What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
If you were in the USA and remember Flip Wilson, in
the 70s on TV, he was pretty good with something
called an elephant story.

Here's an elephant story:

So the other night, around 10, I was walking the
streets, the cliffs,
picture.php

and the beaches of a little seaside village
here in Nor Cal. - with stars and space, and the big Monterey Bay out
there, where I can see all the way to Monterey. As a
being, I was HUGE.
picture.php

My dog walked in front of me,
behind me, peed on everything important, and sniffed
many fellow canine butts.
picture.php

While doing this I was
auditing Ant Phillips in Denmark (where it was morning),
using my cell phone. I must not have got
the memo about a number of things regarding "Standard
Tech." In any event I've been doing this multi tasking
auditing for a dozen years or more.

I've audited people on all the continents except the
North and South Poles. Some were totally brand new to
auditing, others, mainly, were classed experienced
auditors, themselves.

In 1965 or 66, I had a realisation, that the most
important thing to me was love. These are words that
in no way convey the depth of change and realignment
that occurred in my singular universe and in the
universe of all beings. There was a renewed wholeness
to me. En mass, I started reconnecting with my best
friends.
picture.php

As a trite example, I met this girl at a
rock concert, our eyes met, and we just looked at one
another for minutes without speaking. For years we
would sit in her parents' living room and just look at
one another for an hour or so several days a week,
and share each other's space. (This was before we had
heard of Scientology). We never talked about it.
picture.php

Suffice it to say, she's still my friend. Eventually,
she got a
commendation from LRH for her auditing on the Apollo.
She audited heavy hitters at CC, including Lakey, Roy Kerswill, and Yvonne.

Within a couple of years of that realization I connected to Scientology. I
was Clear within 3 years of finding Scientology, and I did the
briefing course and started a center in my living room
(which is now an org mucho years later), before I left the Co$ in late 1976.

My feeling is that when I'm in the mental / spiritual
space I was in circa 1966, that I am more whole. I am
reconnected to all beings. We are of the same cloth.
In the mind set I'm in today, I am in a state of
wholeness with the theta universe. From this viewpoint
(or multi viewpoint) I can create.

Those times when I am fractured, I suck. I am a
drain on
everyone. I'm a black hole.

If we say that there was a oneness that was fractured,
and we became more individual and more individuated to
play the game we're playing. I would say that it is a
terrific game, and I don't want it to stop. I do want
to usually be in touch with my roots, those of
oneness.

When I was 20, or thereabouts, my girlfriend and i
were driving to the City. We were both OTs and auditors.
There was such amazing
oneness between us. James Taylor came on the radio and
sang, "You've Got a Friend" - the words don't come
close to the actuality.
picture.php

We could agree, verbally, to meet at a specific place,
at a specific time. We'd both show up at the appointed
place an hour late within minutes of each other. The
physical universe takes on a backseat importance to
two beings acting in harmony.

This woman is also one of my best friends today. Back
then she was 46-50. I was 20-24. We lived together for
years. I was a high school grad. She had a Masters in
Archaeology. I was farm kid, driving a 1950 Plymouth beater.
Her father had been FDR's press secretary. Her ex
husband was president of Otis Elevator. She had three
kids. One was six months younger than me. She's now in
her 80s. We're still really good friends.

I realised today, that I don't even remember the time
we broke up. It was not an ARC X. I wanted kids. She
wanted no more. There was nothing, like an incident,
to bookmark our separation as a 2D. We, both, just
moved on. -- and happily so.

it seems to me, the basic GPM, for each person, is the
** apparent** split they made with the theta universe.
Find that,
and go earlier similar to the dichotomy of one (me)
and one (all of us), and then run out all the lighter
and later charge built up along the way, and you have
a really capable person.

As an auditor, I become "one" with my PC. My
dichotomies don't come into play. I'm there to help
the PC be more themselves, to do, be, have what they
really want. If you've been audited in the Co$, you
probably know what is expected (F/N, cog, VGIs), and
you produced that. That is an example of you (the PC)
being subservient to the auditor and process. I want
my PCs to be beyond both of those. This means allowing
someone to answer their doorbell, take a phone call, and
live life.... then return to session in a few minutes.
It also allows the PC to find non politically correct
incidents and truly own their own personal life.

