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

[Ted]

All the paragraphs are fine and I love the post but I had one comment on the second to last paragraph.

I don't know if BT's actually exist as separate entities. At this point, I more align with Hat's views that they are actually parts of the pre OT's case or something of that nature. From what Candy has been telling me, I believe she also aligns with Hat's concepts. Don't take that as the truth but thats my understanding of what she has been saying. Often I am wrong when I try to repeat what she is saying.

If BT's are separate entities, I see value in getting a BT to leave if it is doing a negative action against you. First, you need to get into communication with it, acknowledge it for doing what it has been doing, flow admiration to it and get it to look at the fact that it is its own being and get it to see that it has the portential to have a life of its own and lead that life rather than being appended to your life. If the being is cleaned up and sees things in that manner, then it may choose to leave and get a new life of its own.

Should you then encounter that same being later on in auditing or in this life or a future life, you would not be running OT 3 or NOTS on it because it is now running a life separate from yours. The only way you would be running it is if it was in an incident with you. I see no harm in this and feel that it is better than continuing on with that being continuing to do the negative action against you.

On the other hand, if the being is really just a residual part of you, as in Hat's concept, then getting it to leave right away and stop its negative action against you would be good for you and nobody would be injured. Only if it was part of another being and you returned it to the other being's ownership would there be a possibility of the other being being harmed.
Lakey

I prefer a Zen approach. BT's exist and yet BT's do not exist. BT's are separate entities and yet BT's are not separate entities.

It is always at least both propositions.

 

[Ted]

I don't have all the data I need. I asked for more data from Carmelo and you say that I already have all I need. Despite saying that, you then supplied some helpful data about how the tone scale can be put to use which I found helpful. I also found a couple other of your points useful.

BTW - What's with the sentnece that the auditor's goal is to do something for the client and not to the client? To me it seems to imply that someone is violating that precept. I am also picking up that the someone is me. If that is what your are suggesting, I do not know why you would think that. I go out of my way to do things for my clients, that is what I am all about.

In your post you used 3 MAB type pontifications:

"more data is not needed"
"this is not something to think about"
"you have all the data"

Have you and MAB been taking the same class? (just joking)

As to the word data, I am comfortable with it and find it a very useful word. If the word disgusts you I do not think that is something I would want to emulate and adopt as my own condition. Thanks for telling me and the board that it disgusts you.

For many months now, you have been writing post after post which I considered brilliant. On this one above, I did not feel that it was up to your normal standard. There was however some helpful "data" which I picked up and I thank your for that.
Lakey

Times like this I feel I have to revert to the scientology think tank just so I might have a mutual reference. I don't like doing that but if it serves to communicate then that's what I do. No, I don't like the word "data" and some other oft used scio phrases that the users don't seem to understand but just parrot to any set of ears that will listen.

"It works!"

WTF do those neo-scios mean by that?

As for auditor class, I am a class nothing. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

I am an interned BC graduate and Dianetic auditor with thousands of WD and VWD auditing hours under my belt. My experience. My knowledge. No one can take that away.

As a Class V auditor you should be aware of the Basic Auditing Series. This is perhaps one of the most brilliant things that Hubbard ever came up with. My little bit of commenting in an earlier post was taken directly from that series. The auditors here will recognize it as nothing new.

Your earlier comments signal to me that you do not sufficiently understand fundamentals of auditing. I think the massage technique you have is all well and fine. If you can't "blow BT's" by your simply being there with the client then you have no business attempting to reach into another person's space, without their knowledge or approval, to blow BT's for them. I would predict that some day that client will be having to audit you as a BT out of their space.

"Thanks for telling me and the board that it disgusts you."

You would do well in promoting further communication by keeping a lid on your snide comments.

 

[afaceinthecrowd]

Something Y'all may not know...but should.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=527133&postcount=22

Face

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

"Thanks for telling me and the board that it disgusts you."

You would do well in promoting further communication by keeping a lid on your snide comments.

Can we get video rights to broadcast the throwdown between you two?

I think Vegas would be a good place to have it out.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Times like this I feel I have to revert to the scientology think tank just so I might have a mutual reference. I don't like doing that but if it serves to communicate then that's what I do. No, I don't like the word "data" and some other oft used scio phrases that the users don't seem to understand but just parrot to any set of ears that will listen.

"It works!"

WTF do those neo-scios mean by that?

As for auditor class, I am a class nothing. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.

I am an interned BC graduate and Dianetic auditor with thousands of WD and VWD auditing hours under my belt. My experience. My knowledge. No one can take that away.

As a Class V auditor you should be aware of the Basic Auditing Series. This is perhaps one of the most brilliant things that Hubbard ever came up with. My little bit of commenting in an earlier post was taken directly from that series. The auditors here will recognize it as nothing new.

I did that there bc. It were good. Ron shure talked fast the way I speeded up that li'l reel to reel tape machine. Otherwise he w a s s l o w a n d b o r i n g.

