetan; auditing aids the thetan in recovering these theta quanta in becoming himself again.
In reference to what you really meant, I’m not sure there is a line between the objective and the subjective… but, maybe looking from the subjective, any line at all would be obscured; whereas, perhaps looking from the objective, the line is more solid. It’s a good question.