From pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu Wed Jan 27 04:00:20 1999 Path: newscene.newscene.com!novia!nntp3.cerf.net!nntp2.cerf.net!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!news.he.net!news.lava.net!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!news-bunny!mail4news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail Message-ID: Date: 27 Jan 1999 04:00:20 Lines: 1788 Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot) Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 45 - JAN 99 PILOT POSTS 2/2 Organization: The Pilot's hidden place Reply-To: pilot@hiddenplace.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.02E (OS/2; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Distribution: world Old-NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.21.30.23 Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net Xref: newscene.newscene.com alt.clearing.technology:71328 POST45.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 45 - JAN 99 PILOT POSTS 2/2 The remaining posts for this month are in post44.txt ========================================== Contents: subj: Super Scio Tech - QUESTIONS FOR PEOPLE RUNNING SELF CLEARING subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Les Rogers On Definitions subj: Super Scio Tech - Objectives (Attn Robert) subj: Super Scio Tech - Welcoming Mamissi To The Search For Truth subj: Super Scio - Tech Finders Cert for Dimitri subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Lisa & Dave On Excalibur Revisited subj: Super Scio Tech - To Chris On Repair subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Randy On Trom subj: Super Scio Tech - TAKING OTHER'S SINS ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - QUESTIONS FOR PEOPLE RUNNING SELF CLEARING QUESTIONS FOR PEOPLE RUNNING SELF CLEARING The book has been out for over a year now, so it seems like the right time to gather some statistics and evaluate its performance. I would like to get some more feedback on how people are doing with the book with a view towards eventually doing an improved version. This is the prototype trial run and it is up to you to let me know either how well it works or what difficulties still need to be solved. Of course I would love to hear that its all wins and successes, but the CofS deluded itself with an overabundance of PR success stories done under pressure and a refusal to hear of complaints and out points. I'm not interested in hearing complaints from people who have not tried the book but simply want to rant about how all tech is garbage or ride their pet hobby horse. But if you made an honest effort at running the first few chapters and either ran into difficulty or felt that it wasn't helping or was missing something, then please let me know. I also need to know what is giving good results and how high a percentage of people are winning with the materials as given so that I don't discard or alter workable tech to handle a few difficult cases. You can post to ACT or to the discussion boards at fza.org or to the self clearing list run by Antony. If necessary you can get a free anonymous account at www.excite.com to use for your reply. So here are some questions, feel free to add anything that you feel is important or give multiple answers if that seems appropriate. 1. What previous processing or training have you had in Scientology or metaphysics or other mental practices? 2. How far have you gotten with the book? 3. Are you still working with it? 4. What was your biggest win on it? 5. What was the biggest difficulty? 6. Would the materials have been easier in a different sequence? 7. Was there something you didn't understand or disagreed with? 8. Was there something that was extremely enlightening? 9. Are you having fun with it or is it a chore to work with? 10. Do you have any suggestions for improvements? Unlike CofS, my interest here is in reviewing and correcting the tech rather than in finding reasons to send people to ethics. Thank You, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Les Rogers On Definitions ANSWERING LES ROGERS ON DEFINITIONS On 24 Jan 99, "Rogers" posted on subject "Pilot - Need Definitions" > January 24, 1999 > > Dear Pilot, > > Once again, thanks for the wonderful and insightful books and postings. > > Thanks to you, I now can see that a big part of the "problem" in Scientology > is composed of the intentions and thoughts of the early LRH versus the > intentions and thoughts of the later LRH. Perhaps you could say > Pre-Commodore versus Commodore. > > And this problem extends deep into the subject, into the definitions within > the subject. As you pointed out, the DMSMH definition of Clear is > essentially bogus, but it is carried forward as are many other definitions > (in the Tech Dictionary, for example). I think, as you do, the proper > selection of the definition helps clarify the subject. (I also liked your > analysis of DMSMH by the way, very helpful.) Your definitions of the > various types of OT were good and useful, too. > > May I suggest we need, Scientology needs, more "correct" definitions. So > much of Scientology is tainted, yes, tainted, by the continuous carrying > forward of the Dianetic concepts. I mean to say, when he came up with the > effort-emotion-thought sequence did HE revise the old concept of the bank, > with engrams (counter-efforts) as basic? I don't think so. > > For awhile there, way back when, I thought I was pretty hip to the tech. I > had studied it hard and long, but until I read your wise conclusions on the > matter, I had carried forward the (silly?) concept that the earliest part of > the track, the basic-basic, must be the heaviest part. Of course, I was > encouraged in this wrong concept by the tales of viciousness associated with > OTIII and the like. I mean, I didn't realize that this was a late track > incident then. > > Anyway, your book helped me correct the "definition" and the concept - and > unburdened a lot of crap in the process. Happy to help. > To my understanding (I am still trying to get up to speed after a multi-year > sleep), LRH thought the Grades processing (just) ran out "locks." He presents it that way in the 1964-5 timeframe. He explicitly says that in a number of places. Later, however, he says that the grades harmonic onto the OT levels. So maybe he eventually thought differently. Unfortunately, by that time he had the confidentiality to contend with and could not describe what he thought the complete anatomy was. In the Solo Nots materials, he does not say anything about what he thinks is beyond Nots. So I can only guess as to his final conclusions. > He "defined" Power Processing as a major step in "getting rid > of the reactive mind." (?) On the early grade charts, Power and Power Plus had an EP described as "key out of whole track secondaries and engrams" or something to that effect. And he warns against running these on a clear. Although they would not run it on anybody who had run the CC platen, there were many of us who had clear cogs prior to getting power or had the cog on the first power processes itself (this was the case with me) and so recived the processes after a state of clear. In these cases the gains were spectacular. > He thought that there was just one kind of GPM (the simple > oppose type)? Seems like it. > And apparently, he did confuse implanted with actual GPMs, I > am not too sure how specific he was but it does seem like he thought the R6 > bank was composed of actual GPMs - addressed on Grade VI and VII (CC) - that > were identical from one person to the next (you did mention this, but I'm > not too sure if he specifically included the word "actual" or just implied > it). The confidentiality makes it hard to sort this out. The GPM related definitions were constantly shifting in the 1962 to 1965 timeframe and I know of nobody who has heard all the confidential Staff Clearing tapes which would have his final word on the subject. > A lot of these confusions are unfortunately carried forward in the > definitions. Too true. Unfortunately, definitions derrive from observation and understanding. You need to know what a photon is before you can define it properly. In other words, during reserch it is not that you define something first and that helps you to understand it. You need the understanding to create the correct definition. So in writing definitions, I am limited by my own understanding, which is still incomplete. > I know at one point you promised a glossary. Perhaps you will think on this > a bit more seriously and make sure you are as clear and meticulous as > possible. Remember, LRH apparently let others compile the dictionaries. > Perhaps if he had taken the time, some of these old mis-definitions would > have waved red flags and maybe produced some corrective cogs. A good point. I am