What's new

The highest OT level

My post/article was more about telepathic metering than R3X per se. R3X can be run face to face with the pc holding the cans like in a regular session.

Telepathic metering can be done without using R3X. For example, here is a video in .wmv format of a meter drill ("Consider the events of today") done by Rolf Dane with me as a pc. He got it right, which was quite surprising to me considering how little charge (if any) there was on the item concerned.

I am aware of other auditors using telepathic metering too.

Paul
I do believe in telepathy; I have certain telepathic abilities which I developed with the help of Yoga. But this telepathic metering is not tested by scientific means, it might be a hoax. There is no guarantee that it works. LRH encouraged the Scientologists to believe in things that are real to them only, which is totally subjective matter, there is no objectivity to it.
 
But this telepathic metering is not tested by scientific means, it might be a hoax. There is no guarantee that it works. LRH encouraged the Scientologists to believe in things that are real to them only, which is totally subjective matter, there is no objectivity to it.

But Robert can demonstrate it in action. It's not a question of belief at all. A typical example would be he would tell me to "put the idea above me" (an R3X command). This might be the 15th time in a row he has given a similar command. All I would say, after a few seconds (or longer) executing the command would be "Yup" or similar. Sometimes I would comment, but mostly I wouldn't. At some point the disharmony would dissolve. I might indicate the fact to him (this is over the phone, remember), or I might just say "Yup" as usual, in the exact same tone of voice. Every time, and I mean *every* time I reached that point and said nothing, he would ask, "Did something occur?" or similar. And I would laugh at his acuity, tell him what had happened, and we'd go on to the next thing.

Where does belief in some Hubbard twaddle fit into this perception on Robert's part? I accept that I could be lying about it all and these posts could be a hoax on my part.

Paul
 
But Robert can demonstrate it in action. It's not a question of belief at all. A typical example would be he would tell me to "put the idea above me" (an R3X command). This might be the 15th time in a row he has given a similar command. All I would say, after a few seconds (or longer) executing the command would be "Yup" or similar. Sometimes I would comment, but mostly I wouldn't. At some point the disharmony would dissolve. I might indicate the fact to him (this is over the phone, remember), or I might just say "Yup" as usual, in the exact same tone of voice. Every time, and I mean *every* time I reached that point and said nothing, he would ask, "Did something occur?" or similar. And I would laugh at his acuity, tell him what had happened, and we'd go on to the next thing.
I am not disputing the validity of you assertion about the “yup”, it may be true. But it may be a coincidence. In order to rule coincidences out you must analyze the data statistically. The researchers of ESP (extrasensory perception) working at Princeton University did statistical analysis of their telepathic data and came to conclusion that ESP exists. On the other had, Ron the Scientists knew nothing about statistics, he was a college dropout., according to some Internet sources, so he never presented statistical analysis of his telepathic data.

Where does belief in some Hubbard twaddle fit into this perception on Robert's part? I accept that I could be lying about it all and these posts could be a hoax on my part.

Paul
I am not disputing the validity of you assertion about the “yup”, it may be true. But it may be a coincidence. In order to rule coincidences out you must analyze the data statistically. The researchers of ESP (extrasensory perception) working at Princeton University did statistical analysis of their telepathic data and came to conclusion that ESP exists. On the other had, Ron the Scientists knew nothing about statistics, he was a college dropout., according to some Internet sources, so he never presented statistical analysis of his telepathic data.
 
I am not disputing the validity of you assertion about the “yup”, it may be true. But it may be a coincidence. In order to rule coincidences out you must analyze the data statistically.

My statistics theory isn't up to it. You do it, based on this approximate information which is probably order of magnitude correct.

Say 60 hours of auditing, maybe an average of 50 relevant commands and responses (response = yup or similar) an hour, maybe 40 of which contained a bare yup with no extra information. Of those 40 cycles, 38 were negative (i.e. required nothing from the auditor except to give the next command) and 2 were positive (i.e. required the auditor to ask, "Did something occur?"). There was not one single false positive, and not one single false negative.

A false positive would be the auditor asking "Did something occur?" when inappropriate, which the pc would find jarring. A false negative would be the auditor simply continuing on and giving the next command on the list.

So, crunch those numbers, and give me a probability of that occurring coincidentally.

