A fresh look at OTII

[petal]

Hello:
I would like to give a few more points about the subject of OTII as I have outlined the correct sequence and the new and correct technology to audit to attain the state of clear.
The dates given by Ron are asserted dates. They are his dates for this sequence, not yours.
The sequence is correct though.
One can find ones own dates for the GPMs as it is easy to do after doing the meter course. but don't do it until you have completed the level!
Another point is that there may be more Gpms then listed by ron. In my case there was six electrical GPMs. The dates are really a side note and of interest but the auditing sequence is the important bit.
love petal

 

[Idle Morgue]

A fresh look at OTII
Having done OTII ten years ago, I took another look at it. Not auditing, but the dates took my attention written by Ron and his peculiar nomenclature. (For example: TR150). For a while I puzzled over the various ideas, trillions of powers, ten to the power, etc. but came to the conclusion that it is like a date: year, month, and day. One writes the largest value first, i.e. Trillion, then the value. So the previous example would be 150Trillion years! Of course in the auditing of the materials, the dates are irrelevant but the sequence not. For Ron he would be dating these materials to get them in sequence. To get it right for us to follow him.

So taking the list of 21 GPMs from the OTII materials, they panned out in order of years:
GPM Trillion years
Electrical 210000000

Electrical 350000

Electrical 310000

Jocky 213200

Electrical 105000

Electrical 97000

Electrical 89000

Big Being 60000

Jocky 51710

Psycho 41600

House 40000

Psycho 35910

House 32000

The Arrow 30000

Double Rod 28000

Double Rod 28000

Woman 26000

Hot-Cold 26000

Double Rod 25000

White-Black Sphere 25000

Laughter-Calm 19000

Dance-Mob 18000

Big Being 16000

Incident I 4000

Clearing Course 1500

Forerunner 230

Banky 228

Banky 225

Forerunner 222

Banky 217

Banky 216

Basic-Basic 214

Basic 150

The Command 30

Lower LP 30

LP 30

Body 30

Lower Bank 30

IncidentII 76 million years

Having arranged this sequence out, one will notice that Incident one (OTIII) and Clearing Course fall in the sequence after the Big Being#2 (16,000 Trillion years) GPM. Why, because 4 Quadrillion years (Incident 1) is 4000 Trillion years and 1.5 Quadrillion years (Clearing Course) is 1500 trillion years.
What does this mean? Well, it suggests that the OTII materials are real dates of earlier time or universes and are not false dates inserted in the Incident II event. If that is the case then one should audit Incident I after the Banky GPM, followed by the Clearing Course. Then complete the rest of the OTII materials in sequence starting with the Forerunner. Then run Incident 2. This of course is a new and maybe, a correct bridge!
I back this theory up with my own experience auditing OTII. On reaching the end of the “Big Being” I lost the thread. And in accordance with the instructions of running the level one goes back to find where something has been missed. I eventually found the Forerunner GPM where reads started firing again. A waste of time with this newly discovered information. I had leaped over the Inc.I and CC GPMs, possibly why I lost the thread. The “Forerunner” was the last GPM with any serious amount of charge. I then scanned the rest of the GPMs and then attested. Not finding any more charge, I then did OTIII.
Looking at the results of my auditing, three quarters of the total charge on OTII was removed on the first pass up to the big being. How do I know this? I Excel all my folders and counted the TA.
Well, any brave Newbies want to try this new bridge?! After all one can only run this stuff once so I cannot test it again on myself.
I did the Clearing Course after all this OTII, OTIII, nots, stuff, so the Clearing Course was still there; it took me six months to do that, with 13 runs. Again, more evidence that this new bridge is correct.
Good Luck!
best regards,
Petal

Petal: The bottom line is WTF does it do for anyone? I looked at the OATEE's and I am not impressed. Cause over life - No, I don't see that at all. They are just like any other human being but now they have this data that means nothing to live life! What does it do? I am serious and really want to know? I have no interest in spending my valuable time and money to go up these levels of whatever they are - simply because I see absolutely no use to it. Enlighten me please!

