TR 0 DEBUG

Entheta

Patron
Seriously, is there a word you didn't understand in the title of this thread?

.

Many, for at least this lurking wog:

"Then I would M9 the student on TR 0 drill ..."

Perhaps you intended this for readers who have complete familiarity with the nomenclature of Scientology, but some of us outsiders are interested too... I haven't taken the time to get up to speed on all the jargon yet.

If you would take a moment, could you please explain what you meant by "debug"? Specifically, is it your position that this drill actually accomplishes what it is intended to do (as you state, "to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending self.") Did you find people could actually sit without blinking for 2 hours? Personally, sitting like that would, for me, have nothing to do with attention or being there, but rather would involve some amount of hypnosis. I can't imagine why I would want this ability, or why it would lead to a greater state of "being there"; quite the opposite, it would take a HUGE amount of my attention to shut down my body's natural tendencies like that. Even when sleeping, the human body is not completely motionless.

Secondly, does the definition of life as a "static" make sense to you? Because to say "a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive." isn't really saying anything at all about what a static IS; the sentence states what this "static" POSSESSES, what it HAS, but nothing about what it IS, and gives no explanation about how a thing with no mass, motion, wavelength or LOCATION (for God's sake...) is even a "thing" at all, or how it could possibly possess anything, let alone abilities... So when this axiom is "cleared", this means the student accepts this bizarre definition of life, what exactly is accomplished by this clearing?

When I first studied Scientology, I found such definitions to be empty, and I could not ignore that, which is why I did not continue.

Obviously I am not a follower, but I am interested in the opinions of people who believe the "tech" has something to offer. To my observation, the entire goal of the tech was basically a hook into the cult, but I see there are many people who aren't currently "in" who report that they still get something out it, and I am very curious about that.

- N
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
Since I dont really think that the tech has much to offer (no offense to other members of this board), I cannot respond too well.

The only things I thought were alright:

Introductory auditing
Expanded Dianetics auditing
theory of the mind - reading materials (but being able to take and toss info)

-----

I was thinking we should have some sort of glossary or something or at least a link to one, cause there are some words that should be defined.

Anybody have a link or want to start that project? :D

(Method 9 is a procedure intended to increase understanding of materials read. Basically, you and another person sit across from each other, and one reads the text out loud. With any word fumble - ANY - this means you would stop and find a word you did not understand and look it up in a dicitionary. Then reread the text with no errors. Each error = look for another word you did not get.)

(And yes, they do expect you to sit there for 2 hours. If you are feeling hypnotised, that would be a flunk and you would have to start over. You are expected to BE THERE, which you wouldnt be, if you were hypnotised).

I hope this helps a bit.:D
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
(And yes, they do expect you to sit there for 2 hours. If you are feeling hypnotised, that would be a flunk and you would have to start over. You are expected to BE THERE, which you wouldnt be, if you were hypnotised).

I hope this helps a bit.:D

Heh. If you weren't hypnotized you would say 'fuck this shit', get up and leave.

Hense; not 'be there' :)

Zinj
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
I got to give it to you Bea - you sure got your basics down good! :happydance:

Thanks!! This idiot wasted 30 plus years learning that crap: I am an auditor, C/S, Cramming Officer, Word Clearer, Supervisor, exec.

Not saying for status. Just giving you an idea how big the bonfire was when I used the certs for something worthwhile.....:clap: (ewww... did I just copy RR's symbol? Gross!!)
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Many, for at least this lurking wog:

"Then I would M9 the student on TR 0 drill ..."

Perhaps you intended this for readers who have complete familiarity with the nomenclature of Scientology, but some of us outsiders are interested too... I haven't taken the time to get up to speed on all the jargon yet...

- N

Yes, I have been addressing Scientologists and ex-Scientologists.

I won't mind running a basic course in scientology here, but then you must contribute to Emma's fund (of which I would claim 90%). :D

Try googling these terms with "Scientology" also mentioned in the search line.

You may also google Scientology Dictionary or Glossary.

Anyway, M9 stands for "Method 9 of word clearing." It is a method to find and clear what the student might have misunderstood in the materials. Bea has given some more details on this method.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

If you would take a moment, could you please explain what you meant by "debug"? Specifically, is it your position that this drill actually accomplishes what it is intended to do (as you state, "to accustom an auditor to BEING THERE three feet in front of a preclear without apologizing or moving or being startled or embarrassed or defending self.") Did you find people could actually sit without blinking for 2 hours? Personally, sitting like that would, for me, have nothing to do with attention or being there, but rather would involve some amount of hypnosis. I can't imagine why I would want this ability, or why it would lead to a greater state of "being there"; quite the opposite, it would take a HUGE amount of my attention to shut down my body's natural tendencies like that. Even when sleeping, the human body is not completely motionless.