making some tentative efforts at writing a glossary. I should really buckel down and do so. The trouble is that trying to write one keeps launching me off sideways into more things to research and figure out. > Best wishes, Les. Same to you, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Objectives (Attn Robert) OBJECTIVES (Attn Robert) On 30 Dec 98, VoltR@ctinet.net (RDucharme) asked on subject "My question of the week" Homer gave such an accurate and definitive answer that I should probably keep my mouth shut, but the question is so good that I can't resist putting in my two cents worth. > We all know that objective processes like CCHs work and give dramatic and > lasting gains. > > The questions I have are not a test for rightness or wrongness, but an > appeal to the intellect and the individual points of view and individual > experiences for any answers that might shed more light on the nature these > processes. > > I would like to know: > > What do you consider is the main operating principle that makes them work? > What is your theory as to what's behind its workability. For example, is it > that it drive entities' goals into apathy? that it turns on and run out > random past-track incidents? that it drills personal discipline? that it > forces a being's attention off of his track pictures? > > What does it turn on and why? > > What causes the exteriorization phenomenon with these processes? > > What types of conditions will it handle and what kinds of long-term results > occur? > > Robert We can consider the general category (objective havingness) and see that these produce gains even in the special case of running the final havingness process at the end of each grade of release. So let us say that you have just run the key process for grade one (the final process - problems and solutions) and have a huge release on the subject of problems. Then you run the havingness process for the grade, and it is not really addressing the case of the grade but it gives the pc a boost and tends to stabilize him. In this special case, it is obvious that the person is already as keyed out as you are going to get him at that moment. So you are not running or handing case and therefore you are getting a gain without doing anything about past-track or entities or pulling his attention off of pictures or doing anything else that addresses charge or bank. And my personal experience as a pc while getting expanded grades was that these end of grade havingness processes do indeed produce a big gain even though one is already blown out on the grade. Therefore, although these kinds of processes do cool down charge, there is something else that is also occuring even when there is no current charge to cool down. Of course we are restoring havingness. We could look at this as replacing the vacume left behind by the loss of charge. Certainly this does occur, but my feeling is that this is also not basic because these processes also work in mockup forms and as OT drills with the eyes closed. Obviously this must be very close to basic because it does seem capable of turning off just about anything and produces interesting results such as exteriorization. And so we have Homer's profound statement: > Gets the being to go from static to creating MEST. One of our most basic actions is to get the being to do causatively what he is doing compulsively. He is compulsively creating the universe around him. He puts it there to look at. Nowardays he does that and then doesn't even look anymore, bumping into things instead. So we have him look and touch causatively. An he puts the stuff there to look at. This theory leads to the formulation of a more powerful objective process. For each of the 6 directions, alternately: a) Put the wall/floor/ceiling there to look at b) look at it Or pick objects, put them there to look at, and then look at them. On a brief trial run on myself, solo, this is one hell of a havingness process, giving fast perception changes. PS: I've been reading your session reports with great interest. Keep it up. Same goes for the quotes you've been posting. PPS: Concerning the time track, see my post to Lakis about the Ls. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Welcoming Mamissi To The Search For Truth WELCOMING MAMISSI TO THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH On 3 Jan 99, "Moore" posted on subject "Dear Pilot (and anyone else that can help)" > Dear Pilot (and anyone else that can help) > > First off, I want to express my deep thanks to the Pilot for doing what he > is doing. He/She and others who dare to do what they do in an effort to > better the lives of others needs to be acknowledged. There are so many > organizations in the world today that have the potential to do untold good > were they to share their closely guarded "state secrets". > > Across the board there are organizations, associations, whole religious > denominations that keep information held back in some secret vaulted room in > the belief that only they know best, that the world could not handle the > truth or simply, that they want to control what we think and do, for any > number of reasons. It seems to me that secrecy is done for control, at least by anyone who is orginating material, for how could they be afraid of their own material and yet continue to proceed in a forward direction. Unless, of course, we are looking at somebody who was unafraid and made progress and then reached a step that did make them fearful, but of course their tech finding ability would shut down at that point. But certainly some of the followers or successors, not confronting what the researcher has found, can easily fall into the error of fearing the materials. > Avatar, Reiki, many forms of Buddhist teachings, (of which Reiki is one) and > many, many other methods exist that are closeted and withheld from the > public domain. It is time to change these age old ways of "doing business" > Thank you Pilot for coming forward with this piece of the puzzle. > > I have studied a great deal looking for material that would further my > understanding of myself, of creation, and consciousness. Traditional > psychology, Gestalt, and Transactional analysis. Training and or > certification in Therapeutic Massage, Reiki, Advanced Level Hypnosis, remote > viewing. I have focused inward and outward reflecting on who and what I am. > I have examined and practiced Meditation. Read and incorporated into my life > and business, The Seth Material, Kryon, Elizabeth Kubler Ross, Rachel Naomi > Remen, Valerie Hunt, Caroline Myss, and Gregg Braden. I have studied > Information from the HeartMath Institute and others who do similar work > such as Paul Pearsall, in an effort to take this to a greater number of > people and others seeking to know themselves (and myself) on a deeper level > to fully understand why I am here in this physical form. Who, what and how I > create my realities. When I have been slow to see or ignored the more subtle > messages or answers to these questions, they have come to me in more obvious > forms until at last I recognized them. > > I have chosen as my lifeÚs work and passion working with others and acting > as a mirror that they may see their own divinity. Much of what I do is built > around the deep inner knowing that I have that we are these deeply powerful, > infinitely capable beings that have forgotten who we really are for whatever > reasons. I have always known this, before I ever began to read any > material, even as a young child. My main problem was in trying to figure out > what I was doing back here. I had a knowing deep inside that I came from a > place far more powerful than this. Far more loving, more divine . . . I > am driven by the need to communicate this knowledge to as many people as I > can reach. I have done a fair amount of what I call Transition work, meaning > working with the elderly that are dying. I Have trained in hospice work. But > it was not enough. I was seeking a way to reach a wider audience, to find a > way to light a path that leads to inner freedom, thus outer freedom. They > are one in the same. > > All of the people and organizations that I have mentioned above seem to be > doing the same thing, finding a way to lead people to their own answers, in > one form or another, (Scientology and itÚs various forms included). No one > way contains all the answers though one path may fit the needs of one > particular individual or group of people. > > I see cross threads of all of the material in one another, set up in various > ways to meet the conceptual understanding of the seeker. I understand > better a great many things that I have been shown in the past year. I was > part of a teaching team ( of Massage Therapists) and one of the persons had > walked a similar path to mine except that they had actually undergone > training in Avatar and been part of a Scientology organization for some > length of time. This person had made it to what they called OT 6 if I > recall. I did not really understand what that meant, but I knew that they > had left the Org because they did not like what they had seen. That aside, > As I watched them work with clients and students I saw this person use > abilities that I was in awe of. Able to work with people as a bodyworker and > effect healings, physical and emotional releases the likes of which I had > not seen. The term somatics and ANS which stood for that part of the nervous > system were used a lot. The healings (bodywork, what ever you choose to call > it) did not even involve a great deal of massage. They were more about a > sort of touch scanning technique, incorporating Chinese modalities of hot > and cold and the meridians and questions and answers one of which was used > a lot called "earlier similar" which I have just now recognized from the > SelfClearing material as what sounds like a part of Process 2.3. It was not > an exact copy but it had a similar footprint and it made complete sense. 