How Dangerous is New OTVII (Solo NOTs)

[RogerB]

Part 2 . . . On the Subject of BTs & Clusters and their Incorrect Handling

On the Subject of BTs & Clusters and their Incorrect Handling
Part 2 . . .

Where to begin, and what to say. That is the problem . . .

I might even break this into two parts, as I will be broaching two subjects which, though related, they are quite different.

As Challenge has noted on this thread, one’s spiritual connections can be one’s friends, a huge source of power and abilities for you. They can be co-processing and learning partners with you. As Challenge noted, they learn as you learn (the good along with the bad) and if you honor and appreciate them they will work with you and each other to upgrade conditions to optimum . . . as Challenge noted, hers use the tech they learned to co-process each other. Mine do too.

Mine also work with me as terminals (co-processors) in aiding me upgrade my condition. Hey, why shouldn’t you have a spiritual Being as a co-processor?

Equally important, my various spiritual teammates have roles and hats to wear in our approach to this game of life on Planet Earth.

I have a team that looks after my body, repairing, maintaining it for us . . . indeed this team was and continues to be was very instrumental in my securing this body and maintaining it as “ours” from those that might try and usurp it form us. (And there is tech involved in that exercise) I did a write up on ESMB on having gone through a death sequence and nearly taking on a new body in 1963 here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=198701#post198701
And here: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=209245#post209245

I have a team that looks after and runs my mind, though I might have lost a key player there due the screwy NOTs tech practices.

I have teams that deal with my “environment” for me/with me, dealing with various aspects of the physical universe and the games we are involved in throughout it.

So I say, based on real personal experience in this subject, that the OT3, NOTs and S/NOTs tech as practiced in the Cof S is a totally dangerous, disastrous, erroneous set of R/Ds.

In fact, it violates one of Hubbard’s key datums: DON’T UNMOCK A WORKING ESTBLISHMENT!

You and your team are an operating unit . . . the tragedy is, that we as humans on planet Earth have lost a lot of our knowledge on this issue, and various aspects of the team/unit operation, alignment and workings have gotten screwed up.

But that can be remedied and made right, and it must be.

The correct approach to this issue of spiritual connections, of whatever type, whether teammates or others, is the approach you would apply to any group or team effort that you would want to optimize as to performance. How stupid would it be to start dismembering a football team or a corporate organization as the process to apply!

The correct approach is to make contact, get into communication, honor and appreciate; validate rightness, abilities and powers, and where necessary apply needed corrective and educative processes so as to upgrade cooperation and performance capacity.

Alan W has said, “People treat their spiritual teammates the way they treat people!" Hubbard sure and hell demonstrated that!

So, in light of the above, is it any wonder there is so much incidence of various difficulties encountered by many who have done these “BT/Cluster” handling R/Ds of the “church’? Hell no! No wonder in my mind at all!

This is getting a little long so I think I’ll end off, and do Part 3 next. It deals with what you really want to hear . . . the subject of what the hell happened to/for me with my 12 years on S/NOTs. It also deals with the subject of addressing/processing spiritual Beings at large.

RogerB

 

[Vinaire]

Noted. You reacted on a "button".




Agreed.

Although strikes me that the majority of easterners don't understand Eastern Philosophy either. But the same is true about westerners & Western Philosophy.

Frankly, my experience has been there are damn few relatively who are interested in any philosophy if it won't make 'em rich, or it won't get 'em laid.

More seriously, your point about a general tendency among westerners to mistake & deride Eastern Philosophy is extremely valid and one with which I fully agree. It reflects millenia of racial & cultural bias & prejudice. Those who so act do so to their own detriment.

However: If it were not laughed at it would not be Tao.


Mark A. Baker

It is sad to see otherwise intelligent people having that bias, prejudice, or ignorance, shall I say.

What is the hope for others then?

That means, I should better get busy writing subsequent issues in my KNOWING HOW TO KNOW series. I think I have an idea on what to put in issue # 4.

.

 

[Minuet #1 in G]

Anyway, the Vipassana meditation of Buddha, the underlying principles of which I am documenting per my understanding, is the path to dissolve the ego. At the end of that path is Nirvana.

