This post is a follow-up to “From inside Geir’s head while on OT 7“
Disclaimer: The following is an excerpt from my thinking while doing OT 7 – the second highest level of spiritual counseling in Scientology. This was sometime during 2003. Parts of it differs from my current thinking. This is simply an attempt to give an insight into the mind of one person doing the biggest level of spiritual enhancement within Scientology – a level that took me 3,5 years with an average of 4 auditing sessions per day.
That must be the third guy just this morning… Yes, yes, we all know the drill. Carefully close the door behind me, not rushing it, be proper, take care of the security. OK, I was less than 2 meters inside the door when it closed behind me. Is the guy OK with that? He smiles. Not noting anything on his clipboard. Phew. No visit to the Ethics Officer this morning. But, three guys just this morning checking the security gate into the Solo NOTs area? Three students having had their run-in with ethics and making amends by standing inside the gate checking if any of the other students are security-sloppy – just this morning?
Ah… but uf curz! It’s Thursday morning! That explains it – it’s the Thursday 2pm completion race. Ha! Flag is really pumping for production this week.
I’m glad I never had to do any amends like that – checking people passing the gate, checking if all student briefcases inside the gate has both combination locks secured, checking for any other out security like pieces of paper with hints of confidential material lying around. I only had one mishap, and that was on Solo 2, where I left the room for just one second with a piece of paper left on the desk. But that piece of paper didn’t really have any confidential material on it. But hey, I’m still OK with being slapped with a Condition of Danger for that – after all, Solo 2 was all about training a Solo auditor to take the big step onto the OT levels. So, training for the needed high security was quite OK.
Alright, waiting. Waiting, waiting, waaaaiting… Where’s the Supervisor? Ah, there she comes. Hey guys, let Linda through. Looking stern as usual. I’m glad I know to shut my mouth, be nice and follow suit. Into the course room we go. Yep, past the second security door. Into the atmosphere… calm, almost serene. Really nice course room. And there’s Håkan, the friendliest course Sup. Yeah, I’ll stand over there while he does the Roll Call.
Snap and pop. Roll Call done, time to get the packs out. Cuing. And hurry now, the pack is unmounted and I only have a minute or so to plug the cord from the pack into a socket in one of the tables before the alarm goes off. And that would be a ton of shit hitting every fan in the house.
What if had taken my cell phone into the course room and taken photos of the confidential material. Hush! Get that thought out right away. But what IF? What if the church went crashing and no one could get hold of the material to audit themselves? A sort of rescue mission for spiritual freedom. Heck, what am I thinking? Any more nonsense like this and it will show up on the e-meter. On the Security Check every six months, they even ask about my intentions regarding keeping the confidentiality of the materials, and having out-security thoughts like this is smelling of danger – of long visits to the Ethics Officer, Court of Ethics, Committee of Evidence and whatnot. Maybe even getting barred from completing the OT levels. Forever. That would be worse than someone pulling the trigger with the barrel squarely aimed at my head. At least then I would come back and carry on with a new body. Being barred from doing the OT levels would mean no possible spiritual progress – a farewell to spiritual freedom. It would be the perpetual prison forever. Shrug! No, gotta stay in line here. Stay focused. Stay the course.
My stints as an OSA operative did show me that there is plenty of material on the Net. But it’s thwarted, altered, some are mush-mashed into weird shit. And nowhere did I see the holy grail of Solo NOTs – the correction list. And without that, I would have been left in the ditch during my first six months of solo auditing the level. And without the whole setup at Flag, with its course room, the Golden Age of Tech drills, the cramming officers, Qualifications division… and the e-meter refurbishing… what would we do. No, I simply have to support the church, even with all the craziness going on. It’s the only way.
376 thoughts on “Inside Geir’s head while on OT 7, part 2”
” I simply have to support the church, even with all the craziness going on. It’s the only way ” . This tight control and worldview is exactly the one lived daily within the sea org. But in the sea org you just have the promise of getting cause over the physical universe with academy courses and confessionals, mainly.
One needs to be cause over SELF first before one can be cause over any universe.
KHTK 23: Diamond Sutra of Buddha
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts! At the time I was in a confidential course-room a decade earlier, the security protocols were much less severe but still, the think you have described is so similar to the think I had at the time that this could have been my own write-up!
I might add that I did not have your OSA experiences so I had no idea that there were even poor facsimiles outside the Church.
BTW did you ever find the holy grail?
Yes. It’s on Wikileaks.
You can even find OT VIII material on the internet. Here’s an excerpt from the introduction of one article I found:
“The wording of the processes are exact to the best of my recall and the procedures are exact
for sure. Any differences are extremely minor (if at all). I spent several weeks reconstructing
all this from memory (needless to say I have an excellent memory as a result of the
rundown). I am breaking security as I disagree that this should only be released to an elite
Click to access scientologyNEWOT8.pdf
This reminds me of Winston Smith.
This is fantastic! Keep going!!!!
Something interesting was that while reading this I got back the “feel” of Flag. And I was never in the security area. But I was on staff there for a number of years and I guess the “vibe” permeated the whole place. Either that or it was similar to the general SO atmosphere of threat, and I rationalized it too. What a relief to know I’m free of that.
This line made me laugh: “Hey guys, let Linda through. Looking stern as usual. I’m glad I know to shut my mouth, be nice and follow suit.” 😀
Yes, I was good at that too. Blandly cheerful.
This is really good stuff. If G writes a book, he has got to write this in English.
I’ll buy ten copies!
My biography in Norwegian is finished. But I am not happy with it as it is a more factual account of what happened. What I write here is more from the inside of my mind. I may decide to keep the factual account biography and then interject the book throughout with passages like this from the inside of my head – and do that in English to make it stand out. External = Norwegian. Internal = English. I am debating this as I write this now.
If you want my opinion, I think this is two separate works.
I don’t know what the external Norwegian version is like, and I probably never will – unless you translate it.
But the style and the flow of the “inside your head” version stands on its own very very well. It’s pretty brilliant in fact. Like I said, it is very “1984ish”, with Winston Smith as the narrator.
The real job anyone must do who writes about Scientology is to present the both good and the bad of the Scientology experience so that the whole truth of it is made available to the reader. It’s the only way to create something that is the truth. I’ve not seen anything perform that function better than the two posts you made in English in your internal style.
I’m not kidding Geir. This is really good. I think you could sell it, AND you could tell the truth of your experience using this direction you’ve started out with here..
I think you are really on to something. The question is can you keep this energy up for the entire story. (A story that is obviously sitting there, busting to get out.)
As for the Norwegian text… no I will not translate it. In fact the two things I dislike the most is translating and accounting. Translating a company’s accounting from one language to another… that would be hell.
Hmm… I will see if the story, the energy “takes” me. If it does, there will be a book.
Maybe one of your fans who speaks Norweigian could help you translate and another one who speaks English could edit it 🙂
Are you going to publish it on the internet? At least include a bunch of photos!
Wow. Translations and photos now 😉 Phew. And I was about to put that book on the backburner (seriously). Hmm….
With the coming collapse of the Church there may be a lot of books written – better get yours in English ready fast ;).
You know how much interest there already is in Scientology – judging by the internet. It never “runs out”, and it will only increase. You’ll be rich and even more famous.
But I can’t fault your approach that has to do with the “energy”. Hope it flows 🙂
Geir, I agree with Alanzo!
I don’t think it’s that 1984-ish, to me that mostly depressing and gloomy …,
not a trace Geir’s humour …
Winston Smith however seems to be someone I should read …
You were an OSA Operative?
And yes, it’s good reading.
But missing … details. And thus aligning with Marty’s “It’s all DM’s fault” premise.
So … FAIL.
And as you know, I’m hired by DM to use common sense, rational thinking and clear, reliable details that cannot be denied to derail “Pre DM Scientology” to cripple Marty and Mike’s reformation.
Here is MY Experience at Gold on the day I was hired. I figured that if Geir can do it, so can I.
((SCENE: GOLD BASE. HEMET CALIFORNIA))
GUARD: “KNEEL BEFORE DOG!”
KG: “Oh go fuck yourself.”
GUARD: “KNEEL OR WORD CLEAR THE SCREEN PLAY TO BATTLEFIELD EARTH))
((KATAGEEK KNEELS TOWARD THE DOG AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.))
DM: “So, you are Bunkai, no?”
KG: “Um, why am I here?”
DM: “You are using common sense, documented facts and reliable historical accounts to help people confront the cult techniques of 1978 Scientology. What’s the problem is MY Scientology? Not good enough for you?”
KG: “No. It sucks. That three swinging needle thing is slowing down the brainwashing and disrupting LRH’s brilliant illusion that Scientology actually works. You are losing bat shit by the guano load.”
((DM CIRCLES THE ROOM, SNEARS A VILLAINS SNEAR))
DM: “Yes, but you work for ME now understand. For free. No money. No chicks. Nothing.”
DM: I want you to do exactly what you are doing. But I’m going to tell everyone that it’s from ME see?”
KG: “Yeahhhhhhh … riggggggghhhhhht … okay … can I go now?
((KG FUMBLES WITH CELL PHONE))
KG: “How did you kill my cell?”
((KATAGEEK TURNS TO LEAVE))
DM: “It matters not that you do this on your own. THEY WILL STILL THINK I SENT YOU! EVEN THAT NORWEGIAN FRIEND WHO WON’T LET YOU GO TO THE OSLO MEETING ON YOUR OWN DIME.”
((KATAGEEK TURNS TO FACE DM))
KG: “Hey. Geir is cool. He’s waking up slowly. I’ve seen him confront Hubbards use of the word ‘only” on the ScnForum to show you that you CAN control people without lying to them.”
KG: “Whatever. So, if your master plan is to use my hard, undeniable facts and clear, proven science to unseat Rinder and Rathbun THEN THAT IS FUNNY. Plus you want to claim ME as your OSA plant so they think you sent me for this master plan? I have only one thing to say. THESE PEOPLE ARE MY FRIENDS AND THEY AREN’T THAT STUPID.”
((DM STANDS AND SMILES TRIUMPHANTLY AS A SAP HITS KATAGEEK FROM BEHIND AS HE FALLS UNCONSCIOUS))
NOTE: As you can see, I am ONE bad judge of character.
Another creative piece by the inimitable katageek.
Funny line about word clearing Battlefield Earth! It would even have been funny if you had just said, “Kneel or you will be forced to WATCH it.” 😀
And btw, if it bothers you that some people (I doubt if it’s more than a few) think you were sent by DM, don’t let it – most of us don’t believe that.
I both believe it and don’t believe it at the same time.
If this were a controlled laboratory where all the data were contained inside our neat little experiment, then we could make YES/NO, TRUE/FALSE types of conclusions. But this is not that kind of environment. Data and information is, and always has been, very actively kept from us, and we are continually lied to as well in this environment – especially from the Church and Mike and Marty.
So, Katageek is both an OSA Agent and not an OSA Agent.
Like a spook or a ghost, he both exists and does not exist at the same time.
Insert spooky music here.
You universe is more complicated than mine. 😉
DM knew if I had to watch it a second time that I would never be useful to him. The brain damage would be irreversible.
Well, thanks for the vote of confidence.
We “got” to see it several times. Yes,that’s right, all staff were order to see it over and over. The reviews and audience attendence were really bad and suddenly org stats didn’t matter – we were off to the movies!
But it worked out well. We caught up on our sleep a bit. 😀
You really should start writing novels or short stories !
No, I am NOT sarcastic, you do have a talent ! 🙂
Tor, in case you ACTUALLY meant to comment to my comment and not Geirs awesome post,
I’m actually writing a book of religious shorts that are “koan Like” for different religious traditions if you want to read it as it comes along:
It was on your comment, yes !!! 😀 I’ll check out the stories … 🙂
BTW: I retract my “Fail” statement about Geir’s post. I can see his reasons for not posting the OT 7 Religious experience in a way that reveals the tech.
It’s his experience and that’s enough.
So my fail was fail.
And my mu is mu.
The purpose was not to “not reveal the tech”. That’s a red herring. I simply wrote down what I thought about two situations that bothered me at the time. The tech never bothered me and I didn’t think much about it. There was however situations that arose where I believed the tech could handle it and were I was surprised that the tech didn’t handle it. More about that later, perhaps. Anyway; My posts are not the type of sensational “revealing secrets” that you will find elsewhere around the net. That has become trite as there is plenty of it. The OT levels are not secret except for Scientologists inside the church. For anyone outside, they are a simple Google away. What IS new is someone having done all the way to OT 8 revealing their inner thoughts while doing those levels. For the rest, try Google.
“There was however situations that arose where I believed the tech could handle it and were I was surprised that the tech didn’t handle it.”
The above, coming from you, would most probably be helpful for others to know. I for one am very interested. 🙂
While your inner thoughts are interesting, even more interesting to me was your comment “…was surprised that the tech didn’t handle it.”
In looking at the tech of the OT levels through OT8, it appears to me that LRH concentrated on the Beingness portion of BE-DO-HAVE. The intention seems to be to strip off all the “things” accumulated that would interfere with one being able to just BE himself. To that end, getting into communication with the “things” is fundamental to blowing them.
It is the means of achieving this communication line that raises question marks in my universe. I can see using the meter as being useful in terms of confirming completion of an auditing cycle, or some mechanical work such as date-locate, but the real basis of the comm cycle is a telepathic link. Without that a lot of dub-in could occur. When I see failed OTs (no gain, sick or aberrated) I wonder if it was not the inability to telepath that caused them to fail. It seems to me that very early on the DOingness of telepathy should be addressed.
A large part of that DOingness is addressed by TR8 – from the standpoint of delivering the auditing command, but I can recall nothing in the tech that would have helped me develop the ability to receive telepathically. That would seem equally important to me. I can see, on the one hand, that a certain amount of case may have to be eliminated before the ability to telepath can be restored, but to try and do the upper levels without that ability in place seems a recipe for disaster.
A recent conversation with a friend brought up a definition of thetan which has some relevance:
“a static that can consider, and can produce space and energy and objects (PXL, p.121)”.