I had a PC some years ago, who couldn't talk about sex to
anyone in his/her office. He/She was unmarried. After
finding out that the PC liked a kinky kind of sex (scat play),
picture.php


we worked on owning that, and within a few months,
my PC found a mate, and is now married.
picture.php


I don't think, in the puritanical Co$,
that those results would have occurred.

Having an auditor tell you your incident is invalid is
bad. Having an auditor think your incident is invalid,
is almost as bad. It colors the session. You are there
for your PC. Being able to "be" the PC allows you to
look at life through their eyes. This quality of
auditing is that throw back to the oneness we once
shared overtly.

I apologize for the rambling disjointed nature of
this. I know some passages are hard to follow. I just
thought it was a good time to start breaking the
traditional auditing paradigm apart.


Au contraire, mon frère. That was not a ramble. That was excellent story telling. With pictures, too!

Your closing statement is right on target for the times and places in which we live. :wink2:
 

Blue Spirit

Silver Meritorious Patron
Fresh and Different

as Jimmy Stewart would say, "Ahh, shucks."

I couldn't have sent this to "Freezone" lists, it is out tech.
IVy and ESMB are the only places on the net that accept out of the box thinking on these topics.

Carmelo, I do enjoy your life stories, as they are fresh, different, and rather
instructive of a good life relating to some basic goodnesses minus all of the
now-I'm-supposed-to's bullshit.

So, thank you.
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
Having an auditor tell you your incident is invalid is
bad. Having an auditor think your incident is invalid,
is almost as bad. It colors the session. You are there
for your PC. Being able to "be" the PC allows you to
look at life through their eyes. This quality of
auditing is that throw back to the oneness we once
shared overtly.

I apologize for the rambling disjointed nature of
this. I know some passages are hard to follow. I just
thought it was a good time to start breaking the
traditional auditing paradigm apart.

"Love is the law, love under will."

-- Crowley
 

purple haze

Patron with Honors
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending a Saint Patrick's Day dinner arranged by Blue Spirit and his Wife. What a fantastic experience! It remineded me of the old days when we ex Scios were active and someone would throw a party or everytone would go over to so and so's for some poetry reading, followed by a party and just generally talking and hanging out.

Our dinner was attended by Blue Spirit and his Wife and 4 other people, Purple Haze, John, Phil and yours truly. John and Phil are both very OT and have very large spaces and usually dominate conversations. Phil had extensive contact with LRH himself, and John is a very well connected person, having ties to Walt Disney, George Lucas and other celebs. When these incredibly intelligent and interesting persons are at a social affair, they each usually dominate the conversations, probably much like LRH used to do when he was at a gathering. When the two met and saw that the other person was a dominating speaker, I watched keenly to see how they would react to one another. They both handled it very well, they both were good listeners and gave up the floor to the other speaker for extended periods. There was no bickering or resentment between them and just a harmonious sharing of the limelight.

The dinner was a magnificent home cooked meal of corn beef and cabbage with a salad. After dinner, the 6 of us talked for a bit and then broke into two groups, Blue Spirit talking to John while Blue's Wife, Purple Haze and me talked to Phil in the second group. This worked out great!

I got some fantastic life changing type of information from John. Some of the things John talked about had some common ground with what Carmelo is talking about in his "Rambling" post above. There were principles John talked about relating to a person setting up his universe so that if will only receive certain frequencies of vibration. Say your universe will only respond to enthusiasm and affluence but will not vibrate when apathy and poverty are floating around you, he is saying that since you only receive certain desired vibrations, you can set things up so that those are the only things which will be happening in your life as you see it.