I don't remember any basic auditing series. It must be after I left. Any comments pointers in that direction would be appreciated.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

I'm a class nothing also. If you bought into the class Vl, Vll, X, Xll status thing, you also bought into a smaller box, where thinking and acting and writing worksheets and ARFs (auditor report forms) and videos etc made you a perfect R2D2. Not for me , thanks. I do book one expanded.

 

[Terril park]

You have all the data. (And BTW, that's another word that disgust me. Data. )

Perhaps Leon should add it to his D list?

 

[Ted]

Can we get video rights to broadcast the throwdown between you two?

I think Vegas would be a good place to have it out.

Another best thing LRH said, "Just let entheta fall to the floor."

 

[Ted]

I did that there bc. It were good. Ron shure talked fast the way I speeded up that li'l reel to reel tape machine. Otherwise he w a s s l o w a n d b o r i n g.

I don't remember any basic auditing series. It must be after I left. Any comments pointers in that direction would be appreciated.

Call me.

Call me on the telephone that is.

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Call me.

Call me on the telephone that is.

I'm doing it. Are you going to answer?

no

 

[MattD]

Are you channelling LRH too?

On the Earthly plane, per the Hubbard materials of the 1960s&1970s, the final step on the above levels is blowing the BT or BT cluster. All other actions lead to the final step of having the BT leave. The most used final words on OT3/NOTs Repair lists are "Blow him."

Wouldnt dream of waking dear father Hubbard!

I think that if you look at the techniques used and its supposed effect, blow would refer to the entity leaving after it has a cognition, thus of its own determinism. I think that blow really describes the feeling of them leaving rather than what should be the intent of the auditor. It may have been a bad choice of words on Hubbard part, given the conversation we are having about it.

But blow does describe the sensation of having your attached PC suddenly cogniting and its attention going free, free of you and free to be elsewhere.

I shudder to think of the ill effect a person would encounter if they spent 10 years trying to force BT's off of them. Probably give them cancer or something.

IMO of course.

 

[MattD]

Isn't it true that on OTIII. the BT's are run through 2 incidents once they are located. First Incident 2 is run and then incident 1. Incident 1 is very early on the track and they are run through this with the intention of having them run out this very basic incident so that they will be gone, i.e. "blow". That's the way the level was when I ran it in the 70's.

On NOTs a different procedure was run but it seems that we were still asked to get them to blow.

Roger B. (and perhaps others) has suggested a step where the pre OT is asked whether or not he wants to keep the BT around or have it leave. The Pre OT has a personal choice in this matter instead of always shooting for the BT to leave. Introducing this step seems to greatly improve the results of NOTs style auditing.

If this step is introduced into NOTs, then the body of your post can be applied. However, my experience in C of S, last session in 1993, was that the auditor and the pc were always going for a blow. Having a BT with its charge dissipated and the BT doing well and then sticking around in the pre OT's space was never allowed to happen. On audited NOTs, which is as far as I went, thank God, there was no option to leave a deabberated BT staying in the pre OT's space.

Maybe on Solo NOTs this was an option but I doubt it. Maybe those who have done Solo NOTs can clear up my doubts on this matter.

Another key element in these levels was the use of running "havingness" at the end of a session. The idea is to fill the vacuum created so that it is not re occupied by new BT's. This has some workability but even with this step introduced, new BT's tend to replace the old; it just seems to occur at a much slower pace if havingness is run.
Lakey

In my opinion the problem is solved when the BT cognites and the mutual stuck attention is released. I think it would be only natural for the newly freed BT to look elsewhere for something to do, and leave. I'm not sure there would be any reason to take up in session what the ex-BT does after the charge and stuck attention is released.

Matt

 

[Terril park]

I don't have all the data I need. I asked for more data from Carmelo and you say that I already have all I need. Despite saying that, you then supplied some helpful data about how the tone scale can be put to use which I found helpful. I also found a couple other of your points useful.

Looks like it was more that the data is there and it can be studied
and looked at. You may never have studied it all, or forgotten some or
could do with more study. Remember both Ted and Carmelo have done the briefing course which is far more expansive than class V.

BTW - What's with the sentnece that the auditor's goal is to do something for the client and not to the client? To me it seems to imply that someone is violating that precept. I am also picking up that the someone is me.

Have no idea if anything was meant personally. Can't keep up with everything on ESMB.

However there are many examples of doing something to a client as opposed to for a client. A few of the many examples:-

Give wrong indications whether as tech or admin people.

Sec checks. Can be for, but long history of to.

Wrong ethics conditions assigned.

Declare someone.

C/S for an imaginery case. This includes a possible multiplicity of sins.

Assign PTS conditions that are false.

Check for PTS conditions that are false.

Give non -enturbulation order.

Invalidate in the many numerous ways possible.

Evaluate in the numerous ways possible.

Heavy regging.

Note that in some of the above one may consider one is doing something for the PC but is in fact doing something to the PC.

 

[Ted]

In my opinion the problem is solved when the BT cognites and the mutual stuck attention is released. I think it would be only natural for the newly freed BT to look elsewhere for something to do, and leave. I'm not sure there would be any reason to take up in session what the ex-BT does after the charge and stuck attention is released.

