Natural Clears

[Bea Kiddo]

Ah! I didn't state my question with enough precision. I know that a few
didn't originate clear. I audited one for a little while on my NED interneship.

What I really mean to ask is what percentage of people had the clear cog,
who were doing things that one might go clear on. And assuming they ended cycle on that.

Depends when.

Late 70's/80's attests: less than 3%
80's: probably about the same, maybe 4%
90's: Big time past life Clears coming up at this time, so people would attest with Clear Cog and past life info given in session. 60% valid Clear
2000's: With Clear cog, meter phenomena and evidence of Dianetic auditing, was 100% (until DM changed the requirements based on a case folder he saw at Flag, at which point I was done on tech lines).

Also there was an RTC program that required interviews be done on any person attested Clear where there was not sufficient evidence. Those interviews turned into leading questions trying to get information. Most of the interviews I tried to do never lead to any Clear cog. I kept getting sent back in to do more interview! WTF?!?! Ther person has it or they don't!

---------------

Anyways, I am just giving information on what I dealt with, and what I know about. I am not saying I believe in any of it.

One of the last things I was told as I was handed my luggage and SP declare was that I was not Clear (even though I had gotten up to OT V and was even trained on CCRD at Flag, where they had to verify my own Clear state through RTC before I could do the course! Shows you how often they changed what Clear was!).

 

[olska]

There was a craze in the late 70's and early 80's where lots of people were attesting to Natural Clear, really with no evidence. (I also saw somewhere that Natural Clears are not just Clear, they are cleared up to OT V Case, maybe VII, can't remember).

First I'd seen this -- fascinating, because ...

I was one of those who attested to "natural" clear in the late 1970s.

At the time I was a "believer" and the possibility of "natural clear" was the perfect explanation for some things in my personality, life and world view that were quite noticeably "different" from the "average" young American human being.

Shortly after attesting, I and another "natural" speculated that we might also be "natural OT" -- if there were such a thing. We'd seen no information about it.

Many months before the rush of clear attests, while on the Dianetics course I had to do a clay demo of the big, bad, REACTIVE MIND. Took a few tries (too much significance, not enough mass) until I passed the demo. My "cognition" on that demo was that wow, people who were carrying around all that mass would be really, really fucked up and no wonder they behaved in such irrational, odd-ball, crazy ways!

But, oddly, I could not detect such a burden in my own universe.

So later, when we were "invited" to explore the possibility that we might be clear and not know it, this event was at the heart of my attest which was little more than this simple statement given with VGIs:

"I don't think I've ever had that."

Meter reaction must have fit the criteria because my attest passed and I was given a clear number and all that.

My involvement in scientology was short because I was the kind of "ethics bait" that stubbornly tends to make unwanted observations and "noise" and ask too many distracting questions rather than just going along with the program like a good little cog. I left scientology relatively soon after my clear attest, to attend to other more important life events.

Did Hubbard's processes designed to rid people of their "reactive mind" actually work? I can't say. I didn't have one, therefore had nothing upon which to test the effectiveness of the processes.

For me in life, my "mind" is and has always been a TOOL that I have sometimes struggled to use effectively and efficiently, but not a BURDEN that I have wished to shed.

 

[ULRC/S]

But this has been a puzzeling topic to me. Some people never moked up a bank. Why not?

Because they never got Incident One.

PM me for more details if you are interested.

Regards, Allen

 

[nw2394]

Just a note for the record, Nick was very easily able to access upper levels.

Well, since you're talking about me, a second note for the record... I am not sure that being able to access so called upper levels amounts to a hill of beans as far as evidence is concerned. Certainly I've known people who I'm sure have had the Clear Cog go on to OT levels and go very slow. To my mind people run well on what is the right thing for them - and they tend to go slow, not run at all, wander away from etc., anything that isn't the right thing.

AFAIK I never voiced the cog exactly. Or even approximately. Or really thought it.

I did once go out int after COS and when in the FZ, could turn headaches
on instantly, and handled the out int condition, by best I could describe,
inspection.

Yeah - well - the thing that made me want to attest in the first place was something else entirely that I can connect with being Clear even if the CoS cannot. That's their loss as far as I am concerned.

Nick

 

[nw2394]

Because they never got Incident One.

Yes - well - that is what I'd always thought too.

Though reading comments on this board make one wonder if Inc 1 - certainly as described in a very limited way in the materials - actually exists for anyone. Who knows - many of us on here talk out of our arseholes sometimes - some more than others.

What I do know is that I could find plenty of involvement personally in Inc 2 and rather a lot of - er - chums - who had a somewhat parallel history - but I could not find any Inc 1 for myself - nor could most of my chums - and the few that could - god knows what they ran - I got no visio feedback or anything like that - they just seemed to go "oh yeah".

A great many I had to run on earlier beginning to Inc 2 - that I found to be very workable.

Nick

 

[ULRC/S]

I am not sure that being able to access so called upper levels amounts to a hill of beans as far as evidence is concerned.

I'll offer an opposite: Had a new public sit down in front of me for her first DoP interview prior to having freezone auditing. She said: "this is my last chance, I've tried everything, and if this doesn't work I'm committing suicide!"

So naturally I ask what's going on, and she described very precisely some very upper level phenomena from around OT14, 15, 16, and because it was obviously there, and she wanted it handled, (and with her permisssion) I ran some on her and it handled 100%.