That definition certainly embodies the full BE-DO-HAVE aspects that we associate with OT.
The question is: would working out and drilling the mechanics of telepathy be a sensible part of the hatting for a solo auditor before proceeding from 3 on up?
I would seriously welcome thoughts and replies to that question.
2ndxmr, LRH wrote in his ” my only defense for having lived ” article that he could in fact read minds since his childhood, but never proved this statement, lets say with some zener cards. The definition of telepathy is as follows: The transference of thoughts or feelings between two or more subjects through Psi ( One subject said to gain information from another that was shielded from their traditional senses by distance, time, or physical barriers ). What was drilled by LRH in Tr 8 is the ability to project intention ( in the Sea Org you even have a drill to project intention at long distances ) and latter LRH developed original OT 7 processes aimed to increase this intention ability ( projected and perceived ) and even recomended to use these before the re-run of a failed OT 3 case. Telekinesis was supposedly the next level ( a.k.a. psychokinesis ) but processes were never issued to develop this ( even though they were strongly advertised since the early days in the PDC lectures and up to present time by the current CoS )
In TR8 there is certainly a strong element of intention but there is also the aspect of putting the “thought” into the ashtray. When that ability is understood and acquired, getting across an auditing command is taken to a new level.
The data that LRH developed processes to increase this ability is new to me. It makes sense as a remedy but I wonder if it isn’t just a piece of tech that could be drilled and learned.
Telekinesis brings one significantly into the domain of the physical universe as opposed to the thought universe of telepathy. Considering individuals through the ages have been recorded as having telekinetic ability – and they had no Scientology processing – then it is assumable that the ability is innate to the being, just lost. Here, again, I would speculate that understanding the mechanics of telekinesis would allow drills to be developed that could restore the ability in many. In others it could be expected that auditing processes or remedies would be needed. I wouldn’t, however, necessarily expect to see telekinesis emerge at any one of the lower OT levels (1-8) as they do not seem to address DOingness, just BEingness. I do remember back in the early 80s when PDC drills were a short-time offering. I never heard anecdotes of abilities gained from those drills.
2dnxmr, I can see your point on the auditing from new ot 1 to new OT 8 as a beingness handling, a good one. But I would like to add that any beingness handling should include vital data on universal moral values and natural ethical principles as those teached by the great religion avatars with the purpose of creating the STABILITY of such OT state. In my view this is the problem with the OT auditing in scientology, the selective use of ethics to back up ” happiness and comfort ” for oneself or the managment ( the optimum solution formula at work ). It is my opinion that a lot of OT drills can be recovered or created from the early LRH materials on the subject of OT doingness but the stability of the beingness is an absolute prerrequisite. Or told in a diferent way, there is not objective cause over the physical universe unless the OT is honest and decent without temporary justifications. ( here the character is born )
Excellent point. I completely agree.The collapse of beingness that follows an overt is not undone by justification.
2ndxmr, I too am hoping Geir or other OTs in addition to Rafael will comment on this. Non-OTs as well. I know that in general, posters here are interested in improved tech and discussion can sometimes spark good ideas.
On your point about the ability to receive telepathically, I got that you are talking about the pc receiving communication from the various kinds of “things” in his universe/space. My thought about it is that the beingness factor plays a role in receiving as well as sending. That is to say, if the pre-OT is really or fully BEING in the same space, for that reason alone he should be receptive to communication. Being in the same space would mean that communications (energy, basically) impinge on him and he would receive them. Does that compute? If this is true, then the emphasis on beingness makes sense. Also, Rafael has a good point about the ethics factor being important and maybe that is the main reason for failed OTs in the CoS.
It would be different in life, however, as regards receiving (or sending) telepathically, as distance can be anything. The original OT levels possibly do produce telepathic ability in life, and there is probably data on those levels online. Or the PDC tapes might be the place to look, from what you said. It would be good if anyone has further data on either of those.
Yes, my point predominantly applied to the auditing cycle as that pertains to items at the OT level. To understand the consequences of a failed OT-communication, one only has to approach the problem from the real-life perspective of missed communications and the charge that can ensue. When communications are missed/dubbed-in/mocked-up or otherwise mis-duplicated at the OT level it’s easy to imagine the poked-hornets’-nest effect that might result.
From another perspective, an auditor would be ill advised to take into session a foreign language pc without either understanding the pc’s language, or having an interpreter along in the session. The consequences are literally self apparent. Considering the emphasis and training done at the lower levels to be in communication with the pc, it amazes me that the solo auditor is so poorly prepared.
Your point about being in the same space may be a starting point, but considering the “things” are already in our space there is obviously another element. I believe the mechanic of that element is similar to the mechanic we would employ if we were trying to communicate with someone next to us at a crowded, noisy venue: you lock onto the sound of that person’s voice and use that lock to filter out the surrounding noise. The brain is fairly good at that, but it takes conscious effort by the listener to really get the communication.
I would posit that at the OT level a similar mechanism would play in the telepathic reception of a communication.
One element with regard to OT auditor-beingness that I would agree with would be the auditor’s interest and willingness to help the pc. This goes to affinity – which goes back to being willing to share the same space – but also goes to “responsibility for” i.e. the auditor taking responsibility for the improvement of the pc’s case. That consideration actually brings up an interesting point: does the OT auditor have an ethical responsibility for the items of the OT case? Should there be something akin to an “ethical treatment of entities”?
Okay, I think I get what you mean – that TR 0 would be only one of the TRs necessary for a good comm cycle. Where you say that “it takes conscious effort by the listener to really get the communication”, does that differ in any way from the usual auditing comm cycle on lower levels – where pc looks to the bank for the answer to the question. There too, a conscious effort may be required to lock onto the “item” in the mind. Maybe I’m not seeing how that is essentially any different from receiving a telepathic communication. Are the mechanics not the same?
Then, on your other point about auditor interest and willingness to help the pc, I get that you are looking at it as though the “items of the OT case” were the pc of the solo auditor, and that the auditor should treat them ethically. Can you say just how that would be?
M. “Okay, I think I get what you mean – that TR 0 would be only one of the TRs necessary for a good comm cycle.”
All TRs would be important, but especially TR8. One has to be able to place a thought (command) at a point in space. My questions relate to receiving an answer from that point in space.
M. “Where you say that “it takes conscious effort by the listener to really get the communication”, does that differ in any way from the usual auditing comm cycle on lower levels – where pc looks to the bank for the answer to the question. ”
What I’m saying is that even audible conversations require a conscious effort by the listener to get the whole communication, and that the way we do that is by focussing our attention on that communication. Beyond that one needs a common language and a volume level that is acceptable. I expect the same requirements would apply to theta communication. The common language might be pictures. The volume level might be related to intention level.
M. “Then, on your other point about auditor interest and willingness to help the pc, I get that you are looking at it as though the “items of the OT case” were the pc of the solo auditor, and that the auditor should treat them ethically. Can you say just how that would be?”
An auditor auditing a lower level case wouldn’t dream of leaving the pc in an unhandled incident or stuck in an out-rud. The intention is to handle the pc’s case and bring the pc uptone and out of the bank. At the OT level, the solo auditor is addressing the OT case primarily from a 1st dynamic point of view – blowing off the items with little more than a “sayonara” for the primary benefit of the solo auditor. In the case of an item being a past valence, fine, blow it however. But if the item is actually an entity that we discard as we would flick a crumb off our clothing, then what? Where does that entity go? Like a crumb falling to the floor, does it continue to get stepped on? Is that ethical? Does the auditor commit a 7th dyn overt by blowing off an entity? If so, will that recoil on the beingness of the solo auditor? Should another handling paradigm be considered?
I appreciate that this is getting far from being relevant to the OP but it may be relevant to discovering why some Scientology tech didn’t work.
Geir’s idea of TR 8Q might be the answer. With TR8Q, you drill being able to place a thought in a precise space and involved with that of course is focusing on the space – and simply due to attention being focused there you should be that much better able to perceive a thought in that space.
Your idea about the potentials of 7th dynamic overts gives me pause. The fascinating part is that it sounds like a person would indeed be auditing the 7th dynamic. Wow!
I don’t quite get what you mean by common language since in telepathy and in auditing the comm is conceptual (e.g. the meter reads when the intention is received).
In lecture 6211C20 (SHSBC-242) FUNDAMENTALS OF AUDITING, LRH says: ” Auditing is a 3rd dynamic activity’
Yes, there are 7th dynamic effects – actually, effects on each of the dynamics when auditing entities.
I always found in upper level auditing that communication was instantaneous – concepts.
Looking now at lower levels – a question of who are we actually auditing comes to mind.
My own thinking is that the whole works could be considered case … Clear being that one is creating/considering his own mess so to speak, plus, the ‘OT case’.
After all, if one is of the belief that an individual is not *just* an individual, but a complexity of various identities, one could then assume that auditing is a general evolution of pulling oneself out of the soup so one can differentiate who he actually is vs. pictures, pressures, odd flips in beingness, etc.
If one is ‘Clear’ but still experiences pictures, odd MIS-emotions, odd thoughts, etc., where would those things that may lead one to believe he is not Clear come from?
One could essentially Create/mock up a reactive mind and then spot it and as-is it over & over & over.
This would likely blow off the automaticity of the continuous create and bingo, one could create or not at will.
Hi Dennis. You said, “I always found in upper level auditing that communication was instantaneous – concepts.”
Yes, what I duplicated is that an instant read does not actually occur because of the spoken words but rather the intention that goes with the words. Essentially, when the auditor finishes the command his own concept of it at that point instantaneously “reaches” the pc.
Now, as for receiving a comm from an entity, in my last comment I was thinking that would be a concept too, but on second thought it might not necessarily be. It could, as 2x suggested, be pictures or…? What can you say about that?
You also said, “One could essentially Create/mock up a reactive mind and then spot it and as-is it over & over & over.”
As you probably know, that is actually a part of one definition of Clear: “…can erase or re-create an analytical mind or reactive mind” (Dn 55) – although Clears seem to vary in their abilities. However, that might very well be a workable drill for some people.
Lastly, I do understand about “the effects on each of the dynamics when auditing entities.” But 2ndxmr seems to be talking about a more direct kind of activity and effect – similar perhaps to “3D engram running”, which directly focuses on the 3D – but focusing directly on 7th dynamic entities. That is an intriguing idea.
Under normal auditing of entities, you ignore pictures. The only thing it really indicates is that there is someone is creating them.
You find the source.
A Clear is also the effect of other things: his own postulates, considerations, etc.
I believe the fact of instant reads on OT 3 and above indicates that one is in fact not handling separate beings but actually one’s own old, subconscious/forgotten/rejected viewpoints.
2012-03-30 at 23:18
I believe the fact of instant reads on OT 3 and above indicates that one is in fact not handling separate beings but actually one’s own old, subconscious/forgotten/rejected viewpoints.
Thatis a thought I had too …
Frankly, it doesn’t matter (or didn’t at the time) where the charge ‘source’ was from whether self-created or other, but watching the meter/TA and getting the charge off to F/N.
@Dennis D.”Frankly, it doesn’t matter (or didn’t at the time) where the charge ‘source’ was from whether self-created or other, but watching the meter/TA and getting the charge off to F/N.”
While I would prefer to think that all of the elements of the bank were my own that i could freely dispense with, the real possibility of an entity case gives me some pause. I’ve seen enough very low toned people to make it real to me that tone levels could go even farther south. I also see no reason why a very low toned thetan freshly out of a deceased body might have some reluctance to enter a new body. Low toned people will sometimes want to be around higher toned people so why not a disembodied thetan? Following that logic, is it not conceivable that there could be an entity case? Especially if implanted commands command the entity (very bad off thetan) to be an entity.
The point is, it’s one thing to get an F/N on the meter that indicates the pre-OT has released charge, but if that release was the release of a BT from the pre-OTs space, what has become of it?
Yep, I understand what you’re saying.
I was looking at it from the point of following a command off say OT 3,4,5 or 7 and what answers/reads is what I run. If it was created by me or another, or is a copy or implanted, or, or … , I guess I’ll find out.
I wasn’t overly worried about it really as what indicates would read/blowdown – similar to listing – the item is the item.
Maybe I’m missing something …
I also look at how some can go on for years and still audit more 5 or 7 … I guess you could audit 3 endlessly but what a long way to go about it.
Another aspect is how one keeps clear of an entity case once finished …
Also, would one, after finishing OT 7 or 8, have a new and deeper viewpoint of ‘life’ in that they could go back and have another whack at the Grades and address it Nots style – that sounds excitng to me …
Or is this just one miniscule level of awareness we are looking at and auditing and there is a much bigger level outside of the current ‘wall’ of perception ….
Lots to ponder 🙂
Thanks for the post – interesting stuff to me!
Thanks for that link again for the older thread …
I re-read it – interesting that it came up as I was looking at the sleep mechanism last night and taking apart what happens as it clicks or as I decide to sleep. I was too tired though 😉
Like you related in that post, I lay ‘awake’ (body asleep) on many nights but find it a bit boring now – very calm but boring. You mentioned that you create scenery & people while you dream … maybe I’ll try that – my people can goof around with your people 😉
I found this being aware of being awake really occurred near the end of OT 2 – that level blew me away. I had great sessions that day … went to bed, closed my eyes and all I saw was bright white openness … nothing there. I could move thru it so to speak but nothing to anchor onto – felt great but a bit disorienting. Extremely quiet – no mechanical sounds or bric-a-brac, no sound at all – wild it was.
Well, goofy me, I continued auditing a few more days to pump the solo DofPs hours up to help her out and in the meantime, I whacked myself in 😉
Ran a repair, went to the examiner and as I’m sitting there and the examiner indicates F/N, all manner of wild phenomena started occurring – a very, very busy universe.
I attested but then went to see the Sup for a consult & told him I didn’t think I was finished may have false attested even though just prior I felt on top of the world.
He Listened to what I said was happening withe the current phenomena – I was worried – real worried. Then he broke into a wide grin and said “Thank you – looks like you’re primed & ready for OT 3”.
