How Dangerous is New OTVII (Solo NOTs)

[Vinaire]

Jezzuzz, Vin. Can you really be that perverse or otherwise stupidly off the mark?

No part of "Kn" emphasizes or deals with "getting rid of the BT" . . . why don't you study the subject and learn what it is you are commenting on??

R

See how beautifully loving and compassionate Roger is!

I wonder how he treats his spirtual teammates who disagree with him...

Roger, my friend, don't you see that Kn is assuming that LRH was trying to get rid of (destroy, unmock) BTs, and so are you (assuming it).

I wonder if I can state this any more simply.

.
.

 

[nw2394]

I don't know how many will get it. This to me is a poetic statement of what this thread is about:


Life is a drop, risen from the ocean.
In death the drop returns whence it came,
but all the ocean is your next life.
And you are worth every drop.

I was there at the beginning.
And even if you know me not,
I am here for you still.
I promised and have never broken it.
I never will.

Nick

 

[Vinaire]

To recap:

Kn (Knowledgism) seems to assume that in Scientology one is supposed to get rid of BTs. In my study of LRH materials, I have not found anywhere that LRH says that. LRH uses the phrase "blow off" which is not the same as to "get rid of" in the sense of looking down or treating somebody degradingly. This is what Alan Walters assumed. Please tell me if this is incorrect

When one "blows off" a somatic that does not mean that one is looking down upon that somatic or treating it degradingly. One has simply handled the reason that somatic was there.

Similarly, one is handling the stuckness of BTs to the body. Here "blowing off" means handling the reason why BT is stuck to the body. It does not mean looking down upon that BT or treating it degradingly.

Now all this 6-part dissertation from Roger is based on this misunderstood.

And underlying that is another misunderstood of what a BT is in the first place.

.

 

[nw2394]

To recap:

Kn (Knowledgism) seems to assume that in Scientology one is supposed to get rid of BTs. In my study of LRH materials, I have not found anywhere that LRH says that. LRH uses the phrase "blow off" which is not the same as to "get rid of" in the sense of looking down or treating somebody degradingly. This is what Alan Walters assumed. Please tell me if this is incorrect

I'll give you that, like a lot of other things, it can depend quite a bit on the degree of importance you attach to things and exactly how you interpret them. I think many who study some of LRH's writings very much interpret "blow" as "get rid of" - which some would say is not right.

However, there is one place where LRH calls BTs "fleas" if I recall correctly.

And quite apart from that, there is a theme running through Scn, not just the OT levels, that essentially encourages separateness, exteriorisation, not being encumbered by a body or other's thoughts and so on. "Getting rid of" of these "circuits" and "degraded or unaware or stimulus response entities" would seem to fit with that.

It boils down to what exactly are you trying to get rid of though - the being or their problems - makes a lot of difference.

Nick

 

[Panda Termint]

Looks like we are finally getting some TA.

.

You seem to be adopting a scientologist's derogatory viewpoint of others in lieu of discussion. Why do you do this? It isn't helping anyone.

 

[Ted]

EFFORT means to align motion according to one's postulate.

Do you have a problem with that ?

.

A more appropriate question would be, "Is there a problem with that?"

 

[Veda]

To recap:

Kn (Knowledgism) seems to assume that in Scientology one is supposed to get rid of BTs. In my study of LRH materials, I have not found anywhere that LRH says that. LRH uses the phrase "blow off" which is not the same as to "get rid of" in the sense of looking down or treating somebody degradingly. This is what Alan Walters assumed. Please tell me if this is incorrect

When one "blows off" a somatic that does not mean that one is looking down upon that somatic or treating it degradingly. One has simply handled the reason that somatic was there.

Similarly, one is handling the stuckness of BTs to the body. Here "blowing off" means handling the reason why BT is stuck to the body. It does not mean looking down upon that BT or treating it degradingly.

-snip-

If you look through the materials, right up through NOTS, including the repair lists accompanying these "BT" levels, perhaps you could count the number of times that "Blow him" is used.

It's quite often.

What ever the earlier actions are, "Blow him" - often in those exact words - can be found to be the final step.

I also recall the EP of "no more BTs."

In Scientology, "BTs" are degraded problem thetans that infest a person's body and space. (Ancient psychs, the dwindling spiral, Xenu), and then, L. Ron Hubbard to the rescue.

