How Dangerous is New OTVII (Solo NOTs)

[Vinaire]

All right, so Roger was humorous and I was not. I was simply ticked off at Roger's humor because it pushed one of my buttons. The majority of people in the West do not understand Eastern philosophy. They don't care to understand it either. For them it is entertainment to laugh at it, and to put it down at every opportunity they get.

Hubbard did that. Alan did that. And, now I see Roger do that. Before them the Christian missionaries in India did that. What is up with these guys? Looking at it squarely, the basic issue is Ego. One may call it "individuality" but it does not make it any less of ego. Ego is just dressed up nicely as "individuality."

These guys were or are attached to winning games in this universe. That is ego. East doesn't care about it. The priority for East is to be exterior to this universe, by not being attached to this universe at all. West seems to laugh at it.

Now that doesn't mean that everybody in the East is trying to get exterior to the universe. East has been learning from the West, just as West has been learning from the East. I am simply talking about two different mind sets that are historically documented as Western and Eastern. Hubbard actually pointed out this difference very nicely in The Phoenix Lectures:

There was evidently a split of races somewhere in the vicinity of the Ural Mountains. Part of the population which is now in the northern hemisphere went east, and part of it went west. The borning spot of the human race has been variously disputed but if we don’t worry about the borning spot and just say -- that is more or less what occurred at that time, that there was a sharp division, and that part of the northern hemisphere’s people went east and part of them went west -- we discover that a singular difference of personality occurred which is in the northern hemisphere the most observable difference.

The people who went into the steppes, into the Gobi, into China, India, and into the various islands, were faced by an enormous chain of deserts. They were faced by privations of great magnitude, and they developed a philosophy of enduring. That was the keynote because that was what their environment demanded of them. They had to endure and so we find these races colored in a certain way so as to thwart the onslaught of sun and snow. We find them without natural protection in their environment and therefore we find them able to survive long after those who went in the opposite direction.

And so it is, their colorations, their customs, and so on, are different from ours just to the degree that they can survive in tremendously arduous surroundings, and the surroundings of those lands is arduous. They are, those races that are there, able to endure. And if you said anything about them, this is certainly a clear statement of fact.

They also are tremendously practical. Their practicality is such as to stagger a westerner. The explanations that they will suddenly and innocently voice to a query are always of such sweeping simplicity that they leave a westerner standing there staring with a slack jaw.

Now the races which went in the opposite direction from the Urals, evidently went in to a country which had a heavy forestation. It had a great deal of game and the philosophy of the western world became that of striking a hard blow. If you could strike a blow of great magnitude hard enough and fast enough you could kill game and so you could live. Because of the vegetation and because of many other factors, they did not particularly need coloration. Their own customs did not need to be as thoroughly practical and they were able to dispose of their lives much more easily, you might say, since food was plentiful, as it was not in Asia. And we discover western philosophy building up on the behavior pattern of striking a hard blow. Get in quick, hit hard, your game drops and you eat. And beyond that, not very much thought or practicality.

However the truth of this may be, here certainly is something which is said to have preceded a period of 10,000 years ago. It might or might not have truth. But it is a very fast explanation of this -- and we discover immediately, as we look at these two worlds, that one of these worlds, having to endure, being faced with enormous privation, would of course develop a certain patience and an ability to philosophize. An ability to think. It would take a long time for anyone to think all the way through something. And a man who is merely accustomed to striking a hard blow is not likely to think all the way through something. When we are up against philosophy, we are fortunately or unfortunately up against an Asian tradition.

I was very impressed with Scientology Axiom #1 because I thought that it reflected the concept of Brahma and Nirvana, I went through all of Scientology with that understanding and I learnt a lot. I did my TR0 the way I have documented in the three issues here:

LOOK & NOTICE
EXPERIENCE
ATTENTION

But Now I am coming to realize that Hubbard meant something different with his concept of Static in Scn Axiom #1, and that he really looked down upon Nirvana (see the section INDIVIDUALITY VS. IDENTITY in SCN 8-8008, as well as refer to KSW1).

I am also coming to understand why I was able to really get people winning on TRs Course in late 70s at Flag by word clearing them using various references, which were not on TRs course; and why I was removed from TRs Course Word Clearer's post, accused of squirreling.

I am coming to understand why Alan Walter tended to put me down and make fun of Hindu deities. I remember Alan calling Krishna in a picture a women. I don’t think Alan cared much about Hinduism. His ignorance of Hinduism was plainly visible. He certainly cared about boosting power of an individual so he could win MEST games and make a lot of money.

I am also coming to understand the OT Levels better. They are all about boosting the power of the individual so he could better control the MEST universe and win all his games in the MEST universe. Hubbard aspired to be the greatest individual ever. Nobody can deny that Hubbard did not have a big ego.

How does Hubbard’s compassion compare to the compassion of Buddha?

Hubbard tried to ride on the coattails of Buddha. Buddha lived to be a stable and healthy 90-year old before he died. His philosophy brought civilization to three-quarters of the world. And what did Hubbard do? He made a lot of money by “translating” Buddhists thoughts to Western lingo, and died at 76 in poor health and a nervous wreck. Buddha was out and about among the masses. Hubbard was hiding in his trailer in a remote location.

This is Nirvana versus Individuality.

.

 

[Vinaire]

How Dangerous is New OTVII (Solo NOTs)?

In general, any OT level is dangerous to the degree it tends to fixate you in your individuality.