2.3 is the Scientology "contact assist". 1.3 is my own mental variation on the Scientology "touch assist" which in orthodox practice is done by touching the person and having them feel or look at your finger. There is also an orthodox Scientology "body comm" process which uses a more extensive laying on of hands. The orthodox versions can be found in the tech volumes which Zenon posted to the net last year or found in Christine's excellent book of assist processes which can be found on her website. > I now understand on a much deeper level the multiple connections that the > bodie(s) have to one another. Physical, mental, emotional and spiritual to > name a few. I am not even sure if this person knew they were running this > process. It was so simple and yet so powerful at healing the person in > question. I saw someone who had had limited movement in a limb for years > find release in a matter of minutes with a few simple movements and > questions. This person did not heal her of course, and they knew it. They > just knew what to do, and handed the tools to the person to heal herself. > It was incredible and it only deepened my knowing that I had to understand > how this was done. Unfortunately, I had to relocate and could no longer > study with or observe this person. Orthodox Scientology has absolutely no cognizance of the various layers of bodies. Ron made a few desparaging remarks about astral bodies and therefore this area is ignored. I do find that these things exist, but I am still hardly scratching the surface. Unfortunately, most metaphsical practices lack the general theory of processing through things in a fast and thorough manner. And so we only get what the guru can percieve at his current stage of development instead of hearing what he might find if he could push through layer after layer of charge quickly. That Hubbard did not see these things simply says that each master has his areas of strength and his blind spots. One of the advantages of Freezone is that we cover each other's blind spots. > Which leads me to December and the night that the A&E special aired. I saw > the previews in my T.V. guide and I had heard enough from this individual to > know that there was something to Scientology, despite the stuff going on in > the organization, that I wanted to see this special. I missed the first > half hour but saw the rest. Yes they could have done a better job, but the > fact is it aired and that was all I needed to want to know more. From my web > search I found FreeZone and other sites, and that lead me to download > SelfClearing and Superscio and other materials. I am reading the material > and seeing the threads that run into everything that I have studied and or > been exposed to, all of my life. > > I believe that it is a pulling together of all that I have studied. All of > the methods have their parts to play and the clearing material seems to make > it all fall into place and make it clear that no one way is THE WAY. That > all contain answers to freedom. It may be different for each person that > comes to you, each person, like a recipe that you are making, requiring > different ingredients. No two are exactly the same, nor should they be. The > material is simply the template if you will, the format that you work within > to address the issues that we face in this form of physicality. In this form > as we seek to move beyond the limitations of the game that we play with > ourselves and one another. Well said. > Pilot, I thank you and others for making this material available as you have > done and continue to do, despite the ongoing difficulties that seem to be a > part of our freedom from the ties that bind. I can see that the material (in > so far as scientology) is being communicated to others via sites like > FreeZone and your books. It seems evident (at least from my perception) that > there is a need and a desire on the parts of those who are involved in > letting/getting scientology out of the closet to get this to as many people > as possible. For many, Scientology is a dirty word. How unfortunate that > technologies that can do so much good can have the potential to be limited > to the few who dare to want to learn more (despite the bad press) because > others are afraid of the material because it may be cultish. Scientology, both orthodox and freezone, has this problem, as does all of metaphysics, but the barrier is gradually being overcome as new age ideas permeate the society. But orthodox Scientology suffers from the further problem of having become afraid of its own materials. This is most especially true of the OT levels, but also includes a fear of getting Misunderstood Words (M/Us) which discourages casual study, and, on the organization's part, a fear of not getting paid adequate sums of money for the learning of every sentance and idea. In this they create their own barriers. > I have always sought to open the hearts and minds of those that I come into > contact with, just by being me and posing the questions. The trick (if one > chooses that terminology) is not the answers, but the questions. Over the > years I have found myself further and further along the path to knowing that > the questions are the answers, and if they are posed right, that can be > mirrored back to the inquirer. Exactly so. > Bondage is a picture painted upon an oil based canvas with watercolors. When > one subjects the canvas to the rain, the colors blend and merge and > eventually wash away. Underneath is the opportunity to start all over again, > and again, and again. We are the creators. It is time for us to own that. I > think enough of us are seeking that knowledge that it is time to find a > bigger and broader way to do this. Suggestions anyone? My suggestions are already laid out in Self Clearing. More ways are always welcome. > The Internet is one fantastic way to do this and reach a large audience > Beyond that, we get back to one of the problems that I have seen mentioned > in various places on the net. How do we create more auditors? Maybe > Auditors is not the answer. What I am getting at is how do we create more > people that can work with others as mentors, helpers, advisors, counselors, > or consultants. Call them what you will, but there seems to be a shortage. > Create enough of them that we can go out into the public domain and teach > this on a worldwide basis. I am not talking about creating another > Scientology Org. We do not need another one of those. In fact, it (the org.) > may meet the needs of those that it serves. For every student there is a > teacher. For those that choose Scientology, then that is their version of > what freedom means, until they choose to stop playing the (all the > participants - the org and the clients) game. Why bash our heads against a > wall with them. Indeed. We need more ways of training people in the techniques. Easier training, that produces more capable processors, is what is needed. That requires seeing through to the basic simplicities. Unfortunately, making things more simple is one of the hardest tasks. One of my efforts in this direction is the simplified processor's code that I am posting this week. But more work is needed both by myself and others. > If we attempt to say that they are wrong and we are right then we become no > better than them. > Who is to say that they have not done on some higher level exactly what > they set out to do. What LRH knew in some way would be done. In our past > documented human history, it seems that the greatest strides forward have > come from strife, difficulty, duress, oppression. Our greatest strengths are > found in this way. Neighbors live in their