I had a glimpse of R6 Bank

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

Incident 2 is the incident, R6 is the content.

Perhaps too subtle a distinction? But maybe if R6 is thought of as a package and Inc 2 is the trip to the installer? Sort of the same sort of different viewpoints on each?

I quite like that idea.

 

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

R6 is only a part of Incident 2.

In incident 2 other previous implants were reimplanted (e.g. the CC content). Thus R6 is the content not previously implanted but newly implanted during Incident 2.

I'm not happy with that as a definition. If we use that definition then we have the earlier bit of Inc 2, then we skip the CC, include OTII, then we have more stuff and the 36 days stuff. It is not an contiguous block. And really I think it is the CC and OTII which constitute the core of R6 (from what I can see) in terms of picture machines and survival and that sort of stuff. Especially since the 36 days isn't apparently run anywhere and it presumably just falls away uninspected.

 

[Operating DB]

Originally Posted by L.Rum Hubturd
"Here is a datum: That particular implanting outfit was located down towards the center of this galaxy and was founded 52,863,010,654,079 years ago. It was destroyed 38,932,690,862,933 years ago by the 79th wing of the 43rd Battle Squadron of the Galactic Fleet. It was a wildcat activity. They used to drag magellanic clouds out of the center hub of the galaxy, let them follow lines of force and come over a system, and then send planes in with speakers. The place would be caved in for thousands of years as a result of radioactive clouds."

[Hubbard, "The Time Track", SHSBC-265, lecture of 16 May 63]

If our universe if supposedly only 14.5 billion years old then how could our Milky Way galaxy existed 52,863,010,654,079 years ago?

Excuse me I need to go take a dump right now.....

 

[Tiger Lily]

For different reasons. For example Hubbard's whole approach is already upside down: You have to get rid of the bad bank, the evil psychs, the bad BTs, the nasty SPs who make you PTS, the low tones, the evil implanters, the 1.1ers.
It's always "Us vs Them".
Even one of the supposedly highest states ("To be able to confront everything") sounds anti-something.

Hubbard also tells you that these incidents were bad for you. Now it's one thing to state "Xenu blew up your dacha" (= describing an exact incident) but another one is "You need your dacha and you still suffer from having lost it". It's a double invalidation. And it's bottom-up because the target should be you, not some past dacha.


My statements above are rather a GENERAL criticism of how Hubbard made the wrong APPROACH.

But I have also have a specific view of specific procedures like dating or BT busting. Dating in my view can be helpful (charge relieving) shortterm but longterm it's bad because it's based on the wrong assumption that the time-track needs to be audited. However in my view there is no incident that you are stuck in. If you are stuck in something then you are CURRENTLY stuck in it. All there is to audit is Now. No time-track or past-identities. Running track/identities restimulates more than it helps in the long run, aside from the fact that track/identities can be complete fabrications ("I was Jesus"). Short term it can be helpful, of course, just like scratching.

Thus LRH's approach is not only bottom-up but pasttime-now.

The same applies to the BT issue: Instead of going incident-hunting you should rather check what makes YOU hold to a BT in the current now (whether BTs really exist is a different question, but I am talking about how an approach from the top+from the inside would look like as compared to LRH's approach to audit outside forces from the bottom).

Thus LRH's approach is not only bottom-up and pasttime-now but inside-out.

Moreover Hubbard doesn't offer any differentiation between BTs and self-mocked-up masses or other mental phenomena (or body phenomena):
just imagine (now, while you sit in front of your computer) a black ball in your knee that says "Don't do it" all the time. If you would mock-up this constantly then it could qualify as a BT and could maybe cause kneepain. Now go ahead try to exorcise it (for example by mocking up a theta hand throwing the knee ball away). It would be ridiculous AND harmful: You try to disown (and "evilify") your own mock-ups and body functions. No wonder NOTs can make you NUTs and cause cancer. Even Hubbard got a tumor on his forehead.

