Emotions and charge

[lionheart]

This discussion started on the "Would you ever go back" thread and as it was off-topic I thought I'd move it to a new thread

In http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=57217&postcount=18 I said:

Thanks Tory, but I need to clarify something. Since leaving Scn in 82 I have carried on looking at philosophies and other systems and am in great case shape, much better than I ever was in Scn.

I actually can feel just about any emotion without feeling any persisting charge! It's a paradox but once you freely allow feelings, they don't bother you.

So now I can look at my contribution in Scn and how I ignored LRH and MSH's abuses and feel ashamed of my part in it without feeling any charge or wishing it were otherwise.

Looking at what I did as a Scientologist the bad and the good is wonderful. The shame, the pride, the grief, the fear, the joy, the ecstasy are all delicious!

So I can freely and joyfully say I am ashamed, without any regret, of how I ignored the Hubbard black ops that I knew about, I just recognise it as a done fact.

I think one of the bigest problems an ex-scientologist faces is coming to terms with the emotions they now experience about their time in Scn.

It took me a decade or two to recover. I hope it is faster now for people, thanks to the internet.

I believe we each have to accept our feelings fully and cry if we need to about our story.

I hope we each reach the point where eventually it is just a story. A wonderful, exciting, terrible story accepted without protest or regret!


Colleen http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=57795&postcount=74 replied:
Lionheart, what an interesting viewpoint! I'm treating negative emotions as if they were negative emotions and looking at the flow and giving it a neutral acknowledgement in the attempt to remain in a state of equanimity.

What you describe sounds to me like when I purposely watch one of those GPM movies just so I can get the thrill of being mildly restimulated.

That is a new idea to me, being ashamed without any charge attached. I'm still rolling that one around in my head. I guess to me charge creates negative emotions, or they are handlocked in some way.

I would suggest you try dropping the label of "negative" on some emotions.

Saying something is negative is encouraging resistance to it. It is resistance or protest that causes the charge in my opinion, which we then assign to the emotion.

Resistance, protest, wanting to change something is what causes the pain or charge or dis-ease.

Conversely allowing, accepting, watching something without the desire to have it be otherwise is a wonderful, peaceful "chargeless" state.

Emotions come and go like clouds across the sky. We can either watch and accept them or say "no" to them, protest them, resist them and want to get rid of them or change them. If we choose the latter option, we feel "charge", discomfort, pain and therefore want even harder to get rid of them. Which is a self-defeating loop.

And of course, this resistance tends to make the "unwanted" emotion or feeling persist or can even bring them into being. (Even Mr Hubbard knew this!)

The solution is to change one's mind and allow or accept the emotion as best as we can. If we become the watcher we can allow, accept and let go.

So I can feel ashamed of how I helped Scn to continue its abuse, I can feel proud of what good I did while a Scientologist, without charge or desire that my story is other than it is. And so I am free of the charge!

Eckhart Tolle talks in his own way about this. Douglas Harding (headless.org) does in his way. Bill Harris (Holosync) talks about being the watcher and the Sedona Method gives techniques to achieve this release from the desire to change feelings. I do my own combination of these.

 

[Alan]

LH - Emotions and charge are pretty wide generalities - would you care to give your definitions - as well as the mechanics that precede or create emotions and charge?

Alan

 

[Tanstaafl]

I agree it may be a trap to view certain emotions/reactions as negative.

For me, the important criteria are:

1. Are they sticky? By which I mean, can you easily start-change-stop them or not. For example, sometimes people "make me" angry and I can't just turn it off or chose another emotion, whereas when one of my dogs was (rarely) misbehaving I could mock-up anger and just turn it off when the situation was handled.

2. Are they spontaneous? By which I mean, are you mocking them up in real time from a volitional beingness or are they some form of automaticity (even the reactive mind must have a small comm lag).

 

[lionheart]

LH - Emotions and charge are pretty wide generalities - would you care to give your definitions - as well as the mechanics that precede or create emotions and charge?

Alan

One of the criticisms I have of Scn is that it tended to sacrifice applicability for pedantry. So we used to get almost endless word clearing instead of clearing!

I hope you will forgive me if I don't get bogged down in discussion of the definitions of charge or emotions. I think ex-scns have very little difficulty in understanding what they are.

However I'm happy to not use the terms if it helps. For "charge" use dis-ease or discomfort for "emotions" use feelings.

Yes they are wide terms but I believe applicable truth should be simple. Releasing is not complicated and I'm talking about something that is directly applcable not theoretical.

As to the mechanics, I'm not really concerned. I don't really know too much about how a car works, but I know how to drive one. Similarly even if I don't know how grief works. I know what it feels like and I know how it feels when I release it

Protest, resistance, saying "no" or wanting to change or get rid of feelings causes discomfort or dis-ease.