For a long time (until around 1967), most "upper level" Scientologists didn't think they had a problem in this area. Around 1957, or so, Hubbard even wrote that there are "not other thetans in the body." (There were only old facsimiles which could be mistaken for left over thetans)

As recently as 1965, Hubbard even gave Scientologists the various "PTS" conditions, including "PTS type 3":

"...the person has ghosts about him or demons and they are apparent SPs but imagery as beings as well."

One might say that Scientology, under the firm influence of "Hubbard Guidance," became "PTS 3" in 1967.

People who didn't think they had a problem were told they did, and then, they did have that problem.

It happened again around 1978 with NOTs. People didn't think they had any more "BTs." Then they were told they did have more (degraded, problem) "BTs" and, if they wanted to continue on the "Bridge," and remain in "good standing," they did, in deed, have more (degraded problem) "BTs."

It was after that time period, which included Hubbard creating thousands of "Clears," by telling people "Where are the Clears?" They're right there!", I began to appreciate the "hypnotic" influence that Hubbard had over Scientologists. (And these were "cheap Clears," and required only a cognition and an FN. But that's another chapter of the story.)

Look at any handling of a "BT." Whatever it is, the final step is:

"Blow him." (Often in those exact words.)

That's just the way it is in Scientology's "upper levels."

Hubbard called them "fleas."

And whether or not there are positive "spiritual phenomena" around is another subject.

Suggest reviewing the chapter 'Are you Haunted?' in Class 8 FEBC Bent Corydon's 'Messiah or Madman?'

And thanks for the ongoing analysis. I realize it's a kind of running Diary of Looking (and yes some thinking too, and that's OK.)

Carry on - although, it might be a good idea to start a new thread at some point - like sequels of a novel.

 

[Vinaire]

You seem to be adopting a scientologist's derogatory viewpoint of others in lieu of discussion. Why do you do this? It isn't helping anyone.

One gets what one gives out, it seems...

.

 

[Vinaire]

If you look through the materials, right up through NOTS, including the repair lists accompanying these "BT" levels, perhaps you could count the number of times that "Blow him" is used.

It's quite often.

What ever the earlier actions are, "Blow him" - often in those exact words - can be found to be the final step.

I also recall the EP of "no more BTs."

In Scientology, "BTs" are degraded problem thetans that infest a person's body and space. (Ancient psychs, the dwindling spiral, Xenu), and then, L. Ron Hubbard to the rescue.

For a long time (until around 1967), most "upper level" Scientologists didn't think they had a problem in this area. Around 1957, or so, Hubbard even wrote that there are "not other thetans in the body." (There were only old facsimiles which could be mistaken for left over thetans)

As recently as 1965, Hubbard even gave Scientologists the various "PTS" conditions, including "PTS type 3":

"...the person has ghosts about him or demons and they are apparent SPs but imagery as beings as well."

One might say that Scientology, under the firm influence of "Hubbard Guidance," became "PTS 3" in 1967.

People who didn't think they had a problem were told they did, and then, they did have that problem.

It happened again around 1978 with NOTs. People didn't think they had any more "BTs." Then they were told they did have more (degraded, problem) "BTs" and, if they wanted to continue on the "Bridge," and remain in "good standing," they did, in deed, have more (degraded problem) "BTs."

It was after that time period, which included Hubbard creating thousands of "Clears," by telling people "Where are the Clears?" They're right there!", I began to appreciate the "hypnotic" influence that Hubbard had over Scientologists. (And these were "cheap Clears," and required only a cognition and an FN. But that's another chapter of the story.)

Look at any handling of a "BT." Whatever it is, the final step is:

"Blow him." (Often in those exact words.)

That's just the way it is in Scientology's "upper levels."

Hubbard called them "fleas."

And whether or not there are positive "spiritual phenomena" around is another subject.

Suggest reviewing the chapter 'Are you Haunted?' in Class 8 FEBC Bent Corydon's 'Messiah or Madman?'

And thanks for the ongoing analysis. I realize it's a kind of running Diary of Looking (and yes some thinking too, and that's OK.)

Carry on - although, it might be a good idea to start a new thread at some point - like sequels of a novel.