Freesolo seems to follow the prinpciple of ATTENTION (see third issue). To what degree it follws the principles of first two issues, I don't know. You have to ask Scnrebel directly. As a gut feeling, it seems that Freesolo is using all the three principles described in the KHTK (Knowing How To Know) issues, to one degree or another.

Otherwise, Freesolo seems to be still dependent on an E-meter. In Vipassana meditation one is not dependent on such instruments, and finds no need for them either.

I hope I have answered your question. I find these 3 principles also to underlie IDENICS without any additives.

.

Thanks Vin

This is the first time I have seen a confluence of paths in terms of techniques of something akin to scientology and buddhism. In applying the non-evaluative looking without any additives or preconception about what it is, as long as the attention can stay focussed on the spot or the non physical area which contains the emotional respose, (which may well be the most important thing and which I dont think is well taught despite the drilling of students on OT7) the what ever it is does dissolve with various cognitions coming off leaving a feeling of peace.

As a long time scio I am still affected by the considerations that scio auditing is superior to anything previously developed to handle mental phenomenon. Perhaps as an initial way to address case issues, this is true. Dont know. But at a solo level seems that meditation techniques and scio handle the same material but call it something different.

I have been both encouraged and disappointed with results those following the methods of this guy; Ken McLeod http://www.unfetteredmind.com/ who dont seem to be able to deal with fairly run of the mill mental phenomenon such as secondaries. However, following some of the practice instruction created the most stunning impact from an increased awareness viewpoint on me I can remember (only lasted a couple of hours tho).

Your assistance and views on this matter are appreciated.

Cheers
Min

 

[Vinaire]

Thanks Vin

This is the first time I have seen a confluence of paths in terms of techniques of something akin to scientology and buddhism. In applying the non-evaluative looking without any additives or preconception about what it is, as long as the attention can stay focussed on the spot or the non physical area which contains the emotional respose, (which may well be the most important thing and which I dont think is well taught despite the drilling of students on OT7) the what ever it is does dissolve with various cognitions coming off leaving a feeling of peace.

As a long time scio I am still affected by the considerations that scio auditing is superior to anything previously developed to handle mental phenomenon. Perhaps as an initial way to address case issues, this is true. Dont know. But at a solo level seems that meditation techniques and scio handle the same material but call it something different.

I have been both encouraged and disappointed with results those following the methods of this guy; Ken McLeod http://www.unfetteredmind.com/ who dont seem to be able to deal with fairly run of the mill mental phenomenon such as secondaries. However, following some of the practice instruction created the most stunning impact from an increased awareness viewpoint on me I can remember (only lasted a couple of hours tho).

Your assistance and views on this matter are appreciated.

Cheers
Min

I am not quite sure what you mean by "...as long as the attention can stay focussed on the spot..." Why does one has to worry about that? Mind will know how to unstack itself. The being simply needs to be looking at whatever the mind presents per KHTK #1, #2 and #3.

Now there is more to it, and I have some idea what to put in KHTK #4. The basic principle seem to be as follows:

(1) When one is looking at a table, how does one notice that it is a table? Obviously, one is looking THROUGH the concept of a table. Please note the use of the word THROUGH. Think of "concept of table" as a transparent layer that one is looking through.

(2) This means that mind will immediately bring up the "concept of table" to look through the moment it is confronted with a table, otherwise it would at a loss to make sense out of what is there.

(3) Now where does this concept of table come from? It must come from one's past experience of associating lots of different pictures of tables perceived at differnt times under this one concept of table. In other words, CONCEPTS are the outcome of INTEGRATED past experience. Such a concept will continue to evolve as one perceives more tables.

(4) What happens when one is confronted with something for which mind does not have a readily available concept? The mind will strain to make sense out of it. It would immediately drag up anything similar to what one is confronted with. If there is similarity to some undigested experience made up of unevaluated perceptions, then the mind will drag all of that up. This all would make some sort of layer that one would now be looking through. But there would be a lot of distortion looking through that layer.

(5) One would not be able to perceive clearly what is out there. One's perceptions are going to be distorted by what one is now looking through.