.

 

[Gadfly]

What is the "ego"???????

Ah, yes, compassion! Where did it go?

The LACK OF it. the lack of any sign of compassion, was always, for me, one of the largest glaring outpoints of both the theory and practice of Scientology. It was so obviously NOT there.

Compassion stems from a state of consciousness where one loses ones personal identity and comes to see and feel ALL PEOPLE "as self" (though that is not the right idea exactly). Or, in other words, each "other" person comes to be seen as the same basic unconditioned awareness, once all of the personal identification stuff is removed for an aspiring chela. Compassion (for all living things) is a natural manifestation of "losing ones personal identity", along with any and all concern for anything that benefits that "contrived personality" and temporary physical existence of the body.

This doesn't make much sense to an ego:

"Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto You"

Of course, the person who believes in Karma may act "compassionately" to reap the benefits (for self).

This makes absolutely no sense to an ego:

"Treat your neighbor as yourself".

One way to define the ego:

That mental contraption of self-identity, including all related thoughts and ideas, that has come to be associated with the body's (and mind's) many URGES to survive along the dynamics. It is a mental creation, and only possible for some thinking entity. Thus, animals don't have ego. There is no ability of self-awareness or conceptual thinking in anything except a human being (on this planet). When this thinking entity finds itself in the vicinity of a physical body, which it wants to derive sensation and pleasure from, an "ego" almost always develops. Self-awareness must exist, otherwise the thinking entity wouldn't have anything to base the concept of "I" upon.

Said in another way. It is the illusion of some permanent "I" that any person feels. Because the thinking, sensations, dreams, feelings and imaginings occur in the same general vicinity (of the body), most people come to assume that there is some "unchanging I". While there may be some unchanging something there, it is most definitely not the personality, or thing the person calls "I". Eastern philosophy often addresses this mental contraption with an aim to understand and eventually diminish it. That idea has many different interpretations and expressions.

Thinkingness is the first obvious avenue of attack, because if any person takes some time with a little self-analysis, it becomes very obvious that personal "thinking" is out of control. It isn't so much that "you think", but that thinking happens and you are largely a victim, experiencing it all, and quite unable to control any of it. Unless one actually does some form of drill, such as meditation, few people will ever realize to what great degree the mind is entirely out of control. Learning to calm and quiet "thinkingness" is a very valuable ability. It is just one of many areas that can be addressed though.

Once all identifications are addressed, and removed, by letting them go, a person then actually, for the first time, can BE THERE WITH NOTHING ELSE. One is STILL a viewpoint though. This state is probably called something in eastern terms, but I don't pay much attention to labels. And, beyond that state is dissolving any and all sense of identify, so that one no longer views "from a viewpoint" of any sort. At this point all sense of differentiation vanishes. There is no longer any observer or universe to be observed. From the glimpses I have had of that, it is VERY quiet, there is no desire for any expression on any dynamic, and one melds with a wide gentle field of subtle energy. But then, I plan to DIG more into THAT! I am sure that I can make the energy go away too if I work on it a little.

Key to all of this is "desire". Only a body, or a mind, or some isolated viewpoint can "desire", and as I currently understand it, desire is the fundamental "urge" that starts one on any cycle of action in any area of manifestation. The desire might be for picking up a pack of cigarettes at the store, all the way up to the cycle of action of the entire solar system or galaxy. That is why eastern disciplines also aim to put a control on and eventually dissolve "desire". It seems that "desire" is that fundamental energy or motivating force that puts ANY creation into motion. Personal desire is most obvious, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. Some sort of desire manifests throughout all of creation - the stars, the planets, galaxies, all living things, etc.

Spend 8 or 10 years sitting under a tree, chipping away at the many layers of desire, until one arrives at and where whatever it was that Buddha saw.

In Scn terms, the "ego" is that bundle of self-created mental energy that locks any person at some level of "thinkingness", preventing any legitimate practice or experience of "lookingness". In a very real sense, the aims of many eastern disciplines are to enable a person to LOOK, without bias, slant, agenda, or coloration of self-interest, and this occurs after time and energy is directed at breaking up that which stands in its direct way - the ego.

While the ego does exist outside of thnkingness, none will be able to appreciate any of that unless one first addresses ones own ego on the simple level of thinkingness. That is where it is most obvious. But, as one unpeels the onion of the personal ego, other factors do present themselves. One will never have any idea of what any of this means unless you take some action using some system aimed at dealing with "thinking" and "sense of personal identity and concern".

The reason is simple. The eastern theories involve the idea that the "real YOU" (entity of pure unconditioned awareness), is entirely covered up by the many self-created false identities and thoughts. This is all of a MENTAL nature. There may be able to exist a "mind" without any attachment or identification with personal concerns and desires, but I doubt there can exist a "mind" without a viewpoint. And, maybe not. The "mind" of God? :confused2:

I suppose I answered the question asked of Vin by Nexie. He may disagree and so may others. The above is how I see it today, after having just come out of a very deep hour-long meditation session.