...

Sure... the meaning is somewhat similar to its use in computer jargon. You want to take the kinks out of a program, so it is working the way you want it to.

I did the "blinkless TR0" for two hours. So, I know, that it can be done. But what does it accomplish, I don't really know. It was an experiment back in early 70s, which was then dropped. Currently, blinking is allowed on TR0.

With my Hindu background I was able to adjust this TR to accomplish the purpose it was designed to accomplish. The drill itself does not provide enough data to do it successfully.

But after this TR0 debug one can do this drill successfully without the danger of any hypnotism, and accomplish the intended purpose.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

Secondly, does the definition of life as a "static" make sense to you? Because to say "a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive." isn't really saying anything at all about what a static IS; the sentence states what this "static" POSSESSES, what it HAS, but nothing about what it IS, and gives no explanation about how a thing with no mass, motion, wavelength or LOCATION (for God's sake...) is even a "thing" at all, or how it could possibly possess anything, let alone abilities... So when this axiom is "cleared", this means the student accepts this bizarre definition of life, what exactly is accomplished by this clearing?

...

It is much easier to understand Scientology from a Vedic background compared to a Semitic background.

Somebody with a Semitic background generally uses physical universe as one's "reference point" to understand spirituality. It is like using QUANTITY as one's reference to understand QUALITY.

Such a person feels that a characteristic must be part of some THING in order to exist. They cannot conceive of a characteristic existing by itself.

But a person with a true Vedic background generally does not have such limitations in thinking.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
...

When I first studied Scientology, I found such definitions to be empty, and I could not ignore that, which is why I did not continue.

Obviously I am not a follower, but I am interested in the opinions of people who believe the "tech" has something to offer. To my observation, the entire goal of the tech was basically a hook into the cult, but I see there are many people who aren't currently "in" who report that they still get something out it, and I am very curious about that.

- N

I think that you will get a great kick out of it if you could only discover the earlier knowledge, which Scientology borrowed its tech from.

.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Since I dont really think that the tech has much to offer (no offense to other members of this board), I cannot respond too well.

The only things I thought were alright:

Introductory auditing
Expanded Dianetics auditing
theory of the mind - reading materials (but being able to take and toss info)

-----

I was thinking we should have some sort of glossary or something or at least a link to one, cause there are some words that should be defined.

Anybody have a link or want to start that project? :D

(Method 9 is a procedure intended to increase understanding of materials read. Basically, you and another person sit across from each other, and one reads the text out loud. With any word fumble - ANY - this means you would stop and find a word you did not understand and look it up in a dicitionary. Then reread the text with no errors. Each error = look for another word you did not get.)

(And yes, they do expect you to sit there for 2 hours. If you are feeling hypnotised, that would be a flunk and you would have to start over. You are expected to BE THERE, which you wouldnt be, if you were hypnotised).

I hope this helps a bit.:D

Hi Bea,
On one of my forums,

http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Freezone10 1

I have these two glossaries.

http://www.rehabilitatenz.co.nz/pages/scientology-glossary.html


http://www.scientology.org/gloss.htm#s

Can't recall who wrote them. Anyone is welcome as far as I'm concerned to place them on any website or area of choice. They are oriented to those new to the subject.

Emma's welcome to use.
 

Colleen K. Peltomaa

Silver Meritorious Patron
Vinaire,

After years of TR0 there was one moment when I "got IT". IT made me realize I would never see the world the same again, quite a milestone. Thanks to a very good coach.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Vinaire,

After years of TR0 there was one moment when I "got IT". IT made me realize I would never see the world the same again, quite a milestone. Thanks to a very good coach.

Wonderful! That must have been quite a moment. :happydance:

.
 

Entheta

Patron
It is much easier to understand Scientology from a Vedic background compared to a Semitic background.

I appreciate your several answers here. As you have guessed, I have a very different viewpoint about the nature of things than you. But you have stated your positions here very precisely, and I believe I understand what you are saying.

Somebody with a Semitic background generally uses physical universe as one's "reference point" to understand spirituality. It is like using QUANTITY as one's reference to understand QUALITY.

what you're saying may well be true, but it still does not address the emptiness of Hubbard's "definition" of life as a "static". Nor do I understand what is to be gained by a student who accepts this definition of life.

And we could endlessly debate QUALITY; it that a purely subjective concept (well, in some ways yes)? or must it bear some relationship to an objective observation or a physical quantity (well, in some ways, yes)?

what this has to do with Semitic people is a mystery to me... are you suggesiting Jewish people are incapable of understanding spirituality? Of course you aren't, I presume ... Please explain your use of the term Semitic.

Such a person feels that a characteristic must be part of some THING in order to exist. They cannot conceive of a characteristic existing by itself.