(6) This could be starightened out only if one could perceive the layer itself that one is looking through. Now, that won't be easy because that layer is part of one's viewpoint. It would be like trying to look at one's face.

(7) But if one could differentiate that layer from one's actual viewpoint, one can then look at that layer as made up of past undigested experience, and sort it out into a proper concept.

(8) So the next active principle seems to be:

KEEP LOOKING UNTIL YOU ALSO BECOME AWARE OF WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING THROUGH.

Well, I am still looking at this principle carefully before I put it down in the next issue.

.

 

[Ted]

On the Subject of BTs & Clusters and their Incorrect Handling
Part 2 . . .

[...]

The correct approach is to make contact, get into communication, honor and appreciate; validate rightness, abilities and powers, and where necessary apply needed corrective and educative processes so as to upgrade cooperation and performance capacity.

Alan W has said, “People treat their spiritual teammates the way they treat people!" Hubbard sure and hell demonstrated that!

[...]

RogerB

Hubbard wrote:
"But the carelessness and casualness with which some Solo auditors often approach OT III and a Solo auditors willingness to run one BT and say 'well the rest don’t bother me', is simply an indication of weakness or Treason on the 1st Dynamic."

So the attitude is this: If you have BTs you are a weak being and/or in Treason on the 1D. Take you pick, which would be better for you? Limp dick or Treason?

I wonder what the attitude would have been had someone given LRH a reverse query:

Dear Ron, I am finding my ARC with all of life is ever increasing. I have more BTs now than before I started OT-3. I am feeling empowered in a spiritual sense. My life is becoming magical. Friends I haven't seen nor heard from in years are showing up in my life.

Please advise.

 

[Vinaire]

…

The observed truth is, in actual practice, that this subject must be addressed on a case when it comes up and processed correctly . . . to suppress the subject and hide it under cloaks of confidentiality as is done in the CofS is disastrous.

This apart from any discussion as to the validity, safety or otherwise of the procedures used when the levels of OT3 and above are processed.

…

That is correct. Per KHTK (Knowing How to Know) principles one should look at whatever the mind brings up on its own without avoiding, resisting or suppressing it. The mind knows how to un-stack itself. To postpone any LOOKING for later would violate the above principle.

It is always safe to look at what the mind brings up on its own without being pressured.

According to KHTK principles there is only “random motion” to be sorted out. Whether its motion originated by self or originated by somebody else does not matter. One simply looks at what is there non-judgmentally. When all the relevant data has come to view it sorts itself out rapidly. One simply keeps looking until that happens.

The problem of “my case” or “another’s case” comes in when one is adding “judgment” to what is there.

This problem resolves from the understanding of the concept of Nirvana (Brahma).

.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

It is sad to see otherwise intelligent people having that bias, prejudice, or ignorance, shall I say.

Don't be too quick to judge an individual by the nature of their cultural conditioning. It doesn't necessarily mean anything to them but may simply serve as a series of symbols to use in communicating with others.

Example: I never swore until the age of 19. Didn't know how as my home environment didn't permit it or teach it. At 19 I entered a maritime environment and within 2 weeks picked up a new language which I haven't been able to lose in 36 years.

Curiously, one of my most commonly used phrases for swearing is "Jesus F*cking Christ". Now, I've never been a christian this lifetime, nor was my immediate family particularly oriented to religion, any religion. The phrase has no meaning to me beyond being a general purpose exclamation. Surprisingly enough devout christians I know who have heard me utter the phrase seem to attach some greater significance to these words phrase. Who knew?

Amazing how m/u's can be spread.

The smart people understand the limits of their own cultures, but that doesn't mean they may not still be using their own common cultural expressions & considerations when speaking with others.

I don't really think you have too much to worry about with regard to others "failing to understand you" on the threads on which you post because of your esoteric Hindu interests. You are certainly capable of explaining any details which aren't made immediately clear in your posts.

What is the hope for others then?

Let them work out their own paths to enlightenment, Grasshopper.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Vinaire]

…

As Challenge has noted on this thread, one’s spiritual connections can be one’s friends, a huge source of power and abilities for you. They can be co-processing and learning partners with you. As Challenge noted, they learn as you learn (the good along with the bad) and if you honor and appreciate them they will work with you and each other to upgrade conditions to optimum . . . as Challenge noted, hers use the tech they learned to co-process each other. Mine do too.