Scientology promotes the notion of "looking", but it is largely lip service. You sure aren't allowed to "look" unless it aligns with Church dogma. Also, from a technical point of view, LRH theories seem to imply that if one simply "goes up the Bridge", that any person will simply gain the ability to "look". I think that is such raw garbage of an idea. Any ability must be practiced and developed. Believe me, you won't become a great guitar player or painter by getting rid of all those reasons that inhibit you from being a great guitar player or painter. You will become a great guitar player or painter, if you desire to be one, because you WORK REALLY REALLY HARD AT IT. The same with "spiritual gains". The Scn notion of putting any Joe or Sue on some conveyor belt, raw meat on one end, and then coming out "OT" with all sorts of spiritual abilities on the other end is such absolute NONSENSE! Hubbard TOLD you all that there is no magic bullet, there is NO "one-shot Clear", BUT the hungry lazy Church members WANT that magic pill. They want the results without the discipline. They want his or her mind to improve without ever doing anything to address and "exercise" that mind.

There is a saying in the world of physical fitness and physical therapy, "use it or lose it".

In Scientology one NEVER "uses it". Not in any way at all similar to eastern practices of meditation, concentration, and imaginative contemplation. One NEVER works on actual drills to gain familiarity with, to develop and improve these things.

Again, getting rid of the reasons why you can't do something will NOT magically allow you to do it. You need to address and work on THAT which you want to excel at. The realm of the mind is just another realm where one can excel. But, self-aware, deep, intensive, and extensive personal investigation of ones OWN MIND is the ONLY real way to do such a thing. On a level NOT of thinkingness, but of observing the nature of thinkingness as it exist for YOU.

Ones ability to observe must be systematically and carefully directed at the nature of ones own inner world. Without THAT, there is NO real gain, and instead there is endless unconsciousness and pretense parading as some sort of "gain". There is also much delusion, parading as "knowledge". The Hindus have a name for it. Welcome to the Kali-Yuga!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali_Yuga

Darn, I meant this to be "short" . . . . . :confused2:

The Vermin of Verbosity has struck again!

 

[Panda Termint]

Ego, me know!
Ergo, I go.

 

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

A couple of views.

Ego is the action of assigning self as senior (importance)

Doing OTVII is an attempt to get rid of *falsely* assigned cause? As I never did the OT levels This view is from a partially constructed framework as understood by myself only from third party data.

 

[mate]

Hi Vinaire.

Maybe Hubbard or his source is correct, or perhaps it isn’t. But if we were to look closely at the social structure of East and West, there are key similarities. Each has a wealthy/ruling class, each has a middle class, and each has its poor. The key difference is that the lower class in the East includes most of the population, probably 99+%. In the West, it is probably 10-15%. These are guesses, but I’m sure you get the idea.

The Upper and Middle classes, the “haves” and “wantabes”, are strongly egocentric, and as such is very competitive. Whereas the poor has their attention focused on day-to-day survival, which while it is ego driven, it is a cooperative rather than a competitive environment, so that the ego tends to be less important. This to me is the real distinction between Western and Eastern cultures.



Alan wrote a book, which he has posted on ESMB, called “Science of Getting Rich” (http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1388). But it could also been called “The Science of Enriching Oneself”, as he made it very clear that the technique had a universal use. While Alan was focused on gaining wealth, and he was certainly successful on that, the approach can be used to other ends. If one were to read Newton’s “Journey of Souls”, it becomes abundantly clear that we, all of us, are here for a learning experience, and IMHO, Alan has provided us with the means to achieve it.

Just a thought.

Regards, David.

 

[Minuet #1 in G]

Vin

Interesting to see this thread just after reading this material from you:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=369818#post369818


This looks very similar to what is outlined in your issues in terms of non-evaluative experiencing of mental phenomenon. The OT gobblegook can be safely ignored as it doesnt add much to the process as an explanation. Just need to focus upon the technique. Would you think that use of a meter to direct attention would be a useful? This seems to be the only real difference from the meditative technique you are describing.

I cant participate in these erudite expositions with anything much valuable, being just a simple soul. Though the last several pages seems to be not much more than a pythonesque argument..no I didnt, yes you did, no I didnt.. ad naseum.

I did want to get a viewpoint from Vin on his issues vis a vis the "free solo" processing described here.

To me they seem very similar in terms of non evaluative experience of mental phenomenon and direction of attention.

Sorry to get back on the subject...(well close anyway)

 

[Vinaire]

I cant participate in these erudite expositions with anything much valuable, being just a simple soul. Though the last several pages seems to be not much more than a pythonesque argument..no I didnt, yes you did, no I didnt.. ad naseum.

I did want to get a viewpoint from Vin on his issues vis a vis the "free solo" processing described here.

To me they seem very similar in terms of non evaluative experience of mental phenomenon and direction of attention.

Sorry to get back on the subject...(well close anyway)

What you are seeing on the last few pages, Min, is the dance of the EGO, my ego included. It gets to be a bit intense sometimes among us philosophers with egos, if I may be allowed to say that. Those with no ego find no reason to be here.

Anyway, the Vipassana meditation of Buddha, the underlying principles of which I am documenting per my understanding, is the path to dissolve the ego. At the end of that path is Nirvana.

Freesolo seems to follow the prinpciple of ATTENTION (see third issue). To what degree it follws the principles of first two issues, I don't know. You have to ask Scnrebel directly. As a gut feeling, it seems that Freesolo is using all the three principles described in the KHTK (Knowing How To Know) issues, to one degree or another.

Otherwise, Freesolo seems to be still dependent on an E-meter. In Vipassana meditation one is not dependent on such instruments, and finds no need for them either.

I hope I have answered your question. I find these 3 principles also to underlie IDENICS without any additives.

.

 

[Vinaire]

Hi Vinaire.