Phil is planning a new seminar to be given soon in the greater Los Angeles area about how to actually achieve the stated gains which people came into Scientology to receive. Both men have new books out which they have just had published. This was truly a funfilled and enlightening evening with very interesting friends and acquaintances, held in a cozy, warm and friendly place.
Lakey

P.S. - I used to go to events such as this back in the 70's when I was new to Scn and also, I have reality on attending many of these types of affairs on my back track in the Vienna of the 1780's. There were the parlors and drawing rooms of Countess Wilhelmina Thun and Countess Wetzler and others who had specialized in keeping their doors open for young artists, musicians, poets, writers, actors, singers and so forth, always giving them encouragment and using their many connections to help the more talented and newer artists get jobs and make business connections. Countess Thun was so similar to Yvonne Jentzsch in her personality, charisma and general beingness that I would not be surprised if they were the same being. Countess Thun was a complete patron of the arts and was a hand's on person who would help anyone of talent to be placed out in society. She used her connections to create connections for up and coming artists in the Vienna of that time.

We enjoyed a magnificent time together!:party::grouphug: purple
 
Carmelo, I do enjoy your life stories, as they are fresh, different, and rather
instructive of a good life relating to some basic goodnesses minus all of the
now-I'm-supposed-to's bullshit.

So, thank you.

De nada Señor.

AnonKat taught me how to add pics and I went crazy.

My humble tapping on the keyboard is getting some traction. I'm flabbergated that others, who have done scn are interested in spiritual teammates, love, and oneness. Those concepts are so non scientology.

I was talking tonight with someone, who shall remain nameless, about expectations for OT Vlll and reality. One might expect auditing one's environment or one's dynamics directly. back in the 1950s there was a tree that was ill outside FCDC. LRH had everyone audit the tree, and it recovered. so why wasn't stuff like that done on the OT levels?

beats me

i've been doing prepchecks for forty years now. i'll bet that in "Standard Tech" that is something that we don't do very much of anymore. Why?

beats me

For those of you unfamiliar with a prepcheck, here is a long form one. Usually only the first 18 are used.

Get an item that the PC is interested in clearing or cleaning up.

Take what reads and run the following questions on that subject
until the meter is clean on each prepcheck question.

1. On ... has anything been SUPPRESSED? __________
2. On ... is there anything you have been CAREFUL OF? __________
3. On ... is there anything you DIDN'T REVEAL? __________
4. On ... has anything been NOT-ISED? __________
5. On ... has anything been SUGGESTED? ___________
6. On ... has a MISTAKE BEEN MADE? __________
7. On ... has anything been PROTESTED? __________
8. On ... is there anything you have been ANXIOUS ABOUT? __________
9. On ... has anything been DECIDED? __________
10. On ... has anything been WITHDRAWN FROM? __________
11. On ... has anything been REACHED? __________
12. On ... has anything been IGNORED? __________
13. On ... has anything been STATED? __________
14. On ... has anything been HELPED? __________
15. On ... has anything been ALTERED? __________
16. On ... has anything been REVEALED? __________
17. On ... has anything been ASSERTED? __________
18. On ... has anything been AGREED WITH? __________

On ... are you WITHHOLDING ANYTHING? __________
On ... has anything been INVALIDATED? __________
On ... has anything been DENIED? __________
On ... has anything been WITHHELD? __________
On ... has anything been REFUSED? __________
On ... is there NO ... ? __________
On ... has anything been INHIBITED? __________
On ... has anything been ENFORCED? __________
On ... has anything been DESIRED? __________
On ... is there anything you have been CURIOUS ABOUT? __________
On ... has anything been UNKNOWN? __________
On ... has anything been KNOWN? __________
On ... is there anything you have been CAUSE OF? __________
On ... is there anything you have been SOURCE of? __________
On ... is there anything you SHOULD HAVE KNOWN? _________
On ... is there anything you have MADE WRONG? __________
On ... is there anything you have MADE RIGHT? __________
On ... is there anything you have MADE GUILTY? __________
On ... is there anything you have MADE NOT GUILTY? __________
On ... is there anything you have PUNISHED? __________
On ... have you tried to ESCAPE PUNISHMENT? __________
On ... is there anything you could not PUNISH? __________
On ... is there anything you have tried to DOMINATE? __________
On ... have you tried to ESCAPE DOMINATION? __________
On ... is there anything you have tried to make SUCCUMB? __________
On ... have you tried to SURVIVE? __________
On ... is there anything you WON'T TALK ABOUT? __________
On ... is there anything you CAN'T TALK ABOUT? __________
On ... is there anything you SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT? ___________
On ... is there anything you BETTER NOT TALK ABOUT? __________
On ... is there anything you YOU ARE NOT SAYING? __________
On ... has anything NOT BEEN SAID? __________


My daughter was having a problem getting a job she wanted a couple of years ago. My partner prepchecked her. When the third session was over, the phone rang with the job offer.