We may very well be in disagreement on what it means for a thing to EXIST, and this is a chasm far too wide to bridge here. But perhaps you would please give me an example of a characteristic existing by itself. How would one detect or measure such a characteristic?


But a person with a true Vedic background generally does not have such limitations in thinking.

By "Vedic" do you mean a person versed in Hindu philosophies?

I believe Hubbard borrowed much from Hinduism and Buddhism, but for myself, this borrowing does not lend any credibility to his theories. Despite parallels to other theologies, I remain convinced that the sum total of his "tech" was not intended to improve the individual or society, but was for the singular purpose of gaining followers who would, essentially, worship him. For this reason, my opinion is that folks are better off studying Hinduism or Buddhism, or pretty much any other -ism there is...

- N
 

Entheta

Patron
I think that you will get a great kick out of it if you could only discover the earlier knowledge, which Scientology borrowed its tech from.

.

You may be very right about that.

If you feel you had to adjust the TR to make it accomplish its goal, I'm wondering if one could accomplish these very same goals without any Scientology, but using only this earlier knowledge. I personally believe there are, always, many paths. And this is another reason I rejected Hubbard's teachings; he seemed to be trying very hard to convince the reader that only one path, his path, was the correct path. That raises suspicion, to me.

- N
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
You may be very right about that.

If you feel you had to adjust the TR to make it accomplish its goal, I'm wondering if one could accomplish these very same goals without any Scientology, but using only this earlier knowledge.

Is it "adjusting the TR0" or "applying it correctly"?

I think that a Semitic viewpoint (a viewpoint strictly from the background of Semitic religions) would look at it as "adjusting the TR0."

And a Vedic viewpoint (a viewpoint from the background of Vedic religions, which is inclusive of Semitic religions) would look at it as "applying it correctly."

Scientology has had no track in the West, which has been dominated by Semitic religions. Apparently, those with Semitic viewpoint have never listened to and understood the lectures quoted in the following link.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=13662&postcount=1

Scientology builds upon the Vedic Tech using the Semitic Tech, and thus, INTRODUCES the Vedic Tech to the "Semitic shores." Scientology Tech, therefore, cannot be understood fully from the Semitic viewpoint, which would consider it as "empty" and "incomplete." The Semitic viewpoint would consider any effort such as mine to be an "adjustment."

However, from the Vedic viewpoint, Scientology does not appear to be "empty" and "incomplete." It appears only as a further clarification of what came before it. Any effort, such as mine, would be considered as the result of naturally correct interpretation.


I personally believe there are, always, many paths.

This has always been the VEDIC VIEWPOINT.


And this is another reason I rejected Hubbard's teachings; he seemed to be trying very hard to convince the reader that only one path, his path, was the correct path. That raises suspicion, to me.

Now that has been the Semitic viewpoint, and it can be observed in the behavior of Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), specifically, in how they have fought each other insisting on their exclusivity..

I don't know how much of this viewpoint can be attributed to LRH. He didn't start out that way, but, probably, flipped into that viewpoint later. To me, the efforts of the current Church of Scientology appear to be a full blown dramatization of the Christian Church of Middle Ages.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I appreciate your several answers here. As you have guessed, I have a very different viewpoint about the nature of things than you. But you have stated your positions here very precisely, and I believe I understand what you are saying.

I hope that my posts above, somewhat highlight the difference.


what you're saying may well be true, but it still does not address the emptiness of Hubbard's "definition" of life as a "static". Nor do I understand what is to be gained by a student who accepts this definition of life.

The word "accepts" is typical of the Semitic viewpoint that has always stressed "indoctrination." On the other hand, the Vedic viewpoint has always taken the approach of "removing the confusion."

One may say, that STATIC is what remains after all confusions have been removed. STATIC is not a THING. STATIC is pointing to a POTENTIAL.


And we could endlessly debate QUALITY; it that a purely subjective concept (well, in some ways yes)? or must it bear some relationship to an objective observation or a physical quantity (well, in some ways, yes)?

What is there to be debated? I have addressed it, I hope, in my essay on DIVINITY above.


what this has to do with Semitic people is a mystery to me... are you suggesiting Jewish people are incapable of understanding spirituality? Of course you aren't, I presume ... Please explain your use of the term Semitic.

A Semitic viewpoint boasts of exclusivity. A Vedic viewpoint is all inclusive. I have created these terms simply to clarify what I am trying to say. These terms are nothing in themselves. I believe that there have been lot of enlightened people in Semitic religions who have held the "Vedic viewpoint." And that the majority of worldly people born in Vedic religions may be said to hold a viewpoint close to the "Semitic viewpoint."


We may very well be in disagreement on what it means for a thing to EXIST, and this is a chasm far too wide to bridge here. But perhaps you would please give me an example of a characteristic existing by itself. How would one detect or measure such a characteristic?