If I were computing it, my figuring for the coincidence or fake case would go — rightly or wrongly — let's say the auditor guesses that roughly 1 in 10 commands should result in a positive call, so makes a positive call very roughly every ten commands, and the rest of the time makes a negative call. Well, that's too complicated for me. I can do it on the basis of 40 calls per hour, 60 hours, if it's a 50/50 call that would be 1 chance in 2^2400 that none of them would be wrong. It's less than that, though. Any offers?

If you are determined to say it's impossible, you can try the line that I'm breathing differently or something and the auditor can hear the difference and that's how he does it. And I'm just not aware of the fact.

Paul
 
But Robert can demonstrate it in action. It's not a question of belief at all. A typical example would be he would tell me to "put the idea above me" (an R3X command). This might be the 15th time in a row he has given a similar command. All I would say, after a few seconds (or longer) executing the command would be "Yup" or similar. Sometimes I would comment, but mostly I wouldn't. At some point the disharmony would dissolve. I might indicate the fact to him (this is over the phone, remember), or I might just say "Yup" as usual, in the exact same tone of voice. Every time, and I mean *every* time I reached that point and said nothing, he would ask, "Did something occur?" or similar. And I would laugh at his acuity, tell him what had happened, and we'd go on to the next thing.

Where does belief in some Hubbard twaddle fit into this perception on Robert's part? I accept that I could be lying about it all and these posts could be a hoax on my part.

Paul

You have taken up an interesting topic which is the value of empirical and anecdotal evidence. To me, what you described would suffice to convince me that Robert has proved his ability. However, to the modern day "scientific community", it seems that no amount of empirical or anecdotal evidence can convince them something is true.

Modern science insists that all such claims be evaluated by peer review, usually in the form of double blind testing with placebos. My personal opinion is that double blind with placebo has earned a strong place in science which it deserves but that it is not the complete "end all" of testing.

If empirical testing gives a certain outcome, say 20 to 25 times in a row, that would merit belief in the outcome IMHO. Something should be accepted after that number of trials and used further until it fails. What if the proposition was actually not true but gave 1,000 correct trials in a row? 1,000 times people were helped by this proposition. Well, who cares if it was true or not, 1,000 random chance "hits" in a row establishes it as true - at least until the proposition fails.

Mathematicians do have probability type testing, usually using computer generated random numbers. One such test I worked with frequently in my aerospace career is the "Monte Carlo" method. Games of chance, such as "blackjack" have been solved using this method. Satellite defense systems were designed using this technique.
Lakey
 
Mathematicians do have probability type testing, usually using computer generated random numbers. One such test I worked with frequently in my aerospace career is the "Monte Carlo" method of testing. Games of chance, such as "blackjack" have been solved using this method. Satellite defense systems were designed using this technique.
Lakey

The MC method got incorporated into go-playing computer programs in the past few years and considerably upped their playing ability in a short time-span.

Paul
 
Some MATHs homework

My statistics theory isn't up to it ...

So, crunch those numbers, and give me a probability of that occurring coincidentally.

If I were computing it, my figuring for the coincidence or fake case would go — rightly or wrongly — let's say the auditor guesses that roughly 1 in 10 commands should result in a positive call, so makes a positive call very roughly every ten commands, and the rest of the time makes a negative call. Well, that's too complicated for me. I can do it on the basis of 40 calls per hour, 60 hours, if it's a 50/50 call that would be 1 chance in 2^2400 that none of them would be wrong. It's less than that, though. Any offers?

Let’s simplify this to make the maths “easy”. Let’s have 2200 events of which about 9% are questions. Let’s represent a no-question as a BLACK ball and a question as a RED ball. Let’s round everything so we have 2000 BLACK balls and 200 RED balls. The question now becomes: how many unique permutations exist? Well if I line up all the BLACK balls in a long line then there are 2001 positions into which to insert the first RED ball. Now that the line is one longer there are 2002 positions for the next ball, and so forth. I can conveniently write this as (2200!)/(2000!) if you remember your factorial notation

4!= 4 x 3 x 2 x 1

Having got this unpleasantly large number I then need to realise that all the RED balls are the same as each other so I have to divide by 200! to get the correct answer, (2200!)/(2000! x 200!) = 3x10^289.

That answer is a bit high because I really shouldn’t allow two RED balls to be next to each other. I can halve the result a few times and the result will still overflow most calculators.

In any case the result is justifiably statistically impossible.:omg:

On the other hand it doesn’t prove that the link is telepathic. The skilled practitioner could easily sense what is going on by comm lag, voice tone etc (as far as the skeptic is concerned). Therefore my colossal probabilistic calculations are all to no avail.:bigcry:

PS: 2200! = 9 x 10^6399 :thumbsup:
which will overflow on most calculators (but not mine, which handles up to 3248! :yes:)
 
My statistics theory isn't up to it. You do it, based on this approximate information which is probably order of magnitude correct.

Say 60 hours of auditing, maybe an average of 50 relevant commands and responses (response = yup or similar) an hour, maybe 40 of which contained a bare yup with no extra information. Of those 40 cycles, 38 were negative (i.e. required nothing from the auditor except to give the next command) and 2 were positive (i.e. required the auditor to ask, "Did something occur?"). There was not one single false positive, and not one single false negative.

A false positive would be the auditor asking "Did something occur?" when inappropriate, which the pc would find jarring. A false negative would be the auditor simply continuing on and giving the next command on the list.

So, crunch those numbers, and give me a probability of that occurring coincidentally.

If I were computing it, my figuring for the coincidence or fake case would go — rightly or wrongly — let's say the auditor guesses that roughly 1 in 10 commands should result in a positive call, so makes a positive call very roughly every ten commands, and the rest of the time makes a negative call. Well, that's too complicated for me. I can do it on the basis of 40 calls per hour, 60 hours, if it's a 50/50 call that would be 1 chance in 2^2400 that none of them would be wrong. It's less than that, though. Any offers?

If you are determined to say it's impossible, you can try the line that I'm breathing differently or something and the auditor can hear the difference and that's how he does it. And I'm just not aware of the fact.

Paul
Your statistics supports your point of view that the telepathic readings you were experiencing were correct, I should give you a credit for that. However, these results do not prove that the procedure itself has anything to do with the telepathy because there is an alternative explanation -- either you or your partner or both of you have telepathic abilities. Sure, I met people who, like me, have telepathic abilities and who never heard about Scientology. Your story proves that the telepathic contact between you and your partner did occur, but it does not prove that it came as a result of a Scientology procedure. I am sure that if you try to contact your partner telepathically by using some other procedure you will achieve the same great result. Only if all other known telepathic procedures fail, you can safely conclude that this particular procedure works.
As for the Princeton scientists, they did not use any procedure at all -- they just placed the subjects of experiment into separate rooms and let them send telepathic messages to each other.
 
Your story proves that the telepathic contact between you and your partner did occur, but it does not prove that it came as a result of a Scientology procedure. I am sure that if you try to contact your partner telepathically by using some other procedure you will achieve the same great result.

Huh? The telepathic ability is not something developed through Scn particularly. Robert audits people like this who have never done anything in Scn, and my ability to audit like this was zilch the couple of times I tried it.

Paul
 
Huh? The telepathic ability is not something developed through Scn particularly. Robert audits people like this who have never done anything in Scn, and my ability to audit like this was zilch the couple of times I tried it.

Paul
It seems to me we both agree that Robert has a telepathic ability, I am sure he was either born with it or developed it through Yoga, Buddist meditation, etc. I wonder what he has to say about it.
Now I'm going to respond to another post whose author says that modern scientists reject the telepathy. While some do not like it a bit, the other fully accept it, so there is no concensus in the scientific community. The ones who don't like it are mostly evolutionary biologists; in their view if telepathic ability exists it should have spread to the entire human population long time ago -- just imagine what evolutionary advantage a telepathist has over the rest of the field.
 
It seems to me we both agree that Robert has a telepathic ability, I am sure he was either born with it or developed it through Yoga, Buddist meditation, etc.

Below are Robert's articles on telepathic metering that are in the R3X course I wrote. To quote a typical idea:
One point I am adamant about is that telepathic auditing is doable by ANYBODY. All one needs is a good Free Zone meter, and the desire and willingness to do it.

I'm sure John Mac did telepathic auditing with the Pc on the meter or with no meter. I'm also fairly sure that he didn't use a meter on HIMSELF to audit others. Doing the latter is what makes all the difference when one has only average telepathic perceptions. It's a lot easier to do than one might think. It's just not within the reality of the average Scio, even though it's within his capability."​
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/TelepathicMetering1.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/TelepathicMetering2.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/TelepathicMetering3.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/TelepathicMetering4.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/TelepathicMetering5.htm

Paul
 
My statistics theory isn't up to it. You do it, based on this approximate information which is probably order of magnitude correct. ...

I'm not disagreeing with your perspective, Paul, but what would be a more interesting test would be a dual meter experiment. Set it up so that a pc has a telephone headset and is holding the cans on a local meter which is being recorded, say by digicam. Have the telephone auditor auditing the pc while his own meter is also being recorded. Compare the output from the dual metering records for similarities & differences.


Mark A. Baker
 
Re: Some MATHs homework

Let’s simplify this to make the maths “easy”. Let’s have 2200 events of which about 9% are questions. Let’s represent a no-question as a BLACK ball and a question as a RED ball. Let’s round everything so we have 2000 BLACK balls and 200 RED balls. The question now becomes: how many unique permutations exist? Well if I line up all the BLACK balls in a long line then there are 2001 positions into which to insert the first RED ball. Now that the line is one longer there are 2002 positions for the next ball, and so forth. I can conveniently write this as (2200!)/(2000!) if you remember your factorial notation

4!= 4 x 3 x 2 x 1

Having got this unpleasantly large number I then need to realise that all the RED balls are the same as each other so I have to divide by 200! to get the correct answer, (2200!)/(2000! x 200!) = 3x10^289.

That answer is a bit high because I really shouldn’t allow two RED balls to be next to each other. I can halve the result a few times and the result will still overflow most calculators.

In any case the result is justifiably statistically impossible.:omg:

On the other hand it doesn’t prove that the link is telepathic. The skilled practitioner could easily sense what is going on by comm lag, voice tone etc (as far as the skeptic is concerned). Therefore my colossal probabilistic calculations are all to no avail.:bigcry:

PS: 2200! = 9 x 10^6399 :thumbsup:
which will overflow on most calculators (but not mine, which handles up to 3248! :yes:)
You did fine calculations with the balls, but your calculations have nothing to do with determination whether one has telepathic abilities or not. To make such determination, you need to use more advanced methods of mathematical statistics, namely comparisons of averages and variations. I know this stuff because I have MS in Mechanical Engineering with concentration in Control Systems Theory. These methods are often used in design of control systems.
 
Below are Robert's articles on telepathic metering that are in the R3X course I wrote. To quote a typical idea:
One point I am adamant about is that telepathic auditing is doable by ANYBODY. All one needs is a good Free Zone meter, and the desire and willingness to do it.

I'm sure John Mac did telepathic auditing with the Pc on the meter or with no meter. I'm also fairly sure that he didn't use a meter on HIMSELF to audit others. Doing the latter is what makes all the difference when one has only average telepathic perceptions. It's a lot easier to do than one might think. It's just not within the reality of the average Scio, even though it's within his capability."​
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/TelepathicMetering1.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/TelepathicMetering2.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/TelepathicMetering3.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/TelepathicMetering4.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/paulsr3x/TelepathicMetering5.htm

Paul

The last time I stood around chatting with Bob Ducharme we had just exited the same grocery store in Fla. He chatted with me in the beautiful spring air of 2010 for over an hour. We just kept bumping into each other there. He told me he had more clients scheduled than he could handle and offered to teach me how to do the over the phone GPM and shock handling in R3X. He assured me that I could do it easily because I had experience somewhat and that he had trained some others to do it in Hawaii or someplace who had no Dianetic experience at all.

With Bob, there are certain fundamentals of processing that he goes by and these never change. They are the basic truths he is certain of. They may be his standard squirrel tech guidelines but they keep him on track...always. He is atuned to themes and what a person is creating and what the being is intending to experience by his participation in the world. . NO judgement. Lots of humor. And always a keen awareness on whether something is flat or not. He keeps you in present time running what you are creating in present time, not giving your power away to the past.

When I have done telepathic auditing on another experimentally, I have my Clarity meter sensitivity at 24 which works well for me. My TA range holding the cans runs normally 4.2 to 3.5. Of course if I hit mass it goes up a little over 5.0. Anything much over and I can struggle against unconsciousness setting in as an auditor.

For me, I must confess I have not always had an individual's permission. I have done it because I noticed that I had triggered something in a person to set off a gpm that was not beforehand being dramatized. This can happen when you run into someone that you have known before this lifetime. If there has been cross intentions there may be many forces releasing energy flows. Some intentions to destroy may come back as the person reactively identities you as the 'enemy'. I think there are many asleep beings possibly in these black balls of charge. These beings in the clusters bunched up by the GPM can awake and trouble the person who is unconsciously considered the 'threat'. These seem to be vectors of that person or splits of that person acting on the purpose either to harm or to protect. When this phenomena has happened to me (on 4 separate occasions) I will try to pick up the upsets and intentions and unexpressed communications without the host being knowing about it. As these charges concern 'me' and that I may have been responsible for triggering the reaction, I feel somewhat entitled to inspect it.

The stickiest situations are those of 'furies' or rages where the person's existence took a steep downtrend into a lower condition seemingly because of me. In other words, getting even is important and can float somewhat timeless. This is the stickiest emotion I have come up with. There is usually a stuck series of pictures of the conflict or chaos or death. The "You destroyed my life" theme is often there. :angry: The impulse to interfere with with mine so I don't get to have the good things is also there. What is funny it that these aren't necessarily beings stuck to me but they are also part of the other's space.

I'm getting off track. Again, as usual. I don't do telepathic handling over the phone or by request but have had to locate what another has in their space which finds my presence totally disagreeable and upsetting. :unsure: If I cannot get the Intentions that an individual (alive as I am) has towards me themselves or remember my actions towards them, then not much is accomplished. All this chomping away at the servo mechanisms and vias is for naught. A person can bury intentions from themselves and from you, especially if they made a radical postulate to change and never have anything to do with the theme afterwards. Since I have not gotten the person in an awake an participating state to spot their intentions I have run unfortunately shallow. There are probably not a lot of people who want to destroy you, and not a lot of people who you want to destroy but when you run into them unawares everything can go wrong. In this case they may not want to be a client. It would help to be able to telepathically handle the upset between the two.
 
Last edited:
My post/article was more about telepathic metering than R3X per se. R3X can be run face to face with the pc holding the cans like in a regular session.

Telepathic metering can be done without using R3X. For example, here is a video in .wmv format of a meter drill ("Consider the events of today") done by Rolf Dane with me as a pc. He got it right, which was quite surprising to me considering how little charge (if any) there was on the item concerned.

I am aware of other auditors using telepathic metering too.

Paul

I had heard of auditing over the phone, and I have picked up other's thoughts or feelings via "telepathy" for want of any better word. Back when I was in the org, a flatmate started to admit an "embarrassing" missed withhold. He was still beating around the bush when I got the entire image and told him flat out.

That was interesting! Do you have any links with Ralphs' C meter being used in telepathic auditing?

How do you know whether it is your resistance on a subject or your clients when you are holding the cans? I have resorted to outright asking (myself) and watching the reads. This is sometimes a concern. Intentions and emotions and strong energies read well on the meter. The picture or the ridge draws your attention in when scouting for something to run in another's space but the real needle action comes with the finding what one WANTS or what they are trying to keep from having.

Now that I am exploring Saharja Yoga, we are being taught "subtlety"----something that I've never been particularly good at. We are learning to feel the conditions of our own bodies on our hands, and to distinguish between what's ours and what's others. How much heat does a candle generate? One night there were only two of us turned up, so we each got a Teacher's undivided attention for the whole session. The teacher (Dave) was waving a candle around my left side according to what he felt from my body on his hands. I reiterate that this was a normal household candle. The room we were in was not particularly warm, and I wasn't moving around. By the time he had finished I felt roasted through.

Now if I could heat the house just as efficiently I would really be onto something!

Telepathy is merely feeling and we clog up our natural talents at a very early age with ideological constructs that deny the Self.

Telekinesis is extending your feeling to items that we normally consider to be inanimate.

Teleportation is moving yourself anywhere around the Universe, or is the Universe movnig around you?
 
The last time I stood around chatting with Bob Ducharme we had just exited the same grocery store in Fla. He chatted with me in the beautiful spring air of 2010 for over an hour. We just kept bumping into each other there. He told me he had more clients scheduled than he could handle and offered to teach me how to do the over the phone GPM and shock handling in R3X. He assured me that I could do it easily because I had experience somewhat and that he had trained some others to do it in Hawaii or someplace who had no Dianetic experience at all.

With Bob, there are certain fundamentals of processing that he goes by and these never change. They are the basic truths he is certain of. They may be his standard squirrel tech guidelines but they keep him on track...always. He is atuned to themes and what a person is creating and what the being is intending to experience by his participation in the world. . NO judgement. Lots of humor. And always a keen awareness on whether something is flat or not. He keeps you in present time running what you are creating in present time, not giving your power away to the past.

When I have done telepathic auditing on another experimentally, I have my Clarity meter sensitivity at 24 which works well for me. My TA range holding the cans runs normally 4.2 to 3.5. Of course if I hit mass it goes up a little over 5.0. Anything much over and I can struggle against unconsciousness setting in as an auditor.

For me, I must confess I have not always had an individual's permission. I have done it because I noticed that I had triggered something in a person to set off a gpm that was not beforehand being dramatized. This can happen when you run into someone that you have known before this lifetime. If there has been cross intentions there may be many forces releasing energy flows. Some intentions to destroy may come back as the person reactively identities you as the 'enemy'. I think there are many asleep beings possibly in these black balls of charge. These beings in the clusters bunched up by the GPM can awake and trouble the person who is unconsciously considered the 'threat'. These seem to be vectors of that person or splits of that person acting on the purpose either to harm or to protect. When this phenomena has happened to me (on 4 separate occasions) I will try to pick up the upsets and intentions and unexpressed communications without the host being knowing about it. As these charges concern 'me' and that I may have been responsible for triggering the reaction, I feel somewhat entitled to inspect it.

The stickiest situations are those of 'furies' or rages where the person's existence took a steep downtrend into a lower condition seemingly because of me. In other words, getting even is important and can float somewhat timeless. This is the stickiest emotion I have come up with. There is usually a stuck series of pictures of the conflict or chaos or death. The "You destroyed my life" theme is often there. :angry: The impulse to interfere with with mine so I don't get to have the good things is also there. What is funny it that these aren't necessarily beings stuck to me but they are also part of the other's space.

I'm getting off track. Again, as usual. I don't do telepathic handling over the phone or by request but have had to locate what another has in their space which finds my presence totally disagreeable and upsetting. :unsure: If I cannot get the Intentions that an individual (alive as I am) has towards me themselves or remember my actions towards them, then not much is accomplished. All this chomping away at the servo mechanisms and vias is for naught. A person can bury intentions from themselves and from you, especially if they made a radical postulate to change and never have anything to do with the theme afterwards. Since I have not gotten the person in an awake an participating state to spot their intentions I have run unfortunately shallow. There are probably not a lot of people who want to destroy you, and not a lot of people who you want to destroy but when you run into them unawares everything can go wrong. In this case they may not want to be a client. It would help to be able to telepathically handle the upset between the two.
It seems to me you’re referring to “cluster thetans”, although I am not entirely sure of that. This idea is different from the telepathic approach discussed earlier in this threat. How would you know that the cluster thetans are real? According to LRH, a thetan cannot be detected by physical means. As an engineer, I strongly disagree with that. A “thing” must be measured in order to accept it as real; otherwise, it is a figment of imagination. For the same reason I do not believe in existence of souls. “It is just the body and the mind with its manifestations of the world”, said Buddha once. Thetans, spirits, souls, etc., are imaginary entities. In order for an entity to be real it must be detectable by some kind of measuring equipment. If we accept thetans as real, the lines between reality and hallucination become blurred, and it is the surest way to insanity.
 
It seems to me you’re referring to “cluster thetans”, although I am not entirely sure of that. This idea is different from the telepathic approach discussed earlier in this threat. How would you know that the cluster thetans are real? According to LRH, a thetan cannot be detected by physical means. As an engineer, I strongly disagree with that. A “thing” must be measured in order to accept it as real; otherwise, it is a figment of imagination. For the same reason I do not believe in existence of souls. “It is just the body and the mind with its manifestations of the world”, said Buddha once. Thetans, spirits, souls, etc., are imaginary entities. In order for an entity to be real it must be detectable by some kind of measuring equipment. If we accept thetans as real, the lines between reality and hallucination become blurred, and it is the surest way to insanity.

May I suggest using telepathy of BT cluster existence, as proof of that existence.
 
May I suggest using telepathy of BT cluster existence, as proof of that existence.
I’m not sure if you’re joking or talking seriously (I have a sense of humor, too). For the time being I assume you’re serious. When you establish telepathic contact with a fellow human being, you know in your heart (and empirically) that both of you are real. But when you’re trying to contact telepathically a thetan (soul, spirit, etc) you must ascertain that it is real before sending him/her a telepathic message. Otherwise, you might be hallucinating.
 
But when you’re trying to contact telepathically a thetan (soul, spirit, etc) you must ascertain that it is real before sending him/her a telepathic message. Otherwise, you might be hallucinating.

Should that also apply for (the hundreds of millions or billions of) people who pray to God?

Paul
 
Top