Maybe Hubbard or his source is correct, or perhaps it isn’t. But if we were to look closely at the social structure of East and West, there are key similarities. Each has a wealthy/ruling class, each has a middle class, and each has its poor. The key difference is that the lower class in the East includes most of the population, probably 99+%. In the West, it is probably 10-15%. These are guesses, but I’m sure you get the idea.

The Upper and Middle classes, the “haves” and “wantabes”, are strongly egocentric, and as such is very competitive. Whereas the poor has their attention focused on day-to-day survival, which while it is ego driven, it is a cooperative rather than a competitive environment, so that the ego tends to be less important. This to me is the real distinction between Western and Eastern cultures.



Alan wrote a book, which he has posted on ESMB, called “Science of Getting Rich” (http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1388). But it could also been called “The Science of Enriching Oneself”, as he made it very clear that the technique had a universal use. While Alan was focused on gaining wealth, and he was certainly successful on that, the approach can be used to other ends. If one were to read Newton’s “Journey of Souls”, it becomes abundantly clear that we, all of us, are here for a learning experience, and IMHO, Alan has provided us with the means to achieve it.

Just a thought.

Regards, David.

Hi David,

I understand what you are saying about the present scenario. But take a look at 2500 years ago in India when Buddha was preaching. Buddha was the son of a King. He grew up in luxury. He looked at the ravages of human condition (sickness, old age, etc.) and decided to do his research. He preached what he discovered, and he followed what he preached to others.

Percentage wise the social structure in India at that time was somewhat like the West of today. There was no West at that time to speak of.

I am only critical of this one aspect of Nirvana versus Individuality where Hubbard and Alan are concerned. This hit me like a bolt from the blue. Otherwise there are many wonderful things in Scientology that I benefitted from. The same may be said for Alan's Knowledgism. I have had no experience with it.

But neither Hubbard, nor Alan could discover the upper end of the Bridge being wrapped up in Individuality.

Please don't get me wrong. West has contributed to improve the human condition in many important ways. Maybe the salvation of East lies in West today (which may have happened already). I acknowledge all that. But West, in general, has been stuck in individuality and can't see past it.

That is my point.

Regards, Vinaire

.

 

[Vinaire]

(1) It seems that mind is actually looking at the present THROUGH concepts built from past experience. How can one notice a table if one is not looking through a concept of what a table is?

(2) The concepts are formed when the past experience is sorted out and integrated with rest of the experience. At this point the pictures of past experience are gone.

(3) When the past experience is not yet integrated, it appears as confusion of various impressions (pictures) of effort and counter-effort.

(4) When the mind is looking at something for which it doesn’t already have a fully formed concept, it would then look through undigested experience from the past.

(5) The undigested experience is in the form of pictures of literal perceptions. Therefore, one looks through this pictures and interprets what is there in a literal manner. This creates confusion.

(6) “Restimulation” is simply the distorted perception from looking through undigested experience.

(7) At the level of language this distorted perception results in confusion that one can’t understand a subject or an area of life.

(8) At the level of motor controls this distorted perception may trigger a confusion of impulses from the brain to the body that may cause pains and other illnesses.

(9) Underlying pain and illness is simply confusion. An ENGRAM contains intense confusion, which when transmitted to the body may appear as pain, but it might not. It may manifest itself in aberrated behavior instead.

(11) To handle confusion, whether at the level of language or at the level of motor impulses, one must sort out undigested experience.

(12) This sorting out is more likely to happen when one looks without any additives of thought, emotion and effort.

(13) With pure looking it is more likely that one would be able to notice what is really there.

(14) One would then be able to differentiate important from unimportant.

(15) It becomes difficult to make that differentiation when, while looking, one is also thinking, judging, justifying, avoiding, resisting, suppressing, etc.

(16) Overwhelm occurs when one forces oneself to look at too much in too little time. Thus, looking must be totally without force.

(17) Force would also be an additive. Thus, the advice, “Let the mind un-stack itself.”

(18) In looking one is not getting rid of any experience. One is simply getting rid of the compressed entanglement of effort and counter-effort.

(19) One retains the knowledge of effort and counter-effort after their disentanglement.

(20) As the past undigested experience sorts out one’s perception improves, and so does one’s rationality and activity.

.

 

[RogerB]

Try This . . . .

Try this.

I am going to pose two questions to you all. One today, the other tomorrow

The reason I am doing this is in order to give you the chance to experience how one's effort to be aware of, perceive and come to know what one is trying to know can be so mistakenly and easily altered and misdirected into error by the inadvertent addition of simple everyday concepts that we take for granted.

Here is the first question: What is a life?

Ponder it, and if you really want to get something out of this little drill, even write out your answer and, if it causes you to flip into "WTF" or what does he mean by this, etc., etc., note that down too.

I'll be back tomorrow with the next part of this . . . . .



Rog

 

[Vinaire]

It is better to let people arrive at their own realizations than to push them overtly or covertly to agree with one's own realizations.

Sometimes people do that by asking question and then keep accusing the other person for not answering their question until they hear what they want to hear.

.

 

[RogerB]

It is better to let people arrive at their own realizations than to push them overtly or covertly to agree with one's own realizations.

Sometimes people do that by asking question and then keep accusing the other person for not answering their question until they hear what they want to hear.

.

Errr, umm, like you when you TELL people what to think?

Knock it off Vin. You are still trying to run a make wrong.