We are all connected. Auditing one person changes a whole dynamic.

When you get a little more advanced, you can help the PC to audit his / her dynamics using spiritual teammates.

The purpose of my auditing is to lead a good life. It is not to get some prestigious certificate. This is a good life:

picture.php


picture.php
 
Carmelo, I agree with Anonkat; what you described as rambling had cohesiveness to it and was not rambling but fine story telling. I appreciate the great photos from Northern Cal. and some were of a person who I once received a lot of auditing from. I particularly liked the one where the two of you were surrounded by foilage almost up to her neck, both with blond hair and looking at each other.

I tried to find this person over a year ago and was able to get a letter through to her through an intermediary but she was not responding to emails at that time but did send salutations back through the intermediary. JUST LIKE ALL THE INCOMPLETE CYCLES WHICH I WAS TRYING TO TIE DOWN WHEN I JOINED ESMB ONE YEAR AGO, YOUR ESSAY TIED DOWN MY LOOSE ENDS RELATING TO THIS WONDERFUL PERSON. She was a very vital part of my life for only about 3 to 4 months, but in that time period we built up an unspoken bond of admiration for each other. I believe that she audited in the same manner as you speak of in your story, she exhibited the type of traits in an auditor which you talk about. I was very lucky to have her audit me for an extended period. Its funny, we never socialized outside of our sessions, and only at the snack bar on session breaks and yet we had an unspoken bond between us that we were a team, doing something vital and important together in that particular time and place. In those moments we shared together trying to sort out my case, under the capable C/Sing of our Flag trained, Class XII C/S, R.S. a lasting bond between her and me was established, at least from my viewpoint. I never forgot her and often wondered how she was doing, down through the decades. The intermediary who communicated between us read me a little note from her which said that she had thought of me from time to time over the years and wondered how I was doing and when I heard that, it was all that I needed to hear to be happy. When two spiritual beings touch and an unspoken bond is formed, time is revealed to be only an illusion. What does it matter, 20 years, 30 years, 37 years now, the bond between us is as fresh as it was the day it first was formed and it will always exist!
Lakey

here is more:

picture.php

picture.php
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
I was talking tonight with someone, who shall remain nameless, about expectations for OT Vlll and reality. One might expect auditing one's environment or one's dynamics directly. back in the 1950s there was a tree that was ill outside FCDC. LRH had everyone audit the tree, and it recovered. so why wasn't stuff like that done on the OT levels?

beats me

i've been doing prepchecks for forty years now. i'll bet that in "Standard Tech" that is something that we don't do very much of anymore. Why?

beats me

I'll say: it was me, and it was about NOTs, which was billed as auditing on dynamics other than the first. It's not, it's interiorizing someone on their first dynamic.

So there's nothing that's as powerful as what I was expecting people were doing on NOTs based upon the advertising of that time. I don't know what would have happened had I actually gotten to that level and found that out. Been disappointed, likely.

Prepchecks are awesome. Back when I lived in the middle of nowhere, every once in a while, I'd pull one out and do one if I felt I needed it. Kept the notes, knowing if I really needed an auditor, I could find one. Seemed to work okay as a stopgap measure (but hard to run unmetered solo, granted).
 
I'll say: it was me, and it was about NOTs, which was billed as auditing on dynamics other than the first. It's not, it's interiorizing someone on their first dynamic.

So there's nothing that's as powerful as what I was expecting people were doing on NOTs based upon the advertising of that time. I don't know what would have happened had I actually gotten to that level and found that out. Been disappointed, likely.

Prepchecks are awesome. Back when I lived in the middle of nowhere, every once in a while, I'd pull one out and do one if I felt I needed it. Kept the notes, knowing if I really needed an auditor, I could find one. Seemed to work okay as a stopgap measure (but hard to run unmetered solo, granted).

Around 1980, I had a friend come back from Flag after $100,000. worth of auditing NOTs. He was as crazy as a loon for years afterwards.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Actually, This is Hot Tech

De nada Señor.

Snipped . . . . .

For those of you unfamiliar with a prepcheck, here is a long form one. Usually only the first 18 are used.

Get an item that the PC is interested in clearing or cleaning up.

Take what reads and run the following questions on that subject
until the meter is clean on each prepcheck question.

1. On ... has anything been SUPPRESSED? __________
2. On ... is there anything you have been CAREFUL OF? __________
3. On ... is there anything you DIDN'T REVEAL? __________
4. On ... has anything been NOT-ISED? __________
5. On ... has anything been SUGGESTED? ___________
6. On ... has a MISTAKE BEEN MADE? __________
7. On ... has anything been PROTESTED? __________
8. On ... is there anything you have been ANXIOUS ABOUT? __________
9. On ... has anything been DECIDED? __________
10. On ... has anything been WITHDRAWN FROM? __________
11. On ... has anything been REACHED? __________
12. On ... has anything been IGNORED? __________
13. On ... has anything been STATED? __________
14. On ... has anything been HELPED? __________
15. On ... has anything been ALTERED? __________
16. On ... has anything been REVEALED? __________
17. On ... has anything been ASSERTED? __________
18. On ... has anything been AGREED WITH? __________

On ... are you WITHHOLDING ANYTHING? __________
On ... has anything been INVALIDATED? __________
On ... has anything been DENIED? __________
On ... has anything been WITHHELD? __________
On ... has anything been REFUSED? __________
On ... is there NO ... ? __________
On ... has anything been INHIBITED? __________
On ... has anything been ENFORCED? __________
On ... has anything been DESIRED? __________
On ... is there anything you have been CURIOUS ABOUT? __________
On ... has anything been UNKNOWN? __________
On ... has anything been KNOWN? __________
On ... is there anything you have been CAUSE OF? __________
On ... is there anything you have been SOURCE of? __________
On ... is there anything you SHOULD HAVE KNOWN? _________
On ... is there anything you have MADE WRONG? __________
On ... is there anything you have MADE RIGHT? __________
On ... is there anything you have MADE GUILTY? __________
On ... is there anything you have MADE NOT GUILTY? __________
On ... is there anything you have PUNISHED? __________
On ... have you tried to ESCAPE PUNISHMENT? __________
On ... is there anything you could not PUNISH? __________
On ... is there anything you have tried to DOMINATE? __________
On ... have you tried to ESCAPE DOMINATION? __________
On ... is there anything you have tried to make SUCCUMB? __________
On ... have you tried to SURVIVE? __________
On ... is there anything you WON'T TALK ABOUT? __________
On ... is there anything you CAN'T TALK ABOUT? __________
On ... is there anything you SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT? ___________
On ... is there anything you BETTER NOT TALK ABOUT? __________
On ... is there anything you YOU ARE NOT SAYING? __________
On ... has anything NOT BEEN SAID? __________

Actually, this is very hot tech.

If one goes back to around Sept. 1963, or so, we find LRH making the statement in his HCOBs that you can/ought be able to/should be able to clear a case with prep-checking . . . . and he magnaminously stated that he found the one thing that prevented that from happening was a Service Facsimile . . . and with that discovery, Routine 3SC (Serfac handling) was born.

The original R/D was to find a serfac, run it on the familiar right/wrong etc., bracket of questions, and to then follow up with the complete battery of the prep-check buttons run open (on all of life, i.e., no limiter as to item or subject).

:happydance::happydance: Boy, Oh boy, it got results!! :happydance::happydance:

A better question than "On . . (item) has . . ." is:
"Connected to (item) has . . ."
This is more encompassing than "on." It actually allows/invites all flows as an answer. It is a more omni-perspective than "on" which is rather uni-directional.

Rog
 
Last edited:
attention Lakey

Lakey,

this was posted by a friend to a very small obscure list:

it obliquely answers whether to thank Ron for tech or be angry at him for the full battery of his actions:

Which LRH valence are you in?

