ILove2Lurk
Lisbeth Salander
Re: Class IX and XII Auditors who did not complete SHSBC or the Class VIII Course? W
If you study the entire body of tech meticulously beginning to end, you’ll realize that big pieces of it were jettisoned by the old man himself. Only thing, this fact is not carefully documented or broadly advertised.
Leaving people in a befuddled state thinking they’ve missed studying something in the research line and are confused, have MUs, or need to train up all the way to Class 6 or 8 or 12 to really get it . . . whereas big chunks of “the research” were just jettisoned along the way. Again, this is not broadly advertised and the jettisoned materials are sold with the gold seal and imprimatur that it is all valid even today and very standard.
Just a few examples off the top of my head . . .
Should the lecture series “The Rock” continue to be sold if “no point in doing it?” Why sell or study it?
Finding The Rock (SHSBC Scientology Definitions II lecture)
Gold ball anchor point processing (SHSBC Scientology Definitions III lecture)
Creative Processing
Creative processing, the mainstay of early 50’s road to OT, was cancelled by Hubbard in 1960 in HCOB 11 Feb 1960, Create and Confront. Also jettisoned on a SHSBC lecture (23 Feb 65 SHSBC Level VII) and similarly mentioned again negatively on one of the XDN lectures because of its inconsistency in producing results on all cases.
Handling somatics on OTs
The very clear 1968 Class 8 standard tech edicts (punishable by severe ethics if violated) about handling somatics on OTs with more Dianetics (done for 10 years on thousands of paying customers) were cancelled and prohibited by the advent of NOTS in 1978. Re-defined what was enforced in those original 1968 edicts as a "case error." Standard tech ten years in the wrong.
Looks like standard tech has actually always been “what you can get away with.”
Or put another way, a vast subject of shifting sands. Sadly, it took me years to figure this out.
Preaching to the choir a bit . . . I know.
Since we're talkin' tech here on this thread . . .Wait a dag nab minute. You are forgetting Miscavage's big why and hobby horse - the blind are leading the blind. If you do the GAT tech courses, what in hell do you need class 6, 7, or 8 for anyway? Class 6 was a history course, so who needs all that "old" tech? Class 7 dealt with power and review, but who does power processes any more?
If you study the entire body of tech meticulously beginning to end, you’ll realize that big pieces of it were jettisoned by the old man himself. Only thing, this fact is not carefully documented or broadly advertised.
Leaving people in a befuddled state thinking they’ve missed studying something in the research line and are confused, have MUs, or need to train up all the way to Class 6 or 8 or 12 to really get it . . . whereas big chunks of “the research” were just jettisoned along the way. Again, this is not broadly advertised and the jettisoned materials are sold with the gold seal and imprimatur that it is all valid even today and very standard.
Just a few examples off the top of my head . . .
Should the lecture series “The Rock” continue to be sold if “no point in doing it?” Why sell or study it?
Finding The Rock (SHSBC Scientology Definitions II lecture)
“And here is the Rock. And the Rock was something which we audited for and assessed out—meaning a shape of something which we could then run a process on—and we at that time were running on the theory that it was the first object that the fellow had made on the track. . . . It doesn’t take long to find it and research it, but now that we have actual clearing, there is no point in doing it.”
Gold ball anchor point processing (SHSBC Scientology Definitions III lecture)
“And here’s one. This has to do with old anchor points and so forth. It’s the gold balls. Well, a body is constructed in a space framework, and you can actually see these things. And actually as you look around, some people can perceive these. . . . I wouldn’t look for them if I were you; it’s rather fraught with disaster in some cases.”
Creative Processing
Creative processing, the mainstay of early 50’s road to OT, was cancelled by Hubbard in 1960 in HCOB 11 Feb 1960, Create and Confront. Also jettisoned on a SHSBC lecture (23 Feb 65 SHSBC Level VII) and similarly mentioned again negatively on one of the XDN lectures because of its inconsistency in producing results on all cases.
Handling somatics on OTs
The very clear 1968 Class 8 standard tech edicts (punishable by severe ethics if violated) about handling somatics on OTs with more Dianetics (done for 10 years on thousands of paying customers) were cancelled and prohibited by the advent of NOTS in 1978. Re-defined what was enforced in those original 1968 edicts as a "case error." Standard tech ten years in the wrong.
Looks like standard tech has actually always been “what you can get away with.”
Or put another way, a vast subject of shifting sands. Sadly, it took me years to figure this out.
Preaching to the choir a bit . . . I know.
Last edited: