Paul's Body Thetans

[Dulloldfart]

How does "A Clear is at risk until OT3" fit into the Chakra Energy theory? Why should a Clear be at more risk than a wog?

I think the whole "at risk" concept here is no more than a marketing strategy, whether applied to Clear, OT3 or NOTs. But that is purely opinion. I don't know of any valid-looking research in the area. Hubbard's statements hardly qualify as evidence of research having been done. Maybe he assigned cause for his own sickness at the time NOTs was developed to his own BTs and Clusters, so therefore it must apply to everyone.

Hubbard had it all neatly worked out with a Clear defined in the OT2 materials as a being who had separated out from his composite case, the BTs and clusters. As a theoretical idea it's quite neat, but only in that silly Scn Universe inhabited by BTs and Clusters, where any charge after Clear belongs only to some entity other than self. I can't think of an equivalent involving the layers of the human energy field and underlying parts (hara and core star in Brennan's terminology).

Paul

 

[Dulloldfart]

Just a thought I had recently prompted by another thread.

Part of Hubbard's OT III theory — at least it was added to the OT III pack some time after NOTs came out — concerns "earlier universes." If a body thetan (I'm repeating Hubbard's words here, not my considerations about reality) fails to blow on running Incident 1 about 4 x 10^15 years ago, then one of the things one can check is "earlier universe?" Getting any more into any earlier universe is not part of OT III. In other words, Hubbard's cosmology here includes universes earlier in time than this current one we are familiar with.

A couple of months back I started reading Dr. Michael Newton's research spanning 30 years and 7000 cases. I posted a bunch of comments in a thread here, http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11252. One of the points he found was that some of the beings running human bodies on Earth had relatively recent prior lives and experiences in other universes and dimensions. In other words, an "earlier universe?" question could apply to an individual one was having trouble with in auditing, discarnate or not, and the concept would be earlier for the being but not existing before the start of this familiar universe we are in. Just like someone could have an earlier husband or wife in this lifetime, so someone running a body here could have track in the past few hundreds or thousands of years in a different universe.

Paul

 

[nw2394]

I think the whole "at risk" concept here is no more than a marketing strategy, whether applied to Clear, OT3 or NOTs. But that is purely opinion. I don't know of any valid-looking research in the area. Hubbard's statements hardly qualify as evidence of research having been done. Maybe he assigned cause for his own sickness at the time NOTs was developed to his own BTs and Clusters, so therefore it must apply to everyone.

Hubbard had it all neatly worked out with a Clear defined in the OT2 materials as a being who had separated out from his composite case, the BTs and clusters. As a theoretical idea it's quite neat, but only in that silly Scn Universe inhabited by BTs and Clusters, where any charge after Clear belongs only to some entity other than self. I can't think of an equivalent involving the layers of the human energy field and underlying parts (hara and core star in Brennan's terminology).

Paul

Assuming you hold with the view that Dianetic Clear = Clear, then the notion that a being who is Clear has "separated out from his composite case" is, if not false, then certainly incomplete - why else would some people (not all) who are Clear have relative trouble with material beyond Clear, need grades, eventually get grades and other such stuff and then eventually come back to the likes of OT2 and do relatively well?

As far as the "at risk" business is concerned, I tend to agree that the CoS primarily used this as a marketing ploy - though it also tends to be true that the deeper you go, the rawer the charge (for want of a better way to put it).

I agree with you about the notion of it being silly to assign all the cause and charge to entity case and it having nothing to do with the person. It seems to have some workability for a while - but eventually you have to look at why you have these dudes in the first place and so on. It is no good ploughing on for literally thousands of hours as some have done into NOTs and assign all the cause elsewhere.

Nick

 

[nw2394]

Just a thought I had recently prompted by another thread.

Part of Hubbard's OT III theory — at least it was added to the OT III pack some time after NOTs came out — concerns "earlier universes." If a body thetan (I'm repeating Hubbard's words here, not my considerations about reality) fails to blow on running Incident 1 about 4 x 10^15 years ago, then one of the things one can check is "earlier universe?" Getting any more into any earlier universe is not part of OT III. In other words, Hubbard's cosmology here includes universes earlier in time than this current one we are familiar with.

A couple of months back I started reading Dr. Michael Newton's research spanning 30 years and 7000 cases. I posted a bunch of comments in a thread here, http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=11252. One of the points he found was that some of the beings running human bodies on Earth had relatively recent prior lives and experiences in other universes and dimensions. In other words, an "earlier universe?" question could apply to an individual one was having trouble with in auditing, discarnate or not, and the concept would be earlier for the being but not existing before the start of this familiar universe we are in. Just like someone could have an earlier husband or wife in this lifetime, so someone running a body here could have track in the past few hundreds or thousands of years in a different universe.

Paul

Leaving aside for the moment the complete question of whether one thinks Inc 1 (or even 2) for that matter were a total bunch of bollocks or not, the thing about "earlier universe" is an interesting one.

A lot of folks brought up on modern physics (which Hubbard wasn't) would probably think anything older than about 13 or so billion years ago was "earlier universe".

In practice, it only really seems to be a problem where an incident (or something very similar) has either a) happened more than once or b) has a date in the prior universe that makes it seem like it belongs to this one. Either results in a confusion about the true date of the incident which can cause it to hang.

Nick

 

[Zinjifar]

Since 'Time' is merely an aspect of MEST, why should it matter? What's 'earlier' in the absence of 'Time'?

Zinj

 

[Dulloldfart]

Since 'Time' is merely an aspect of MEST, why should it matter? What's 'earlier' in the absence of 'Time'?

Zinj

In a theoretical sense, unless it enables one to predict useful stuff that one would not otherwise have accessed, it doesn't matter at all. But in auditing, one wants to resolve charge, and to do that one needs to use an appropriate technique. Sometimes this is merely asking the right question, but the "right" question is not necessarily something that is at all obvious.

Resolving charge is subjective for the pc, although it is objective for the auditor seeing it on a meter (if used) and in the pc's indicators (happy, glowing, "blown out," or sad, caved in, crying, massy etc.).

I struggled for years with the concept of "before time began." After I had contacted such incidents in auditing, it wasn't a problem any more. Were they real incidents? In the grand scheme of things, who cares? They led to a resolution of whatever I was running.

If you've never had any real auditing, this will probably all be absurd.

Paul

 

[nw2394]

Since 'Time' is merely an aspect of MEST, why should it matter? What's 'earlier' in the absence of 'Time'?

Zinj

A lot of processes do not require an "earlier" at all. They do, however, require that the truth of the situation is observed - wrong date would be one untruth that might have to be spotted.

Nick

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Since 'Time' is merely an aspect of MEST, why should it matter? What's 'earlier' in the absence of 'Time'?

Zinj

That is because you are only thinking of time in terms of causality within a physical universe. This is simplistic even from a viewpoint of straight physics. From a viewpoint of subjective spirituality it is wholly insufficient.

Within the framework of auditing what is being addressed are SUBJECTIVE experiences & phenomena. These need not directly correlate to such things within the framework of the "known universe" you share with other humans. In otherwords, since what is addressed is subjective and is being addressed from the viewpoint of spirit, time need not necessarily correspond to your sense of history within the physical universe.

As such "time" is often experienced in MULTIPLE different semi-sequential frameworks which need not correlate with each other neatly. This sort of thing comes up from time to time in sessions and is especially common when addressing "entity" phenomena. From this perspective the "timetrack" of the physical universe may simply reflect that which is shared in common in the present circumstances. This need not be the same as all there is that may be known. It can be a bit like the multiple-threading of software programs, only more so.


Mark A. Baker
p.s. In reference to Nick's last, the incorporation of erroneous "time" information in an incident can therefore bollix things up a treat, especially where multiple distinctive "time threads" are available for consideration.

 

[Zinjifar]

That is because you are only thinking of time in terms of causality within a physical universe. This is simplistic even from a viewpoint of straight physics. From a viewpoint of subjective spirituality it is wholly insufficient.