Allowing, accepting and watching feelings causes peace and at-ease.

 

[lionheart]

I agree it may be a trap to view certain emotions/reactions as negative.

For me, the important criteria are:

1. Are they sticky? By which I mean, can you easily start-change-stop them or not. For example, sometimes people "make me" angry and I can't just turn it off or chose another emotion, whereas when one of my dogs was (rarely) misbehaving I could mock-up anger and just turn it off when the situation was handled.

2. Are they spontaneous? By which I mean, are you mocking them up in real time from a volitional beingness or are they some form of automaticity (even the reactive mind must have a small comm lag).

True. I suppose what I was saying about being ashamed of my part in Scn is like you say a spontaneous volitional mock up. hence no charge or discomfort on it.

 

[Alan]

One of the criticisms I have of Scn is that it tended to sacrifice applicability for pedantry. So we used to get almost endless word clearing instead of clearing!

I hope you will forgive me if I don't get bogged down in discussion of the definitions of charge or emotions. I think ex-scns have very little difficulty in understanding what they are.

However I'm happy to not use the terms if it helps. For "charge" use dis-ease or discomfort for "emotions" use feelings.

Yes they are wide terms but I believe applicable truth should be simple. Releasing is not complicated and I'm talking about something that is directly applcable not theoretical.

As to the mechanics, I'm not really concerned. I don't really know too much about how a car works, but I know how to drive one. Similarly even if I don't know how grief works. I know what it feels like and I know how it feels when I release it

Protest, resistance, saying "no" or wanting to change or get rid of feelings causes discomfort or dis-ease.

Allowing, accepting and watching feelings causes peace and at-ease.

Geez! Sorry I asked!

E-motion = Energy needed to move someone or something.

Charge = The slowed, stopped or nullified movement that cause a backup of energy thus creates accumulated energy.

The optimum ability would be to span the spectrum of emotions from the most base to the highest effortlessly and freely.

 

[Tanstaafl]

E-motion = Energy needed to move someone or something.

Alan, I'm not getting that.

Can you give some examples of how that works, e.g. for apathy, grief, hatred and boredom?

 

[gomorrhan]

I can.

Low tone cases are more charged up, and thus resist being moved. It takes much more energy to move them. This is called being solid.

 

[Free to shine]

I would suggest you try dropping the label of "negative" on some emotions.

Saying something is negative is encouraging resistance to it. It is resistance or protest that causes the charge in my opinion, which we then assign to the emotion.

Resistance, protest, wanting to change something is what causes the pain or charge or dis-ease.

Conversely allowing, accepting, watching something without the desire to have it be otherwise is a wonderful, peaceful "chargeless" state.

Emotions come and go like clouds across the sky. We can either watch and accept them or say "no" to them, protest them, resist them and want to get rid of them or change them. If we choose the latter option, we feel "charge", discomfort, pain and therefore want even harder to get rid of them. Which is a self-defeating loop.

And of course, this resistance tends to make the "unwanted" emotion or feeling persist or can even bring them into being. (Even Mr Hubbard knew this!)

The solution is to change one's mind and allow or accept the emotion as best as we can. If we become the watcher we can allow, accept and let go.

Spot on! The truth I have found is that it is simple. No fancy names and theories, you can just change your mind as you become aware of the feelings, experience them and then they go. Thankyou Lionheart for pointing me in this direction. It's amazing, peaceful, exciting, fun and sooo interesting.

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

I was hoping for a discussion like this, thank you LH.

You wrote: "....Conversely allowing, accepting, watching something without the desire to have it be otherwise is a wonderful, peaceful "chargeless" state...."

That is exactly what I am practicing now and it is an 180 degree turn around from my former practice of trying very very hard not to look, or to push it away, encyst it, whatever.

I feel the emotion without looking at its source and I feel the discomfort of the emotion. ("negative" is relative to where one is standing) and acknowledge all aspects of it. I am starting to do this with "positive" emotions too, just for the heck of it, ha!

When I'm not doing that I am loading my rocket launcher with negative missiles. Stand back!

 

[lionheart]

Spot on! The truth I have found is that it is simple. No fancy names and theories, you can just change your mind as you become aware of the feelings, experience them and then they go. Thankyou Lionheart for pointing me in this direction. It's amazing, peaceful, exciting, fun and sooo interesting.

I was hoping for a discussion like this, thank you LH.

You wrote: "....Conversely allowing, accepting, watching something without the desire to have it be otherwise is a wonderful, peaceful "chargeless" state...."

That is exactly what I am practicing now and it is an 180 degree turn around from my former practice of trying very very hard not to look, or to push it away, encyst it, whatever.