At that point, everything blew away and I was on top of the world again … I started 3 the next day.
… just a little anecdote 🙂
It may not matter during the auditing – but it ultimately matters – because taking responsibility for one’s own creations and thinking it is someone else… that is ultimately very different. The first makes for a more responsible being. The latter, not so much.
Yes, that is important … ownership & all.
Geir, I thought more about your comment and have a question. According to the Axioms, if incorrect ownership or authorship is assigned to an as-isness, then it will persist. Accordingly, if “one is in fact not handling separate beings but actually one’s own old, subconscious/forgotten/rejected viewpoints”, then wouldn’t those old viewpoints persist?
No. Because of the cognition “me” at the end of the process. I believe this goes much deeper than the analytical level.
Geir said, “I believe the fact of instant reads on OT 3 and above indicates that one is in fact not handling separate beings but actually one’s own old, subconscious/forgotten/rejected viewpoints.”
I’m wondering why it wouldn’t be possible to pick up a reaction from another thetan when the pre-OT has intended the auditing command into that spot and has an attention line connection to it. There may be an additional comm lag, where the charge is first registered by the other thetan and then that is picked up and registered by the solo auditor, but if so it seems that the additional lag would be too infinitesimally small not to be seen as an instant read.
But lots of processes don’t count on the Solo auditor first having an attention on a specific spot, and that is where the instantness becomes suspicious to me.
Okay, that’s a good point. Still, I think also of how people can pick up on each other’s pictures or feel the other’s emotion without having first put attention there or expected anything. And if that person then did feel/perceive the charge of the other, it would theoretically have the same effect as any perceived charge – a instant reaction that shows up on the needle.
For sure. Especially if we are of the same origin – viewpoints within a greater dream.
Oh man, now I’m even more curious. Are you saying that there was a particular “race” of thetans who had and still have, as a group, the intention to “be free” – something like that?
No, only that this universe could be the figment of imagination of one source just like when I dream, I create a whole universe, scenery, viewpoints (people) and all…
Here’s a big one (worthy of a separate blog post); What if all religions and beliefs were right in their essence? What if Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Materialism, Shamanism, old Indian religions, African religions, the Barabaig… all of them – what if they are all correct in their core views?
I can relate to that. I believe that could be the truth.
Yes, I realized on second thought that I took that right out of context. I get what you’re saying – that those viewpoints originated from the same thetan origin, similar to your dream people, who aren’t really “thetans”.
No problem to see how it could very well be that the things being run are one’s own past viewpoints. What I’m not seeing is why it might not also be possible for it to be another thetan whose perceptions one was receiving, similar to what happens in life between thetans as I was saying.
On your other point about beliefs and origins, I have felt the same and have said so too! But I don’t think it relates to the frame of reference in the above, doesn it? Still interested in your response to that.
Think of it this way: God or a Prime Source dreams. This universe is the result (me and you included). Then I dream. My dream with scenery and multiple people is the result. Etc.
As for the possibility of separate beings – I believe I covered that in my earlier post as to why there aren’t any returnees.
Yes, I remember that idea about returnees not showing up. I’ve only seen this LRH quote on the subject: “Body thetans are just thetans. When you get rid of one he goes off and possibly squares around, picks up a body or admires daisies.”
The Solo NOTS materials apparently said something different. In any case, isn’t it possible that LRH was wrong on that particular point?”
I got your idea of dreams being analogous to God’s creation of the universe and of “viewpoints”. If that’s the way it is then you must have created thetans in your dreams, and shouldn’t they carry on their existence even after you wake up?
Logic will have it that returnees would be totally common – and not totally gone.
Yes, that is definitely logical. One other possibility, though, of what might have happened to all those freed beings and I remembered this from Scn 8-8008: “Earth could be considered to be, at this time, an egress terminal.” Is it possible that many of those beings (if they were) simply left?
Along with that quote, I thought of someone’s recent comment (it might have been Maria’s) regarding thetans leaving this universe and thus making more bodies available for other thetans waiting for bodies to pick up – who would then be able to get processed and themselves eventually exit, again leaving a greater number of bodies to be picked up by other beings waiting – and so on.
No, there is supposedly no difference between them and you – and you are back, but they are not. So, not possible – a statistical animality to put it mildly.
You are right, Geir – that was a stretch about them not returning to Earth.
My one other query relates to what Dennis brought up – why would we necessarily expect them to recall their experience? Or even to necessarily be drawn to Scientology? And IF they happened to come across it (not a small “if ”, as far as I can figure, looking at the planet as a whole) they might very well be turned off by other factors separate from auditing (the same as how other people respond, in the majority).
And to start with, they might not even have picked up the fact that it was “Scientology” that they had experienced – all they would “know” about (“deep down”) would be the terms and processes used in the sessions they had undergone, due to the fact of having been very unaware before that, the vast majority of them.
Correct me on any wrong or missing data, if you “can”. And thanks for your willingness on this subject! 🙂
First, to quote myself from the Radical View post:
“If the theory behind the OT levels as laid out by LRH is true, then we would have a large number of beings turning up for auditing that were ready to run a very different process than the ordinary Bridge (as covered in OT VI material). But we do not see that. Except for some loose rumors, not one single being has been verified as having showed up out of the estimated more than 200 million. This is a discrepancy like no other.”
A sizeable portion of these would be Clear or above. And all of them have been prescribed a very specific process by LRH – available in the (Solo) NOTs materials. The chances that at least a few thousand out of the 100 million would turn up in an org, get picked up in auditing as a returnee (should be fairly easy given the wealth of correction lists etc.). But NONE? Nope. There is absolutely NO evidence that this theory is true. There is only faith.
Okay. I’m trying to think with this and using the figure of 200 million – that would be about 1/35 of the world population. Then I look at the percentage of world population who are actually in Scientology, about 10,000 (as a realistic figure) – which is a very, very small fraction of close to 7 billion. And it all seems to come out as very bad odds against any of those 200 mil coming into contact with Scn. Is this an invalid way to look at the math here (I’m not much of a mathematician)?
Also, Dennis brought up an excellent point about all the “circuitry, postulates, GE, etc.” that would get in the way of returnees’ recall.
Yes – it is an invalid way to look at it. The returnees would be in better shape than 90% of the population – on par with a Release, Clear or OT (according to LRH), so presumably they would be able to control where to pick up a body and carry on. So, I would say the 200 million would populate around 1/10 of the relevant population, i.e. constitute around 1/10th of everyone coming into Scientology these days. But NONE? Again, there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence suggesting this theory is correct. Except faith that “if LRH said so, it must be true” or some such. No evidence. None.
All right, I see my missing datum – that “they would be able to control where to pick up a body and carry on”. I take it that is an LRH datum (since we are talking about his related ideas on the matter)? I didn’t know about that factor and it might be a significant one.
Btw, I’m not pursuing this because LRH said it (you’ve reformed me better than that ;)). In fact, the idea that we should have heard from these returnees, and haven’t, shows he was wrong at least about that prediction. Whatever the case may be on that point, I’m just interested in this from the perspective of the possibility that these are true beings being dealt with.
Mind you, I am not totally ruling out the possibility – only that I currently don’t believe it to be true (as the odds are seriously in disfavor of the theory)
I don’t know the percentage that would be able to choose the body to pick up – but even at a small percentage of the total, we clearly would have seen at least a thousand returnees by now.
Yes, I see how it wouldn’t take much of a percentage to be significant as regards the opportunity to get into Scn. However, there still remain other factors against it culminating in a repair list that shows them up as returnees – the bad management, the out tech, and whatever else might be relevant but which there is no or poor data for. I’ll have to think about this other than with a Look-with-logic approach – maybe just go straight to Know (ho ho ho :D). Thanks, Geir.
As Geir mentions, most of the initial questions or steps are similar to a non-OT level session.
One is still asking for something, or finding say a pressure or some such, or taking some item off a list.
Most of the time, the pre-OT has a general idea of where it comes from but not down to a particular source.
Once the ‘perceived source’ is found, one can then audit it.
One does have to have a narrow scope on his attention & communication so as not to restimulate a wider area.
But – correction lists reads with instant reads even though the source is totally unknown to the Solo auditor.
But gus; We should realize that discussing these matters would throw any CoS lurker into fits. It may be a real turn-off. Not that I mind, but this is also worth discussing (the potential of chasing some people off)
yes .. okay, I’ll let you lead the way 🙂
I got off on another thought after ‘As Geir mentions …”
I meant ‘don’t count on the Solo auditor first having an attention on a specific spot, …’
Thanks, Dennis. You’ve probably now seen my last comment to the effect that I do see how there are different kinds of procedures that it would not make sense to relate to anything but one’s own bank. However, I’m trying to duplicate Geir’s idea as to why he doesn’t think that it could be anything other than one’s own viewpoints.
Okie dokie Marildi … I guess I butted in where I shouldn’t have.
Hey, another angle could be similar to the Truman Show with Jim Carrey …
Here we are living this ‘dream’, for so many aeons it is real – REAL real – so much so it seems as though it is you.
Finally after sailing the seas of one’s universe, he finds a door, opens it, and viola – he realizes it was all created by himself and it disintegrates into thin air
Dennis, looks like Geir has gone horizontal. What do you think – about CoS lurkers and whether we are scaring them away when we should be doing the opposite? I personally don’t think there could be many of them here other than those who are mavericks themselves and already disaffected – and looking. On the other hand, the confidential data talk might be more than they bargained for and too steep a gradient. Geir said he didn’t mind but…
Hey, never worry about butting in. I’ll just ignore you. Joke!
Really, I’m always glad when you join in. (Just had to get back at you for that crack about me selling you an e-meter. But that was funny. :D)
As for the Jim Carrey movie (he’s a favorite of mine, btw), you know which pc origination flashed? “I feel so lonesome” :(. Not a total joke ;).
oops … pressed wrong button
I don’t think there’s a lot of lurkers … a few public & OSA/DSA – no worries.
But, It is likely a bit of a steep gradient although I do like looking at possibilities and hypothesizing … I never know when some origination or comment sparks a cognition.
Maybe we could talk in more general terms 🙂
How? Not a clue hahah
Yes, the Jim Carrey movie Truman Show is interesting from a universe aspect. I looked at having ‘invisible’ spheres layered around us. As we break thru each layer, a new world/universe exists and seems at the time the best it could ever get.
I had that feeling a number of times in auditing and felt there was no higher state and ‘how could it get any better than this’.
Well, it always did 🙂
I do love the jokes btw … good laughs 🙂
Yes, I know you love jokes. And you are funny! When I saw only my name there on your first comment, I thought, “Oh that Dennis, playing an April Fool’s joke on me”. 😀
As for the lurkers, I would say they’re probably isn’t any OSA. Those people have had their hands way too full for some time now, to bother with a non-extreme blog like this one – there are so many other sites, besides. But I forgot about the DSA’s that you mentioned, and when Geir said “CoS lurkers” I was only thinking of public. He may, for instance, have been referring to the Oslo DSA, who could very well be keeping tabs on him.
But I doubt any DSA is interested in – or has time for – anything other than matters directly concerned with their own area. Nevertheless, I still leave out of my comments things like dates or other give-away specifics to do with myself and the Church, and will until the last of my friends is enlightened.
Yes, our hypothesizing has been very worthwhile, indeed. Speaking in somewhat more general terms now, the question of whether those things being audited are beings might be important to know – either way. Like Geir says, if it is one’s own creations, that is a truth that should be recognized. On the other hand, if it is a situation of other beings involved, it might be quite relevant to know that too.
For example, it might be similar to the importance of knowing whether or not animals have thetans. (Or for that matter – Canadians. Ha ha! Besides yourself, I’ve now cracked a joke at the expense of all lurking Canadians ;)) But so far I haven’t gotten any data that would make it impossible or even unlikely for it to be the case that thetans are involved. Have you? Based on your training and auditing of pcs and experiences running all this stuff, what else can you say about it? I’m still waiting to see if Geir also has more to say.
Ah yes…universes within universes. Good question. Although, you may have given Vinaire his cue to remind us about Unknowable. (Hi, Vinnie. :)) But that was very cool, what you said about “it can’t get any better” and then it does. And, btw, a previous comment you made about how even the bad stuff was good – I totally agree. A lot was learned that way – a lot. Yes, it’s all good. 🙂
” (Or for that matter – Canadians. Ha ha! Besides yourself, I’ve now cracked a joke at the expense of all lurking Canadians 😉 ) But so far I haven’t gotten any data that would make it impossible or even unlikely for it to be the case that thetans are involved. Have you? ”
Hahahahahah … hilarious – especially ‘ But so far I haven’t gotten any data that would make it impossible or even unlikely for it to be the case that thetans are involved. ‘
What … with Canadians? LOL
I actually think I spotted one once 🙂
Yes, I do look at all you mentioned about beings … captivating stuff!
As for Unknowable … not my cup of tea.
To me, everything is knowable.
I don’t think things ‘just happen’ without some Cause setting it in motion be it a few seconds ago or a few universes ago.
I just watched a great movie called The Adjustment Bureau with Matt Damon … please do watch it if you haven’t – it parallels some of what we are talking about – the very last line in the movie is a stunner … something we all should know, but nevertheless, stunning when you hear it said.
OMG, I missed the hilarity in that juxtaposition! My thinking was constricted by the punctuation – occupational hazard of a copy editor, LOL. Very sharp of you. And I believe you, that you may have spotted one once. Ha ha!
“Captivating stuff”, you say. Okay, thank you for the ack. but what light might you shed on the matter? Neither of us goes in for the unknowable. I’ll be waiting by the keyboard for your answer 🙂
p.s. Thanks for the movie tip. I love a good movie, and that one sounds good.
You ask: ‘Okay, thank you for the ack. but what light might you shed on the matter? ‘
Not much actually … I remember at St. Hill there was mention of ‘returnees’ but I don’t think they just carried on to OT IV if they were OT III last life.
Personally, I think there is too much going on (circuitry, postulates, GE, etc) to be in good enough shape to carry on like it was yesterday.