Within the framework of auditing what is being addressed are SUBJECTIVE experiences & phenomena. These need not directly correlate to such things within the framework of the "known universe" you share with other humans. In otherwords, since what is addressed is subjective and is being addressed from the viewpoint of spirit, time need not necessarily correspond to your sense of history within the physical universe.

As such "time" is often experienced in MULTIPLE different semi-sequential frameworks which need not correlate with each other neatly. This sort of thing comes up from time to time in sessions and is especially common when addressing "entity" phenomena. From this perspective the "timetrack" of the physical universe may simply reflect that which is shared in common in the present circumstances. This need not be the same as all there is that may be known.


Mark A. Baker

That's gobbledygooky and mushy enough to qualify as a Hubbard Axiom

congratulations.

Zinj

 

[nw2394]

That's gobbledygooky and mushy enough to qualify as a Hubbard Axiom

congratulations.

Zinj

Just accept that it is subjective and that's OK.

Or, if you must have a more concrete example as a way of understanding it, someone (an entity perhaps - though not necessarily) can be so utterly and completely stuck in some event from the past that they think that past event is now. From their point of view, everything that has happened since is in the future. When you ask such an individual, "when was it?" you can get an answer like "minus 9 years ago" - meaning nine years after the point where they are actually stuck. It is wacky I know - but that is their reality. Another individual that is part of the same incident might have a completely different sounding sense of when it was.

Nick

 

[Mark A. Baker]

That's gobbledygooky and mushy enough to qualify as a Hubbard Axiom

congratulations.

Zinj

Actually it's more of an attempt to express the concept of manifold geomety as it might apply to spiritual perspectives in relatively simple language.

If you would prefer a physical model:

A. gather together one very long piece of string and several hundred shorter pieces of various differing lengths & colors. [Each individual piece can be thought to represent a separate "time track".]

B. Go crazy tying the short pieces around the long piece & each other. Use tight complicated knots.

C. One by one, select a single short piece of string and trace & unravel it from the composite manifold.

D. Continue until all the individual pieces are once more separate.


The "truth" need not be quite as simple as "time" need not be experienced sequentially from a spiritual perspective. However this will add a bit of "mass" for your "gobbledygooky".


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

As far as the "at risk" business is concerned, I tend to agree that the CoS primarily used this as a marketing ploy - though it also tends to be true that the deeper you go, the rawer the charge (for want of a better way to put it).

I agree the risk element is overstated although a certain degree is entailed with a person's being increasingly open to communications, especially those possibly of a "spiritual" nature, without a sufficient acknowledgement or awareness of the ramifications of such openness.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Pooks]

 

[ladybeetle]

Always keeping an open mind....

Paul, I can't refute anything. Your observations were exactly mine, too.
But I want to add here some more.

When I finished OTV, I had first huge wins. Then I went home (where we stayed beeing in East Grinstead) in the evening and had suddenly a bad crash. I felt to be totally alone, like a snail raped of its house.

I rushed back and got repairs.

Before starting this repair, I realized, that I lost something what I still needed.
So I "misused" the repairs for gaining it back. It worked! And it worked really exellent. (I could finish my work secretly, with big wins ).
I detected, that I urgently needed the aura and I needed it intact, not like a lace. It was even not this after OTV!

Then, at home, I outlined all my observations:
When I finished OTIII, my sister was just dieing and I was with her. Somehow she had difficulties to leave. She asked me to hold her. So I did. And I realized, that there were some BTs managing the heart (I had the abitlity to perceive unseeable things since long ago, not only since Scienti . And I had some informations,too, of "such things" from a gypsy seer of my childhood). They were very anxious about leaving the heart alone, so I gave them some feeling of beeing fine and well-being. And I was amazed myself, when I felt them suddenly to be happy.
I told like in a trance to my other sister who was there too, that I think, our sister will leave us in about 15 minutes at five in the morning. This sister looked at me totally confused and so I felt myself. When our sister left her body, the bell of the church clock near the hospital, told us exactly this.
I had the opportunity to observe such BTs, we had several deaths in the family after this first.