I feel the emotion without looking at its source and I feel the discomfort of the emotion. ("negative" is relative to where one is standing) and acknowledge all aspects of it. I am starting to do this with "positive" emotions too, just for the heck of it, ha!

When I'm not doing that I am loading my rocket launcher with negative missiles. Stand back!

I had another thought related to this aspect of "unwanted" feelings. I've touched on it before and that is whilever the PC has "unwanted" feelings, he of course, wants to "handle" them. So you could say he has a "case" whilever he thinks aspects of his being are "unwanted".

On another thread I was talking about LongGoneJohn's "anger" and said that he was perfectly ok just as he is. This had me thinking about the coach's attitude when running releasing on a person.

Fundamentaly we are dealing with a paradox in that there is nothing wrong with the person, but the person believes that there is. Once a person has released to some sort of completion, they always realise that there is nothing wrong with them and never was! That everything was perfect and could never have been otherwise. This is peace or what Hubbard called serenity of beingness.

Therefore the person comes to a coaching session (releasing session, auditing session) with things they want "handled". In Scn we Q&Aed with this and agreed that there was lots to handle including a whole bridge that the PC was barely aware of! So in Scn we worked and worked at getting rid of aspects of the PCs case. Despite the benefits obtained, it did re-inforce the PC's idea that there were things wrong with him, so the Bridge becomes unending.

If the practitioner takes the fundamental viewpoint that the person is perfect just as they are (how could they be otherwise?) then releasing becomes a breeze. The person originates what they want handled. It is not anything the practitioner feels the need to handle, therefore the practitioner can be above or pan-determined as Ron called it about if or how it gets handled.

It's sort of a new auditing code line along the lines of "I acknowledge that the PC is perfect just as they are and I will have no desire to change them in session."

So the PC says they have x "wrong" with them or want it "handled". This is an apparancy that seems real to the person. So you run some releasing on the lines of inviting them to accept x just as it is. To allow x, to let go of wanting to change x or ask them if they are able to let x go. Etc.

The coach has no concern as to whether that works, because he knows the person is perfect anyway! Therefore any "blocks" or "difficulties" to releasing that the person being coached has are of no significance to the coach except they indicate the person still believes they have something to handle. So the coach could ask them to hold onto x or some other combination of releasing techniques while still being desireless of an outcome.

This syle of coaching or auditing is easy and effective, because all the coach is doing is inviting the person to see the perfection that they already are!

As it is a paradox, this can seem wierd to people extensively educated in Scn auditing, but I recommend giving it a try. This style of auditing or coaching is never more than an invitation to release and the person is always perfectly free to not release "x".

It can be solo audited too. You believe there is X that needs "handling" so you ask releasing questions as an invitation to yourself to realise there is nothing to handle. Gradiently you can unpeel your "case" until you realise there is no "case" and never was!


If anyone has any questions about my theory I would be happy to try explaining it another way.

 

[Free to shine]

It can be solo audited too. You believe there is X that needs "handling" so you ask releasing questions as an invitation to yourself to realise there is nothing to handle. Gradiently you can unpeel your "case" until you realise there is no "case" and never was!


If anyone has any questions about my theory I would be happy to try explaining it another way.

Love it.

 

[Alan]

I had another thought related to this aspect of "unwanted" feelings. I've touched on it before and that is whilever the PC has "unwanted" feelings, he of course, wants to "handle" them. So you could say he has a "case" whilever he thinks aspects of his being are "unwanted".

On another thread I was talking about LongGoneJohn's "anger" and said that he was perfectly ok just as he is. This had me thinking about the coach's attitude when running releasing on a person.

Fundamentaly we are dealing with a paradox in that there is nothing wrong with the person, but the person believes that there is. Once a person has released to some sort of completion, they always realise that there is nothing wrong with them and never was! That everything was perfect and could never have been otherwise. This is peace or what Hubbard called serenity of beingness.

Therefore the person comes to a coaching session (releasing session, auditing session) with things they want "handled". In Scn we Q&Aed with this and agreed that there was lots to handle including a whole bridge that the PC was barely aware of! So in Scn we worked and worked at getting rid of aspects of the PCs case. Despite the benefits obtained, it did re-inforce the PC's idea that there were things wrong with him, so the Bridge becomes unending.

If the practitioner takes the fundamental viewpoint that the person is perfect just as they are (how could they be otherwise?) then releasing becomes a breeze. The person originates what they want handled. It is not anything the practitioner feels the need to handle, therefore the practitioner can be above or pan-determined as Ron called it about if or how it gets handled.

It's sort of a new auditing code line along the lines of "I acknowledge that the PC is perfect just as they are and I will have no desire to change them in session."

So the PC says they have x "wrong" with them or want it "handled". This is an apparancy that seems real to the person. So you run some releasing on the lines of inviting them to accept x just as it is. To allow x, to let go of wanting to change x or ask them if they are able to let x go. Etc.

