Lakey,
While I love Urqu to death, as noted in my earlier posts honoring him . . . he did audit some of my NOTs at FSO, I am not in accord with him on his criticism of what you are doing.
Having said that, one must also say that one should respect and honor his integrity to the LRH tech he is defending. And having said that, I must say I am not in accord with the LRH tech that is being defended. LRH's handling of spiritual connections is a gross error and disaster.
Yes, I am not in accord with LRH either nor much of his tech. The thing I keep reminding myself of is we would not all be here on ESMB exchanging all this wisdom if he had not come along. For that reason plus my own personal gains plus wonderful sincere people such as Urqu who defend LRH, it is proper to treat LRH with some measure of respect and not completely villify him.
Go to the thread started by Mate here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=16109
Title is "How Dangerous is New OTVII (Solo NOTs)"
In I give an alternative handling on the issue of dealing with spiritual connections, which subject is an important one that also has as many nuances to it as the handling of Beings just like you and me.
Sounds intriguing!
Personally, when I read what you were doing I had degrees of reservation about it . . . but I would not criticize it mainly because I was not there to witness exactly what happened and see the outcome. But my reservation is based purely upon the rationale of automatically always "blowing" any spiritual connection one encounters . . . not anything else.
I had resevervations because I was afraid that I didn't know what I was doing. Roger, don't worry about always blowing any spiritual connection one encounters. I had already installed a new questiion asking whether the person wanted to keep the spiritual connection or blow it. I used this questioin on the Indian guy last week. He wanted to blow it.
Personally, I have found (based on the knowledge Alan W provided on the issue) that it is far, far wiser to
rehabilitate one's spiritual connections . . . not sever them. Restore them to an optimum and harmonious alignment and relationship.
They are not necessarily or automatically "opponents" or enemies to be treated as such.
I had already figured that out myself just by reading various accounts such as Carmelo's where he said he felt naked after his OT III and decided to quit C of S because of it. So many of us like many of our spiritual entities and felt a loss when they took off. In the non Scientology occult center where I spoke, many of the people claim to have angels, spiritual advisors and team mates appended to them and they have no intention of losing those conneciions. As a result of all this, I added a qualifying quesion as to whether the person wanted to blow the entitiy or keep it.
Like any relationship, the relationship with one's spiritual connections can go awry, get screwed up and result in fixed unwanted conditions and "pain."
When I was traveling the world following having done some NOTs before doing S/NOTs . . . and I found myself away from any processing facility, my standard handling of any "troublesome" spiritual connections (mine or another's) was to simply ask and have exposed the Being's intention/purpose being pursued and what was it doing as an automatic on-going creation. Spotting this unlocked the unwanted condition of jammed-up or encysted life-force.
This seems much more thorough and superior to the What are you? and Who are you? questions. This is a nice imporvement which can be assimilated quickly and with ease and the theory behind it seems to be self apparent. Very nice piece of helpful tech, Rog!
Spiritual connections, just like us, can be dramatizing old, old inappropriate solutions: solutions which produce unwanted conditions in PT.
I never saw nor experienced any liability in doing that handling . . . non-standard LRH though it is.
The worst that could happen with what you are doing is that a "BT" might not "blow" . . . . as per what is "supposed to happen" with LRH's version of what is right . . . . but, do you think LRH's version of what should be is correct?
I never trained on NOTs. I just had the NOTs correction list run on me several times when I bogged. I was thinking that before I run out any entities I should check out the correction lists, drill them, etc. I trust Mayo more than LRH these days when it comes to technical purity. Isn't it true that Mayo had a lot to do with NOTs tech and correction lists?
If not, then screw that potential "liability" of what you are doing.
The correct objective you should be targeting, if you are going to address a client's "troublesome" spiritual connections, is that of undoing the automatic process and action the spiritual Being is running/practicing that is causing/creating the unwanted physical condition.
When that is undone, the correct action and smart move is to have the client determine or find out what it is that he can honor and appreciate about the newly restored spiritual Being . . . i.e., what abilities/powers/actions/practices of the Being can your client recognize and appreciate . . . and have you client validate and appreciate the spiritual Being for such!
This concept seems quite marvelous and humane, Neither LRH nor Mayo got into this at all as far as I know. For LRH, who had an agenda, it is understandable. For Mayo, who was a straight shooter, it is much less understandable. Maybe he wrote something of this nature into NOTs and LRH deleted it, sho knows?
Then you ask the client after this is done: "What happened?"
YOu are likely to get some wonderful surprises as the answer
RogerB
From the film ON THE BEACH with Eva Gardner, Gregory Peck, Fred Astaire, and Anthony Perkins
The Primadona himself
manning and maintaining these ships would only let a person on a small portion of them. I like to touchy feely and I felt so cheated.