It is a simple little exercise I put on the board . . . . folks will come to whatever answers and realizations THEY come to that is THEIRS . . . . surely you can see (if not understand) that?

And of course, they have the option to not look, too. It's all their choice.

R

 

[Vinaire]

AXIOM 25: AFFINITY IS A SCALE OF ATTITUDES WHICH FALLS AWAY FROM THE COEXISTENCE OF STATIC, THROUGH THE INTERPOSITIONS OF DISTANCE AND ENERGY, TO CREATE IDENTITY, DOWN TO CLOSE PROXIMITY BUT MYSTERY.

By the practice of isness (beingness) and notisness (refusal to be) individuation progresses from the knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through lookingness, emotingness, effortingness, thinkingness, symbolizingness, eatingness, sexingness, and so through to notknowingness (mystery). Until the point of mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know to Mystery Scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the emotion section of this scale.

(1) Cohesion of THETA would be a coming together of all the efforts and goals in the process of aligning themselves with the basic postulates of THETA. This is the manifestation of Affinity.

(2) Static being a total potentiality may be considered a state of coexistence; but there is no "existence" in the sense of manifestation.

(3) As space (separation) and energy (activity) is introduced among this “co-existence,” affinity falls away.

(4) With the postulation of TO BE, identity is introduced creating separation from the "rest."

(5) This individuation progresses through various levels as there is also refusal TO BE along with the desire TO BE.

(6) The state of coexistence and complete knowingness degenerates to knowing through lookingness. One looks across a distance to know.

(7) This condenses to knowing through emotions. One looks at one's emotions to know.

(8) This condenses to knowing through effort. One carries the attitude that one has to feel it to know it is there. One starts to have picture to know about things.

(9) This condenses to knowing through thinking. Here one gets into associating pictures one has been keeping to figure things out.

(10) This condenses to knowing through symbols. Thought is packaged as symbols that have meaning. One knows by manipulating these symbols from some reference point.

(11) This condenses into knowing through eating. These symbols become a source of survival. One starts to "store" knowledge within oneself. Memory becomes more important than understanding.

(12) This condenses to knowing through sex. Here one can't survive in present, so one puts survival into the future. One disregards what is there and lives on hope of what could be there.

(13) This condenses to not knowing or mystery. Here one has given up the hope of ever knowing. There is lack of prediction, confusion and then total blackout.

.

 

[RogerB]

On the Subject of BTs & Clusters and their Incorrect Handling

Having now found the time, I would like to address the important points David has raised in his opening post of this thread.

And in that context, I should say what I have to say is not opinion or belief, but a recounting of my own personal experience and that of some others I have worked with. This in the vein David so rightly speaks of is his referenced “Scientology Technology Evaluated” at http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1629.

In it David refers to doing, demonstrating and practicing the claimed knowledge and ability recovered, viz: “Yet on the Lower Grades there is no practice! So how on earth could someone attest to, say, the ‘Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject’ without going outside the Org and trying it out, let alone practicing it. Isn't it ‘Be Do Have’.”

The first thing to say is that the entire line-up of the technology in Scn as regards “BTs/CLs,” “possessions,” “entities” and/or spiritual teammates et al, is tragically flawed.

The main flaw, and it is a disastrous flaw, a damaging and dangerous flaw, is that the whole subject is suppressed and perverted into a “confidential” matter until one reaches OT3.

This has had catastrophic case consequences for many. It did for me personally, and I know it to be so for others.

The truth of this “spiritual connections” phenomena is known in many cultures, including our western civilization, even, and particularly so amongst the “seeker and new age” fraternity. Though it was not “common knowledge” in the West in the 1950’s & ‘60’s.

The observed truth is, in actual practice, that this subject must be addressed on a case when it comes up and processed correctly . . . to suppress the subject and hide it under cloaks of confidentiality as is done in the CofS is disastrous.

This apart from any discussion as to the validity, safety or otherwise of the procedures used when the levels of OT3 and above are processed.

I’ll relate to you my personal experience of this to illustrate what deleterious effects are produced by this tragic error of the CofS tech line up.

The first thing to say is that when I came in Scn in 1957, I was totally spiritually illiterate. I had tried to read some Theosophy materials, and some stuff on yoga and Buddhist principles, but the stuff in those days was so arcane and littered with mumbo-jumbo and ill-defined terms, it was a mess, and I gave up on the “shit.” And besides, I was heavily into the “scientific” thing of being a well muscled, highly trained meat body composed of a bunch of atoms and molecules in happy, coincidental alignment!

As noted in one of my early posts on ESMB, I “blew my Dianetics case” in 1959, when I hit the incident of an earlier life-time death. That is the event that demonstrated to me I was truly a spiritual Being. And it was after that that my case began to run “differently,” and that I began to have various strange “difficulties” in handling stuff that came up on my case.

That ascension that occurred for me in 1959 is when my case “opened up” and “all” my spiritual teammates (you can call the BTs if you wish) and all the other spiritual connections I had began to wake up and manifest their existence on my lines.

The catastrophic trouble was that I and no one else recognized what had happened, and much of my later auditing was engaged in trying to handle these “masses” and “charge” I was experiencing as my own “case” when it was not! Many errors occurred: I was viewing my spiritual connections as though they were my own case or case junk (wrong negative indication on them) I routinely was unwittingly trying to run case I thought was mine when in fact it was that of spiritual connections (and we know that is the way to guarantee things won’t erase or go to true EP) and on and on . . . I could list a catalogue of errors that this circumstance the CofS forces on its people produced.