Tough to prove unless there is some sort of definitive test which could also invalidate (similar to checking someone for Clear and told – ‘Sorry, you’re not’).
I’m sure there are auditors that ran into this, but as for someone coming back & having total recall of their previous scientology past life experiences, I haven’t run into anyone.
1. OSA is monitoring this blog – via OSA helpers (like I used to be).
2. The case of “no returnees” blows that theory IMO.
2 b) It is a matter of proving an unlikely theory, not the opposite.
Back into the vertical position; There are apparently quite a few lurkers on my blog – several hundred.
Got that about the OSA helpers. Is there some concern we should all have about it?
And do you have any idea what categories, or at least the major ones, those hundreds of lurkers fall into and what we should concern ourselves with there also, if anything?
No reason to be concerned about OSA 🙂
As for the readers of this blog… I don’t know who they are except for a score or so that I talk to back channel.
Good to hear there are so many lurkers.
I do hope a few more start chiming in … communication is good 😉
On another note, we could go back to using the word ‘circuits’ – that way we stay away from anything remotely remotely spiritual like the word ‘theta’ 🙂
Tongue in cheek
I make reference to TR8 as that is what I know and have used to handle charge points on my own case for a number of years. Also, as an auditor, putting the command in a space as a thought became as natural as delivering it verbally. Unlike some auditors, though, i never had the experience of seeing the pc’s pictures and have almost never been knowingly receptive to another’s thought. Some of the points being brought out here are quite helpful.
One anecdote, though, that I can share occurred at Flag one Friday evening after grad. I had been lucky enough to be invited along to a small party hosted by a high rolling Swede in his fancy suite. The memorable point was when the fellow, on OT7, said he was going to go into session and that by the end of it we would all have a cognition. I was sitting there quite skeptically as he closed his eyes and went into session. I was thinking “Ya, right. I seriously doubt whoa! where did that come from?” as I had a cognition. It was a moment to remember and left me with no doubt that the influence was external!
Actually, could it be that when the OT VII went into session, he as-ised some part of everyone’s case/bank who was nearby, and with the “as-is’ing of aberration came a realization about life” – a cog?
LRH developed TR 8 in Washington D.C. in 1957, then in 1979 developed the mood TRs as a way to improve the TRs. Done in the 30 ft. version can assist any person to achieve an effortless afinity on any level of the tone scale.
You said, “My own thinking is that the whole works could be considered case …
I think this Class 12 had a similar thing to say:
“ Materials found on OT III, NOTS and similar levels respond and react according to a limited fixed set of rules, whether they may be circuits, valences, demons, spirits, entities, beings or even djinns.”
Here’s another quote of the Class 12, from that same thread – it is yet another idea for failed OT’s:
“Lack of understanding of the goal and function of processing, along with Executive C/Sing (whcih includes an insatiable lust for “Higher Statistics”) is the main cause for premature completions (Quickying) or people allowed on levels they were not ready for.”
Well, if I duplicated it right, that was a cool example of telepathy in your anecdote, and seems to say that at least some OT VII’s are strong telepathic senders. So possibly the ability is regained on VII, if done right.
When I read the article on telepathy vs. telegraphy that Rafael posted a link for on this thread, I had the thought that maybe you were right about the entities not being anything more than one’s own creations.
Regarding the lack of returnees…
The Jehovah’s witnesses recently went through something similar. Their stable datum and prophesy was that “Jesus will return within one generation.”
It didn’t happen.
The Seventh Day Adventsits originated with a leader that told everyone who followed him that Jesus was going to return on a certain day.
It didn’t happen.
These two movements are still thriving in spite of their stable datums being false.
The Mormons had a Papyrus that Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Abraham from. A MORMON EGYPTOLOGISTS NAMED DEE NELSON TOOK THE DOCUMENT AND PROVED THE TRANSLATION WAS FALSE.
The Book of Abraham is still considered sacred scripture.
Thus, the OT III story will never die and Scientology will always deliver. Auditing Technique R2-45 is still waiting in the background – cocked and ready for a True Believer.
SECOND NOBLE TRUTH: “Suffering exists because of attachment to ignorance.”
Kg, I got in comm with Elizabeth last night on this subject of returnees and she thinks one indicator is the great increase in wondrous children – child prodigies in whatever ways. I’ve seen some of the unbelievably talented ones, but don’t know whether there has actually been a statistical increase. Do you, Mr. In-the-Know? Not that it would necessarily prove anything about returnees, but it might be one indicator.
Btw, Elizabeth’s own perception is that there really are actual beings getting audited on OT levels and even in other auditing, and that they are all over the place, a huge number and some of them waiting for bodies.
One has to include in this perception the Internet – that most talents in the Western world is more easily captured and given a scene. And the fact that the standard of living is much higher. In the olden days talent was lost to making a bare living. So, yes – we should see a marked increase in talented children, even without any returnees from at least entities audited (because that is were we are talking about the massive amount of thetans. As for returnees having done the OT levels – it is very minor in the overall statistics.
Good points about the internet and the higher standard of living. 🙂
I wasn’t clear where I said “beings getting audited on OT levels” – I meant getting auditing by someone on that someone’s own OT levels.
What do you think of Mike Goldstein’s viewpoint: “Idenics undercuts NOTs auditing and renders it unnecessary. By handling the identity, anything attached to it leaves. Furthermore, there is nothing still there for additional entities to attach themselves to.” http://freezone-america.org/Goldstein/After/part18.htm
It sounds pretty much like your idea about it being a matter of analytical creations, but not discounting the entities either. And apparently this Identics theory does work when applied in auditing, in that pcs don’t need to come back later to get new entities audited, as happens with NOTs pcs, from what he says.
I never looked much into Idenics (only superficially) since it is proprietary and thus contrary to my world view on sharing…
Got you. Well, my understanding is superficial too but if I got his basic idea right, entities only attach themselves to identities – and if the identities are audited out, the entities leave and no others attach after that. He says that with NOTs auditing, the person can get entities again and have to go back for more auditing (on the same somatic) to blow the new ones off, as the identities themselves are still there to be attached to. But supposedly that isn’t the case with the Identics auditing as there are no more identities (related to a particular somatic, I believe) for them to attach to.
If that is true, as regards data about both the NOTs pc (maybe meaning audited NOTs, I’m not sure) and the Identics pc, it tends to prove there is something there besides one’s own creations, from what I can figure. It also seems to align with your observation of the analytical component being key. What do you think?
It doesn’t prove that. Perhaps it even proves the opposite. If one handles one’s subconscious viewpoints in a complete way, then there is no returning case to handle.
I shouldn’t have used the word “proves” but I thought the theory did at least fit the data he gives. Actually, he offers two scenarios as possibilities, both of which seem to fit the data. That was one and here’s the other:
“Attached to the major identities were insignificant or ‘locked’ identities that disappeared when the major ones were handled. Since identities are not the individual, they can appear to the person to be separate beings.”
And he says that LRH noticed the similarity too and said something about the aberration of the BT being similar to the aberration of the pc which is why it attaches .
Both scenarios match your idea about completeness in handling. My thought is that the mechanics would work out for either.
Sure. But the more I look at it, the more striking the lack of evidence is for a theory that is much more involved, complex and extraordinary than “compartmented consciousness” – which is simply an extrapolation of Freud, Dianetics and modern Psychology. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
LRH gave credit to Freud and Freud probably should have given credit (and may have) to those who came before him. Modern psychology also has a debt to Freud, I believe – as well as to Dianetics (like with TIR, where it seems there is actually a systematic tech).
Is it the case that the only proof of BT’s is to have returnees show up, with data about having been a BT who got audited? And even if that does occur. how do you think we would know about it? I mean, a pc isn’t supposed to talk about case, and I don’t think the CoS would publicize it – that would go against their public denial of OT III data.
The other thing I wonder about is whether it is truly possible to recognize a thetan as a thetan, unless you know or knew them and maybe in that case were only recognizing their “creations”.
I have talked to high classed auditors about this – and none of them have heard about any such cases – even between the many FLAG auditors. And they agree they would have known about it.
That is good, hard data. Thanks. 🙂
Okay, one other thing is this. Based on your own experience, what percentage of the “BTs” did you actually audit on either Incident I or II (which would have made them Clear or above) or whatever other auditing that would have produced a much higher case state than “BTs” who are simply blown off (as in a cluster) and who presumably are in very bad case shape, probably not even able to pick up a body.
Don’t really know…
Aw, come on Geir – I have complete faith in your ability to make a rough estimate. Not of the vast numbers that weren’t audited in any significant way, just an idea of how many would actually have been taken to good shape (the kind of thing you mentioned in a previous comment) because of what they got audited on, like those major Incidents or the like.
Good shape = 5% ?
Thanks! You are a wealth of data. 🙂
There was one case that I discussed with an auditor that could perhaps be interpreted as a returned entity. But it could equally well have been a spirit hanging around in the room at the time – disrelated to the case of the Solo auditor.
One point I can see here is the role of responsibility. If my hunch here is correct, one would see a lower responsibility level of people having done the OT levels than if they themselves had taken responsibility for their own creations (given that is the case). That could explain why all these OTs inside the CoS is doing nothing about the ongoing perpetual destruction of their religion.
What data did that person have – was it just to do with the auditing that was going on, or was he/she claiming to have been audited and giving evidence of that – similar to how LLT Clears, for example, have other indicators of having actually achieved the state.
It was a claim to have been audited by LRH (he was Solo auditing). No proof, though.
Well, did the meter agree, at least?
No idea – that wasn’t part of the story.
Another possibly related thought has to do with various cultures’ belief that spirits reside in literally everything in the universe.
Sure – spirits abound. But my case is my responsibility. That is why I get instant reads.
The two strong indications that the entity theory is wrong: No returness & Instant reads on others when no attention is on them. No real indications to support the theory, though.
Geir, I thought it all out while you were dreaming about BTs :). Your point about no returnees is a pretty strong one, I will admit (not that it is absolute proof, of course). But as for the point about instant reads, I thought we had agreed on the fact that people anywhere sometimes do pick up each other’s charged pictures and emotions, even without first intending to do so. And charge is charge, no matter whose it is that is being perceived. When perceived by a pc in session there would be an instant reaction that would show up on the meter as an instant read. This would explain why NOTs repair lists, for example, read on BTs.
As for what you said about “no real indications to support the BT theory”, it still seems to me that the datum about assigning correct ownership is a valid support of the theory. You commented on the BT answer of “me” as having a deeper meaning to the pc, which may be true, but that particular answer isn’t always what the BT blows on, per my understanding. And in those other instances at least, with the pc considering it to be the BT’s case, wouldn’t it amount to a lot of incorrect ownership with consequent difficulties if it weren’t true?
Obviously, some NOTs pcs do have problems (for whatever debatable reasons) but there are others who do not, and that would indicate their having assigned correct ownership and gotten an as-isness rather than a persistence. This not only seems to validate the theory of BTs but to invalidate any contrary theory. And that point is the biggest bugaboo for me in not fully accepting what does seem to be the Occam’s razor explanation that you have. What say you now? 🙂
1. But to ALWAYS have instant reads… I believe that can only happen if it is one’s own case.
2. I believe when the Solo auditor cognites it is “Me” (i.e. himself that created it) – that is when it fully blows (if he doesn’t really understand it and believes it is truly someone else, then it doesn’t Fully blow). I believe that if the person sees himself fully responsible for all his creations, then one would have responsible OTs – and not just sheep as we see today.
1. The basis for my thinking that there would ALWAYS be instant reads on a correction list is the fact that the list is needed in the first place due to some type of charge impinging on the pre-OT – and even if that charge originated with a BT, it would have impinged on the pre-OT too because of the “theta connection” of picking up another’s pictures/charge.
2. From what you said, I would think that when the OT VII goes on to OT VIII he would recognize the “truth” about ownership at that point. Maybe your own experience and/or that of others is the basis of your viewpoint on this subject, or part of it. Please say if that is the case – if you don’t mind. (Direct experience can speak louder than any thought experiment!)
1. Due to Factors #11 – http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Append/01/page05.htm – I would suspect a latent read on any other’s case than mine.
2. I am leaning (clearly) toward the Full Responsibility Theory (FRT) – even though I am wrestling with OT VIII at this point. Don’t ask 😉 I’ll wrestle more before I elaborate.
Not sure how you see Factor 11 in this context. My understanding is that emotion particles or charge ARE dimension points, and that they can be exchanged.
According to F11, any and all communication via two beings are via MEST – thus introducing a lag in the communication – i.e. latency in the read.
Yes, the particles are MEST and I had taken the communication latency into consideration in a previous comment. I figured that the difference in time would be so infinitesimal that the read couldn’t be differentiated from an instant read occurring on one’s own bank. Wouldn’t that make sense?
It may. More pondering needed on that point.
Okay. And as for the wrestling match, you must let us know about any good holds, pins, or immobilizations 🙂
And there may be Body Slams.
No body slams on body thetans, now. 😀
As a note;
There is a marked drop in the number of lurkers after the discussion started taking up confidential points of the OT levels. I see that as an undesired side effect, so I would like all posters to refrain from explicit talk about such confidential matters on this blog until I decide otherwise.
Here is a great bit by John Sweeney where he reports on Mormonism like he did on Scientology.
There is a very interesting article by the class XII auditor Pierre Ethier on telepathy vs. mental telegraphy ( a case phenomena often confused as telepathy ). It is interesting too is his scientology paradox and the relation he gives about the original 8 class XII auditors trained by LRH and the following 12 class XII auditors trained by them at the flag ship apolo. These group of the apolo ship 20 class XII auditor would be the best team for developing the actual OT levels ( including the developing of the telepathy ability ), chose your dream team, 🙂
Good article. Thanks.
Geir: You really depicted a day in the life of the mind of a Solo Nots auditor. Wow. Being away from that mind f#$* is liberating. I watched friends get so introverted from either anticipating sec checks or being in the middle of them, that they were actually irrational.
The day I was leaving the Ship, having completed OT8, I happily sat on the little bench where you wait for your cab to pull up knowing I’d never be back! I was done. Done with that craziness your post recreated so well.