Matt

That's the key. Address the stuck attention. The beings will then take care of themselves.

 

[Ted]

I'm doing it. Are you going to answer?

no

Call completed.

This leaves the question: How can one guy be so damn brilliant and such a duplicitous A-hole at the same time?

:confused2:

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Wouldnt dream of waking dear father Hubbard!

I think that if you look at the techniques used and it supposed effect, blow would refer to the entity leaving after it has a cognition, thus of its own determinism. I think that blow really describes the feeling of them leaving rather than what should be the intent of the auditor. It may have been a bad choice of words on Hubbard part, given the conversation we are having about it.

But blow does describe the sensation of having your attached PC suddenly cogniting and its attention going free, free of you and free to be elsewhere.

I shudder to think of the ill effect a person would encounter if they spent 10 years trying to force BT's off of them. Probably give them cancer or something.

IMO of course.

yes, indeed

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

Call completed.

This leaves the question: How can one guy be so damn brilliant and such a duplicitous A-hole at the same time?

:confused2:

I do my best. OH!, you're talking about Ron!

 

[Terril park]

I did that there bc. It were good. Ron shure talked fast the way I speeded up that li'l reel to reel tape machine. Otherwise he w a s s l o w a n d b o r i n g.

I don't remember any basic auditing series. It must be after I left. Any comments pointers in that direction would be appreciated.

You probably studied them all, but they may not have been put together
and labeled as a series when you did them. Old tech vol IX is titled "Auditing
series" and includes for example

HCOB 23 may 1971 issue X

HCOP/L 1 july 1965 issue II

reissued verbatim as " Basic auditing Series 9"

" COMM CYCLE ADDITIVES "

 

[Veda]

Blow him

-snip-

It may have been a bad choice of words on Hubbard part

-snip-

And Hubbard actually called BTs "frees" (short for free thetans), as a form of positive postulating, similar to calling someone not yet Clear a Pre-Clear, but the evil transcribers alter-ised it to "fleas."



If you want to PR Scientology to yourself, and that makes you feel better, then go right ahead. Maybe you can start a club.

 

[RogerB]

I'm a Bit Surprised Here Lakey . . .

lakey, Mate,

I'm a bit surprised at your curt and testy response to Ted.

He was actually being gentle and jocular in his posts in dialogue with you.

With the training courses and case level actions you've done, you actually do have the "data," but as Ted pointed out "data isn't where it is at."

Where it's at, is getting it all aligned and really fully comprehended and applied at the highest levels of existence where the greatest level of truth is.

You can give the exact same piece of "data" to a dozen individuals and you can likely get a dozen different understandings of what it means and how it will be applied. Hell, what do you think it is you are seeing as the why of so much conflict on ESMB . . . . same fuggin "data" . . . but different comprehensions and applications.

Ted, indicated that it is when one is at the top of the "Tone Scale" that one gets the right answers. 'Tis true. Have a look at how you own understandings of truth upgrade as you have risen in mood/tone on various subjects and areas of your life.

I was reading your last posts, and giggling as I read your retort on the issue of "doing to versus doing for."

Maybe I might make a pun here and posit that Lakey's method of "doing for" is by way of "doing to" I recommend you might see what I'm getting at if you read your several recent posts.

The real job of an "auditor" or practitioner in this business is to simply ask a question of the client that the client understands and can answer, and to step back and let the client fully answer it. That's it. Of course, you ack the answer when you get and understand the answer.

The trick is you let the client do it . . . . you are not the cause of his/her gain they are. It is their power and Life-Force you are freeing and facilitating for them to empower. Your job is to simply ask clever questions or make very high "toned" high mood level contact such that they benefit from an empowering connection. It's that simple.

Here is an example of "think about" that is also an example of how folks can get into strife by intellectualizing, thinking about and otherwise ruminating on all this stuff instead of actually doing the processes, and/or doing the drills, clay table demos or whatever.

Note ACTION is high on the Tone/mood scale. "Thinking" and ruminating is way low.

Lakey, here's the example. If you did or do what you wrote in this piece of yours below, you would end up with a major balls up. Look at what you are actually saying:

On the other hand, if the being is really just a residual part of you, as in Hat's concept, then getting it to leave right away and stop its negative action against you would be good for you and nobody would be injured. Only if it was part of another being and you returned it to the other being's ownership would there be a possibility of the other being being harmed.
Lakey

It's from your post # 10139.

In other words, this is suggesting in the part highlighted in red, that you're rationalizing actually getting rid of a part of yourself!

I could go through several of your missives picking up little funnies like this. But that's no fun for anyone.

Of course, we've seen an immense amount of this kind of rationalizing here on ESMB . . . . Vin is famous for asserting that "thetans are really only 'thoughts,'" not actual live, true Beings. Not I wrote the words "thetans" there, not BTs.

Lakey, there is no substitute for doing the work and actions necessary to experientially understand and gain a fully aligned comprehension of "the data" one studies such that one can fully apply it at the highest level of truth in life.

Theoretical rumination can be entertaining . . . . and pushing around "data" is all that is. But action is where one gets and sees the truth of things.

Rog