 

[petal]

Petal: The bottom line is WTF does it do for anyone? I looked at the OATEE's and I am not impressed. Cause over life - No, I don't see that at all. They are just like any other human being but now they have this data that means nothing to live life! What does it do? I am serious and really want to know? I have no interest in spending my valuable time and money to go up these levels of whatever they are - simply because I see absolutely no use to it. Enlighten me please!

Dear idle:
The phase "Cause over life" is false and meaningless promotional drivel!
petal

 

[Terril park]

Dear idle:
The phase "Cause over life" is false and meaningless promotional drivel!
petal

More cause over your own life is a better statement.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I think of OTIII the way I think of the Alien/UFO stuff. I am someone who truly believes there is sentient life on other worlds. Maybe they come here, maybe they don't. I think there's a lot of misinformation about it but maybe some of it's ok. I have a very very mild interest in it. I'm the same way about the past implants. I think it's likely we had implants. I believe we did, as beings, originate far from here (in a galaxy far far away- couldn't resist). But I don't tend to think that it's necessarily the way LRH depicts it.

I think it's like visions that come to prophets. They see life (as all of us do) through cultural, emotional and other filters. So if a "true vision" were to come to several people, each might interpret it differently and then tell followers and others about it in very different ways. But you'd find commonality in the accounts. I think this is what Hubbard did. I think he tapped into some stuff, had his visions or insights or whatever, and that they were greatly filtered through his perspective. So he names these implants, etc. But that's how it seemed to him.

So, implant theory makes sense to me. But when he gets into the incident content-- I get really skeptical. I think he only had a piece of the puzzle.

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

Hello:
I would like to give a few more points about the subject of OTII as I have outlined the correct sequence and the new and correct technology to audit to attain the state of clear.
The dates given by Ron are asserted dates. They are his dates for this sequence, not yours.
The sequence is correct though.
One can find ones own dates for the GPMs as it is easy to do after doing the meter course. but don't do it until you have completed the level!
Another point is that there may be more Gpms then listed by ron. In my case there was six electrical GPMs. The dates are really a side note and of interest but the auditing sequence is the important bit.
love petal

Possibly seven. The electrical-meter incident where gullible thetans were implanted with false ideas called implants.

 

[Udarnik]

I believe we did, as beings, originate far from here (in a galaxy far far away- couldn't resist). But I don't tend to think that it's necessarily the way LRH depicts it.

Why? I'm genuinely curious as to why you believe this. I'm sure you can pick up from the tone of my other posts that I am philosophically hostile to this point of view, but I'm not personally hostile to you, nor do I intend to make fun of your response. I'm just curious as to how you can believe this in the face of all the evolutionary evidence that we evolved from life on this Earth. Our DNA and systems are remarkably conserved across species. Take, for example, the vitamin D receptor. We think of it as regulating calcium, but it has a huge role in immunity, too. We figured it that role predates the calcium stuff because we found it in flatworms that have no skeleton. With all of the pieces that fit the standard evolutionary model, how unlikely would it be that we evolved on another planet and our DNA happens to match this one so closely?


Or is it that you believe in the seed theory that viri float around outer space and populate various planets? This is a little more biologically defensible, though still farfetched and untestable at the moment (though theoretically testable).


Or do you mean our souls migrated from other planets? This one is a bit more untestable: in the words of one of MY favorite SF authors: (said in a Drill Sergeant command voice) "withdraw soul! Inspection soul!" . More philosophically, given the come city of the neural connections in the human brain, I don't see why a soul is necessary to explain any aspect of human consciousness. It isn't really incompatible, but the simplest hypothesis is usually the best working hypothesis in the absence of data.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I really enjoy paleoanthropology, archaeology and related sciences. I read books on all those things and I subscribe to Archaeology Magazine.