She had done lots of new age seminars etc, but that was her first ever auditing session.

I've met lots of new age people fully conversant with entities, many talk with them either as enemies or friends. And can handle them easily in session when given an appropriate procedure.

Regards, Allen

 

[ULRC/S]

Though reading comments on this board make one wonder if Inc 1 - certainly as described in a very limited way in the materials - actually exists for anyone.

I have run lots of 'chums" through Inc 1 with solid reality, pictures etc. But not always exactly as giving by LRH, but close enough.

Regards, Allen

 

[Terril park]

I recognize that's a standard action for "Clears" since the mid/late 1980s or early 1990s, but...

Please explain why a Clear would need to do the 'False Purpose Rundown'.

How is it that a Clear has 'false purposes', and out of control contra-survival (own) postulates?

For me I knew I was restraining myself, and had flattened present life
O/Ws, so reading the FPRD issues I thought they'd be just the ticket and they were.

They are not nessesarily out of control, but taking a lot of lets say attention units.

Clears can go unclear. They can commit overts, be out ethics, go
PTS and thus take on a suppressive valence, and thus even be SP.

Also tech dict. Ser fac 6. "That computation generated by the individual
[not the bank] to make self right and others wrong...."

The FPRD can be very good at un earthing ser facs.

 

[Terril park]

I'll offer an opposite: Had a new public sit down in front of me for her first DoP interview prior to having freezone auditing. She said: "this is my last chance, I've tried everything, and if this doesn't work I'm committing suicide!"

So naturally I ask what's going on, and she described very precisely some very upper level phenomena from around OT14, 15, 16, and because it was obviously there, and she wanted it handled, (and with her permisssion) I ran some on her and it handled 100%.

She had done lots of new age seminars etc, but that was her first ever auditing session.

I've met lots of new age people fully conversant with entities, many talk with them either as enemies or friends. And can handle them easily in session when given an appropriate procedure.

Regards, Allen

take it you refer to the CBR bridge?

 

[renegade]

How is it that when you attest to Clear you realize you are responsible/cause over your bank and when you get to the OT levels cause/responsibilty is given to BTs for OT case?

 

[Smilla]

How is it that when you attest to Clear you realize you are responsible/cause over your bank and when you get to the OT levels cause/responsibilty is given to BTs for OT case?

The idea is that your stutter, for example, is caused by a BT or Cluster that has set up home in your trachea, or whatnot.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

How is it that when you attest to Clear you realize you are responsible/cause over your bank and when you get to the OT levels cause/responsibilty is given to BTs for OT case?

I didn't do upper levels in the church but I disagree that responsibility lies with the bts for ot case. Responsibility lies with the ot. Entities have their "issues", nevertheless it is the ot's responsibility for whether those "issues" impinge on his own. A principle function of "upper levels" to my mind is sorting out "what's what" so as to clarify this "conflict of responsibility".


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

For me I knew I was restraining myself, and had flattened present life
O/Ws, so reading the FPRD issues I thought they'd be just the ticket and they were.

They are not nessesarily out of control, but taking a lot of lets say attention units.

Clears can go unclear. They can commit overts, be out ethics, go
PTS and thus take on a suppressive valence, and thus even be SP.

Also tech dict. Ser fac 6. "That computation generated by the individual
[not the bank] to make self right and others wrong...."

The FPRD can be very good at un earthing ser facs.

That's the standard explanation for it.

When I saw the False Purpose Rundown advertized in C of S promo, as the next action after Clear, my first impression was that this was a mop-up action for all the untouched cases that were given the title "Clear."

"Clear" doesn't mean a heck of a lot after being downgraded by Hubbard in 1978, but whatever toots your horn.

 

[Veda]

Because they never got Incident One.

PM me for more details if you are interested.

Regards, Allen

Why not tell us Meatballs too?

Insert secret of Incident One here: _________________________________________________

 

[Smilla]

I didn't do upper levels in the church but I disagree that responsibility lies with the bts for ot case. Responsibility lies with the ot. Entities have their "issues", nevertheless it is the ot's responsibility for whether those "issues" impinge on his own. A principle function of "upper levels" to my mind is sorting out "what's what" so as to clarify this "conflict of responsibility".


Mark A. Baker

According to the theory, you are holding the BT's there. Cog, LFBD, Floating TA, VGI's, EOS.

 

[Mystic]

Is sort of a that a hallucinatory thread can carry on so.

 

[ULRC/S]

take it you refer to the CBR bridge?

Who else has stable, workable OT14, 15 & 16 - that's being delivered?

Regards, Allen

 

[ULRC/S]

Why not tell us Meatballs too?

Insert secret of Incident One here: _________________________________________________

Because I do NOT divulge confidential info to the open public.

You, and anyone else can also PM me.

Regards, Allen

 

[ULRC/S]

According to the theory, you are holding the BT's there.

Which "theory"?

Regards, Allen

 

[Terril park]

That's the standard explanation for it.

When I saw the False Purpose Rundown advertized in C of S promo, as the next action after Clear, my first impression was that this was a mop-up action for all the untouched cases that were given the title "Clear."

"Clear" doesn't mean a heck of a lot after being downgraded by Hubbard in 1978, but whatever toots your horn.

Not so.

Was something that was considered a good handling for stalled clears.

Worked for me. Ended up in the FZ.