neighborhoods for years and > barely know the occupants next door, and in fact may dislike them for no > reason other than the way they prune their bushes, and then a catastrophe > strikes, a hurricane, tornado, earthquake and one hand reaches to another. Although it raises the necessity for action, strife is not the best inspriation. Higher goals and dreams, asthetics, and validating that which is desired are far better. Currently the CofS does not validate those who discover tech or search for truth and so they find little that is new no matter how much strife and conflict arise to plague them. > Not unlike a garden in which plants seek the light, where the plants will > bend over backwards to feel the sun upon their backs, so till will the > members of this organization seek the light. Upon its own, it will change to > see that which is right and true, or decay and grow ever more discarded and > disused like furniture that is slipcovered in an old house. Perhaps > Scientology is in fact a rich fertilizer for the greater good. > > How do we take this technology forward, no matter what we call it, it does > not have to be have any particular name, and make it available to everybody > who desires it. Educate the public that they have choices and free will and > are unlimited creations with the ability to do anything that they desire. > The keys lie and have always done so, in the hands of the beholder. Obviously I have taken the route of inspirational writing to encourage this. > Why does anybody need to bash anybody else to promote that which they have a > passion for. The bottom line in all of these methods, no matter what you > call them, are about giving people back the freedom that they thought that > they had lost. Does it have to have a name? Does it have to come form > Scientology to be valid. Look at where LRH went to get His material in the > first place. Besides that which he got from his high ( or inner -or whatever > you chose to call that all knowing consciousness). And that is available to > all of us if we simply stop to ask, which he did. He went back and studied > the various ancient disciplines and pulled pieces from them all and made a > system. Even that system does not work for everyone, nor should it. We are > not cookies cut from dough. We each have our own individual life experiences > that have shaped us. One person, may have had a "normal" childhood, while > another experienced physical or sexual abuse. There is no one method that > you can apply to a situation. What may work for one may do nothing for the > other. The other may not even consider one particular method dependant upon > belief systems, social level, religious upbringing etc. Instead of one allen > wrench, create a whole toolbox, and fill it with tools as big as it needs to > be, to meet the needs of that client, friend, student. The time has come to > teach this stuff and make it available in the broadest way possible. Exactly. > I have read it before, in many versions, teach the village to fish, donÚt > send them food. Teach them to provide for themselves. DonÚt make them > reliant upon you for survival, for your version of what is right or wrong or > permissible, according to what you think is right or wrong. > > There appears to be no way to obtain certification from the Org. to be an > auditor or whatever you want to call it, so then, how do we go about > teaching others who want to be teachers of this material. The self clearing > books are wonderful and do much, but unfortunately the consumer is often > looking for someone with some sort of credentials after their name. Proof of > education. How do we effect that? Of course I hope that CofS does reform. But that may be wishfull thinking. Freezone groups need to evolve further in their ability to train practicioners. That is hard right now because any large and visibile group gets stomped on unless they do extensive renaming and alteration of materials. It is far easier for small independents to operate than large training oriented groups. At a minimum, the CofS stranglehold on the copyrights need to be broken to make it easy for freezone training groups to florish. For that, let us encourage Freezone Bible and similar efforts. If the tech were all in the public domain, it would not prevent CofS from delivering, it would simply make it easier for others to do so as well. And that would force CofS to behave better thanks to the mechanics of free market vs monopoly. > I myself am a Certified Massage Therapist, an Advanced level > Hypnotherapist, and a Reiki Master Teacher, not to mention my own life > experiences that have taught me a great deal about survival, compassion, > forgiveness, and my own personal reality. That I hold the keys to how I live > and experience my life. Me and no one else. I contribute to the global > reality by my own mode of thinking. I choose to add to the light, increase > it. Do I study this material and all of the material that I have ever > studied, apply it my life as it fits, and then go out and start working with > clients or is there someone out their teaching this (clearing technology for > practitioners) in an affordable way, and thus I take my training and then > incorporate this into my practice. I have experience with the concept of web > based distance education, i.e. learning on-line. Do we take this one step > further and apply this material to that and make this a distance education > program? People value that which they pay for the most. I donÚt necessarily > agree with this philosophy, but if the shoe fits then > charging reasonable fees for this would not be out of line. Having mastered one decipline, it becomes easier to master others. For those of high intelligence, self study goes light years beyond what can be learned in a class room. So if you are up to it, study and learn all you can of this field. The tech volumes have already been posted and a level zero training pack recently appeared on ARS/ACT. I put out a composite all time level zero training checksheet which is up at fza.org so that you can see what has been taught on this first level at various times. If you are up to it, study it on your own and establish your credentials by the wisdom of your writing. The greatest masters in any field rarely held formal certificates. Edison and Eienstein are examples. And then let us all work towards establishing good training for those who need other's aid in their studying. > My dream is to see this taught in large scale manners to as many as will > fill a room... and they in turn teach it to others, or set up a practice > and teach it to clients, and or offer their own smaller classes. Get this > into the school system. Open your mind, remove your limitations. To take > this as far as it can go. I have a friend that runs a radio station. Is > there a way for me to reach others with this is some way through that venue. Yes indeed. > Pilot, I am trusting that you will have some answers for these questions and > or directional finders for me so that I can get on with it. A light pass through the entire self clearing book would be a good first step. Then if possible find someone to work together with on the level zero materials for there are drills that need two people. Also check fza.org and other freezone web sites for possible groups in your area, such as Mike Hunsaker in the western US or Kevin Brady on the east coast or Ralph or Heidrun in Europe. If you announce where you are located, others might contact you, many don't advertise from fear of CofS. > There are no co-incidences. The timing of finding this material after one > very intense 1998 is by no mere chance. I posed many questions during that > year and as this new one dawns, I see clearly the answers. I have also noticed fantastic co-incidences of timing, especially when one is seeking truth. > I look forward to hearing from you in response to the questions that I have > posed. > > By the way, I attempted to sign on to the Superscio and Selfclearing mail > lists. Superscio was successful the Selfclearing site did not go through. > It keeps coming back command not recognized. Anybody have any suggestions? > Again, thank you. I don't actually control these. Antony of Ivy magazine is running them as a public service. > > Sincerely, > Mamissi@juno.com Good to hear from you. Stay in communication on the net and encourage others. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Tech Finders Cert for Dimitri TECH FINDER'S CERT FOR DIMITRI I have been reading your technical posts with great interest. I'll certainly be using some of these things. I'm very tempted to analyze them in detail, but I think that I shouldn't at this point. You are evolving into a tech finder in your own right and it would be a mistake for me to push you into following me too closely at this stage because you might abandon some line where I have a blind spot or too much case. On a monthly basis you should accumulate all your posts and make an archive post so that things don't get lost. See if you can get someone on ACT to carry these on a website. Mock up a cert for yourself. You have earned it. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Lisa & Dave On Excalibur Revisited ANSWERING LISA & DAVE ON EXCALIBUR REVISITED On 5 Jan 99, Lisa & Dave asked on subject "SelfClear: Excalibur Revisited" > Hi, > > This question is for the Pilot and anyone else who has data on this. > > In the book Excalibur Revisted, it is stated that most of LRH's data is > incorrect and most of the PDC is invalid. Is this true? > > My stable data has been shaken! > > Any insight into this would be helpful. > > We've been doing the Self Clearing book and loving it! > > Thanks, > Dave Like many ex-staff members, Geoffry Filbert has a good bit of charge on Ron and the CofS. Sometimes its the charge talking instead of his good sense. I've also heard him say that Ron had a good 18 months or something like that, and 1952-3 (the time of the PDC) is the good period he is referring to. And he considered the 1950s tapes well worth spending a considerable amount of time on, he was one of the tape fanatics like myself, at least at one time. Mostly he tells it like it is and he has considerable technical expertise, but you have to watch out for the occasional left hook like the above. You even have to read LRH with a critical eye for the occasional wrong datum nothing to say of people such as myself and Filbert. So don't take any wooden nickels. I'm glad you're doing well with self clearing. Affinity, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To Chris On Repair TO CHRIS ON REPAIR On 17 Jan 99, "Chris Renz" asked on subject "Pilot or others: Need repair method." > Hello, > > Can somebody offer an idea on how to approach this: > > I've recently had trouble persuing self-betterment activities. Reading is > okay, but doingness is very difficult. I manage to do some drills and > processes (Pilot's Self Clearing, mostly) with wins no less, but I have to > get through this huge barrier before I can actually do anything. > > So I looked back in memory to find a point where I went from wanting to not > wanting auditing. It was while I was still in CofS, receiving FPRD. Two > things come to mind. > > One, we ran a repair list and found a restimulated drug incident > and "handled" it with a NED procedure. To this day I shudder > at the thought that some day I may have to run more Dianetics (the only > other dianetics I've had was Book 1). I understand. This should be repaired, and that means spotting what went wrong. It would be good to have a professional do a repair action with the appropriate correction lists, but I'll assume that that is not practical. So you need to get some charge off on your own. Based on what "feels right", check over the following and try to identify what happened: a) Was it an unnecessary action (shouldn't have been done in the first place) b) Was it overrun (continued too long) c) Was it left incomplete d) Did the auditor do something that felt wrong, especially something upsetting or invalidative or evaluative or forcing you in a wrong direction? e) Was something else wrong. You could also try mocking up copies of the session and blowing them up or throwing them away etc. until the charge on this cools down a bit. For overrun, use the rehab techniques discussed in chapter 2 of self clearing. If it is incomplete, run the incident by alternately spotting something in the room and something in the incident (this is the easiest incident running technique) rather than trying to do a formal NED handling. Get through it one way or another, and ask for more help if needed as you get it better described and into view. > But worse than the NED were some other incidents we ran. In > these, I did things that I don't consider overts. I told the > auditor that it seemed like I was doing the right thing > at the time of the incident (from first incident on down e/s > lane went this way if my memory serves me correctly). The > aditor asked me if there was something about the incident that > could be considered an overt (some question like that, anyway). > In respones, I'd always be the "good" PC and find an answer for > the question even though it didn't seem like the real > honest-to-god truth. These sessions were weird. It didn't seem > like I was being helped in any way. How can it fit in to have a > PC run, as an evil purpose, something in which produced overall good? Obviously it can't. Again blowing up mockups of the session might help cool down the charge. Also mocking up telling the auditor what is wrong and mocking him up as really understanding and acknowledging (somebody else already made a suggestion like this and it is a good one). > Never did finish that darned FPRD. > > Chris One would want to handle the area correctly. The trouble is that the FPRD is not an ideal handling. If you had been coming up with real overts (in your own consideration) and that was unhandled, the right thing would be to spot prior confusions that led to the overts as is used on the FPRD. But in this case, it sounds more likely that you were told that you had overts when you didn't. If that doesn't handle it on a simple indication, then spot earlier similar times that you were told you had an overt when you didn't until you feel better about it. In general it is far better to handle overts with grade 2 style techniques that let you look for what you feel are overts by your own moral codes and clear them up. You'll find a chapter on that in self clearing. But the entire case is not composed of overts. CofS has put too much attention on overts for quite some time now, and it is probably because the current lineup of OT levels is excessively motivatorish. Clean up charge on these messed up sessions. Then look for whichever chapter of self clearing or other materials has the most interest for you and do that. At this stage, your interest and affinity are the most important indication to follow because that is what will give you the enthusiasm needed to push through. Good Luck, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - Answering Randy On Trom ANSWERING RANDY ON TROM On 16 Jan 99, Randy Nicholson posted on subject "Pilot about TROM and the Self Clearing book" (Note that Randy is reviewing a post from last year which is in the Pilot archives, where I was answering Jules Trent) > > Subj : Super Scio Tech - Reviewing Trom (attn Jules) > > > > REVIEWING TROM (Attn Jules) > > > > On 29 Mar 98, jules@dev.null (Jules Trent) asked on subject > > > > "To Pilot re: TROM" > > > > > First, thanks for a much prior post re, Power Pr realization > > > (with clear cog as side effect) producing a state that is, per > > > Ron, senior to that produced by Clearing Course...Just what I > > > got from realizing "*I* am Source" on the first command of the > > > first process.....Also explains: later (post-Church) I got hold > > > of R6-EW and ran it....went nowhere....and on listing for the > > > trouble, got huge LF/BD/FN on "was nothing wrong in the first > > > place:.....Thanks again... > > > Shouldn't have invalidated myself--- DUH! > > > > Great! > > > > > Re TROM: > > > > > > 1) What's your opinion on running it just as given? > > > > > > 2) Up through stage 3, it is ho-hum. Timebreaking seems to be > > > simply, viewing a "past" incident in PT and as-ising it...which > > > I can do with no trouble, even when the incident has a lot of > > > "special effects" and temporary stuff-to-wade-through...... > > > Think I am too cocky, or too cautious? > > > > > > 3) Would appreciate your view re TROM and E-meter. What's your > > > opinion as compared to the view given in TROM itself? > > > > > > Will await possible reply on A.C.T. > > > > > > Jules > > > > I've said a bit about Trom before, but it is about time I reviewed > > it in detail. > > > > For starters, here are my quick notes on reading it. These are, > > of course, my opinions of what he is having people do. > > > > ----- > > > > NOTES ON TROM > > > > In general he has nice descriptions of postulates, games, etc. > > and a good discussion of some of the important points involved > > in auditing. > > > > Level 1: > > > > Setups, run by another, basically, the CCHs. > > > > RI (Repair of Improtances), The Governor > > > > a) Create Something > > b) Have another create something > > > > or similar processes (bring something into existance) > > (create an importance). > > > > Note, mockup in all directions, & you don't have to percieve > > them for them to be real. > > > > RI by perception - > > > > Feeling objects, getting weight and temprature, etc. > > > > Level 2: > > > > Bascially then