The only thing about evolution that ends up being theoretical is that as time goes on and more information comes to light, these precepts get revised. In general, though, it's an excellent scientific thesis that pretty much nails the physical origins of man.

I'm curious as to how you or anyone else could see a conflict in what I say, though. No offense, but it was obvious I was talking about spirituality. Darwinism, the magnificent Leakey family, all those wonderful books and theories about the origins of life on this planet- that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

So I will continue to believe in, accept, admire and eagerly read the updated information on paleoanthropology and I will still know that a spiritual being is a whole 'nother thing.

 

[kate8024]

Or is it that you believe in the seed theory that viri float around outer space and populate various planets? This is a little more biologically defensible, though still farfetched and untestable at the moment (though theoretically testable).

I personally believe that something similar to current proposals regarding this will show to be true, though there are probably a lot of things in the existing theories that are not quite correct. To clarify more, I believe that life on planets both arrives via meteors and such as well as originating natively. Some planets potentially experience one or the other first or even only one of the two, but I do think that it does happen in some cases on some planets.

Or do you mean our souls migrated from other planets? This one is a bit more untestable

I believe we will eventually be able to test this, but I also think we are a long way from being able to do this correctly - on the order of a couple hundred years away. Currently most tests for a soul that people have devised don't actually test for the existence of a soul, they merely test for the presence in the brain of things traditionally ascribed to the soul but this is a pretty poor test in my opinion. So I believe the existence of the soul is a physically testable phenomenon, but it involves physics that we do not understand yet. It will also mean treating the soul as a proper scientific theory which means not just testing a single definition of it and declaring all possible definitions invalid - instead the definitions used in testing will need to be narrowed/expanded/changed like with any evolving theory.

I don't see why a soul is necessary to explain any aspect of human consciousness. It isn't really incompatible, but the simplest hypothesis is usually the best working hypothesis in the absence of data.

This is often the case, though I think with this issue because we are so far out from being able to directly test it and it is such an emotional issue for people the necessity of it for human life is secondary to the practical roles belief and non-belief play in society. There are certainly many cases in history where Occam's Razor has been shown to not apply plus what constitutes simplicity is often open for debate. Some would argue that saying people having a completely untestable unfathomable soul created by a perfect God and this is the seat of consciousness is an extremely simple explanation compared to the explanation required to show that isn't the case using neuro-chemisty/biology/physics/logy.

 

[Claire Swazey]

I think that using human language to explain the spiritual tends to cause lost in translation scenarios.

So when someone says "soul" or "spirit" or "being"- it's going to be imprecise, IMO.

I know there's intelligence and sentience other than our bodies. I've felt it. I've tapped into it. So have many pagans and members of traditional religions, occultists- you name it. It sounds very subjective and I would not for one second claim that these things can be proven. I don't think they can because this world is physical.

Now, my personal theory is this: I think that there always was a big pool of sentient spirituality. Hubbard's word "theta" would be a good word for it. (and for those who have reservations about my using Scn'ese, well, I rarely do it, and it suits my purpose this one time.) I think this pool of theta, at various instances, opted to send out bits of attention here and there. These bits of attention went on and did things, took on personalities. These personalities are beings, thetans, souls, what have you.

I think that spirits can continue to come into being and that they and meld with the greater consciousness.

So the idea of there being whole track recollections, based on the premise that a being may have been somewhere else and been someone else so long ago that Earth wasn't even around, seems normal to me.

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I don't think that you can explain away the phenomena of awareness, and prescience by saying it is a function of the brain. Too many times in my life I have known something was going to occur before it did for me to believe some thing is going on. An simple example - pre Scientology I was in college running down a flight of stairs, camera on an old leather strap over my shoulder- I suddenly reach out, the camera strap snaps and the camera falls into my hand. Had I not put my hand out, the camera would have fallen down the flight of stairs. You can argue, that perhaps I felt the strap weakening etc. or whatever to explain it away. it happened as I described it.