I am not quite clear about the chasm you are talking about. But your question highlights the fixation on measurement and objectivity that the Semitic viewpoint possesses.

The word DIMENSION comes from the basic idea of something being "measurable" (look at the derivation of the word). Anything measurable may be plotted on a scale. That scale would represent the dimension of a characteristic, whether objective or subjective. For example, "illusion" may also be plotted on a scale because one can experience it, and therefore, it is measurable.

Anything one can become aware of may be categorized as DATA. Any DATA would then be measurable, and would have dimension.

Now, THAT which is becoming aware of DATA is not itself DATA. What it may think about itself may be characterized as DATA, but THAT itself is not DATA. THAT is simply a potential of KNOWING and this way we start approaching the understanding of STATIC.

STATIC is not a characteristic. It is beyond all characteristics. The moment you try to describe it, you get immersed in DATA.


By "Vedic" do you mean a person versed in Hindu philosophies?

I believe Hubbard borrowed much from Hinduism and Buddhism, but for myself, this borrowing does not lend any credibility to his theories. Despite parallels to other theologies, I remain convinced that the sum total of his "tech" was not intended to improve the individual or society, but was for the singular purpose of gaining followers who would, essentially, worship him. For this reason, my opinion is that folks are better off studying Hinduism or Buddhism, or pretty much any other -ism there is...

I have tried to explain above what I mean by "Vedic." If I have not been successful in explaining it clearly enough then ask me again, and I shall try harder.

Knowledge is knowledge. It cannot be assigned boundaries as the Semitic viewpoint attempts to do. That is what the current Church of Scientology is trying to do as well.

Hinduism and Buddhism are not exclusive to the east. They are simply part of the stream of knowledge that has been encircling the globe since ages past. Enlightenment moved from East to Middle East to Europe to America, and back to east again. Who knows where it came to the east from in the first place? It may have come from West for all I know. We simply are not aware of it.

I would not bog down in analyzing LRH's intentions. I would rather analyze my own intention toward all this knowledge, and what I intend to do with it.

And that applies to each one of us.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
How are you using the word "semitic" ? My understanding is as on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages

Ralph, I tried to answer that question in my next post as follows:

A Semitic viewpoint boasts of exclusivity. A Vedic viewpoint is all inclusive. I have created these terms simply to clarify what I am trying to say. These terms are nothing in themselves. I believe that there have been lot of enlightened people in Semitic religions who have held the "Vedic viewpoint." And that the majority of worldly people born in Vedic religions may be said to hold a viewpoint close to the "Semitic viewpoint."

This may be a wrong usage on my part, but my usage is intended to point to a philosophic divide predominantly communicated through Semitic and Vedic languages respectively.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Here is my Lesson 1 for Vipassana meditation, after being refined by knowledge from Scientology.

...
[Continued from Post #14...]

Here is my Lesson 2 for Vipassana meditation, after being refined by knowledge from Scientology.


To meditate is “to engage in deep and serious thought.” It suggests focusing the thoughts on a subject from every point of view, to understand all its sides and relations. Thus, the process of meditation involves viewing something thoroughly. The end product of meditation is to perceive something for what it truly is.

However, thinking has often been used to avoid looking at things to such a degree that it degenerates into a never-ending “figure-figure.” In Vipassana meditation one simply looks. If there is any thinking at all, it is to find out where to look. Vipassana meditation is the process of looking, not thinking.

In this second exercise we practice looking:

1. Make sure you had enough to eat and rest before you start this session. You do not want your body to be a distraction during meditation.

2. Sit in a comfortable position with your spine straight and upright. Do not move or do anything. Just be there for the next 15 minutes.

3. Simply observe with your eyes open. Look at what is there without assuming anything. If you are looking at the profile of a person and see only one ear, don’t assume that there is another ear on the other side.

4. If you find your mind adding more to what is plainly visible (as above), simply become aware of the fact that your mind is adding more data to what is present.

5. Once you can comfortably recognize what is there, and what your mind tends to add to it, you may close your eyes.

6. If you just see blackness, then observe that blackness. If you see a play of light and darkness, then observe that play of light and darkness.

7. Observe the various sound and smells as they offer themselves to you. Do not strain to perceive them.

8. Observe what your senses present to you, such as, the temperature in the room, the pull of gravity, the taste in your mouth, etc. Do not look for anything in particular. Just be there comfortably.

9. You may become aware of various other phenomena, but simply focus on looking as per the purpose of this exercise.

10. Be ready to share your observations at the end of the exercise.

11. Ask questions and get clarifications for whatever you did not understand about this exercise.

12. Repeat this drill for longer periods for the remainder of the class.

.
 
Top