The coach has no concern as to whether that works, because he knows the person is perfect anyway! Therefore any "blocks" or "difficulties" to releasing that the person being coached has are of no significance to the coach except they indicate the person still believes they have something to handle. So the coach could ask them to hold onto x or some other combination of releasing techniques while still being desireless of an outcome.

This syle of coaching or auditing is easy and effective, because all the coach is doing is inviting the person to see the perfection that they already are!

As it is a paradox, this can seem wierd to people extensively educated in Scn auditing, but I recommend giving it a try. This style of auditing or coaching is never more than an invitation to release and the person is always perfectly free to not release "x".

It can be solo audited too. You believe there is X that needs "handling" so you ask releasing questions as an invitation to yourself to realise there is nothing to handle. Gradiently you can unpeel your "case" until you realise there is no "case" and never was!


If anyone has any questions about my theory I would be happy to try explaining it another way.

The method you describe is processing the positive!

 

[Pierrot]

(snip)
This syle of coaching or auditing is easy and effective, because all the coach is doing is inviting the person to see the perfection that they already are!

(snip)

If anyone has any questions about my theory I would be happy to try explaining it another way.

Not as far as I'm concerned your explanation is perfect and I enjoy reading it.

I'd like to add the "all the coach is doing is inviting the person to see the perfection that they already are" is a superb attitude in session and in life with every person as well.

 

[lionheart]

Not as far as I'm concerned your explanation is perfect and I enjoy reading it.

I'd like to add the "all the coach is doing is inviting the person to see the perfection that they already are" is a superb attitude in session and in life with every person as well.

Cool!

I must say I don't always succeed at having this attitude in life!

But in session, thanks to my earlier training as an auditor (thanks Ron) and my later training, I find it easy to practice.

I suppose in life that I am still a work in progress. :wink2:

It is wonderfully liberating as a releasing coach to have this attitude. All the musts. must-nots and fears that a Scientology auditor has have gone.

Now, in session, I am relaxed, the PC does his best and releasing happens because the released state is more natural to the PC than any must-get-handled state that they may have fooled themselves about!

 

[Pierrot]

Cool!

I must say I don't always succeed at having this attitude in life!

But in session, thanks to my earlier training as an auditor (thanks Ron) and my later training, I find it easy to practice.

I suppose in life that I am still a work in progress. :wink2:

Lol ! me too - actually I guess I'd start to worry if I ever thought I "arrived" and there was no further progress.

And sometimes I don't succeed either or... pretend I don't for a while. Probably to please my girlfriend who likes me playing the "bad boy" guy

It is wonderfully liberating as a releasing coach to have this attitude. All the musts. must-nots and fears that a Scientology auditor has have gone.

Now, in session, I am relaxed, the PC does his best and releasing happens because the released state is more natural to the PC than any must-get-handled state that they may have fooled themselves about!

That's great !

Sessions should be like a casual talk, without rituals and rote "commands", just two people wanting to reach understanding.

Skip the hype in the promo, advertising etc. It becomes not natural and forced when the person fools herself wanting a must-get-handled state of another. Like in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-bsf2x-aeE "I'd like what she's having" ...

 

[Dulloldfart]

Sessions should be like a casual talk, without rituals and rote "commands", just two people wanting to reach understanding.

That's all fine in theory, but you try and build a Robot Auditor that works that operates like that.

Paul

 

[Tanstaafl]

That's all fine in theory, but you try and build a Robot Auditor that works that operates like that.

The weird thing about the robot auditor is that it feels less robotic than one (maybe two) auditor I've had. (not a joke)

He was OTIII and made Marvin the Paranoid Android look like a wild, party animal.

 

[lionheart]

Sessions should be like a casual talk, without rituals and rote "commands", just two people wanting to reach understanding.

These days, my coaching sessions are more like chats and in that format it is really easy, once the person has originated something they want "handled", to slip into releasing questions, inviting them to let go or accept.

Usually once they have released we chat some more and I explain what I did and let them see how they can do that themselves. After my Scn experiences I take great trouble not to create a dependency upon me as a coach!

 

[lionheart]

That's all fine in theory, but you try and build a Robot Auditor that works that operates like that.

Paul

The weird thing about the robot auditor is that it feels less robotic than one (maybe two) auditor I've had. (not a joke)

He was OTIII and made Marvin the Paranoid Android look like a wild, party animal.

Actually Paul, about two years ago, I started a project to create interactive releasing software with some Sedona Method releasers. It's something I would maybe still like to do one day, but more and more I am tending towards an extremely flexible appraoch. But in theory it should be possible to create a system that adapts to whatever the releaser is experiencing.

Maybe one day I'll get back to the project.