It is as if one exists (or has awareness ) slightly ahead of present time. Perhaps awareness in the now is a reflex of being slightly ahead and creating reality to experience. Then these nodes of choice occur. How many times have you should have done A, but you did B, and realized A was the right thing? I am talking about split second choices.

But back to the brain. To me, it's as if the brain is as Hubbard describes it, a switch board of sorts. It sort of filters the awareness that one perceives. There was a post linking a video (perhaps on ted tv) concerning a shrink who suffered a stroke, and 50% of her brain shut down. She was describing having lost the analytical portion /side of her brain. She knew she had a stroke, but she could not understand how to work a telephone to call 911. She went on to describe life with out that part of her brain functioning, and how it healed.

To me, it is illustrative of the center of awareness, being stuck in a broken tool (brain). Perhaps this is what is going on with us, our (in a manner of speaking, our meaning the awareness that is in the present) awareness is running the body /brain, but is limited by the functions the particular brain has. Much like computing with an xt, a 386, win 3.1, win xp, win 7, win 8 there are things you can do on win 7 that you could never do on a 386. if you were in a dog body, what could you effectively communicate, if every time you felt love for some one the only way you could express it was by humping their leg?

It's too facile to pass it off as tricks the brain does. It seems it has to be more, and whether it all comes down to multiple bits of awareness coexisting while differentiating as separate viewpoints, or a pool of awareness, or a godlike super being, the idea that we are aware at all, that we exist, is perhaps the biggest puzzle of all, bigger even that how the whole universe came into existence from nothing in a "big bang".

Mimsey

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

I think of OTIII the way I think of the Alien/UFO stuff. I am someone who truly believes there is sentient life on other worlds. Maybe they come here, maybe they don't. I think there's a lot of misinformation about it but maybe some of it's ok. I have a very very mild interest in it. I'm the same way about the past implants. I think it's likely we had implants. I believe we did, as beings, originate far from here (in a galaxy far far away- couldn't resist). But I don't tend to think that it's necessarily the way LRH depicts it.

I think it's like visions that come to prophets. They see life (as all of us do) through cultural, emotional and other filters. So if a "true vision" were to come to several people, each might interpret it differently and then tell followers and others about it in very different ways. But you'd find commonality in the accounts. I think this is what Hubbard did. I think he tapped into some stuff, had his visions or insights or whatever, and that they were greatly filtered through his perspective. So he names these implants, etc. But that's how it seemed to him.

So, implant theory makes sense to me. But when he gets into the incident content-- I get really skeptical. I think he only had a piece of the puzzle.

Claire - I agree - when you consider how many millions or billions of galaxies there are, with how many billions of suns in them, and how many billions of habitable planets in each galaxy, the chance for life occurring is astronomical.

Udarnik, I see no reason similar dna shouldn't occur on different planets of similar water /carbon construction. If it is an efficient pattern of life, why would it not evolve the same way somewhere else? Wouldn't a two legged meme be better than a on legged one? I can understand variations, we see them all the time on your own evolutionary history, but the basic building blocks should be the same.

Mimsey

 

[Queenmab321]

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Christopher Hitchens

 

[kate8024]

I think that using human language to explain the spiritual tends to cause lost in translation scenarios.
So when someone says "soul" or "spirit" or "being"- it's going to be imprecise, IMO.

Absolutely. This is interestingly one of the things that drew me to Scientology in the fist place, its emphasis on using standardized definitions for everything. Unfortunately things don't really work out for LRH or the church here as definitions change over time without explanation and then you can never be sure which version of a word is being used at any given time. In some cases I think the normal human words are more precise and in some cases Scientologeese (or other religion-specific terminology) is more precise - but any time you are talking to a broad audience you can still run into interpretation issues.

I know there's intelligence and sentience other than our bodies. I've felt it. I've tapped into it. So have many pagans and members of traditional religions, occultists- you name it. It sounds very subjective and I would not for one second claim that these things can be proven. I don't think they can because this world is physical.