I think I am in the iconoclastic LRH valence, that made a living by writing various types of fiction that fitted a public reality, that cocked a snook (thumbed his nose) at authority, that judged by results and not by whether a procedure fitted a theory, that said (as late as 1959) that Trs are a substitute for professionalism

Another LRH valence (or LRH) determined that a c/s should flunk a session with good results if the auditor was not following standard procedure, that HGC auditors should do daily TRs before auditing, regardless of their professionalism (perhaps auditors were glad for that little breathing space :) ), that used the term "squirrel" for any one not doing what he wanted them to do, that tended to rule with a rod of iron and overboarded people not towing his line.

There is a gradient scale of LRHs (or LRH valences) stretching from the friendly iconoclastic I favour, to the complete opterm (opposite) of that. It is a big gradient. Rather than sit back and judge where ____ is on that scale, why not assess where you are?

We are a small minority in this world who understand and set a high value on some (perhaps many) of the things we have inherited from genius LRH. And we have different views, in my opinion, from the iconoclastic Ron to the authority Ron. My hope is that we can continue to grant beingness to each other, and be what a Ron condemned (did he have a misunderstood? :) ): open minded.


written by Ant Phillips
 

lkwdblds

Crusader
No wonder I got case gain - She is an Angel!

here is more:

picture.php

picture.php

Thanks for posting that top picture!!! It is so good to see her image after 37 years. Of course, she wore her hair differently in 1973, in a long single braid that fell to the small of her back. However, the face and that space are those of an Angel. Right away, as you enter the auditing room, you are keying out and getting case gain just by being in her safe and beautiful space. She had the heart, the caring attiutude, the honesty and forthrightness and the intention to help you that were commensurate with her Angelic space. When she represented C of S and audiited me, C of S was exchanging with me in abundance - especially with Class XII Ron Shafran as our Case Supervisor. I know that I received help there and that is why I may bash C of S for specific injustices but I will never be just a basher who says there was no value in the subject or the Organization.

Something decent has to exist within a group to attract practioners of her calibur to join, train hard to learn the technologies of that group and work hard to apply those technologies to others for almost no pay.
Lakey
P.S. I wrote the above without first reading Carmelo's Ant Phillips' post. I agree with that post. You know, I have been condeming LRH for not applying the right formula to ensure that the best possible successor took over C of S after he dropped his body. Phil, from Blue Spirit's Party on Saturday claimed LRH was in full control all the way to the end.. I posed the above question and Phil, who says he was in the room with LRH's dead body, and was still able to communicate with LRH as a being, claims he asked LRH, the Spirit, the same question and LRH responded something like, "Why me?" Why is it always me who has to do the work? You guys find your own successor." I challenged this based on the concept that the road to Truth is the only road that must be walked all the way. You can not get off the road, right at the very end.

Phil countered that perhaps LRH thought it best that those in the Church pick their own successor, knowing full well that what has happened in fact might well happen. He posed the concept that if we have to live through a bad regime and then take the steps to reformat the Church and oust the bad regime, then we may end up further ahead than we would had he appointed the best possible successors for all his hats. I agreed that there was a lesson to be learned from living through the current debacle but posting the best possible successors would have been preferable in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting that top picture!!! It is so good to see her image after 37 years. Of course, she wore her hair differently in 1973, in a long single braid that fell to the small of her back. However, the face and that space are those of an Angel. Right away, as you enter the auditing room, you are keying out and getting case gain just by being in her safe and beautiful space. She had the heart, the caring attiutude, the honesty and forthrightness and the intention to help you that were commensurate with her Angelic space. When she represented C of S and audiited me, C of S was exchanging with me in abundance - especially with Class XII Ron Shafran as our Case Supervisor. I know that I received help there and that is why I may bash C of S for specific injustices but I will never be just a basher who says there was no value in the subject or the Organization.

Something decent has to exist within a group to attract practioners of her calibur to join, train hard to learn the technologies of that group and work hard to apply those technologies to others for almost no pay.
Lakey

The quality of the photograph is terrible because it was bone with a little Kodak plastic thing that replaced the Brownie, using film that wasn't from Kodak, and we double exposed the images (deliberately). The photos looked better 40 years ago. And after scanning the little photos in and blowing the images up, that's what you get.

We were young and idealistic.
 
Actually, this is very hot tech.