Add to it, that at least some stuff existed only in Hubbard's case then you are effectively auditing Hubbard's case as your own.

Thus parts of Scientology Tech are bottom-up, pasttime-now, inside-out and other-own.

Knn thanks One of the real frustrations I had while "in" was that I felt like I kept getting worse, even though I had these great "wins" in session and on course. I couldn't figure out how that could be, and your post is the best explanation for that that I've heard to date. It fits with where I seem to resonate now --that the "now" is what is important. That was a great post; it aligned some stuff for me and gave me something to think about. Thanks

-TL

 

[Vinaire]

For different reasons. For example Hubbard's whole approach is already upside down: You have to get rid of the bad bank, the evil psychs, the bad BTs, the nasty SPs who make you PTS, the low tones, the evil implanters, the 1.1ers.
It's always "Us vs Them".
Even one of the supposedly highest states ("To be able to confront everything") sounds anti-something.

Hubbard also tells you that these incidents were bad for you. Now it's one thing to state "Xenu blew up your dacha" (= describing an exact incident) but another one is "You need your dacha and you still suffer from having lost it". It's a double invalidation. And it's bottom-up because the target should be you, not some past dacha.


My statements above are rather a GENERAL criticism of how Hubbard made the wrong APPROACH.

But I have also have a specific view of specific procedures like dating or BT busting. Dating in my view can be helpful (charge relieving) shortterm but longterm it's bad because it's based on the wrong assumption that the time-track needs to be audited. However in my view there is no incident that you are stuck in. If you are stuck in something then you are CURRENTLY stuck in it. All there is to audit is Now. No time-track or past-identities. Running track/identities restimulates more than it helps in the long run, aside from the fact that track/identities can be complete fabrications ("I was Jesus"). Short term it can be helpful, of course, just like scratching.

Thus LRH's approach is not only bottom-up but pasttime-now.

The same applies to the BT issue: Instead of going incident-hunting you should rather check what makes YOU hold to a BT in the current now (whether BTs really exist is a different question, but I am talking about how an approach from the top+from the inside would look like as compared to LRH's approach to audit outside forces from the bottom).

Thus LRH's approach is not only bottom-up and pasttime-now but inside-out.

Moreover Hubbard doesn't offer any differentiation between BTs and self-mocked-up masses or other mental phenomena (or body phenomena):
just imagine (now, while you sit in front of your computer) a black ball in your knee that says "Don't do it" all the time. If you would mock-up this constantly then it could qualify as a BT and could maybe cause kneepain. Now go ahead try to exorcise it (for example by mocking up a theta hand throwing the knee ball away). It would be ridiculous AND harmful: You try to disown (and "evilify") your own mock-ups and body functions. No wonder NOTs can make you NUTs and cause cancer. Even Hubbard got a tumor on his forehead.

Add to it, that at least some stuff existed only in Hubbard's case then you are effectively auditing Hubbard's case as your own.

Thus parts of Scientology Tech are bottom-up, pasttime-now, inside-out and other-own.

Yes, this post resonated with me too.

.

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Tiger Lily, one of the "implants" was supposed to be the concept of religion in general, God, Jesus and Christianity in particular, if I understand it right.

So much for keeping faith with your own religion and also being a Scientologist, one of the lines I was told when they were trying to get me in.

 

[Vinaire]

Tiger Lily, one of the "implants" was supposed to be the concept of religion in general, God, Jesus and Christianity in particular, if I understand it right.

So much for keeping faith with your own religion and also being a Scientologist, one of the lines I was told when they were trying to get me in.

In religion the most misunderstood word is God.

.

 

[Veda]

Yes, this post resonated with me too.

.

Well, similar views have been expressed before by many, going back decades.

Now that you're resonating Vin, you might coax Knn to elaborate on the idea that doing the Scientology Bridge Grade Chart - particularly the "upper" part where the switch is made from (primarily) asking the person to (primarily) telling the person - is not advisable.

 

[Vinaire]

Well, similar views have been expressed before by many, going back decades.