Absolutely. I have multiple theories about this, both spiritual and non-spiritual but I believe it is important to recognize that there are many similarities. I hope that we can eventually figure out better tests for these things as most of the current tests I have seen which seek to either prove or disprove the objective nature of these experiments have been very poorly conducted. But ultimately even if things like exteriorization are all in my imagination I still find them to be an interesting experience.

Now, my personal theory is this: I think that there always was a big pool of sentient spirituality. Hubbard's word "theta" would be a good word for it. (and for those who have reservations about my using Scn'ese, well, I rarely do it, and it suits my purpose this one time.) I think this pool of theta, at various instances, opted to send out bits of attention here and there. These bits of attention went on and did things, took on personalities. These personalities are beings, thetans, souls, what have you.

I think that spirits can continue to come into being and that they and meld with the greater consciousness.

So the idea of there being whole track recollections, based on the premise that a being may have been somewhere else and been someone else so long ago that Earth wasn't even around, seems normal to me.

Makes sense to me, thanks for sharing that!

 

[kate8024]

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Christopher Hitchens

I consider religion to be a field of ongoing research and internally replace things like "this is true" or "this is false" with "this is my hypothesis", though assertions of something being objectively true or false still tend to lower my respect for those making the assertion because there is virtually no properly conducted objective research in the field of religion or in the fields I consider to be related such as psychic phenomenon. Many people assert things like clairvoyance are true while using subjective evidence and then people assert they are false via logical implication but neither do proper tests. I am aware there have been some tests conducted in this field, but the ones I have seen do not meet the current standards for a scientific study so it is hard to call the results anything other than inconclusive or anecdotal.

 

[Claire Swazey]

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Christopher Hitchens

Your quoting this and the quote itself seems to imply an opinion that others are trying to convince people there is spirituality.

And I know a lot of Christians repeatedly challenged and badmouthed Hitchens. But that was their insecurities showing.

I don't need anyone to accept that the spiritual exists. They can dismiss it all they like. I suspect that others here who've opined that the spiritual exists may feel similarly.

At the end of the day, or end of life, we'll end up where we end up and whatever's going to happen (or not) will happen. If, say, some Christian expects me to go to hell but if they're wrong, well, I won't be going. If I think people are going to reincarnate, but I'm wrong, well, it won't happen. If I'm right, then it will. But in any event, Hitchen's opinion or anyone else's won't change the end result.

 

[Claire Swazey]

Absolutely. This is interestingly one of the things that drew me to Scientology in the fist place, its emphasis on using standardized definitions for everything. Unfortunately things don't really work out for LRH or the church here as definitions change over time without explanation and then you can never be sure which version of a word is being used at any given time. In some cases I think the normal human words are more precise and in some cases Scientologeese (or other religion-specific terminology) is more precise - but any time you are talking to a broad audience you can still run into interpretation issues.



Absolutely. I have multiple theories about this, both spiritual and non-spiritual but I believe it is important to recognize that there are many similarities. I hope that we can eventually figure out better tests for these things as most of the current tests I have seen which seek to either prove or disprove the objective nature of these experiments have been very poorly conducted. But ultimately even if things like exteriorization are all in my imagination I still find them to be an interesting experience.



Makes sense to me, thanks for sharing that!

Exactly.

In the end, whatever will be will be.

For example, on an occasion where I'd made reference to Helen O'Brien who wrote Dianetics in Limbo. (out of print but, I believe, can be found on Op Clambake) about Hubbard very early on in 1951 and 1952. I'd done so enough, I guess, to where someone (who'd been doing this sort of thing on fora we both were on for years) wrote derisively that I maybe shouldn't think I'm that person, that lots of people thought they were Helen O'Brien- comes up a lot. Well, I laughed. I was like, for one thing, word has it that she used to go to FCDC to say hi all the way up to the 1980s. I was not born after the 1980s so obviously I couldn't be her reincarnation. But most importantly? It doesn't matter! If I think I was person X and I was never Person X, then I wasn't. But if I was, then I was. If people agree with someone on this sort of thing or they disagree, it won't change a thing.