If one goes back to around Sept. 1963, or so, we find LRH making the statement in his HCOBs that you can/ought be able to/should be able to clear a case with prep-checking . . . . and he magnaminously stated that he found the one thing that prevented that from happening was a Service Facsimile . . . and with that discovery, Routine 3SC (Serfac handling) was born.

The original R/D was to find a serfac, run it on the familiar right/wrong etc., bracket of questions, and to then follow up with the complete battery of the prep-check buttons run open (on all of life, i.e., no limiter as to item or subject).

:happydance::happydance: Boy, Oh boy, it got results!! :happydance::happydance:

A better question that "On . . (item) has . . ." is:
"Connected to (item) has . . ."
This is more encompassing and "on." It actually allows/invites all flows as an answer. It is a more omni-perspective than "on" which is rather uni-directional.

Rog

I don't remember that . Do you have the commands that you could post them here?

I didn't keep my materials. I sent everything I had to Elma, Washington
 

RogerB

Crusader
Originally Posted by RogerB View Post
Actually, this is very hot tech.

If one goes back to around Sept. 1963, or so, we find LRH making the statement in his HCOBs that you can/ought be able to/should be able to clear a case with prep-checking . . . . and he magnaminously stated that he found the one thing that prevented that from happening was a Service Facsimile . . . and with that discovery, Routine 3SC (Serfac handling) was born.

The original R/D was to find a serfac, run it on the familiar right/wrong etc., bracket of questions, and to then follow up with the complete battery of the prep-check buttons run open (on all of life, i.e., no limiter as to item or subject).

Boy, Oh boy, it got results!!

A better question that "On . . (item) has . . ." is:
"Connected to (item) has . . ."
This is more encompassing than "on." It actually allows/invites all flows as an answer. It is a more omni-perspective than "on" which is rather uni-directional.

Rog

I don't remember that . Do you have the commands that you could post them here?

I didn't keep my materials. I sent everything I had to Elma, Washington

No, you have it correct. "On" is as LRH wrote it and used it.

"Connected to . . " is ACW's.

Just replace the "On" with "Connected to." . . . . (and see how it runs :D)

Rog
 
No, you have it correct. "On" is as LRH wrote it and used it.

"Connected to . . " is ACW's.

Just replace the "On" with "Connected to." . . . . (and see how it runs :D)

Rog

I mean the service fac stuff.

Other than what do you use to make yourself right and others wrong?
my memory goes blank right now
 

RogerB

Crusader
I mean the service fac stuff.

Other than what do you use to make yourself right and others wrong?
my memory goes blank right now

From my memory now . . . stretching back to 1963:D

How does it aid your survival?
How does it hinder the survival of others?

How does it help you escape domination?
How does it help you dominate others?

But I also add, when I'm handling newfound serfac type stuff on my own case . . . . and for special friends who are tolerant of my innovations :happydance:

How does it help you attain your wants?
How does it help you avoid unwanteds?

This last two questions bracket, I have found to be "rip, snort and busters!" (As we Ozzies would say!)

Also, realize the way a serfac was found in '63 got changed as it was deemed to be O/R problems release . .. and a different listing question was introduced . . . I'm not up to date on what is current "over there."

For myself, I do this serfac handling on any attitude type thing that I find I am using to confront or handle the game of life with or via. That is basically ACW's "Attaining Presence" R/D . . . .

Ask during the presence process (after it has been in progress for a fair amount of time) "Describe your attitude while doing this."

Get it then run the little R/D above:yes: (ACW only used Right/Wrong in this Attaining Presence Process)

You can also pull consequences of using the attitude.

fact is, we have many more "serfacs" than just the one that tended to only be run in recent years in the CofS. Though getting a good big juicy one really could blow your zorch and leave you totally keyed-out and released such that you had to go hug some trees for a day or two . . .

Rog
 

Blue Spirit

Silver Meritorious Patron
Changed NOTS ?

Around 1980, I had a friend come back from Flag after $100,000. worth of auditing NOTs. He was as crazy as a loon for years afterwards.

Early on I observed a number of people winning on NOTS and Solo NOTS.
Included were lots of healings.

I heard from a Class 8 that the tech was sabotaged re NOTS around late eighties or so.

Who knows how it was changed ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top