and now alternate spotting with a differentiation > > step. > > > > Level 3: > > > > Timebreaking - simultaneously perceiving a past scene and PT until > > the past scene dissolves. > > > > Level 4: > > > > Overwhelm - Bascially handling incidents of enforced and > > inhibited "know" on both inflow and outflow by means of > > the timebreaking process. > > Level four are exercises devoted to the discovery and timebreaking of > the eight classes of overwhelm. > > > > > > > Level 5: > > > > Postulates - handled in terms of Games. > > Level five addresses postulates, overts, motivators, overwhelms and > games in the correct sequence. > > > > > > > It is basically a GPM like pattern of postulates / counter-postulates > > (8 pairs of items) on Must / Mustn't Know. There is a GPM crossover > > style valence shift in the middle of the scale. > > > > There are two to be exact. > > > The pattern then repeates on a substitute significance. > > > > One basically holds up the postulates of the items and timebreaks > > whatever shows up, and one does lots of RI. > > > > Additional Materials: > > > > These extend the level 5 handling into more goals, which are > > seen as derriving from the basic set on Know. > > > > One of the lists of additional goals is: To create, love, admire, > > enhance, help, feel, control, own, have, eat, sex. > > > > The extended practical section of TROM level five referred to here are > not necessarily needed and should be avoided if > possible. ( per TROM manual ). > > > ---- > > > > The RI processes are appropriate for use as what I refer to > > as a "safety net" in self processing. In other words, something > > basic that you can do to cool down restimulation if you get > > into trouble. > > RI is actually done to replace importances that are being removed from > the mind by the being. As past importances are > removed, vacuums are left in its place ( holes ). In order to keep > the being from pulling in other past importances he > needs to create some himself in present time to fill the void. He must > also have others create some to fill those voids as well. He needs to remedy the loss of mass and significance in some manner. Ron considered the mass to be the primary factor, but I could go along with your emphasis on the importances (significance). In practice, however, this doesn't need to be argued because the RI would qualify as a positive havingness process. I was not saying that it wouldn't operate that way. I was saying something else, which is that the RI also acts as what I call a "safety net" type of process. Those are essential to self processing. > > The creative RI is usable but is a very high gradient for > > someone if they get in trouble. In other words, it could be > > very workable under normal circumstances but be too steep at > > the exact time when the person needs it most. > > A matter of opinion, but actually level five should not even be > attempted unless one is up to using creative RI first. If > a > being is far enough along the line to start level five then he too > should be able to do the Creative RI version. Creative > RI > doesn't need to be used until the start of level five and the others > like RI by perception are quite easy to do for anyone > who > can run level two which would be just about anyone. > > > The RI by perception should work even if the person is heavily > > spun in by a bad mistake. But it is not necessarily the easiest > > process of its kind. > > RI by perception is the easiest to run of all the RI processes. In fact > I can't think of an easier one of its kind anywhere > .. > Going around and touching objects is not hard to do. The first process in self clearing would usually be a bit easier. I don't mean to invalidate RI by perception here. It is a good process. > > I put many different processes of this class into the self > > clearing book on the basis that some will work better than > > others for a given individual and he may need alternatives > > if he gets into trouble. > > > > Also, although all processes of this class are theoretically > > unlimited, they do sometimes flatten and overrun temporarily, > > so you need multiple choices. > > If RI goes flat then you don't need it running anyway just continue with > the level you are on again and run RI when needed > at > a later time. Overrunning it will clear upon discovery. What if he needs something like that but the particular one is not runable right now? We used to test out the entire set of 36 pressions (RI like processes) to find the one that was best on the pc. Eventually it would stop working and we'd shift to another one. Later, the first one might become useable again. > > I would recommend doing the first few chapters of self clearing > > first and having those processes at your fingertips in addition > > to the RI in case of trouble. > > > > Also, some of the processes in those first chapters should reach > > lower than the RI set and can probably subsitute for doing CCHs > > at level 1, at least for anybody who is aware enough to read > > the book and try it. > > > > ---- > > > > He is also using the RI processes as a sort of havingness > > step to balance blowing mass in session. > > > > This is not a bad idea, and is very much in keeping with the > > late 1950s style of processing. > > Remedy of havingness is still being used today in SCN. Its the only > reason he is including RI in TROM. To fill the void or > "balance" the blowing of importances and the mass that is connected with > it. > > > But it is also to some slight degree a solution to bypassing > > too many areas and running with inadequate Itsa. > > > > I don't want to invalidate this, because running havingness > > or create or any nice booster action between steps or at > > the end of session is a good and helpful thing. > > Again...RI is not a booster process its a replacement of importance > created by the being or others in present time to avoid > pulling in unwanted past importances from the mind. I mean this should > not be difficult to understand. It is very > mathematically simply 1-1=0 +1=1. > > > However, it usually only becomes critical (and needs to be > > done in vast quantities), when there is too much being > > sidestepped. For example, with quickie triple grades in the > > late 1960s, you were asking for an instant cave in if you > > didn't finish the grade off with a havingness process. > > Nothing is being sidestepped with TROM because one timebreaks anything > that shows up in session from TROM's level 3 on up. Sounds like Ron insisting that all stems from R6. This one has been a killer up and down the line in Scientology. It is always wrong to look at things that way. You get your hands on something and it seems to handle everything, and then later you find out that it was only one more piece of the puzzel. > TROM and the Grades are not an equal comparison. The reason many good > processes fail is due to the lack of replacement. This > is why you get persistent FN's that sooner or later has the being back > to their old degraded self again and craving another > "hit" like some kind of junky. Its quite the trap and if used carefully > makes a very willing slave. A being has allot of mind > hanging around to cave himself in with and sooner or later will do just > that. True even with a "replacement" step. The person is sliding into what is still unhandled. But the "replacement" is a good idea because it slows the slide down so that he has more time to do well and work over more areas. > > The effect is not simply due to blowing too much mass at once. > > That is the mistake. You can blow tons of mass without this > > effect if you balance areas of handling. The effect comes > > from blowing really deep holes in the bank while ignoring > > other areas. The effect has occured often on the Scientology > > research line because of the stupid idea of having found > > the one and only right why and then pushing it to the hilt > > while ignoring all the other things we knew. But it rarely > > happens with things like expanded grades that use a broader > > base. > > > > Level five address every conceivable effect that can be created. All > effects in any universe period. You must be joking. Again this is the fatal flaw. Ron made this mistake over and over again - It's all from prenatals or its all from entities or its all from overts or its all from M/Us or whatever. >.Mass is mass weather > it > is in the past or present . It doesn't matter if its mass created by > yourself or others. Its physical universe mass no > matter > what area it is in. How many different areas of mass are there ? What > difference do the different areas make.? Answer ? > None > > > So I would say that if you seem to be needing too much RI, > > then you should run something other than TROM for awhile. > > Trom's biggest