Mine also work with me as terminals (co-processors) in aiding me upgrade my condition. Hey, why shouldn’t you have a spiritual Being as a co-processor?

Equally important, my various spiritual teammates have roles and hats to wear in our approach to this game of life on Planet Earth.

I have a team that looks after my body, repairing, maintaining it for us . . . indeed this team was and continues to be was very instrumental in my securing this body and maintaining it as “ours” from those that might try and usurp it form us. (And there is tech involved in that exercise) …

I have a team that looks after and runs my mind, though I might have lost a key player there due the screwy NOTs tech practices.

I have teams that deal with my “environment” for me/with me, dealing with various aspects of the physical universe and the games we are involved in throughout it.

…

It appears to me that this whole issue of BTs, Clusters, and Spiritual Teammates appears from the consideration of ME versus NOT-ME.

One can then look at NOT-ME as either wanted or unwanted; and from there on it can be made more and more complicated through such additives.

The first additive seems to be the consideration ME and NOT-ME from Nirvana point of view. This gives rise to the consideration of “my case” and “not-my case.” The further additives comes about when one starts to look at how to handle this “not-my case.” Should I reject it or accept it?

It appears that Hubbard wanted to get rid of this “not-my case” through as-isness (I hope). But, for whatever reasons, Alan decided that it would be a good idea to align this “not-my case” with one’s own motion toward the fulfillment of one’s own postulates. This is clever. It just requires changing of one's consideration.

From Nirvana viewpoint it would be just using a via to align motion to one’s postulates.

But the basic additive seems to be creating and keeping the consideration of ME and NOT-ME.

My opinion.

.

 

[Terril park]

Having now found the time, I would like to address the important points David has raised in his opening post of this thread.

And in that context, I should say what I have to say is not opinion or belief, but a recounting of my own personal experience and that of some others I have worked with. This in the vein David so rightly speaks of is his referenced “Scientology Technology Evaluated” at http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1629.

In it David refers to doing, demonstrating and practicing the claimed knowledge and ability recovered, viz: “Yet on the Lower Grades there is no practice! So how on earth could someone attest to, say, the ‘Ability to communicate freely with anyone on any subject’ without going outside the Org and trying it out, let alone practicing it. Isn't it ‘Be Do Have’.”

The first thing to say is that the entire line-up of the technology in Scn as regards “BTs/CLs,” “possessions,” “entities” and/or spiritual teammates et al, is tragically flawed.

The main flaw, and it is a disastrous flaw, a damaging and dangerous flaw, is that the whole subject is suppressed and perverted into a “confidential” matter until one reaches OT3.

This has had catastrophic case consequences for many. It did for me personally, and I know it to be so for others.

The truth of this “spiritual connections” phenomena is known in many cultures, including our western civilization, even, and particularly so amongst the “seeker and new age” fraternity. Though it was not “common knowledge” in the West in the 1950’s & ‘60’s.

The observed truth is, in actual practice, that this subject must be addressed on a case when it comes up and processed correctly . . . to suppress the subject and hide it under cloaks of confidentiality as is done in the CofS is disastrous.

This apart from any discussion as to the validity, safety or otherwise of the procedures used when the levels of OT3 and above are processed.

I’ll relate to you my personal experience of this to illustrate what deleterious effects are produced by this tragic error of the CofS tech line up.

The first thing to say is that when I came in Scn in 1957, I was totally spiritually illiterate. I had tried to read some Theosophy materials, and some stuff on yoga and Buddhist principles, but the stuff in those days was so arcane and littered with mumbo-jumbo and ill-defined terms, it was a mess, and I gave up on the “shit.” And besides, I was heavily into the “scientific” thing of being a well muscled, highly trained meat body composed of a bunch of atoms and molecules in happy, coincidental alignment!

As noted in one of my early posts on ESMB, I “blew my Dianetics case” in 1959, when I hit the incident of an earlier life-time death. That is the event that demonstrated to me I was truly a spiritual Being. And it was after that that my case began to run “differently,” and that I began to have various strange “difficulties” in handling stuff that came up on my case.