Now that you're resonating Vin, you might coax Knn to elaborate on the idea that doing the Scientology Bridge Grade Chart - particularly the "upper" part where the switch is made from (primarily) asking the person to (primarily) telling the person - is not advisable.

I am learning that it is advisable not to advise anybody.

It is okay to express one's ideas and beliefs, and just leave them to be accepted or not accepted. After all we are dealing with grown ups here, who have some power of choice.

I prefer to express my Hindu viewpoint of BRAHMA and not get into any argument with the viewpoint of Semitic God that comes in three different flavors. If people like/dsilike what I say, let them speak their agreement/disagreement.

I like to discuss but not argue. One cannot discuss faith. One can only discuss where some reason exists.

I am a reasonable person. I may examine faith, but I stay away from blind faith.

I also express my agreement or disagreement with ideas expressed by others that I like or dislike. But that is as far as I go.

I prefer to stay away from arguing and giving advice. Let others enjoy their power of choice, and their karma.

It is all a play of maya.

.

 

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

I am learning that it is advisable not to advise anybody.

Ahh, wisdom cometh.

 

[Tiger Lily]

Tiger Lily, one of the "implants" was supposed to be the concept of religion in general, God, Jesus and Christianity in particular, if I understand it right.

So much for keeping faith with your own religion and also being a Scientologist, one of the lines I was told when they were trying to get me in.

No kidding! One of the reasons I liked Scientology so much initially was that it "encompassed ALL religions" -- imagine my surprise to find out that Christianity was just an "implant"!! I knew then that I'd been lied to by the reges, but then an OTVII friend explained "acceptable truths" to me and the brainwashing continued for another 10 years or so before I finally got out of the fog.

-TL

 

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

... but then an OTVII friend explained "acceptable truths" to me and the brainwashing continued for another 10 years or so before I finally got out of the fog.

I don't think I have ever been indoctrinated in this whole "acceptable truth" stuff. I don't think it is in the red vols. Do you have a reference on this, or is it easily explainable?

 

[Zinjifar]

"So PR becomes the technique of Communicating an acceptable truth -- and which will attain the desirable result."
HCO Policy Letter of 13 August 1970, L. Ron Hubbard
◦"Handling truth is a touchy business ... Tell an acceptable truth."
The Missing Ingredient, - L. Ron Hubbard, 13 August 1970.

Zinj

 

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

Well that was an unreasonably fast reply Zinj. You must have had that cued up ready. Thanks.

 

[Zinjifar]

Well that was an unreasonably fast reply Zinj. You must have had that cued up ready. Thanks.

I even had time to take a shower and gather together my dirty laundry in between

Zinj

 

[Veda]

I don't think I have ever been indoctrinated in this whole "acceptable truth" stuff. I don't think it is in the red vols. Do you have a reference on this, or is it easily explainable?

It's part of Scientology tech, and lots of things are not in the 'Red vols.' Maybe you should have taken a look at the complete subject, and its, and its founder's, actual background before you embarked on its sticky-on-both-sides taped path to Total Freedom.

 

[Vinaire]

Acceptable truth

I think TROM explains it nicely in the context of GAMES.

.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I am learning that it is advisable not to advise anybody.

Yes, that's not your job. That job belongs to others.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

I think TROM explains it nicely in the context of GAMES.

We is talkin' (briefly) 'bout Scientology's devious and manipulative PR tech here, Vinnie old chap. Ain't no TROM, this is Scientology:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1911

As far as I know, TROM doesn't have a PR tech.

 

[Vinaire]

We is talkin' (briefly) 'bout Scientology's devious and manipulative PR tech here, Vinnie old chap. Ain't no TROM, this is Scientology:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1911

As far as I know, TROM doesn't have a PR tech.

What I meant was that this devious and manipulative PR tech is part of a game, and the tecnology of game is described very nicely in TROM.

TROM has helped me understand why Scientology has acted the way it has. Scientology is playing a compulsive game.

.