After reading over the OP, I got thinking of how much Geir’s experiences reminded me of the movie Pleasantville.
In the movie, the heavy group agreement on ‘reality’ permeated everything to the point of blindness.
Similarly, the agreement regarding security in Geir’s experience was bound by rules or agreements of what is ‘right’ or ‘ethical’. To go against this agreement was in fact spiritual (aside from financial) suicide.
During the movie Pleasantville ideas and changes of consideration outside of group agreement allowed individuals, one by one, to see.
In Pleasantville, it was colour or something different which represented a change of viewpoint – to think outside the box so to speak.
Right or wrong had nothing to do with it unless one was part of considerations aligning with a group that created those rules.
The rules entrap any who agreed in a subtle but all encompassing manner resulting in blindness.
This is the same blindness that occurs with fanatics (vehement detractors and assertive pro alike) as it is within the church or similar group or societal agreements. In general life, these agreements are hidden and invisible to most. What is seen is reality according to considerations & agreements.
There is a vast difference to being causatively effect or effect.
One has the power of choice.
When one can finally break free of agreements and exercise self-determinism, one can be free to choose as one wishes – to causatively agree or not, or change or not, or create anew or not.
Amen ! Very good ! 🙂
Dennis, you have stated very well what I seek in relation to Scientology: to have the right to be causatively at effect on his materials via the most transparent and honest media I know, the internet. The day I see a firm policy from the CoS allowing his parishoners to be well informed on his activities and materials as found in the internet this will be the day when I will see the birth of a true religion and the death of a nocive cult. The rest is just the power of choice of each person.
Is it security or paranoia?
What was going on in Hubbard’s mind?
“Is it security or paranoia?”
What is the difference?
Security problem is a third dynamic manifestation.
Paranoia is a first dynamic manifestation.
I would say that security is calculated measure based an an assumedly real known or unknown risk, while paranoia is a very uncalculated set of measures based on a real or unreal risk which’s properties are usually not known or too much magnified.
I have seriously wondered at WHY these security measures were so strict …
I think Hubbard was overwhelmed by his uncontrolled visualization, which overcame his rational mind.
Thetan and “body thetans” are simply considerations.
OT levels are handling one’s case through the via of these considerations.
“…are simply considerations”
… he says as a matter of fact. Throwing in a few IMO, or perhaps even a IMHO here and there, would serve your comments well.
You may add IMO or IMHO as you wish. The following from LRH, to me, is spot on.
“There is a level lying between considerations and A, R and C and this is Is-ness. It’s the consideration of Is-ness. Things are because you consider that they are and therefore something that is, is considered is. If you don’t consider that it is, it of course can be considered to be something else. But if you recognize that it is a consideration you only have to recognize that it is. And if you recognize that something is, then you have recognized merely that it is a consideration. As soon as you have recognized that something is, IS, you have reduced it to a consideration, and that’s that. One has affinity because he considers he has affinity. One has reality because he considers he has reality. One has agreement because he considers he has agreement. One has disagreement because he considers he has disagreement. One has a Dynamic (A Dynamic: any one of the eight subdivisions of the Dynamic Principle of Existence — SURVIVE — which are: The urge to survive as, or to the survival of, (1) Self, (2) Sex and family, (3) One’s group, (4) Mankind, (5) Any life forms, (6) MEST: Matter, Energy, Space, Time — the physical universe, (7) Theta, spirit; the Thetan, a spiritual being, thought, etc., (8) Supreme Being — the “Infinity Dynamic”) — one has a Dynamic because one considers he has a Dynamic.”
I wasn’t really suggesting that the readers of your posts should throw in a IMO or IMHO. It was an advice to you. But perhaps being the slightest bit humble is not something that you would care the least bit about?
Ah, but Geir, Vin is not simply providing all and sundry with his ‘humble opinion’ but with the true nature of Universal Truth.
It would constitute a deliberate ‘degrade’ for him to wrap his nuggets of wisdom amidst the prose semblance of civil modesty. 😉
I know. We wouldn’t want to degrade the Ultimate Truth from His Mouth with some measly politeness, would we?
The reference above is from The Phoenix Lectures.
“One’s case” is simply a consideration. It IS simply to the extent that you consider it IS. So what’s to handle, Vin-ji?
One needs to handle one’s fixation related to considerations. These fixations lead to inconsistencies. Looking per KHTK principles helps one handle them.
Please see the recent essays on my blog.
“One needs to handle one’s fixation related to considerations.”
Because it is fixation that leads to inconsistencies.
Inconsistencies on various levels may be named as follows:
Experience …..(Unwanted feelings & emotions)
Principles …….(Fixed ideas)
Axioms ……….(Fixed viewpoints)
Self …………..(Fixed identity)
The inconsistency may be defined as the variance between the way something appears and the harmony that should be there.
By why does one Need to handle it?
To be able to overcome pain and suffering.
That is what Buddha targeted.
You mean that there cannot be inconsistencies without pain and suffering?
I have no idea. But removal of inconsistencies brings harmony and peace.
But if there can be peace and harmony even with inconsistencies, then there must be other paths to peace and harmony, right?
Are there? Are you proposing a hypothesis, or just playing with a conjecture?
I am probing realities, questioning theories. And I wonder, if there is peace and harmony even with inconsistencies, then it seems reasonable that there would be other paths to peace and harmony than that of removing inconsistencies. Agreed? Why or why not?
You need to provide some more substance here, then just to play with some hollow logic.
I am not interested in hollow logic.
It’s not hollow logic – it is questioning realities. But if you’re not interested to look at this, then that is fine. I will continue probe this with others.
Here are some more thoughts on the subject of pain, suffering, and inconsistencies:
Let’s look more closely at the following statement from KHTK 1A:
When a person looks at an area of the mind, the mind starts to un-stack, or unwind, itself. As the top layer comes fully into awareness it dissolves, giving way to the next layer. And so it continues.
When one “looks” at an area of the mind, recognition takes place of various mental objects, and their elements, for what they are. This brings to light the associations, which exist among those mental objects and elements. A person may not have been explicitly aware of such associations. He could have been taking them for granted. Unverified assumptions, beliefs and other such considerations would make up such associations.
Almost immediately, and automatically, these revealed associations are evaluated against the background associations, which the person holds. Any inconsistency (misalignment, lack of harmony) is highlighted immediately. This is followed by a realignment of associations such that the overall misalignment is reduced to a minimum. This is like equalization of pressure when containers at different pressures are connected to each other.
Thus, an inconsistency would be the misalignment, or lack of harmony, which an association (essentially a consideration) generates in one’s mind.
As one continues to look, inconsistencies may continually present, and then resolve, themselves as explained above. This process is interrupted as soon as the person does something other than simply look.
This is what happens in auditing … are you sure this isn’t an off-shoot of Scientology 😉
What if the person can in complete harmony and with utter peace simply accept all manner of inconsistencies and be all happy about it?
IMHO the freed body thetans come back as OSA helpers.
SECOND NOBLE TRUTH: “Suffering exists because of attachment to ignorance.”
Right on, brother Katageek.
Scientology introduces inconsistencies (ignorance) instead of handling them.
Scientology is incapable of addressing what Buddhism addresses and handles.
Let me add “In my humble opinion.” 🙂
Good manners. melike.
Thank you, sir, OT VIII sir, for straightening out this wayward Clear.
You are very welcome.
I now understand how important it is to be humble. It far outweighs the point which is made in a discussion.
That point can be ignored when the person is not being humble.
Vin, it’s not that the point should be ignored but that it WILL be ignored as it is rendered less plausible. Just an isness.
That sounds like a mere explanation because I still don’t see my point being addressed.
To me the very point of IMO, or IMHO being stressed in such a way by you, is clearly an inconsistency of ALTERED IMPORTANCE.
But it is your blog, and the way you are handling it is also telling.
It almost seems that you are abhorring politeness. Strange methinks.
An interesting misunderstanding.
Sure, you can blame me.
You are right always.
Is politeness too much to ask from you, Vinaire?
Politeness must come from heart, otherwise it simply becomes a PR device to cover up hostility.
I find considerable amount of covert hostility on this blog, a portion of which is coming from the host himself.
I know it is not polite of me to say this.
I would say that you yourself is a prime source of what you fight. Many have called this to your attention. Please find it in your heart to be polite. It is my blog, and I urge you to treat others here with respect and politeness.
I know it is your blog.
I am of course. And I appreciate posters that treat others with respect and courtesy.
The Second Noble Truth is right on.
However, as Alexander Pope wrote, “A little learning is a dangerous thing” and I believe this may apply here. In the absence of a complete knowledge of scientology, there may appear to be inconsistencies in it that are not really there.
Case in point: LRH dealt very thoroughly with the nature of IGNORANCE in his 4th London ACC lecture series, right from the very 2nd lecture, titled “Fundamentals of Scientology and Rudiments of Auditing” part II. #5510C03, delivered October 3, 1955.
I believe a form of this lecture series was previously published as a cassette series titled “The First Postulate”.
In any case, the fundamental nature of IGNORANCE and it’s consequences are covered very thoroughly there.
I believe these lectures actually follow the Phoenix Lectures book and lectures in the timeline.
IGNORANCE is a consideration, like any other ISNESS.
Individual download links for these lectures can be found here:
There is really no excuse for anyone to remain ignorant of these materials, since they are available for free download.
Also, no need for one to try to fill his gaps in his understanding of Scientology by looking to other practices.
Hi Valkov… when didja change the logon?
Hi Chris, good to see ya. The change was inadvertent. It happened when I changed my email addy. I ended up with “iamvalkov”. I would rather be “Valkov”, but don’t feel like fiddling it back to that right now.
I say, it is better to know a little of a failed model than to be an expert of it.
Look at Ptolemy. I don’t need to be an expert in all its details to know that the model is seriously flawed and wrong at its core. But there is a big difference between Ptolemy and Scientology.
Ptolemy was real Science.
It had real math behind it and actually worked. It was clunky mind you. but if I needed to know when Mars was going to be where, I could go through Ptolemic calculations and nail it.
Its claims lined up with its theory. And then a better theory came along that had bigger claims and better alignment with experiment.
Scientology doesn’t increase IQ. Scientology Auditors have not emptied one mental hospital (Claim from the Original “Self Analysis”) and in fact runs away from anyone who is insane, and as Geir has shown above that not one demonstrable person has returned to pick up where they have left off.
Unlike Ptolemy, Scientology is both wrong as a body of knowledge AND it doesn’t work as claimed.
But there is one thing it is really good at Valkov.
It makes true believers. The truest of true. It makes people of pure heart and deep compassion who want to take a hurting world and hug it within its arms of TRUE BELIEF.
And such people will never abandon it. They cannot. It’s impossible for them.
And yeah, there were some die hard Ptolemists who would happily burn your sorry butt on a pyre no matter how much science you showed them.
“and as Geir has shown above that not one demonstrable person has returned to pick up where they have left off. ”
Mind you, I never said that.
Sorry for the misquote.
I love to admit when I am wrong. And I’m so lucky to have so many opportunities!
Here is what Geir actually said.
“If the theory behind the OT levels as laid out by LRH is true, then we would have a large number of beings turning up for auditing that were ready to run a very different process than the ordinary Bridge (as covered in OT VI material). But we do not see that. Except for some loose rumors, not one single being has been verified as having showed up out of the estimated more than 200 million. This is a discrepancy like no other.”
Exactly. And thus I said nothing of Clears or OTs returning in new bodies to pick up from where they left – cases I have both heard of and known personally.
I also know personally of one case of past life Clear returning this life to start over.
Same here, Chris. I’ve known several. One is a friend I’m still in contact with in PT
Yup. This guy knew LRH and stuff…
Anyway, well done on the referee’ing… that worked out well don’t you think?
So glad to see Valkov and Vinnie and KG and Dennis and Maria and Geir everybody. I’ve been busy since getting back from California… lot of catching up, and by catching up I mean doing the things that I should’ve done before I gave myself that vacation… se la vie hahahaha!
And good to see you back too! 🙂
Yes, I know a couple people who were audited and cleared by LRH. I just realized I’m actually still in comm with both of them. One told me that the session he went clear in, with LRH as his auditor, he was sitting on a park bench. I always remember that part. 😉
You aren’t gonna post these stories are you?
Aint gonna happen.
If it tickles my fancy. You don’t.
Why don’t you promise to come back like Houdini did? or Like how Aaron Saxton’s father did?
Sorry, your baiting doesn’t work. You bore me.
#2. of the TBA. YOU bore me.
You are free to leave at any time.
I forgot to tell you. The True Believer’s Algorithm has been updated.
#1. Use Pity and a “poor you” approach to attack the person and ignore the conflicting data.
#2. Fiercely attack the person’s moral character or competence to ignore the data
(like you did with the question about my drinking. You know I don’t drink Geir and you ignored the data about Aaron Saxton’s father who committed suicide with a promise to return in full knowledge of his past.)
#3. Change the criteria of the facts so it is no longer relevant in order to “fight to a draw or victory.”
#4. Claim ignorance of what the data means but be happy “not knowing” in the face of the direct evidence. Call it, “a good question and mystery.”
e.g. “I don’t know why the North Pole has no Santa’s Workshop. Wow. I just don’t know. What a mystery. How does Santa do it? He is so awesome.”
#5. Terminate the Communication. When backed into a corner with facts or the TBA, terminate the conversation and use Step 1, 2 or 3 on people behind the person’s back to discredit his/her facts for the purposes of damage control.
#6. Continue to bounce from technique 1-5 as needed to avoid the data.
#7. Address the facts, ask good qualifying questions, probe and draw out the facts that can be verified as true. Duplicate the opinion and see the new point of view and if the data leads correctly in a new direction adjust the world view accordingly.
Just jumping to number 7 is pretty rare. But if one does it, one can skip the other 6. And when two people do #7 life is awesome.
Thanks for the invite to leave. You are free to never accuse me of drinking in a public forum at anytime as well.