Veda, I think I have always had the advantage of having a stable data outside of Scientology. I can see what can happen when one's stable data is completely inside Scientology. Then one can be totally manipulated for sure.

I look at the basics first. It is the first time I am reading the OT III materials. I am looking at the basics of BTs, how they are defined. These are the first postulates no matter how they are altered later. This is what I got:

...

(10) One’s body is a mass of individual thetans stuck to oneself or to the body.
(11) One has to clean them off by running Incident One then Incident Two.
(12) You are running beings. They respond like any preclear. Some large, some small.
(13) Thetan believed they were one. This is the primary error.

(14) All body thetans can be audited and exteriorized.
(15) Inc 1 & Inc 2 are engrams that are to be run on these body thetans.
(16) It requires Level VI Auditor Training to audit body thetans.
(17) There are clusters of Body Thetans who think they are “one.”
(18) Clusters cannot run Inc 1 or Inc 2.

(19) Commands are given to the Body Thetan
(20) One looks at the response that comes up.
(21) When the attention is on body thetan, the meter responds to the body thetan.

(22) There are suppressive body thetans.
(23) Some are plain psychotic and SP.
(24) SP: One who is out of valence in R6.
(25) SP Body Thetans require Power Processes (PrPr6)

(26) There are difficult body thetans.
(27) A body thetan can be a he or a she.
(28) They are psychotic, or they have fixed ideas or service facs.
(29) One must be trained as an auditor to audit them (LRH is pushing training here)
(30) The needle seldom floats on a body thetan.
(31) TA tends to start high and then come down.
(32) When the body thetan has been pushed up to Grade IV he can usually run engrams.
(33) He can be run on Inc 1 and Inc 2
(34) He will then blow (will no longer be stuck to oneself or the body)

...

Hubbard is talking about different kind of BTs just as there are all kind of people around one. One will approach a psychotic pc with auditor code in. Similarly one would appraoch a psychotic BT with auditor code in. One has to be professional, Personal attitude or emotion does not come into the picture. One is simply unsticking (exteriorizing) these BTs from the body.

I agree that the use of the word "fleas" for BTs is quite unprofessional, but I don't give that the same importance as I would give to the basics of auditor code and what I am trying to do with the BTs.

But as I said, BTs to me are a via in the first place in order to bring about auditing of one's considerations (concepts) from an exterior viewpoint (without thinking).

About thinking and looking, here is a quote from KHTK #1, LOOKING:

LOOKING is to use your physical or inner eyes to observe what is there in the physical environment or in the mind.

THINKING is to associate and align data to arrive at conclusions.

When data obtained from looking is corrupted then conclusions obtained from thinking will be faulty.

Can we improve thinking? Yes, by practicing looking. Can we improve looking? Yes, by not adding thoughts as labels, judgments, justifications and opinions to what is there.

Rational thinking is based on looking. Looking is an activity by itself. Looking should not be corrupted by adding thoughts to it.

As we treat looking as an activity by itself, thinking also improves, and one is gradually able to resolve the difficulties in life much faster and more often.

The focus in this issue is to practice looking without thinking. Through this practice one becomes aware of “automatic thinking.”

The basic idea is to observe something as it is, without adding anything to it.

This is the secret underlying the “2500 years old” Vipassana meditation of Buddha and of all other self-development procedures since.

.

.

 

[KnightVision]

You seem to be adopting a scientologist's derogatory viewpoint of others in lieu of discussion. Why do you do this? It isn't helping anyone.

One gets what one gives out, it seems...

.

Vin's condescending, arrogant, 'know it all' posts make it evident that underneath all the 'great knowledge' his posts attempt to dress themselves as... there are two possible intentions at play:

To pistol whip ex-scns by enforcing upon them that if they had been lucky enough to have had his wonderfully exterior knowledge in the first place they wouldn't have gotten hurt by scn.

To cover up one's own pain and regrets concerning having slaved for Lcon on the ship, etc.

And a third possibility exists as well... to create an aura of superior knowledge that potential or existing adepts can come to see 'the master at work' so as to be more convinced to shell out the dough for it's 'teachings'.

 

[Panda Termint]

One gets what one gives out, it seems...
.

Vinaire, You'll probably never know how much it saddens me to see it come to this. The only leavening factor for me is the knowledge that I tried my best to help you avoid it. Goodbye.