What I think is:

1) The aura is important for human beeings. It can also be used for "travels outside the body", what I even seemed to experience as child and later. (I got this events acknowleged by far away friends. They were the goal of my visits. I myself considered them as pure dreams for a long time.)

2) the aura is also forming a protection of the body against external dangers. Destroying it can result in severe damage.

3) It is obvious to me, that there are BTs managing parts of the body. Well, we can fire them -- it is even possible, NOTs-people demonstrate this -- But who then will catch the job of running my heart or other parts of the body without errors?

LRH pretended, that then and only then, we can be totally free. But how? When I have no more personal for running my factory, I have to work there myself. And this would be at least a fulltime job, round the clock!

LRH sufferde of paranoia and schizophrenia. It is possible, that he had observation of BTs and he felt them like demons, found a good method to get them rid and thought to be free afterwards -- no, I think he himself felt a big relief!

Is it possible, that exactly this makes so many NOTs perilously ill? Sure, there are peaole suffering on cancer, heart attacks and so on, out in "WOG-world", too.
But an OT shouldn't get ill!

And my observation is:
When an OT is getting ill with cancer, heart attack... the progeress is very fast; much faster than in others!
I observed this not only on Staff- who is undernourished, but also on public Scientologists who had money enough to keep well.

My brother-in-law, Scientologist in good standing and OTV, also died of brain cancer.

 

[nw2394]

But an OT shouldn't get ill!

That's a false datum. Bodies will eventually wear out or malfunction in some way - much like a car does. Being OT - or in good case shape - or just generally happy with your life may well help the body - but in the end it will die.

And my observation is:
When an OT is getting ill with cancer, heart attack... the progeress is very fast; much faster than in others!
I observed this not only on Staff- who is undernourished, but also on public Scientologists who had money enough to keep well.

I think it is a blessing to be able to go at least reasonably quickly - as long as it not prematurely.

Nick

 

[ladybeetle]

That's a false datum. Bodies will eventually wear out or malfunction in some way - much like a car does. Being OT - or in good case shape - or just generally happy with your life may well help the body - but in the end it will die.



I think it is a blessing to be able to go at least reasonably quickly - as long as it not prematurely.

Nick

Of course, you are completely right

BUT

This was never the idea of LRH

and to specify the above:


wearing out or turning to malfunction in some way is not equal with illness.

 

[justaguy]

That's gobbledygooky and mushy enough to qualify as a Hubbard Axiom

congratulations.

Zinj

I'm sorry, no, it wasn't. I was able to understand it, so it couldn't have been as bad as a hubbard axiom.

That's because some of your mouth BTs think the banana is an extension of your face and so move into it. Then when you finish the banana they find they have no body and so are free to fly away. Hence the positive effect.

I don't know if this is serious, but I lol'd anyway.

 

[nw2394]

wearing out or turning to malfunction in some way is not equal with illness.

Well, I see how one might think that. Most people think of cancer as an illness - but it is not the same as catching a virus or something like that. It is a malfunction of the cells reproductive mechanism - and it seems that cells are rigged to eventually do this - if the whole body hasn't died of something else first.

Nick

 

[Alanzo]

Paul -

I only read your OP today.

I very much appreciate your analysis of this in Scientology, and I really appreciate what you have done to open this up with other references to things outside of Scientology.

My "Word Origins and Phrases" book traces the root "GEN" in the English language - a language you might find interesting, given the fact that you are so ENGLISH.

You find this root "GEN" in words like "Engineer", "Generate", "Genie" and "Genius".

It means "making something appear out of nothing".

I think you have taken something of Hubbard's and turned it into something useful for people.

Thank you.

I probably don't tell you this enough, but I think that you are an extremely intelligent and original thinker.

And I admire you very much.

Kisses.

Alanzo

 

[programmer_guy]

Paul,

I don't believe in anything you said on your 1st post. But it would be difficult to prove a negative on this subject. So, I remain very skeptical and agnostic on subjects like this.

However, in a cyber way, I like you as a person because of your personality that I saw/heard on the one skype call, as well as, how you are as a person in your posts.

Best Regards