The thing to do is not to be emotionally invested in one's theories about the divine and spirituality.

 

[kate8024]

Exactly.

In the end, whatever will be will be.

For example, on an occasion where I'd made reference to Helen O'Brien who wrote Dianetics in Limbo. (out of print but, I believe, can be found on Op Clambake) about Hubbard very early on in 1951 and 1952. I'd done so enough, I guess, to where someone (who'd been doing this sort of thing on fora we both were on for years) wrote derisively that I maybe shouldn't think I'm that person, that lots of people thought they were Helen O'Brien- comes up a lot. Well, I laughed. I was like, for one thing, word has it that she used to go to FCDC to say hi all the way up to the 1980s. I was not born after the 1980s so obviously I couldn't be her reincarnation. But most importantly? It doesn't matter! If I think I was person X and I was never Person X, then I wasn't. But if I was, then I was. If people agree with someone on this sort of thing or they disagree, it won't change a thing.

The thing to do is not to be emotionally invested in one's theories about the divine and spirituality.

One hypothesis I have regarding reincarnation is that souls do not experience time in the same linear manner that the human memory does. If souls exist outside of time, then it might be possible for a soul to interact with multiple different bodies simultaneously - this would allow multiple people who are currently alive to claim the same person as a past life because those people could, in effect, be the same soul.

Another hypothesis, of course, is that we have a tendency to want to claim people or archetypes we feel a connection with as a past life.

 

[Claire Swazey]

One hypothesis I have regarding reincarnation is that souls do not experience time in the same linear manner that the human memory does. If souls exist outside of time, then it might be possible for a soul to interact with multiple different bodies simultaneously - this would allow multiple people who are currently alive to claim the same person as a past life because those people could, in effect, be the same soul.

Another hypothesis, of course, is that we have a tendency to want to claim people or archetypes we feel a connection with as a past life.

Totally agree. I remember hearing the priest say during a homily (when I was a Catholic kid) that time is all one to God. It seemed to me that you could extend that to all spirituality.

Time is part of the physical.

I also remember reading about various celebs who were into past lives. They were usually Cleopatra and Hatshepsut and famous figures like that. I've seen some exes comment on that when church members did that. But thing is, Hubbard actually decried that, too. He said that there were plenty of people who thought they were Napoleon or whatever but that they probably had been overwhelmed by him. And he talked about dub in.

Memories can be self serving things, and not just past life ones.

The mind's a very strange thing. People can and do have memories that are utterly false. So since this is a fact, one can't really convince a non believer that hey, I remembered this other lifetime.

 

[kate8024]

But thing is, Hubbard actually decried that, too. He said that there were plenty of people who thought they were Napoleon or whatever but that they probably had been overwhelmed by him. And he talked about dub in.

Memories can be self serving things, and not just past life ones.

The mind's a very strange thing. People can and do have memories that are utterly false. So since this is a fact, one can't really convince a non believer that hey, I remembered this other lifetime.

I try to keep an open mind about these things when it comes to purely spiritual matters but sometimes it is difficult, like how every Wiccan I have had a past lives discussion with says they were persecuted as a witch in a past life, my brain always says 'yeah right' to itself at first. I think that sometimes the only way to test a theory involving our internal mental or spiritual states is to sort of 'try things on' and claim them to be the case for a little while and see how it feels. So to me, when people claim things like this and then backtrack on it later it just means they were trying it on and they found that it didn't really feel right for them. For some it works out and if they feel it enhances their understanding of life then great for them.

People certainly do have a lot of memories that vary from being somewhat off to just completely false. This could be due to faulty brain circuitry, or some sort of creativity mental sub-process. Or, who knows, maybe our consciousness moves between many alternate realities and different versions of ourselves and sometimes we carry certain memories from one to another which were true in the other one but are false in this one.