liability is simply that it is a very narrow > > subset of the tech and the areas that can be handled. > > If you need to run RI and allot of it, then run it until its done and > then keep going with the process that you are working > on > as it is obviously obliterating large amounts of importance and mass . > Why stop when its working the exact way it should. > > > At the same time, he does give me the idea that I should > > check over the self clearing book and add some havingness > > or creative mockups to the end of the occasional chapter > > which doesn't already have them built in. These things > > are always useful as an enhancement. > > A little bit of this and a little of that. ummmmm tastes great ! Better than a steady diet of rice and beans. > > What I'm really trying to say here about Trom is that his > > RI actions are good but also that they are good enough to > > cover weaknesses in his levels. > > What weakness and which level(s) See below. > > ---- > > > > Unfortunately, he completely misses the areas of the grades. > > That was also true of 1950s Scientology. That will give > > trouble eventually, and that is why we ended up with modern > > Scientology even though the 1950s stuff is ten times more > > powerful. The really smart thing is to use both instead > > of one or the other. > > > > I don't think so. Eventually the use of TROM will one way or another > restore the being's full native abilities without the > use of grades. Anybody walking through walls yet? > > ---- > > > > His level 2 is a very "standard" application of late 1950s > > Scientology. There are dozens of varitions of these kinds > > of processes and all work very well. Some are in the self > > clearing book. > > > > ---- > > > > His Timebreaking is a bit different from earlier techniques. > > I tried it and it seemed like fun to do it with light > > incidents, but I prefer to handle light incidents with > > simple itsa and blowing by inspection. > > > > Timebreaking when done correctly and with practice becomes automatic and > just as fast as blowing by inspection and the need to > itsa is not needed in every case to blow the mass. It does not matter > how heavy or light the incident is. Agreed but Itsa has its own value in regaining orientation and awareness. > > But the timebreaking seems to be designed as a heavy > > incident handling technique rather than a light one. > > For me most incidents are not "heavy" and so I rarely > > use heavy incident running, by which I mean any technique > > like R3R or other drills that let you push through on > > something that is really difficult to confront and can't > > be blow by simple itsa. > > > > But I felt that I should try this once just to see how > > good the timebreaking was on a rough incident. > > Finaly I remembered an old picture of some kind of 4 dimensional > > spiral which I had clipped while running something else > > and never gotten around to examining more deeply. This > > was something from before home universe in the area of > > track that I still have trouble understanding and Itsaing, > > so it seemed appropriate for a real test. > > > > So I got present time and this old 4 dimensional thing > > around me simultaneously. > > > > Present time started distorting. Lots of shifts back and > > forth in depth perception and intensity of colors and some > > sporatic double images of room objects. Really wierd. > > That cooled down a bit (but didn't entirely stop) and that > > damn spiral just sat there solid as a rock. > > > > Finally I got impatient and, while continuing to hold both > > the spiral and present time in my attention, I started spotting > > points on the spiral (simple objective spotting). That > > got things moving, and suddenly I started being able to > > itsa the thing, and I realized that it was curving through > > a 4th dimension as a means of transportation between two > > different 3 dimensional frames. > > > > What are you talking about here? It sounds like nonsense. What was it ? > What happened ? You did an itsa so what is it ? This is very early track, prior to home universe. I will try to explain. Visualize a 4 co-ordinate system. Mockup a 3 co-ordinate universe, make it a simple room with the simple idea that there is a full universe around it so that you don't have to keep too much mocked up at once. Mockup a second 3 co-ordinate universe overlapping the first one in its 3 co-ordinates but sideways in the 4th co-ordinate so that the 2 aren't in contact but both are in the larger 4 co-ordinate system. The 2 universes could be linked by a simple "tube". But the tube would intersect each of them at right angles, resulting in a flat 2 dimensional interface at the point of intersection. That gives you the effect of stepping sideways into what looks like a flat picture as you move from one universe into the tube. I've run that kind of thing before. The spiral, on the other hand, gives you a gently curving path, only slowly curving in a 4th co-ordinate, as you exit one of the "universes" and move towards the other. Think of a railroad track gently curving around instead of having any sharp bends. I had bumped into these spirals before, but never been very sure about what the hell they were. I've also run a good bit of 4 dimensional stuff, but it was only on the above that these things came together and made sense to me. > > With that the whole thing dissolved and the distortions > > stopped and I felt really good. > > > > My conclusion was that I had to beef up the Itsa line > > to get this to work well on a heavy picture. So that > > makes it a marginal process unless you enhance it a bit > > or instinctively tend to spot and itsa things in the > > thing that you are handling. > > > > But it is still a nice trick. > > > > Whos tricking who ? > > > ---- > > > > For level 4 I would say that you would be better off with > > recalls and intensive Itsa on the buttons being handled. > > But this is not to say that the timebreaking wouldn't > > work but just to say that it might be slower and might > > not run as deep. > > > > Pushing at things in a way that maximizes Itsa is better > > because it gives you much more orientation and understanding > > of what you are taking apart. > > > > ---- > > > > Level 5 has the inherent assumption that the basic goal > > is To Know. This may act as a wrong item for some > > people. > > > > It is possible that there is a very early track actual > > GPM series that begins with this goal and runs well > > on his short item pattern. > > > > It is also possible that there is an implant series > > that this is approximating. > > > > It is also possible that this might actually be pieces > > of something larger and that it works sometimes to > > relieve charge. > > > > Allot of possibilities here. It kind of sounds like a hidden influence. > Can you name a goal more basic than the goal to > know ? > If you can , are you sure it is prior to the to know goal ? To create. Definitely earlier. Nothing to know until something is created. > > If it is only an implant, I would think that the > > timebreaking actually works better than repetative item > > spotting. It might even be strong enough to blow charge > > on a platen that is only half right. And that might > > be a good use for the timebreaking technique in > > general. I'm only guessing now, but I think that it > > could drain charge off of an out of sequence or wrongly > > worded implant item that wouldn't blow on simple spotting. > > If, however, this stuff is some kind of actual GPM, > > the timebreaking technique would probably not give enough > > Itsa to really handle it fully. That was always the > > bane of the GPM research, namely that there was too > > much running of items and too little Itsa of how the > > items were lived. > > > > It does feel like he is very close on some early actual > > GPM series, but I don't have my hands on it right now and > > I wouldn't venture to say how accurate his pattern is or > > how many people would be able to run this series successfully. > > I would suggest that people who try to run this should > > try to add in some technique to get more itsa. Perhaps > > simply to describe what somebody might do to make such > > and such a postulate stick or what overts they might > > commit while doing it. Or to try and date/locate when > > they were living the item. > > > > If somebody is makeing gains with this, I would say go > > for it, and please write up what you find. But if > > it wouldn't run and doesn't indicate, I would say > > that you shouldn't push it or try to force it to run > > because it may be way off from where you are sitting > > right now. > > > > Right now I think that we set up an actual GPM series > > for each universe and that we leave it running and don't > > abandon it when we move down to a lower universe