 

[Ted]

[...]

(13) Thetan believed they were one. This is the primary error.

[...]

.

Independence, individuality, and separation are integral to Hubbard's philosophy. This leads to domination, nullification, and defining survival as more money, property, status, authority, and so on. All proofs of one's superior individuality, or at least these are proofs in physical universe terms. "There can be only one!" at the top of the heap. But I digress...

Hubbard attempted to tone this individuality down when he stated that OTs work best with OTs. Welcome the SO where individuality is sacrificed for the good of the collective and Hubbard. He also, in various places, laid in the idea that an OT doesn't have to have before he can do. Good for you and me to follow that idea, not good for Hubbard or his alter-ego, scientology.

Have to have ideal org buildings before ideal orgs can produce?
Have to have so many OT-7 comps before OT-8 can be released?
Have to have so many OT-8 comps before OT-9 can be released, and so on.

Back to, "Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error."

If thetans are/were/will be one, this answers many para-scientological phenomena not the least of which is a remote someone's health improving whilst another is in session. Problems between two remote people vanishing whilst just of them is being processed. And many other such seemingly disconnected phenomena.

I prefer something more along the lines of a Zen approach.

Thetans believed they were one, and so they were.
Thetans believed they were individual, and so they were.

In the right context, these beliefs are not in error.

This is not secret scientology; it is extrapolated from basic scio in AP&A.

 

[Hatshepsut]

Back to, "Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error."

I used to chew the fat on that one a lot. I originally entered scientology after reading mostly Eastern literature as a teen. I thought maybe I was on my way back to returning to ONENESS. Like a salmon going back upstream. On upper levels I realized what I really was after...it was what David Mayo said of NOTS EPs. The individual should be left feeling very much alive and very much himself. I wasn't really into regaining powerfulness so much as I wanted THAT end phenomena.

FoTi you are right about Roger's post 291 on this thread re the handling of teammates. We've needed a more intelligent, more successful, and less evaluative approach for a long time. I really liked that handling.

Ted
"To quote Hubbard, a thetan located is less than theta itself."

I think this may be where we get the concept of being a BT from. One is no longer a static but has now a misconception, an identification. It had been said that valences were the totality of the reactive mind. Assumingly OT III forced 'roles' and a limited playing field on some. A script for how society was to evolve? Maybe it laid in punishments, hidden inside automaticities for outstepping those parameters. I have seen some of the imagery presented me when it is re-enlivened. I do not like running it per the Inc I or Inc II handlings. It doesn't feel wholesome or true. Some say this feeling is because the auditor is having to get down onto the same wavelength temporarily with the the BT..and the ARCX is contagious. I've have seen the meter reads on OT II and III. But it just never felt right trying to blow clusters with the scripts. I feel possibly the 'closest thing' to a being himself is an idea.
And I really had an awareness change on this bit from the Yugonistic, Zivorad Slavinski. One gets an idea of something achievable as a goal first. THEN he separates out from it within his own space and assumes an identity ( which is locatedness) from which to accomplish things. Space is beingness, and at this point the being has chosen to limit his in order a have his game. He becomes the problem solver instead of encompassing the solution which he IS. Maybe OT III can release body thetans from stuck solutions. But for me there was always this pervasive feeling of being a little insulted

.
TED:
There are BE beings; DO beings, HAVE beings. A spiritual being can be anything.

All the above achieved by consideration(s).

A consideration is defined here as a continuing postulate.

It other words, there are postulates being made and/or agreed upon not once, not at the beginning of all time, or the start of a cycle of action, but always in play. A thetan locates by consideration (cause). Or is located by consideration (effect).

We are the Matrix. Or not. But if a being is here communicating, it is foolish to argue that one is not a part of the Matrix.

 

[Vinaire]

Vinaire, You'll probably never know how much it saddens me to see it come to this. The only leavening factor for me is the knowledge that I tried my best to help you avoid it. Goodbye.

Blaming others is the primary error!

.

 

[Vinaire]

Independence, individuality, and separation are integral to Hubbard's philosophy. This leads to domination, nullification, and defining survival as more money, property, status, authority, and so on. All proofs of one's superior individuality, or at least these are proofs in physical universe terms. "There can be only one!" at the top of the heap. But I digress...