I fail to see where you are going with this. Would you please explain?
It’s just a map I made about working with true believers and how they bounce from one technique to another.
I should know. I used it myself for years unconsciously.
It felt like I may be banned here so I thought you may find it useful when dealing with people who cannot deal with clear data.
I created it over the last two years on Scnforum and have evolved it. The hard part, of course, is staying on 7 when you are attacked, pitied or data is re-positioned. I’m not always successful in staying on 7.
And I felt you were using #2 when you ignored the point I made about people who have tried to come back and didn’t.
The use of a technique does NOT guarantee the person is a true believer, sometimes its just a mix-up or ad hom. But when you feel a gyroscopic “PULL” in a conversation regarding beliefs, you can see it unfold fully.
It’s … uh … best used internally and not referenced like I did to you and V. Otherwise people may think you are being a dick.
… um … yeah …
Anyway, it describes the social and private mechanics of meme protection for a group.
I don’t follow this. Do you want to be banned from this blog,?
There was something that may have been ambiguous:
Katageek: “It’s … uh … best used internally and not referenced like I did to you and V. Otherwise people may think you are being a dick.”
I saw the above as an apology. Where he says people think “you” are being a dick, he was alluding to himself, I believe.
I am just confused about his behavior as of the last 24 hours… he seems to act as though he want to provoke a ban or something.
Yes, I got that. But I don’t think so. My take was that it all started when he made a remark about his articles not getting published, hoping to merely push the point but it came across too belligerent and backfired, and then went downhill from there with similar kinds of back and forth.
He can correct me if this is wrong. I just don’t like to see that kind of misunderstanding, if it is such.
I must have missed something.. articles not getting published?
You see – after I dropped all the moderating on this blog, I don’t read all the comments – some slip through unnoticed. But as a free-for-all, all the posters that has had one post approved will automatically have all subsequent posts auto-approved (unless I deliberately apply a filter to again start moderating certain posters. So far that filter is empty).
So what is really going on with you, Will?
Sorry! I meant “stories” getting “posted”. This comment (straight above):
“You aren’t gonna post these stories are you?
“Aint gonna happen.”
I didn’t get why he was so trigger-happy and worked up about that. Oh well. Let’s chill guys.
Screw you OSA bot.
And you REALLY WERE ONE.
Now get all tough and threaten to ban me in your condescending way. Or just do it.
Make my day punk.
Have you been drinking, Will?
Your points are well made, Katageek.
Well, I DID do your course after all. What else would you expect? I can look!
LOL! Katageek, I am proud of you. 🙂
Well, that was quite a blast of negation! Were you hoping I was permanently gone from this blog?
You are right. I am wrong. You see the truth clearly. I am deluded. Thank you for pointing it all out to me.
By the way, did you listen to that lecture I mentioned, or do you remain ignorant of it?
I am pondering whether the points you brought up are actually worth responding to individually. Not for you, as you’ve made it clear where you are coming from, but for the sake of other readers here.
I’ll listen while I work in the yard tonight putting in my herb garden.
This vegan thing is a lot of work.
I have decided not to bother disputing the assertions you made in your post, because you cannot prove any of them.
I will say only that I much prefer being whatever it is I am, than a cynic like you.
1. An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals.
2. A scornfully or jadedly negative comment or act: “She arrived at a philosophy of her own, all made up of her private notations and cynicisms” (Henry James).
3. Cynicism The beliefs of the ancient Cynics.
Well. That’s honest V. Thanks.
The bizarre thing about this whole exchange is my post that you felt you had to slam me for was actually a reply to Vin’s post beginning with the Second NobleTruth quote, and not addressed to you at all.
I did not address it specifically to him by name because I thought it would be obvious which post I was commenting upon.
Lo and behold, you jump on me with a heavy-duty discounting of me, my rationality, my integrity and who knows what else, while Vinnie keeps silent in the background.
I guess you guys are a team, huh?
In all the hubub, neither one of you actually responded to the central point of my post, which had with the nature of IGNORANCE as reportedly seen by Gotama and as stated by LRH in his own words.
Vinnie’s got his KHTK; I see you as an Eric Hoffer wannabe. You ought to get back to work on your book, otherwise you will never attain that 15 minutes of fame, dude.
Valkov; I am sorry you’re getting into the crossfire of some weird mis-hap/understanding here.
Thanks Geir, but if I had read the thread closely I might have realized. Wasn’t aware of the issues happening. Was just trying to give Vinnie a poke.
No harm done. (To me, anyway)
Let’s all do a group hug and let at least one of us go to bed.
I’m back to loving all you guys (even Vinnie ;)).
Awwww Marildi … ain’t that sweet 🙂
@Bunkai … frankly, I wouldn’t mind if you were OSA, and really, I don’t think you are.
I would love to see some OSA people post here so we could have a rational discussion – I think it would be good for all.
I know someone up at OSA Int … got me into Scientology actually – one of the nicest people I know and I thank that person for getting me interested in the forst place.
I have many good friends in & out of the church … I do understand those that stick it out … it’s especially tough for those in the Sea Org. Frankly, if any Sea Org member decided to leave, I would put them up and help them out. It’s definitely not the dangerous environment out here that is promoted within the church.
I don’t remember LRH ever saying to cordon oneself off from the world and view ‘outsiders’ as stupid or SPs; quite the opposite … communication is the universal solvent.
Granting beingness makes the world go round – in a good way.
Dennis: “Awwww Marildi … ain’t that sweet”
😀 Yeah, I know. I thought twice before pushing the “post comment” button but I thought, what the heck – that is pretty much my sentiment whenever there’s a group hug after a kerfuffle. 😉
My page here changed today … I can’t see the most recent posts on the right side. It used to show the person(s) who most recently posted.
Also, is there an option that can be enabled so we can edit our posts?
There are reply buttons up to about five indents inward and after that the only way to reply is either like you say, use the reply button on the new comment email for that post, or you can go up (sometimes a good ways up) to where you see the first reply button above and that will put your comment at the bottom of that particular thread. In that case it’s good to indicate who it is a reply to.
Does this answer your question? Or did I miss the point and not tell you anything you didn’t aleady know, LOL.
The above should have gone under your other post – this tells you how reliable I am about how to reply!
On your point about the recent comments links at the top, maybe Geir took that out for the time being because he decided to not allow the confidential data posts and doesn’t want to direct readers to those last ones. That was a great function, though, and I really hope he puts it back.
Thanks for the info on relying.
Yeah, I had that figured out but I thought I maybe screwed things up … looks like I’m not the only one who sees this.
Yeah, the recent posts missing … probably good for right now … you have been posting so much on those … uh … circuits 🙂
We *could* use the word circuits with a little wink, wink after it haha
I would like to see more people posting here – not just lurking.
I see Valkov posted today … I was missing him … also Chris, and Maria, and even Vinnie has posted less.
We need to ‘Promote’ !! Ugh … I can see a CF project coming up … forget I mentioned it 🙂
Hey, Marildi … what post(s) were you in the SO? If you can’t say … ok
I know, I was really into circuits 😉 – or maybe on a circuit, ha ha. But no, I actually got a lot out of it, a lot! Where were you, btw? I kept hoping you would chime in. But if you want to now, keep a low profile (needless to say).
Well, I was a word clearer, which you probably know, an MAA, and an exec but I won’t specifiy which exec, or a couple other posts I held briefly – don’t want to blow my cover completely quite yet.
Yeah, I wondered about our regulars too. Probably a new blog post is needed (hint hint).
I was at work today so I didn’t post … would have liked to as the conversation did bring up a couple questions for me too.
I did think Geir would cut it off … maybe we could have one thread – a confidential warning upfront for those who do not necessarily want to read that stuff or be exposed to it.
Yes, a new post would be good too …
When do we get to know who you are? Reasons why not just yet? I understand if you do not want to say.
All is good 🙂
I was just thinking …
I hope you aren’t that MAA that was at Flag … first name started with K
Man, a real loon, that one 🙂
Oh, I assumed you had read my reasons when I posted them a couple times. Just that I still have friends on staff and on lines, and circumstances are such that it wouldn’t be good for those concerned if disconnection were to be ordered – some of them are relatively inaccessible (like cases). With others, it was appropriate to give them data I had discovered right away – either straight or on a gradient. You know – the typical scenario of different strokes for different folks.
No, never an MAA at Flag. I can’t think who “K” was… There were quite a few MAA’s, most of them for the public.
Hey, you probably don’t get American Idol up there in the wilds of British Columbia, but it’s on now and kind of a family thing to watch it together – we really get into all the contestants, their talents and their beingnesses. The judges too are great – especially Jennifer Lopez and Steven Tyler – love them. So anyway, if I don’t reply in a timely fashion you’ll know why. But I will. 🙂
letter writing, yayyy!
Hello Dennis! When I read your post about how people were posting less, I realized that I hadn’t posted anything for a while. Its really not a lack of interest at all, I have been reading every day — I was just enjoying everyone else’s thoughts and ideas.
I’ve contemplated the OT materials a great deal since I audited those levels. How it seems to me now is that there is this idea that there are those others “over there” who are “separate” from me. Yet I cannot find this separation in reality in any other way than by focusing on “them” as if apart from me. In a way that I find hard to explain, there is a compulsiveness in shared identity and that identity seems to always be based in terms of focus — shared experience or shared creation, with the compulsive element being a problem of limitation. As I expand and extend my existence, pervading more in a greater (richer? wider?) state of experiencing, I find myself participating in creations I am aligned to, limited by those I am fixated on. Handling the fixations, I find I am receptive to an apparently infinitely expanding “network” of “like” individuals with whom I share focus. Some are connected to bodies, the vast majority are not. If I shift focus, the “network” of “like” individuals changes. But there isn’t any going anywhere in this, there is no chasing off unwanted “individuals,” there is no returning because there is no “where” involved in this. My part in this is in creating a particular focus, with the limiting factor being a fixated focus.
One more thing …
When I look at the posts, I see the threads under each post if someone relies to a specific person but I can’t see a reply button anymore. The only way I can reply is if I have a post alert sent to my email.
I liked a previous format you used where it was easier to follow answers to someone’s comment
Since I haven’t done the Advanced courses I can’t speak to what is actually “confidential material” and what is not.
However, I certainly don’t think discussion of “entities” and so on qualifies. Such ideas pervade much of LRH’s fiction writing, as well as virtually all his early lectures, 1951 and up.
People who have bought into doing “The Basics” per David Miscavige are going to be totally overwhelmed with “upper level” significances as they listen to all those lectures, like the PDC lectures for example. Some discussion about OT levels on a blog like this is the least of their problems, IMO.
Perhaps it is a good idea to have a separate “Upper Level Discussion” section on your blog, which people who don’t want to be exposed to such, can avoid, nonetheless.
The kind of details I read discussed in this thread seem harmless to me. Stuff about meter reads tends to go right over my head, etc.
Okay. Let me answer the stink I’ve caused. Basically, I got pissed off. Pure and simple.
1. I got pissed at Geir. I hit a critical mass of reading his terse snarkiness and it just pissed me off. There is more to this than fits here as to why and I deleted about a 300 words that don’t need to be said.
They don’t matter.
I really don’t care if I get banned from this blog or not. I just know direct attacks on Geir get such threats. I’ve seen Alanzo threatened in this way.
So I thought I might as well fess up to them if I’m going to talk tough.
And Geir then posts an update to WOIM with a title I came up with so of course, I now feel like crap. Geir, I see why you got OSA approval!
2. Valkov, I made my post on Ptolemy because of the comment about “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” which seemed directed at me. I meant every word. Scientology creates true believers in a systematic manner and from MY POINT OF VIEW, that is its main product and why it’s worthy of study.
You think differently than I. No surprise for either of us.
And I fucking HATE the OSA label. I really do. I wish I didn’t, but it just pisses me off.
And I’m sure, this will mean I get to wear it “moar.”
Part of the curse I guess.
I don’t mind you posting on this blog at all. I do mind you acting like a jerk. Please be respectful.
And honestly, when you act like this it actually enforces that OSA label. I have been an OSA helper, I know some of the tactics – like stirring up trouble on forums etc.
It seems this started with you misunderstanding my post about no entities audited have returned – and that you thought it meant that there were no returnees at all. Well, there are the normal Clear/OTs (not audited entities) that have returned. It seems you fired all up when you discovered you had misunderstood that, and then you went all pissy. I corrected your misrepresentation of what I said, plain and simple. Let it be with that. Let’s move on.
Odd to me, trying to duplicate your irritation with the OSA label… why so?
Like being called “Auschwitz Project Manager.” Not a title you really want on your resume.
If OSA is of no concern of yours, then you should pay it no heed.
There is something in auditing tech called a “wrong indication” or a “wrong item”. If an individual is given a wrong indication (i.e. he is the receipt point of something that isn’t true for him) it can stir up more charge and upset than anything else can do. Perhaps the OSA label was a wrong indication for you.
Or it could be that it is right. Perhaps the same type of reaction would ensue?
I think the reaction could occur in either case.
Hell, my wife & I scrapped some money together and traveled to a couple of Indy parties to connect up and make some new friends. When we returned home we got wind that we were pegged as OSA.
At first I burst out laughing, then it was a piss-off as the rumour kept spreading.
So I understand what can happen when someone buys false data and you become the target – it’s not pleasant – reminds me of some of the crap inside the church and the field.
When I got in, new people were welcomed with open arms. It was honest and we were there for each other. That’s how my wife & I operated, and we still do.
As an aside, we did meet some very special people at the party – great conversation and laughs.
With respect, my handling for this is to not play that game.
Agreed Chris … we walked away.
After 40 years of helping out thousands of people, helping almost every sector within the church (some to our embarrassment [IAS]), on staff, etc, etc … we’ve seen enough to know how some group think gets going and how nasty it can be.
Like I said, it reminded me of some of the witch hunts within the church in the mid-late ’70s and into the ’80s.
Exactly Dennis. But witch hunts in 70’s and 80’s? I am wondering if there was any moment when there weren’t witch hunts within COS. Or I should say that my experience was of continuous witch hunts. And when one witch hunt was completed, then the hunter might then become the hunted. The paranoia reverberating constantly within the walls of COS helped to reinforce the GPM’s inside my head.