One of the gravest errors, apart from invalidation of the Beings, is that that whole case area of spiritual connections can get suppressed and negated with its own set of negative consequences . . . such as sick bodies, as an example.

In Knowledgism, there comes a time with a client, if he/she is not already aware of it, when they begin to collide with the spiritual connection phenomena. I had it with a client recently. Something was massing up, not erasing going to EP as it ordinarily would, and the simple questions become:
“Is this (item) yours?”
“Is this (item) a spiritual teammate’s?”
“Is this (item) a spiritual team’s?

If not the client’s, one then switches to correctly handling the spiritual Being or team involved. Alan W developed specific processes for restoring sovereignty to the Being(s) and harmony between you all as an aligned unit.

To fail to do this when any spiritual connection manifests and gets in the way of progressing the client himself to the recovery of his true states a of Being is disastrous. It produces enormous extra charge on the case, it by-passes enormous existing charge on the chase, it gives the client wrong indications, wrong whys, wrong whats, and LOSSES tying to handle areas of case incorrectly.

And that’s before the client gets up to the confidential level materials, where those R/Ds have their own liability.

This little write up is a quick first part . . . I’ll get to copyedit it when I get back from the business I have to do. The next part might come tomorrow.

Rog

 

[Ted]

It was never about Nirvana

Hi David,

I understand what you are saying about the present scenario. But take a look at 2500 years ago in India when Buddha was preaching. Buddha was the son of a King. He grew up in luxury. He looked at the ravages of human condition (sickness, old age, etc.) and decided to do his research. He preached what he discovered, and he followed what he preached to others.

Percentage wise the social structure in India at that time was somewhat like the West of today. There was no West at that time to speak of.

I am only critical of this one aspect of Nirvana versus Individuality where Hubbard and Alan are concerned. This hit me like a bolt from the blue. Otherwise there are many wonderful things in Scientology that I benefitted from. The same may be said for Alan's Knowledgism. I have had no experience with it.

But neither Hubbard, nor Alan could discover the upper end of the Bridge being wrapped up in Individuality.

Please don't get me wrong. West has contributed to improve the human condition in many important ways. Maybe the salvation of East lies in West today (which may have happened already). I acknowledge all that. But West, in general, has been stuck in individuality and can't see past it.

That is my point.

Regards, Vinaire

.

I would argue that scientology is not about attaining Nirvana, and never was. Although that is not to say that certain scientologists have not had that in mind as a goal of auditing. Nirvana would be regarded as a no-game condition. As such it is unauditable and unattainable through scientology methods.

Oddly enough, and I say it is odd because so much time and energy is spent on the back track, oddly enough, scientology is about this: the restoration of the individual's own postulates and considerations so that the being is "once again" senior and at cause over the physical universe.

At its best, scientology technology is about the restoration and maintenance of the individual. It is a technology of having and maintaining an optimum individuality while being, doing, and having in harmony with other beings and the physical universe.

I am not making any apologies for the wacky side of scientology or for any failures to attain the above. I am just saying that, in theory and sometimes in practice, these things are attainable. Nirvana is not a part of the picture unless an individual has, through a huge blowout, attained Nirvana as a default position. Unfortunately, scientology has no tolerance for things outside its box of understanding so when a being does default to a radical new awareness or ability it gets squished back in the scio-box.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Having now found the time, I would like to address the important points David has raised in his opening post of this thread.

And in that context, I should say what I have to say is not opinion or belief, but a recounting of my own personal experience and that of some others I have worked with. This in the vein David so rightly speaks of is his referenced “Scientology Technology Evaluated” at http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1629.

In it David refers to doing, demonstrating and practicing the claimed knowledge and ability recovered, viz: “Yet on the Lower Grades there is no practice! So how on earth could someone attest to, say, the ‘Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject’ without going outside the Org and trying it out, let alone practicing it. Isn't it ‘Be Do Have’.”

The first thing to say is that the entire line-up of the technology in Scn as regards “BTs/CLs,” “possessions,” “entities” and/or spiritual teammates et al, is tragically flawed.

The main flaw, and it is a disastrous flaw, a damaging and dangerous flaw, is that the whole subject is suppressed and perverted into a “confidential” matter until one reaches OT3.

This has had catastrophic case consequences for many. It did for me personally, and I know it to be so for others.

The truth of this “spiritual connections” phenomena is known in many cultures, including our western civilization, even, and particularly so amongst the “seeker and new age” fraternity. Though it was not “common knowledge” in the West in the 1950’s & ‘60’s.

The observed truth is, in actual practice, that this subject must be addressed on a case when it comes up and processed correctly . . . to suppress the subject and hide it under cloaks of confidentiality as is done in the CofS is disastrous.

This apart from any discussion as to the validity, safety or otherwise of the procedures used when the levels of OT3 and above are processed.

I’ll relate to you my personal experience of this to illustrate what deleterious effects are produced by this tragic error of the CofS tech line up.

The first thing to say is that when I came in Scn in 1957, I was totally spiritually illiterate. I had tried to read some Theosophy materials, and some stuff on yoga and Buddhist principles, but the stuff in those days was so arcane and littered with mumbo-jumbo and ill-defined terms, it was a mess, and I gave up on the “shit.” And besides, I was heavily into the “scientific” thing of being a well muscled, highly trained meat body composed of a bunch of atoms and molecules in happy, coincidental alignment!