Hubbard attempted to tone this individuality down when he stated that OTs work best with OTs. Welcome the SO where individuality is sacrificed for the good of the collective and Hubbard. He also, in various places, laid in the idea that an OT doesn't have to have before he can do. Good for you and me to follow that idea, not good for Hubbard or his alter-ego, scientology.

Have to have ideal org buildings before ideal orgs can produce?
Have to have so many OT-7 comps before OT-8 can be released?
Have to have so many OT-8 comps before OT-9 can be released, and so on.

Back to, "Thetans believed they were one. This is the primary error."

If thetans are/were/will be one, this answers many para-scientological phenomena not the least of which is a remote someone's health improving whilst another is in session. Problems between two remote people vanishing whilst just of them is being processed. And many other such seemingly disconnected phenomena.

I prefer something more along the lines of a Zen approach.

Thetans believed they were one, and so they were.
Thetans believed they were individual, and so they were.

In the right context, these beliefs are not in error.

This is not secret scientology; it is extrapolated from basic scio in AP&A.

Good post!

In my opinon, "being one" or "being separate" are just considerations that may be audited.

.

 

[Vinaire]

I used to chew the fat on that one a lot. I originally entered scientology after reading mostly Eastern literature as a teen. I thought maybe I was on my way back to returning to ONENESS. Like a salmon going back upstream. On upper levels I realized what I really was after...it was what David Mayo said of NOTS EPs. The individual should be left feeling very much alive and very much himself. I wasn't really into regaining powerfulness so much as I wanted THAT end phenomena.

FoTi you are right about Roger's post 291 on this thread re the handling of teammates. We've needed a more intelligent, more successful, and less evaluative approach for a long time. I really liked that handling.

Isn't one supposed to apply Auditor's Code at OT Levels?

Where is this supposedly evaluative approach coming from which Kn tried to correct?

.

 

[Hatshepsut]

The evaluation came from me having interiorized the concept that BTs only hold one back. That is what the material said.

And you are oh so right Vin. That was out auditor's code. I had NO auditor training other than the Solo course when attempting the Wall of Fire.
You seemed to have been introduced to the OT III material in a much more well rounded and mature manner than I got it.

I think the teammates approach is at least an improvement over the 'fleas' one.

Roger's posted process #291

And realize, communication is a process . . . it is an action that produces an outcome.

So, having "cleared" the word "process" . . . this is the simplicity of the handling of a newly revealed spiritual connection.

First wise thing to do is ascertain if it is an individual spiritual Being, or a team or "gang" of them.

Next: Where is it?
This can be a location in comparison to you spiritually, your mind, the physical universe, you body, or even in the context of time off in an earlier universe. Wonderful relief is gained by getting this correct.

Next: realize this spiritual Being, just like you, is hung up in handling "stuff." Hell, it might even be hung up in handling stuff on your behalf and for your benefit. At a minimum, it may be that it is hung up in handling an old situation, its solution to which is inadvertently impacting on you . . . . you should not take the fact that his old solution is unfortunate, as a personal attack on you!

The question to have answered is: What incident, mood or imagery is it/are they handling?

To be noted here is that unpleasant/unwanted "moods" affect us in ways that we want to "solve" them. Note that item "imagery" . . . the basic game at a spiritual level is by way of exchange of telepathically projected (and sometimes superimposed) images . . . these are holographic 3DH . . . not the Hubbardarian "picture" variety in flat 2D, though they first can appear that way.

Get the Being to itsa on the Incident, mood, image.

Ask the Being: What are you? This rehabs the Being's true state of Being, or if a team, that they are operating as a team (of individuals).

Next: ask, What process is the Being being forced to run on you?

Key question . . . . you see, the Being is being "forced" to run the process on continuum and automatically to solve the unwanted scenario it has had "all this time."

Address how it affected you, and pull off the consequences of the process and its effetcs . . . all of them

Now return the flow . . . What process are you being forced to run on the spiritual Being/Team?

Lift off the effects created and the consequences . . . all of them.

That should keep you happy for a while . . . .

There is more to the full extended R/D that applies, if it applies.

Sometimes there has been a "Third Party" in the background.

Bottom line, you want to undo the automatic conflict and misdirected action, and restore harmonious operating basis between you.