I can only speak from my experience in the org I was in and in talking to a few others from other parts of the world.
The witch hunts started when the G.O. set up shop in our local org … I think about 1976-77. The whole tone of the org changed.
Firstly the GO took over an office and had it padlocked – it was secretive and great attention was put on not allowing anyone to see inside.
Staff were being ripped off from the org and as soon as this occurred, the staff member changed – low/curt or no communication with the org staff – friends they had had for years.
They were into Art of War (I was bonded as a wordclearer to wordclear them on this and other info – strange I thought), micro-cameras/microphones – you know, the stuff of the spy circles.
Goldenrod started coming out almost daily on public & staff – we never knew who’s name would be up on the public comm board when we went in each evening.
Some ethics cycles were taken off org lines and put onto GO lines. I got roped into one of these.
I was Course Sup – stats way up (actually they have never recovered to those levels to this day). I was called in by the ED and told he had received reports that I was out 2-D with another staff member (not true btw – in actual fact, I was getting references from her to have my own 2-D go better).
I asked to see the KRs – no way and I was escorted down to the GOs office. I was then escorted over to my house, I had to grab a few clothes in front of my then wife & kid – no talking, and leave – separated. I then started on a long condition/decks project, quit my job so I could get thru quicker (well, that didn’t happen :-), … I could get into more detail but it went one for months.
The no-nonsense, un-scientological activities I saw going on rifled thru every division until the org was destroyed – the tech division was next to last to go. By the time I left, the HGC was shut down – one newer auditor left – stats were plummeting.
A little slice of my experience 🙂
Same experience, ditto. I walked into Scientology for the first time in Summer of 1977.
Just to add Chris,
I also went on an interesting trip – had to drive an out-of town GO member who had flown in down to Calgary … southern Alberta Canada – about 200 miles.
On the trip he started yapping – normally these guys wouldn’t say much at all.
After about 2 hours, he r relating a story of his earlier trip to Calgary where he and 1 or 2 others broke in to the Clagary Mission and the ED’s apartment on some Op – well, needless to say, I was stunned not only that this stuff was going on, but that he had loose lips.
For the rest of the drive he tried to recruit me.
Uh … no thanks 😉
Right, that is sometimes the case – like when someone’s withhold is missed (missed withhold: “an undisclosed contra-survival act which has been restimulated by another but not disclosed). However, my understanding is that the biggest amount of bypassed charge is for a wrong indication.
now that IS a wrong indication! hahaha
Jamie DeWolf Doing a Real-World Performance Piece.
He’s an OA. Operating Awesome.
You can see and hear a lot of the Old Man’s storytelling in him. The ending of this will be warming to most of you.
Way over my head. Please explain it in layman’s terms.
It’s LRH’s Great Grandson doing the performance.
It’s about the passing of the creative flame.
Ah, got it. Thanks.
. . . environment is full of wrong indications. This talking to one another is not auditing.
But able to spot inconsistencies in what is going on is very therapeutic.
I am currently writing an essay on how the resolution of inconsistencies is directly related to the ability to look per KHTK principles.
It may be true that the environment is full of wrong indications – and that would mean the environment is also full of bypassed charge. The mechanism works the same.
I’m not saying we’re doing auditing, not at all, just commenting on what can happen in life.
Marildi, “It may be true that the environment is full of wrong indications – and that would mean the environment is also full of bypassed charge. The mechanism works the same. I’m not saying we’re doing auditing, not at all, just commenting on what can happen in life.”
Chris: Does it mean that? For me, “bypassing charge” may be a personal choice. However, I get your point that you are just commenting on what can happen in life.
Chris, I’m using BPC per these Tech Dict definitions: “mental energy or mass that has been restimulated in some way in an individual, and that is either partially or wholly unknown to that individual and so is capable of affecting him adversely; reactive charge that has been bypassed (restimulated but overlooked by both pc and auditor).”
My understanding is that the big upset on a wrong indication is due to a lot of earlier charge on wrong indications, which then gets stirred up (restimulated) on the latest one. And when that happens in life it is obviously “overlooked” because it doesn’t get discharged as it would (or should) in a session.
Good point Marildi,
I think that recent Ethics Repair List would go a long way in destimulating those earlier motivators (injustices, making one to feel smaller, etc.) and then the Flow 2 & 3
Flow 0 is the real kicker … In a good way 🙂
Right, Dennis – you have to handle the other flows that are keeping the motivators in place.
You know, this is another time you’ve reminded me of that “Ethics Repair List” and I think you are really smart to have it in mind. The more I think about it the more I see it as almost a be-all-end-all, at least in terms of a huge release.
So what are YOU going to do about it? (I’m laughing – what is that line from?) Seriously though, how about it – have you got a plan?
My plan is as follows (and it could change at the drop of a hat):
1) Get a hold of a meter
2) Run thru the e-meter drills – I may even have a crack at EM-25 🙂 (I was good at that one)
3) Finish my BC
4) Take a run down to the USA and get a quick clean up from one of the many great auditors out there
5) Figure out what level I want to do next (auditing-wise) and start
6) Start auditing others
As for the Ethics Repair – that could be part of my set-ups although this can be run on anyone.
The Ethics Repair List to me is a very powerful action. An example:
Many years ago when the Children’s Comm Course came out, one other person & I decided to run the thing. We got about 30-35 students (kids from about 5-13 years old), had the t-shirts made, got packs and started. One of the students was my step-daughter. I think after she did an HQS and that’s about it.
Now, coming to PT, my step daughter was over about 3 weeks ago. She had a glance at a couple of questions on the Ethics Repair List and all of a sudden went ‘Oh my God!’
She proceeded to rattle off incident after incident after incident on Flow 1. She had cog after cog after cog – the cogs were amazing.
This went on for about 40 minutes – I just acked/half-acked and let her run.
Then she let out another ‘Oh my God!’ and said – ‘I just realized I’ve been doing this same stuff to others!’ And there she went on Flow 2 … cog after cog and finally came up with a major ser fac she verbalized that she has been using for years.
Needless to say, she was a changed person after that and a week and a half later was still cogniting.
And that was from just a simple glance at a question of a question off the Ethics Repair List.
And this is out of the mouth of someone with really not much Scientology at all
Powerful stuff 🙂
OMG, that is an amazing story. In particular: “a major ser fac she verbalized that she has been using for years.” Wow! That is phenomenal. She must be an unusual being. But in any case I’m going to take another look at that list.
Love your plan – really great. Keep us posted on progress. 😉
That was a really good post Dennis. It made me really happy for you and your step daughter to read that.
Yes, these moments in time I thoroughly enjoy – unhindered communication with stellar results.
To see one’s own or another’s BPC or as Vin says, inconsistencies leveled is awesome. In the universe of self improvement it is the be all and end all.
Okay Chris, I got you – you are using “bypassed charge” in a different sense. In your example, the charge itself does get bypassed, per the technical definition, in that you aren’t viewing the source of the restim (assuming there was restim, since BPC – which is restim – is the subject matter here) and in that the restim doesn’t get handled/discharged. Technically speaking, there was “bypassed charge”. But I see what you mean about bypassing (regular dictionary definition) that bypassed charge.
Obviously, no one would disagree with that approach. And in fact that was the implication and reason for pointing out the phenomenon, because knowing about it is what can help one do just as you say and bypass – the bypassed charge, LOL :D.
I gotta add that my step daughter also cogged on Flow 3 on why it always bothered her watching others do this to others
Then hopped to Flow 0 and ran and ran, and then the big boom – she realized she had brought all of this all on herself and that she had created it.
This was MAJOR – she was blown away as was I … tears streamed and the rest is history 🙂
One of the most rewarding ‘comm cycles’ I have ever had.
OMG – I’m blown away just hearing about it. This might sound radical, but I wouldn’t be surprised if at some point she attests to Clear and date/locates it to that “comm cycle” with her step-dad (in the Independent field, of course, where the auditor isn’t fixed on how and when someone can go Clear). Actually, she may already be Clear. She did pull in Scientology, and maybe was born into a Scn family.
Wow, Dennis, did you have to keep your auditor TRs in or were the streaming tears not just hers? 😉
Nor radical at all … it was quite something to watch.
Tears & TRs – both 🙂
It was good.
Well, that would be the perfect ack, IMO. Bear with me now – I keep seeing your life story in a movie! And the title for it is maybe shaping up. “Tears and TRs” 🙂
This last would be the title scene. And a favorite for the audience 😉
With respect, you began by referring to “auditing.”
and if you are aware, then you bypass charge as a matter of choice. If you are not aware, then I guess anything goes.
Chris, BPC – in session or in life – basically refers to a restimulation that doesn’t then get discharged and in that sense is “bypassed”. Also, the definition includes that one isn’t aware of it. So I’m not sure what you mean when you say “YOU bypass charge…” or “IF you are not aware…” Example?
Example: I’m buying gas. The cashier says she cannot take a $100 bill. I say alright, but I am buying $90 worth of gas. She says “sorry, that’s policy.” I could do any number of things in this situation. If I am aware, I confront my situation and tick off my possible responses to myself.
1. I could bypass charge, get offended, have a fit, swear, etc.,. (fail)
2. I could ask her if there is anything else at all that I could do that wouldn’t break her policy.
3. I could thank her and go to another station.
4. I could thank her and go get the right denominations.
5. I could say, “oh, I understand” and offer her a credit card.
#1 above bypasses charge.
#’s 2 thru 5 do not.
The point being that it is fully within the scope of my choice whether I decide to bypass more charge or confront. Moments like these can be teaching moments. Confronted well and calmly I can dissolve irritation that surfaces and not only get through the uncomfortable situation but better prepare myself to avoid this happening in the future.
Better just laugh it off . . . the way we do with each other. You can even laughingly admit it. People who can think and who matter will drop it when you do. (I think hahaha)
MY PHRASE: “You aren’t going to post these are you? Nope. Not gonna happen.”
MEANT TO TEASE YOU INTO PUBLISHING THEM – DIDN’T WORK.
YOU: “If it tickles my fancy. You don’t.”
Your phrase said to me, “I don’t fucking like you.”
Direct attacks on human worth anger me when done to me or others.
Short, terse statements can leave such perceptions.
Kg, I butted in and stuck up for you, so now I’m going to butt in and stick up for Geir. I don’t think he meant “You don’t” in a general way – to mean he generally didn’t like you. No. That’s not his style. It was in reference to your “tease” that came across more antagonistic than you meant it to. That was what didn’t “tickle his fancy”. There was an implied ellipsis there, sort of like this : “You don’t (…tickle my fancy the way you are presenting it).”
And there’s another thing that may not be clear. What “stories” were you referring to, the ones you yourself wrote?
Marildi got that one exactly right.
The stories are the ones of the returnees that Geir spoke of actually meeting or learning about from personal accounts.
What are they?
I don’t know what Geir meant. I know what I heard.
And an intentioned insult is not always a bad thing:
TRANSLATOR: The general would like to know if you will drink a toast with him.
PATTON: Thank the general and tell him I have no desire to drink with him or any other Russian son of a bitch.
TRANSLATOR: [Nervous] I can’t tell him that!
PATTON: Tell him, every word.
TRANSLATOR: [In Russian] He says he will not drink with you or any Russian son of a bitch.
RUSSIAN GENERAL: [In Russian] Tell him he is a son of a bitch, too. Now!
TRANSLATOR: [Very nervous] He says he thinks you are a son of a bitch, too.
PATTON: [laughing] All right. All right, tell him I’ll drink to that; one son of a bitch to another.
This is what happens in auditing … are you sure this isn’t an off-shoot of Scientology
Dennis, I am glad that you identified what I wrote as a description of auditing, but there are others on this blog who are likely to regard it as squirrel. But that would only reflect their personal taste.
What matters to me is that what I write is as true to Buddhism as I can make it. What I have written here has far reaching implications than auditing would ever have.
What if the person can in complete harmony and with utter peace simply accept all manner of inconsistencies and be all happy about it?
What you are saying is a subjective speculation. What I am describing is a phenomenon which happens when one looks, whether one wills it or not.
Minimization of inconsistency that happens during looking, seems to be as certain as the law of entropy.
Actually, I can at times be fully tolerant and thus harmoneous of inconsistencies. So, to me it also happens in real life and is therefore more than a subjective speculation. So, how do we factor this in in the path to harmony (if even that is what a person is seeking).
My sense of the word “harmony” goes very deep. This sense may be subjective and different for different people. Realizations about “harmony” may come as one makes progress with looking.
You do not see inconsistency of self as Buddhism sees it. I do. Please see
KHTK 23: Diamond Sutra of Buddha
How do you know I don’t?
Let’s look at this very deep; What if there could be total, total harmony with any and all inconsistencies completely detached, tolerated?
If that could be so, then there would not be any need to urge anyone to remove any inconsistency in their life. One would only have to promote tolerance. Maybe that is also a valid path? What do you think?
An inconsistency is a disharmony.
But wouldn’t a total tolerance of inconsistencies be harmony in itself?
As this discussion propagates there is flip flopping in that I am not sure whether we are talking a world within or a world without.
In my opinion tolerance of an inconsistency would result in the dissolution of that inconsistency.
So, there could be a shortcut to looking in that working toward total tolerance would render direct looking at any inconsistency unnecessary?
How do you define tolerance? How is tolerance different from looking?
To be totally in harmony regardless of what enters in, and ultimately regardless of whether one inspect it or not.
Things are neither harmonious or disharmonious. We are talking about associations that a person makes among perceptions (in the process of thinking) being disharmonious with each other.
So a total tolerance of any inconsistency within one’s own thinking and around would be total harmony?
As I said above, tolerance would amount to looking, and that will lead to the dissolution of inconsistency.
So, I see tolerance to be the same as looking.
Tolerating something without looking seem to be incongruent action.
Why? If one worked up to the point of indiscriminate total tolerance, then one wouldn’t have to look at all inconsistencies as any that would come along would be tolerated by default.