As noted in one of my early posts on ESMB, I “blew my Dianetics case” in 1959, when I hit the incident of an earlier life-time death. That is the event that demonstrated to me I was truly a spiritual Being. And it was after that that my case began to run “differently,” and that I began to have various strange “difficulties” in handling stuff that came up on my case.

That ascension that occurred for me in 1959 is when my case “opened up” and “all” my spiritual teammates (you can call the BTs if you wish) and all the other spiritual connections I had began to wake up and manifest their existence on my lines.

The catastrophic trouble was that I and no one else recognized what had happened, and much of my later auditing was engaged in trying to handle these “masses” and “charge” I was experiencing as my own “case” when it was not! Many errors occurred: I was viewing my spiritual connections as though they were my own case or case junk (wrong negative indication on them) I routinely was unwittingly trying to run case I thought was mine when in fact it was that of spiritual connections (and we know that is the way to guarantee things won’t erase or go to true EP) and on and on . . . I could list a catalogue of errors that this circumstance the CofS forces on its people produced.

One of the gravest errors, apart from invalidation of the Beings, is that that whole case area of spiritual connections can get suppressed and negated with its own set of negative consequences . . . such as sick bodies, as an example.

In Knowledgism, there comes a time with a client, if he/she is not already aware of it, when they begin to collide with the spiritual connection phenomena. I had it with a client recently. Something was massing up, not erasing going to EP as it ordinarily would, and the simple questions become:
“Is this (item) yours?”
“Is this (item) a spiritual teammate’s?”
“Is this (item) a spiritual team’s?

If not the client’s, one then switches to correctly handling the spiritual Being or team involved. Alan W developed specific processes for restoring sovereignty to the Being(s) and harmony between you all as an aligned unit.

To fail to do this when any spiritual connection manifests and gets in the way of progressing the client himself to the recovery of his true states a of Being is disastrous. It produces enormous extra charge on the case, it by-passes enormous existing charge on the chase, it gives the client wrong indications, wrong whys, wrong whats, and LOSSES tying to handle areas of case incorrectly.

And that’s before the client gets up to the confidential level materials, where those R/Ds have their own liability.

This little write up is a quick first part . . . I’ll get to copyedit it when I get back from the business I have to do. The next part might come tomorrow.

Rog

Excellent post, Roger, and one that puts quite a bit that I "already knew" in clear perspective.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Challenge]

Having now found the time, I would like to address the important points David has raised in his opening post of this thread.

And in that context, I should say what I have to say is not opinion or belief, but a recounting of my own personal experience and that of some others I have worked with. This in the vein David so rightly speaks of is his referenced “Scientology Technology Evaluated” at http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1629.

In it David refers to doing, demonstrating and practicing the claimed knowledge and ability recovered, viz: “Yet on the Lower Grades there is no practice! So how on earth could someone attest to, say, the ‘Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject’ without going outside the Org and trying it out, let alone practicing it. Isn't it ‘Be Do Have’.”

The first thing to say is that the entire line-up of the technology in Scn as regards “BTs/CLs,” “possessions,” “entities” and/or spiritual teammates et al, is tragically flawed.

The main flaw, and it is a disastrous flaw, a damaging and dangerous flaw, is that the whole subject is suppressed and perverted into a “confidential” matter until one reaches OT3.

This has had catastrophic case consequences for many. It did for me personally, and I know it to be so for others.

The truth of this “spiritual connections” phenomena is known in many cultures, including our western civilization, even, and particularly so amongst the “seeker and new age” fraternity. Though it was not “common knowledge” in the West in the 1950’s & ‘60’s.

The observed truth is, in actual practice, that this subject must be addressed on a case when it comes up and processed correctly . . . to suppress the subject and hide it under cloaks of confidentiality as is done in the CofS is disastrous.

This apart from any discussion as to the validity, safety or otherwise of the procedures used when the levels of OT3 and above are processed.

I’ll relate to you my personal experience of this to illustrate what deleterious effects are produced by this tragic error of the CofS tech line up.

The first thing to say is that when I came in Scn in 1957, I was totally spiritually illiterate. I had tried to read some Theosophy materials, and some stuff on yoga and Buddhist principles, but the stuff in those days was so arcane and littered with mumbo-jumbo and ill-defined terms, it was a mess, and I gave up on the “shit.” And besides, I was heavily into the “scientific” thing of being a well muscled, highly trained meat body composed of a bunch of atoms and molecules in happy, coincidental alignment!

As noted in one of my early posts on ESMB, I “blew my Dianetics case” in 1959, when I hit the incident of an earlier life-time death. That is the event that demonstrated to me I was truly a spiritual Being. And it was after that that my case began to run “differently,” and that I began to have various strange “difficulties” in handling stuff that came up on my case.

That ascension that occurred for me in 1959 is when my case “opened up” and “all” my spiritual teammates (you can call the BTs if you wish) and all the other spiritual connections I had began to wake up and manifest their existence on my lines.

The catastrophic trouble was that I and no one else recognized what had happened, and much of my later auditing was engaged in trying to handle these “masses” and “charge” I was experiencing as my own “case” when it was not! Many errors occurred: I was viewing my spiritual connections as though they were my own case or case junk (wrong negative indication on them) I routinely was unwittingly trying to run case I thought was mine when in fact it was that of spiritual connections (and we know that is the way to guarantee things won’t erase or go to true EP) and on and on . . . I could list a catalogue of errors that this circumstance the CofS forces on its people produced.