The above is a simple and first step handling for the easy traffic on this subject. Some of it can get more complex, and needs other handlings, lots of which are available

 

[nw2394]

Isn't one supposed to apply Auditor's Code at OT Levels?

Where is this supposedly evaluative approach coming from which Kn tried to correct?

.

Lets put it simply:

1) NOTs, certainly as interpretted by many regardless of what LRH actually intended, is a direct attempt to get rid of - which is not always appropriate. A lot of that can be ameliorated by an auditor who doesn't have that as an added inapplicable attitude (which it is - it is out TRs for a start off), but perhaps not entirely because:

2) The whole idea of what/who - the very theory on which it based, assumes that the entire problem with the entity is that they are out of valence - which is not what the problem is in a lot of cases. If it were the only problem, even in Scn terms, there would be no need for OT3 and there would be no mention in the 3 materials of sometimes needing grades processes.

Nick

 

[RogerB]

Ted,

Your posts below are right on the money. You have articulated the actions and mechanics by which the present conditions of existence were brought into being.

Rog

This will be terse:

The assumption is this: MEST solidifies to the degree it is not granted life.

For some beings that can be an observation.

For others it can be an axiom.

It does not matter how it is positioned in the mind that the being is using.

A corollary is: A spiritual being solidifies to the degree it is not granted life.

Life includes the exercise of free will. Free will might be the one thing that separates us all.

BTs and clusters in scio lingo have solidified on or around the body. They are perceived as mass, pressure, somatic, etc. BTs and clusters are granted life by acknowledgment of their existence, establishing a line of 2-way communication, and further granting them life just as any pc is or should be granted life and free will.

That's all there is to it.

Really.

P.S.: OT-3, 5, 7... this is about operating as a being. Operating = doing stuff; making things happen. These procedures are not about Nirvana, although that attainment sometimes happens by default.

Ted also wrote:

To quote Hubbard, a thetan located is less than theta itself.

There are BE beings; DO beings, HAVE beings. A spiritual being can be anything.

All the above achieved by consideration(s).

A consideration is defined here as a continuing postulate.

It other words, there are postulates being made and/or agreed upon not once, not at the beginning of all time, or the start of a cycle of action, but always in play. A thetan locates by consideration (cause). Or is located by consideration (effect).

We are the Matrix. Or not. But if a being is here communicating, it is foolish to argue that one is not a part of the Matrix.

 

[nw2394]

...But for old pros like Nick, here is the type of processing one uses with one's spiritual connections...

Hmm. Wasn't sure whether I liked the look of this process or not. Anyhow, thought I'd give it a go on something that seemed a bit resistive. Think I liked all the opportunity for itsa it gives. FWIW, these were my notes sitting here at the pc running off meter:

individual spiritual Being, or a team or "gang" of them
..one

Where is it?
..there

What incident, mood or imagery is it/are they handling?
.Get the Being to itsa on the Incident, mood, image.
..Keep lid on
..Stop you from seeing
..Cover up
..hide past
..keep it canned
..remorse, embarassment
..blood, guts, lots of
..failure to breed, die. End of life
..failure of promise.
..want to stay dead
..rather be dead than look at this
..political turmoil
..struggle
..all of us are dead
..left me in charge, failed. Where were you?
..Got all deadness canned up
..Don't want to let go
..Can't say
..Suffocating from blood in throat
..Give up
..implosive
..Why did you forsake me?
..Can't solve it
..Ransackers
..Wrong species - killed other species - they kill us
..Thought would be better if they were all us.
..Not know they could be us.
..Hairy, butish, didn't want to be like them
..Can't interbreed - too different - disgusting anyway
..I am not a god - you fucking were.
...Ack

What are you?
..One of your colonisers

What process is the Being being forced to run on you?
..Don't look
..Give up
..breed
..no breed = give up
..You fucking desert me, fucking desert you, bastard.
..Stop you change mind - follow MY purpose.
..Stuck here all these years - how dare you change mind.

What process are you being forced to run on the spiritual Being/Team?
..Shut up
..Shut the fuck up

This isn't resolving.

Whose purpose are you following?
..Yours

Where?
..Over there.
.hmm...
..In that building, templelike, warm.
..Seduced me you fucker!
..Wasn't my purpose. (Grief off)

..Can I go now? (do what you like!)
EOS