I think it may be useful to ask this question also applying 4 flows: of self to self; self to others; others to self; and others to others.
Do you mean in the context of there being a Real World Out There or Not?
It appears that a person could be ‘harmonious’ or ‘in harmony’ by simple duplication or confronting and allowing to be … a granting of beingness.
It doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with it, but I am simply allowing it to exist with no reaction.
As long as there is no fixation, and one can move one’s attention fluidly from one thing to another without being judgmental, and without resisting, then that would be harmonious (IMMMMMHO)
So there could be harmony with any amount of inconsistencies around?
There are times, when in a released state, that I think that disharmony only occurs within myself. That all disharmony is defined by myself. Yes, even horrendous occurrences as “in the ‘news.’ ”
For example, I am building a garage. I found an architect’s mistake which had been approved by the City and it all was in a direction which I desired. I considered the ramifications of “letting this ride” as I would be getting finished space in my favor but would also be allowing a code violation to persist which may leave me vulnerable to a criticism or worse in the future.
In an hour, I am meeting my builder on site to explain why we are changing the building to conform with the Code rather than the approved plan. Whether or not we made this correction will have no effect on my neighbors nor the public at large. The inconsistency, the disharmony seemed to be within myself, and when I chose the path that I’ve chosen, the disharmony vanished. Nothing changed in the Real World.
An inconsistency would be a disharmony as I mentioned above.
And total tolerance of disharmonies would be harmony in its truest sense?
I am talking about inconsistencies in one’s thinking. If one can detach oneself from the mind (which includes self) completely, then that’s fine.
Excellent – then there could be a path trough the promotion of pure tolerance, right?
As long as there is inconsistency, one is attached to the mind.
Detachment is absence of all inconsistencies.
Tolerance is looking that helps dissolve inconsistencies.
“As long as there is inconsistency, one is attached to the mind.
Detachment is absence of all inconsistencies.”
Why? Please prove that.
I don’t prove anything. It is for the other person to examine through discussion and come up with their own understanding.
But you state it as a matter of fact, as truth, then please present your rationale behind your reasoning or opinion.
I state it as a matter of fact because that is how I see it even when it is difficult for me to express it in a way so that others can see it too. I am sure as we discuss it, the right words will eventually be formed.
Geir, you seem to be focused on tolerance as opposed to looking.
What is the difference?
I’m only probing possible paths, not “focused” really, just trying out.
Tolerance; At rest. (Noun)
Looking; Inspecting. (Verb)
As I understand one accomplishes tolerance through looking. Do you have some other ideas?
Somewhat – by focusing on tolerance, one can increase the capacity for tolerance – and perhaps to the point where tolerance of everything and anything can occur, rendering looking irrelevant. I will explore this further… new blog post coming up.
Please explain how one can focus on tolerance without employing the mechanism of looking.
It seems to me that looking is more basic than tolerance. When one practices looking, tolerance would be a natural outcome.
Or maybe tolerance is more basic than looking – in that one decides to be tolerant and then starts looking.
One has to look before one can be tolerant or intolerant about something.
tol·er·ance [tol-er-uhns] Show IPA
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.
interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
Medicine/Medical, Immunology .
the power of enduring or resisting the action of a drug, poison, etc.: a tolerance to antibiotics.
the lack of or low levels of immune response to transplanted tissue or other foreign substance that is normally immunogenic.
” Somewhat – by focusing on tolerance, one can increase the capacity for tolerance – and perhaps to the point where tolerance of everything and anything can occur, rendering looking irrelevant.”
I think this has a lot to do with TR0 – one of the first tings one does when they get on lines.
One evolves during the TR and tolerance occurs. One is able to simply Be There and ‘tolerate’ anything & everything within and without.. Bullbait would be an even higher gradient of this tolerance.
I think your concept of tolerance really has merit. I found this remarkable essay on a Buddhist site, entitled: “Informing the Whole Committee” that I believe is an excellent paradigm that not only touches on aspects of the OT materials, but may explain a great deal about auditing, the power of tolerance and why Buddha taught an 8-fold path.
I am very hopeful that you and all my favorite posters here will be willing to read the entire essay and comment upon it — below I have quoted a few of the points made in the essay, hopefully to whet your appetite.
Here’s the link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/eDhammaTalks_3.pdf The essay starts on page 13 of the pdf.
“One of the strangest things about the mind is that it talks to itself. You’d think that if the mind were a single thing, it wouldn’t have to talk to itself. Everything it knows, it would know, without having to communicate. But the fact is there are a lot of different power centers or knowing centers here in the mind. It’s like a committee, and the different members have to send messages to one another. They have to inform one another of what’s going on. Sometimes one part of the mind will know something, and another part won’t know. Part of the reason for this is that we actually build walls inside the mind. In some cases the walls are necessary in order to function. When you’re paying attention to a particular task, you have to blot out everything not related to that task.
But the fact is that your self, your mind, your ego, is not a single thing. There are lots of different selves, lots of different minds, lots of different egos going on here. This committee going on here: It’s because it’s a committee that you can change yourself. One member of the committee can look at another member of the committee and say, “Your policy isn’t working, your strategy isn’t working. You’ve got to change.” Because there is no one, overarching sense of self, the different members of the committee have learned that they’ve got to listen to one another. The people in whom the different members of the committee don’t listen to each other—they get schizoid.
You notice when the Buddha describes the process of meditation, it’s not one quality acting alone that’s going to make all the difference. He never said all you need is mindfulness, or all you need is concentration. It’s always clusters of factors. It’s in the clustering that we gain strength in the practice.
So don’t be surprised when you find that there are lots of different voices in the mind, or there’s parts of the mind that know, and other parts that don’t know what’s going on. That’s to be taken for granted. And he said that’s part of the problem, but it’s also part of the solution. Once you understand what the actual problem is, then you can work on gathering more and more members of the mind.
In many cases the insights that really make a difference in the mind are not anything new, nothing you’ve never heard before. It’s simply that not everybody was there to listen, not everybody was there to see the truth of that particular insight. Once you’ve got the whole mind gathered together, then one single message can seep through everything.”
Between toleration and judgement, I find them to be similar considerations. To say that a person should be tolerant or to say a person should not be judgmental seem alike to me. To say that a spiritual path of toleration will move one along better than a life of judgement seems similar to each other.
Marildi, That’s right. “It isn’t the auditor bypassing it.” It is our own, to have and to hold. “To ACT-OUT or NOT TO ACT-OUT? That is the question. (Shakespeare humor)
We may have several different threads of thought on one subject at a time here. The lengthy discussion between Geir and Vinaire about looking vs tolerating, etc., is an example. I don’t really see a problem with what either is saying. Vin is harping about inconsistencies and Geir asks why this it the be all and end all… I think Vin is looking at and calling BPC inconsistency… Geir is rightly asking why these NEED to be handled without getting what Vin is looking at because of lack of agreement on words…
At lower levels, the BPC’s (inconsistencies) are so thick there almost isn’t a low enough sensitivity setting for the emeter. When a person (PC) is in better shape, his “inconsistencies” are not so pointy and thus require higher sensitivity. As long as a person is confronting himself he is going to find bypassed charge, though it will become finer and finer the longer he audits.
While a person is synchronized into this part of the physical universe with which we are familiar (an almost immeasurably small area of it) they will not run out of BPC or as Vinaire calls it, inconsistencies.
Geir, your idea of tolerance of disharmony doesn’t make sense.to me. Is it like being tolerant of somebody getting raped in front of you?
Could you please provide an example of it.
If you decided to be totally tolerant of anything, then nothing would bother you, right? No disharmony would bother you.
As for your example,; Let me ask that one right back: would you advocate simply standing there and LOOKING at it?
You didn’t give me an example of your conjecture as I asked you to.
All you have done is make a theoretical conjecture. It doesn’t explain how does one go about being tolerant. It is another one of your “what-ifs” that start on a plainly arbitrary basis.
You are assuming that one can simply decide to be tolerant. That is a big assumption.
I have tried it and I have st least founs it to be of limited workability. You may try it yourself.
So, your technology here boils down to one simple command:
“Decide to be tolerant.”
I am sure this has been tried before and has failed.
I have been following His Holiness The Dalai Lama’s Twitter feed for a couple of years now. And apart from the announcements of events and venues, his quotes are almost solely a variation of that single command. My guess is that since he is so insisting on that, he believes that it does work.
IMHO, Twitter is not the channel through which Buddhism would be taught by his Holiness Dalai Lama.
That is beside the point, isn’t it? The point is that his main message is that of tolerance, respect, love and compassion. And since he is insisting on continuing that message year after year, it seems most plausible that he would think it is working, don’t you think?
Funny. I have another idea about Dalai Lama that he is quite progressive and wouldn’t care too much how his word got out.
Now were you saying that Dalai Lama was Eastern or Western religion?
Tolerance, respect, love and compassion are the values very important to Buddhists. Vipassana meditation (KHTK) is the technology that Buddhism recommends. Buddhism doesn’t say, “Just make a decision.”
That is however pretty much the message from HH Dalai Lama, though; To decide to be tolerant to others. I have practiced it, and it seems to work to a degree. And as that goes, maybe we should find a way to make that work even better. How do we help a person decide in a way that make the decision really stick – without going via the stuff of the mind?
In my opinion, Vipassana meditation of Buddha (KHTK) is the answer.
I have got that (many times – no need to reiterate that point). I would suggest that there are many answers, many “right paths” for many different goals or for no goals at all.
There are as many paths, answers, and goals as there are people. This nothing new.
Exactly my point. And thus promoting anything as the one true path or even superior to another is a slippery slope strewn with red herrings. IMO.
Exactly. But is anybody doing that on your blog?
Why would you think that was a point? You felt I was targeting you?
I do not know what has been going in your head; but I can definitely speak for myself.
My intention from the beginning (1969) has been to get a grass roots movement out there, which people could use to better themselves and improve their conditions. I visualized such movment to be very affordable, and effective. I didn’t think in terms of any organization behind it., nor did I think in terms of some money making opportunity. I wanted such a movement to spread on its own merit. People would be helping each other and winning from it… getting better and improving their conditions.
That is why I joined the Sea Org in 1971 and went through 12 years of ascetism in it until I got disabused of my hope that such a movement was possible through Dianetics and Scientology.
But I learned a lot from those 12 years in Sea Org. I learned about simplification of data, and organization and communication of it. The truths were there, they just had to be organized using the modern language and communicated to the audience of this information age. The simpler were the organization, the more effective, I hope, the results would be.
And that is still my intention. I have never had the consideration of Vipassana or KHTK being the ONLY truth. That consideration was introduced by you. I am simply looking for something that would inspire a grass roots movement. If you have something of this nature I would support it.
Now may think whatever you want. But what I have written above has always been my intention.
You seem somewhat disgruntled or snide here, but as an argument for yourself, I think this is fine.
I didn’t think this thread would get TA for me but it has anyway. Tolerance has a a number of facets and aspects.
Tolerance can be likened to an enveloping cushion of spongy considerations about my own space allowing me to easily experience what otherwise might be a pointy-prickly world.
“Tolerate” is a pretty frickin’ good word. It means to make adjustments in what one conceives to be a “reasonable inconsistency.” It is not a be all and end all, it is a tool a person can use to adjust and make wider their sense of tolerable reality, thus bringing about a more consistent and peaceful state in themself.
We should leave it at that and not try to make sweeping conjectures about what one should do about their toleration when confronted with extreme examples of inconsistent behavior, such as being a witness to rape, etc.,.
For instance, you ask for toleration for your manners which consistently have left out acknowledging the communications which have been sent to you. I have done this and adjusted my own reality according to your request. This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t readjust your own reality to include ordinary garden-variety good communication protocol to include acknowledgements. However, if you don’t, you and I are still okay from my point of view. Because from my point of view, this petty foible of yours, through long association now, doesn’t seem to point to a deeper inconsistency that may be dangerous to me. It is only something you might want or not want to work on and that is ok with me.
Tolerance deals with what one perceives. One cannot get “looking” out of the equation.
When one looks per Vipassana (KHTK) tolerance will follow.
Or, one can decide to tolerate whatever comes one’s way – before it even comes one’s way.
Then one is “looking” at mental constructs.
Not necessarily. One should be able to purely decide something. Like being tolerant. Or not being preconceived. Or not being arrogant. Or not being aloof. Or being kind. And loving. And nice to others.
These are all generated considerations, and I would bet that they are preceded by looking.
As I said.
Yes, tolerance is a pretty good word. Tolerance comes from looking and discovering the inconsistency. An inconsistency may have only some indicators visible. Those indicators have to be followed more closely to discover the inconsistency.
I can only look for myself. When the other person demands answers or proofs, I cannot do that always because that may require that I look for that person. I cannot look for another person. I can only ask that person to look for himself or herself.
I can only say. “Look for yourself, disregard what I am saying if you don’t find it to be true. But, at least look. If you don’t want to look, you are disregarding it at a risk. It is up to you.”
The only point that I am pushing is, “Look for yourself.” I do not have any other agenda.
And, I do not have all the answers. I just have my observations. I still have a long way to go.
It could simply be a decision.
How? What is the technology here?
Must it be a technology? This seems very limiting to me.
There is also skill. One can develop skill. How? By doing.
There was a very famous teacher who taught an 8-fold path. A path of doing.
1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
There is a lot there in Buddhism than just some formulas.
Yes, and it is said that Buddha spoke of 84,000 paths, a figure of speech for indicating that there are many, many paths. The path that is the “right” path is the path that is suited to awakening an individual or facilitating that individual’s cultivation. A great many of the sutras were given to monks under vow, monks who had been cultivating diligently and learning from Buddha for many years. Buddha always respected people and always sought to teach in right ways for their particular world view.
And yet Vinaire balks at “right speech.”
I have noticed in myself a tendency to balk at acquiescence in an area whenever I have had an earlier unhappy experience in that area.
tol·er·ance [tol-er-uhns] Show IPA
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.
interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.
I love this 🙂