That ascension that occurred for me in 1959 is when my case “opened up” and “all” my spiritual teammates (you can call the BTs if you wish) and all the other spiritual connections I had began to wake up and manifest their existence on my lines.

The catastrophic trouble was that I and no one else recognized what had happened, and much of my later auditing was engaged in trying to handle these “masses” and “charge” I was experiencing as my own “case” when it was not! Many errors occurred: I was viewing my spiritual connections as though they were my own case or case junk (wrong negative indication on them) I routinely was unwittingly trying to run case I thought was mine when in fact it was that of spiritual connections (and we know that is the way to guarantee things won’t erase or go to true EP) and on and on . . . I could list a catalogue of errors that this circumstance the CofS forces on its people produced.

One of the gravest errors, apart from invalidation of the Beings, is that that whole case area of spiritual connections can get suppressed and negated with its own set of negative consequences . . . such as sick bodies, as an example.

In Knowledgism, there comes a time with a client, if he/she is not already aware of it, when they begin to collide with the spiritual connection phenomena. I had it with a client recently. Something was massing up, not erasing going to EP as it ordinarily would, and the simple questions become:
“Is this (item) yours?”
“Is this (item) a spiritual teammate’s?”
“Is this (item) a spiritual team’s?

If not the client’s, one then switches to correctly handling the spiritual Being or team involved. Alan W developed specific processes for restoring sovereignty to the Being(s) and harmony between you all as an aligned unit.

To fail to do this when any spiritual connection manifests and gets in the way of progressing the client himself to the recovery of his true states a of Being is disastrous. It produces enormous extra charge on the case, it by-passes enormous existing charge on the chase, it gives the client wrong indications, wrong whys, wrong whats, and LOSSES tying to handle areas of case incorrectly.

And that’s before the client gets up to the confidential level materials, where those R/Ds have their own liability.

This little write up is a quick first part . . . I’ll get to copyedit it when I get back from the business I have to do. The next part might come tomorrow.

Rog

Very much appreciate your comments.

I consider LRHs greatest achievement in admin terms is to try and
give his wisdom to the man in the street.

He trained up such a man to be able to do more than those who spent 10 years studying psychology in a few months.

And it worked.

LRH always aimed for 100% workability and I don't think anyone else
ever achieved so much in that direction.

But yes, was an impossible goal sort of. Now, in the independant/FZ field we can get closer to that goal.

It seems to be the case that most are better to do grades etc before they handle entity case. It is also the case that some can collide with this before
OT levels, and sometimes, and perhaps sometimes not, need to handle such matters. Rare best I know.

There is also the case of those prematurely exposed can get horrendous problems on this area.

 

[Vinaire]

…

The correct approach is to make contact, get into communication, honor and appreciate; validate rightness, abilities and powers, and where necessary apply needed corrective and educative processes so as to upgrade cooperation and performance capacity.

…

Why not just look at what is there without adding any thoughts, emotion and effort; and without avoiding, resisting or suppressing; and looking totally non-judgmentally without excuses and justifications.

What would happen then?

.

 

[Vinaire]

Don't be too quick to judge an individual by the nature of their cultural conditioning. It doesn't necessarily mean anything to them but may simply serve as a series of symbols to use in communicating with others.

Example: I never swore until the age of 19. Didn't know how as my home environment didn't permit it or teach it. At 19 I entered a maritime environment and within 2 weeks picked up a new language which I haven't been able to lose in 36 years.

Curiously, one of my most commonly used phrases for swearing is "Jesus F*cking Christ". Now, I've never been a christian this lifetime, nor was my immediate family particularly oriented to religion, any religion. The phrase has no meaning to me beyond being a general purpose exclamation. Surprisingly enough devout christians I know who have heard me utter the phrase seem to attach some greater significance to these words phrase. Who knew?

Amazing how m/u's can be spread.

The smart people understand the limits of their own cultures, but that doesn't mean they may not still be using their own common cultural expressions & considerations when speaking with others.

I don't really think you have too much to worry about with regard to others "failing to understand you" on the threads on which you post because of your esoteric Hindu interests. You are certainly capable of explaining any details which aren't made immediately clear in your posts.