and > > start a new series, so that many sets are running > > concurrently. And each could be traced sequentially. > > That would be the way to distinguish an actual series > > from an implanted one (you don't live implants > > sequentially, you dramatize different parts as they > > go into restim). But one series of actuals might > > explain your choice of professions and a different > > one might explain your love life and yet another one > > might explain your taste in movies. > > > > If he is right in the simplicity of his item pattern, > > then the series is a holdover from an very early universe > > because we have gotten more complex as we went along. > > It feels like he has pieces of a larger goals series. > > Since the technique allows for finding more goals, > > one would have to see what one came up with. His goals > > series does approximate the Know to Mystery scale and > > he mentions substitute as the action which one does > > as one cycles downward, which fits in with the general > > theory of K to M. > > > > It is quite possible that the K to M scale is rooted > > in an actual GPM sequence and originates from there. > > I will be quite interested to hear what people find > > out while working with this level. I can not > > guarantee that it is either safe or accurate, but I > > don't want to invalidate it because it could well be > > a significant piece of the puzzel. > > > > ---- > > > > In summary, I would say that there is some good stuff > > in Trom, and that he has done some good writeups > > about basic things that will be useful in studying > > other techniques as well, but that it is far from a > > complete case handling and should be used in conjunction > > with other things. > > > > He is also to be commended for having made it primarily > > a solo effort. > > > > Best, > > > > The Pilot > > > > I have read the Pilots Super Scio Book and the Self Clearing book and > have concluded that it contains many truths, hope for > freedom and a bunch of gobbledy. gook. It is flavored with a little bit > of this and a little bit of that and then stirred > slowly and simmered for forty five minutes on medium. It is evaluative > and illogical and represents opinions based on The > Pilots own imagined and/or true experiences which has little value or > effect other than to focus ones attention on someone > else's importances . I suspect that much of it was simply not the right stuff for your right now. Look again at another time when things have shifted around. But I will agree that Super Scio is a bit of a hodge-podge, basically everything that I bumped into. As such, it is more of a researcher's book rather than a bridge. Self Clearing, on the other hand, is an orderly progression through what I considered to be the most important factors. > I am being very hard on the Pilots books for which I will explain. I > want to see others return to their native beingness and > live in a better universe as before. Very good. > Although TROM was derived from the > basic LRH tech.and then revised, my opinion on the > Pilots materials and SCN technology is that its use ultimatly lead to > further entrapment in this universe. That might be true of the modern CofS OT levels which place all the blame on implants and entities. I don't see it for 1950s Scientology nor for my own stuff. > > Good luck. > Randy Nicholson The real trouble is that there are a lot of different areas to handle. That is hard to confront. It is not a bad idea to work with a limited subset and become an expert on that and run it to the hilt. Does one do a light pass on all of science or does one specialize in the mechanics of internal combustion engines? Specialization has a faster payback. But a broader exposure is essential to research and we are very far from having all the answers. My real goal is to make other researchers. I'm not an only one. Look what it took to light the cities. Generation after generation of researchers. That is the difference between knowing that the lightning in the sky is a form of electricity and making it possible for little children to turn on the lights with the flick of a switch. There are many workable subsets that one can make fantastic gains on. So make gains. And when the gains peter out, praise it for the gains you did make rather than carping about what it didn't handle, and then move on to another part of the puzzel. The only real crime is to pretend that you have all the answers and then begin shooting at everybody else who is working in the field (I'm talking about CofS here), because that blocks the research line. Good Luck, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - TAKING OTHER'S SINS TAKING OTHER'S SINS I was thinking of this business of Jesus taking on everyone's sins. That is more than just forgiveness. It is more than simple responsibility. It is an "I will carry that man's burden". Or, even better, "I will take that man's Karma". And I do think that Jesus had something, I don't think that its just made up stories or an R6 dramatization. And he supposedly had extensive exposure to eastern ideas while studying with the Essenes. So it seems to me that he might have learned about Karma and then had this brilliant idea of taking on other's Karma. That by itself might be enough to blow apart not only the bank but the entire game if you could do it completely with good reality. This was really difficult to concieve of. I think that running the Reality Frames that I discussed awhile ago is what got me exterior enough to the whole mess to see something like this. This may be too out gradient unless you run a bit of the reality frames. The first process I tried was "get the idea of takeing on another's sins/burden/karma." Theoretically this should run on 3 flows. But flow 2 felt like a horrible overrun. So I only run flow 1 and 3 alternately (flow 3 would be "another taking on another's"). This was, I think, because Cristianity can get flow 2 heavily overrun. I haven't done that this lifetime, but I think that I spent a lifetime once as a monk busilly foisting all my sins off on Christ. And doing that without confronting flow 1 (taking on other's karma yourself) made flow 2 overrun badly. Another workable variation is "spot somebody whose sins/burden/karma you would be willing to take". That might be the best version. Or you could just spot people (in a crowded place) and mockup taking on their sins/burden/karma. Another slant on this is to get the idea of taking on the fate that another had created for themselves. That might be better because it gets all the right/wrong good/evil out of the equation and simply lets you look at what doom are they tossing themselves into without worrying about why. This is an extremely high process. I'm barely scratching the surface on it, just tentatively "getting the idea of" rather than going any further. But even at that light level, it is opening up a tremedously exterior view to life. And using this even just a little bit, selecting real people as the targets, reveals that karma or the overt/motivator sequence is only one reason among many which causes a person to mockup his own doom. Another is that he will distroy himself to gain affinity, admiration, or sympathy. But it goes far beyond that. See what you can find. If Jesus was going around consciously and causatively doing this and managed to flatten it, then it would not be at all surprising if he really did manage to raise the dead. And of course if you do take on somebody else's fate, their case is not necessarily hard for you to confront, so you can as-is it. And so it becomes a process of taking their karma to yourself and then dissolving it. A truely wild and facinating process. I suspect that this is one of the really major ones. Have Fun, The Pilot ========================================== The following trailer was used on these posts ------------------ The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the "SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net. See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm Some translations are available, see In German - www.sgmt.at/pilot.htm In Hungarian - www.extra.hu/self/index.html In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/ and www.aha.ru/~espinol and http://www.tagil.ru/~sk/pilot/pilot.html. All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives #44 and 45 and posted to ACT. See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG. Also, the individual posts to ARS are being double posted to ACT rather than cross posted to foil the spambot. So if you pick up a spam replaced one on ARS you can get the real one from ACT or find a good one on dejanews. Note that some of my posts only go to ACT. I cannot be reached by email. I watch ARS and ACT for messages with Pilot in the subject line. ------------------