One of the gravest errors, apart from invalidation of the Beings, is that that whole case area of spiritual connections can get suppressed and negated with its own set of negative consequences . . . such as sick bodies, as an example.

In Knowledgism, there comes a time with a client, if he/she is not already aware of it, when they begin to collide with the spiritual connection phenomena. I had it with a client recently. Something was massing up, not erasing going to EP as it ordinarily would, and the simple questions become:
“Is this (item) yours?”
“Is this (item) a spiritual teammate’s?”
“Is this (item) a spiritual team’s?

If not the client’s, one then switches to correctly handling the spiritual Being or team involved. Alan W developed specific processes for restoring sovereignty to the Being(s) and harmony between you all as an aligned unit.

To fail to do this when any spiritual connection manifests and gets in the way of progressing the client himself to the recovery of his true states a of Being is disastrous. It produces enormous extra charge on the case, it by-passes enormous existing charge on the chase, it gives the client wrong indications, wrong whys, wrong whats, and LOSSES tying to handle areas of case incorrectly.

And that’s before the client gets up to the confidential level materials, where those R/Ds have their own liability.

This little write up is a quick first part . . . I’ll get to copyedit it when I get back from the business I have to do. The next part might come tomorrow.

Rog

I had a certain PC who would "see" BT/CLs in Grades sessions. He was known in the Org as a "dog" PC. He had had Power run before Grades completion ( they sometimes ran Power on PCs who exhibited PTSness). He had had every remedy known to CSs including the Introspection R/D. His ability to "see" the BTs was outstanding. I could see the ones that he saw, too, but I had done OT levels and he had not.
What happened with him is they just continued auditing him on processes that he didn't need or want, but he believed that eventually he would reach *some EP* that he desired.
He was a "cash cow".
The "confidentiality" and the godawful significance that is put on OT3, is a way to keep PCs reaching for those levels, and spending great sums of MONEY to get them.
I write facetious posts about BT/CLs a lot because I wish to take some of the significance off them. Some of the seriousness of the mindf....
I love your post, Rog.
Like others, I was aware of my spiritual teammates during my Grades auditing in the 60s. The biggest cluster that I ever saw was following behind Alan one day as he zipped into the Dallas Mission. I whooped. I asked him WTF that was, and I got a stumbling no answer, because at that time I was a PC and not privy to OT3 answers. I followed LRH advice from the 50s and let sleeping dogs lie.


Challenge

 

[Mark A. Baker]

All right, so Roger was humorous and I was not. I was simply ticked off at Roger's humor because it pushed one of my buttons.

Noted. You reacted on a "button".

The majority of people in the West do not understand Eastern philosophy. They don't care to understand it either. For them it is entertainment to laugh at it, and to put it down at every opportunity they get.

Agreed.

Although strikes me that the majority of easterners don't understand Eastern Philosophy either. But the same is true about westerners & Western Philosophy.

Frankly, my experience has been there are damn few relatively who are interested in any philosophy if it won't make 'em rich, or it won't get 'em laid.

More seriously, your point about a general tendency among westerners to mistake & deride Eastern Philosophy is extremely valid and one with which I fully agree. It reflects millenia of racial & cultural bias & prejudice. Those who so act do so to their own detriment.

However: If it were not laughed at it would not be Tao.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Vinaire]

I would argue that scientology is not about attaining Nirvana, and never was. Although that is not to say that certain scientologists have not had that in mind as a goal of auditing. Nirvana would be regarded as a no-game condition. As such it is unauditable and unattainable through scientology methods.

Oddly enough, and I say it is odd because so much time and energy is spent on the back track, oddly enough, scientology is about this: the restoration of the individual's own postulates and considerations so that the being is "once again" senior and at cause over the physical universe.

At its best, scientology technology is about the restoration and maintenance of the individual. It is a technology of having and maintaining an optimum individuality while being, doing, and having in harmony with other beings and the physical universe.

I am not making any apologies for the wacky side of scientology or for any failures to attain the above. I am just saying that, in theory and sometimes in practice, these things are attainable. Nirvana is not a part of the picture unless an individual has, through a huge blowout, attained Nirvana as a default position. Unfortunately, scientology has no tolerance for things outside its box of understanding so when a being does default to a radical new awareness or ability it gets squished back in the scio-box.

Well, that is the realization I had recently. I mistook Hubbard’s Static in Scn Axiom #1 to mean the same as BRAHMA (Nirvana). With that as my stable datum I did great in Scientology. For all I know I got the entire benefits one could get from OT levels and more (without doing the OT levels). I wonder if that makes sense.

It has been a let down for me to realize that Hubbard didn’t really aim that high. I don’t disagree with you now that Scientology was never about attaining Nirvana. But I must say that I made big strides toward that goal within Scientology. I left Scientology when I found that I could not continue toward that goal. I thought it was because of the way the organization was set up and being managed. It was bolt from the blue for me to realize that technically also, LRH did not set up Scientology in the direction of Scn Axiom #1 as I understand it.

But I have this consideration that Nirvana does not exclude the playing of games. To me, Nirvana means that one is no longer attached to the MEST universe (or, hypnotized by the MEST universe). One can then dive in and out of MEST universe as one pleases. One can play all kind of games without being attached. But that would require not being attached to individuality either. That is how Krishna lived.

I guess that attachment to individuality was Hubbard’s Achilles heel.

.