Let them work out their own paths to enlightenment, Grasshopper.


Mark A. Baker

The only judgment that I make here is that the person is culturally conditioned and that his perceptions are tainted by that conditioning. In what manner are those perceptions tainted is irrelevant; and I don’t care to make any judgment there.

When they see something they simply put up their layer of cultural conditioning to interpret what is there. They are not aware of that layer, which is distorting their perception. This is what happened to those Christians who shrank back at your swearing.

No, I am not worried about others failing to understand me. It simply challenges me to see how I can help others to look without vias.

.

 

[Panda Termint]

Why not just look at what is there without adding any thoughts, emotion and effort; and without avoiding, resisting or suppressing; and looking totally non-judgmentally without excuses and justifications.

What would happen then?
.

They would feel "looked at" perhaps.

It'd be so much kinder and more beneficial to actually help them to look at what *they* want/need to look at.

 

[Vinaire]

They would feel "looked at" perhaps.

It'd be so much kinder and more beneficial to actually help them to look at what *they* want/need to look at.

Ha! you are adding "think" there aren't you. You are also supposing.

Have you ever done what I am querying here?

.

 

[Panda Termint]

Vin, You evaluate so freely.
Allow me return the favour: you don't seem to fully understand what I said.

 

[Vinaire]

Vin, You evaluate so freely.
Allow me return the favour: you don't seem to fully understand what I said.

OK, I didn't understand what you said. Would you please help me understand it?

What am I not looking at that you are looking at? I am willing to look at it.

.

 

[Panda Termint]

OK, I didn't understand what you said. Would you please help me understand it?

What am I not looking at that you are looking at? I am willing to look at it.

.

Sure, this is the post I was commenting on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerB
…

The correct approach is to make contact, get into communication, honor and appreciate; validate rightness, abilities and powers, and where necessary apply needed corrective and educative processes so as to upgrade cooperation and performance capacity.

…

Why not just look at what is there without adding any thoughts, emotion and effort; and without avoiding, resisting or suppressing; and looking totally non-judgmentally without excuses and justifications.

What would happen then?

I commented as I did because Roger is talking about Entities/Spiritual Team-mates. If you looked at them, they'd perhaps feel "looked at" (something they either crave or attempt to avoid btw). You seem to be talking from the viewpoint of it's all mind. That doesn't seem to be what Roger is saying at all (I don't doubt that he'll correct me if I'm mistaken).

The only way you could apply Vinology in this instance is to ask the Entity to do what you recommend. It would require a certain amount of thinkingness and doingness on your part, in fact it would require a certain Auditingness.

 

[Vinaire]

It seems that Hubbard was desperately trying to get rid of NOT-ME while trying (desperately) to keep ME. Hubbard championed Individuality.

But ME and NOT-ME happens to be a dichotomy and you cannot get rid of one while keeping the other.

Trying to get rid of NOT-ME also explains Hubbard's paranoia. Obviously, Hubbard failed at it. Alan tried to correct it by not getting rid of NOT-ME, instead attempting to integrate NOT-ME with ME. That's clever.

At least Alan was not paranoid. That was the positive thing about him. I liked Alan.

But trying to integrate NOT-ME with ME is going to create the problem of supremacy. Who heads the 'org-board'? ME or NOT-ME?

This is yet to be seen. The show is on.

.

 

[Panda Termint]

Neti, neti?

 

[Vinaire]

Sure, this is the post I was commenting on...
I commented as I did because Roger is talking about Entities/Spiritual Team-mates. If you looked at them, they'd perhaps feel "looked at" (something they either crave or attempt to avoid btw). You seem to be talking from the viewpoint of it's all mind. That doesn't seem to be what Roger is saying at all (I don't doubt that he'll correct me if I'm mistaken).

The only way you could apply Vinology in this instance is to ask the Entity to do what you recommend. It would require a certain amount of thinkingness and doingness on your part, in fact it would require a certain Auditingness.

I think I am stepping on some very fixed toes here.

Sorry about that.

.

 

[Panda Termint]

Vin, you're evaluating other's reactions again. You probably should *look* at that!