От: The Pilot Тема: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 44 - JAN 99 PILOT POSTS 1/2 Дата: 27 января 1999 г. 7:00 POST44.txt SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 44 - JAN 99 PILOT POSTS 1/2 The remaining posts for this month are in post45.txt ========================================== Contents: subj: Super Scio - CONFIDENTIALITY EQUALS CONTROL subj: Super Scio - The Unclearing Course subj: Super Scio - Answering Mike on the Clearing Congress subj: Super Scio - To Bob Minton on Credibility subj: Super Scio - To Trender On The Survival RD subj: Super Scio Tech - To Lakis On The Ls subj: Super Scio Humor - Situation Clamities On TV subj: Super Scio Humor - To LR1467 On Doll Mag subj: Super Scio Tech - The Auditor's Or Processor's Code subj: Super Scio Tech - BETWEEN LIVES EXPLORATION subj: Super Scio Tech - To ACW On Ext/Int subj: Super Scio Tech - On Confronting (Attn Azeric) ========================================== subj: Super Scio - CONFIDENTIALITY EQUALS CONTROL CONFIDENTIALITY EQUALS CONTROL I hope you wouldn't mind my getting up on a soap box here and repeating the obvious for the umpteenth time, but this is quite important to the future well being, not only of Scientology but of anything aimined at achiving a higher state of awareness. You cannot work to prevent others from finding out things and at the same time expect to discover new things yourself. It is an overt. The postulates that you make to prevent others from knowing will eventually turn against you and prevent your own knowing. What goes around comes around. It just takes a bit of time to rebound so that you think that you can get away with it. He who lives by the sword does die by it. And he who lives by the suppression of knowledge will eventually find that he has suppressed his own ability to gain knowledge. What happened to orthodox Scientology when it made its upper level data confidential? Do you realize how FAST Ron was back in 1952 or 54? The new awarenesses and alignment of data was incredible. It was breakthough after breakthrough, so fast that the entire nature of the bridge changed every year. By the 1970s he was down to a snails pace by comparison. He hardly ever lectured. The bulletins were mostly being written by others. Most of the "new" tech was old material from the 50s that was being dusted off and put into a modern context. Even NOTS was sketched out back in 1952. There are only a handfull of real discoveries in the 70s compared to about one a week back in the early days. Why? It should be obvious. Keep others from finding out and eventually your own ability to find out will shut down. To all intents and purposes, the introduction of confidentiality destroyed the research line. You might well ask "what about the volumes and volumes of bulletins and levels issued after that point?" But these are refinements and codifications rather than new breakthroughs. Take Dianetics for example. R3R was developed in 1963. The standard Dianetics of 1969 is simply an improved way of applying an existing technique. And the 1978 upgrade into NED mainly consisted of adding the action of getting the postulate as part of errasing the incident. But that data goes back to 1952 and was stated again in 1963, it had simply been forgotten in the 1969 standardization. It is just amazing that the expanded grades did not include any new processes. They consisted exclusively of older processes that were modernized and added back into the lineup. Any researcher worth his salt could find more processes and more missing grades too. There is so much that you just start falling over it if you take a look without blinders on. But all that Ron could manage was a rehash of older ideas. And that is a shocker because he had been really bright, just listen to any of the old ACCs. Despite the various carpings of critics, I think that he still wanted to find the answers and he would have discovered more if he could. But the later days are full of mistakes and wrong whys. The idea that all case stemmed from R6 is obviously false, even the CofS rarely bothers to run the CC implant anymore. The quickie standard tech wrecked cases and it took him two years before he backed down from this error and allowed some of the old tech to be put back into use. He didn't make errors of that magnitude in the old days. Although there were flaws in DMSMH, he moved forward quickly and didn't just sit there insisting that all case was coming from prenatals. He wanted to find the real answers. I think that its the confidentiality. How can you hope to find out more if you are stopping others from finding things out? How can you carry on research when all the comm lines are blocked? How can you Itsa the charge that you are sure to stir up while searching if you make it forbidden to talk? And frankly, I just don't see any horrible effects coming from the disucssions of upper level materials. So why are these things confidential? I think that Ron said it again and again in the 1950s. You make knowledge secret to control people. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - The Unclearing Course THE UNCLEARING COURSE From The Auditor issue 278 (US. / ASHO) There Are Now NEARLY 50,000 clears. They used to say over 50,000. Seems like the number is going down. Could there be a new Unclearing course in the golden age lineup? PS. For the tape enthusiasts, The Communication! Freedom and Ability lectures recently released and advertised in this issue are the "Unification Congress" of December 1954. See the tape master list which I posted last year. Note that the master list shows 20 lectures, however the tape set is being issued with only 16. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - Answering Mike on the Clearing Congress ANSWERING MIKE ON THE CLEARING CONGRESS On 17 Jan 99, mike@enturbulate.nu (Michael 'Mike' Gormez) asked on subject "Re: FZ BIBLE 3/12 CLEARING CONGRESS" > In article <199805170355.FAA00633@basement.replay.com>, nobody@REPLAY.COM > (Anonymous) wrote: > > Dunno if this has been asked before.. Alas on with it: I host the sound > file (for over a year now) of the following part of this transcript and > it just occurred that me that it is highly unlikely that in 1958 they had > a video camera. Can anyone of you FZ dudes/grlzz elaborate? Was it filmed > or just tape recorded? > > >************************************************** > > > >Transcript of LRH Video Taped Lecture ------ Number 2 of 6 > >The Clearing Congress Lectures > >Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D.C. July 4, l958 > .... > > We say, this thing called a Thetan is capable of producing all > >sorts of things, and we say, this is the person, so therefore we differ > >enormously from the Christian statements on the subject. They say, "you > >son, must save your soul". The fellow says, "I don't have one". So, > >therefore the Christian religion cannot possible be true, and they lose all > >kinds of converts that way. The fellow doesn't find his soul - not there. > >Somebody saving his soul is doing something very interesting. He evidently > >has something set up over here, that has probable mass, that he says is his > >soul. And then he goes about saving it and it turns out to be a demon > >circuit called mama or something. > > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9169/ch-notru.wav > (mirror) http://www.ami.com.au/~bradw/cos/Sounds/ch-notru.wav > > Mike > -- > I don't go for fancy cars, for diamond rings or movie > stars. Oh Lord I go for penguins -- Lyle Lovett > http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/penguins.html It was filmed with old style equippment. The first time I saw this was at an event back around 1967-8. They set up an old projector and were swapping these huge 10 or 12 inch reels freequently, and the film had scratches and brown spots but was in color. It was like watching a good quality 16mm home movie. Nowardays the org sells a high quality video cassette version of these lectures (unless they've let this go out of stock recently). At one point Ron is wearing a white suit and looks a bit like a bare faced Col. Saunders. He is cheerful and grinning much of the time. When they do the fake (?) burning of the psych books, there is a big cloud of smoke coming in from off stage. Its fun to watch and he is a real showman, definitely at home up in front of an audience. When I was at Flag the video cassettes were playing almost continually in the Flag lounge. Much thanks to FZBA for making transcripts available to those who can't affort the enormous price of buying the video cassettes from the org, especially as the videos don't (or didn't used to) come with transcripts. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Bob Minton on Credibility TO BOB MINTON ON CREDIBILITY Looks like you've lost it, and that is a shame. All you had to do was hold your position, repeat the message, and keep expanding your connections. Instead you're playing P.T. Barnum and trying to make a big circus of this, and since most people are here for a reason rather than for a show, the house is in an uproar. If the Marcabs wanted to sow dissention and keep loyalists and critics alike in perpetual unproductive infighting, they could not have hired a better agent. Yes I'm joking, but it sure does fit, now doesn't it; an external third force with its own agenda stirring the ants nest to keep everybody on both sides busily fighting amongst themselves. In the hopes that you have simply slipped up rather than intended to create this effect, let's look at what needs to be done: 1. Dorian If you and your cohorts made this character up, it's time to fess up, and do it in such a ways that people with laugh with you about it instead of at you, but do it. On the other hand, if there is somebody who is feeding you a line on this, then its time to make them put up or shut up and report what you find to the newsgroup. Testing him with the late reverse policies doesn't really prove anything, anybody could concoct his supposed analysis. Instead, take one of the 1950s tape transcripts that have been hitting the net. Demand that he show you his notes for orchestrating that. Do it without giving him time to write something up after the fact. Instead carry a tape transcript into the supposed room full of notes and have him find his material on the spot without advanced warning of which tape you are bringing. I'll be he can't do it. 2. Laura Again it's time for proof instead of unsubstantiated babbel. Speculations and guesswork are fun and ARS is just full of them. I enjoy that game myself. But it is not appropriate in this case. 3. A Questions of Motives A clear statement of your intentions would be a good idea at this point. And let me ask the question that I think is uppermost in the freezone: Hypothetically speaking, if you were to suddenly gain control of the CofS copyrights, would you dump them into the public domain, drop the judgements against Grady etc., and encourage putting all the stuff up at websites? Or would you have some other agenda? ------- Remember that you are damaging Stacy's & Jessie's credibility along with your own and they have important experiences to relate. I don't mean this as an attack. I just think that it's time for you to do the right thing. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio - To Trender On The Survival RD TO TRENDER ON THE SURVIVAL RD On 8 Jan 99, Trender@webtv.net (K P), posted on topic "Great LRH Quote" > Just wanted to share this. I dont post here much, but lurk alot. Sarah, > you're a hoot and a real thetan...but I'm a "white boy" so whadda I > know? :-)) > > LRH- "In Scientology you're dealing with a specialized group, specially > selected. Actually these people are all pre-selected out of the races of > earth today. It isn't a cross-section of the poulation at all. It's a > very small minority of the population. As these people move up to more > advanced levels of training, a further selection takes place. Their > confront, their persistence comes up. Just look at the things that are > required of one of these people. Look at the things that have been > required of you in actual fact; sticking with it despite dissapointments > and upsets and the trouble you've had. If you don't think that's a > process of pre-selection, you should look at it someday. Just going on > being in Scientology is a process of pre-selection. It has its rewards, > but it also has its liabilities, and those that have survived this > particular process have simply demonstrated the fact that they will > obviously someday make it to OT. > > 7 Nov 68- "The Relationship of Training to OT" Unfortunately true. I agree with Ron here and also with his statement on cultural lag, we are well in advance of the planet as a whole. To me this means that we have to reach down and make it as easy as possible for others to follow us. I'm just giving stuff away and trying to open the door to as many as possible. > Also, there's false data being given about the new Golden Age of Tech. Then post real data. Post a checksheet. Post real stories, not just PR ("I feel so GOOD now that I have my cert") but things that have some meat to them ("I finally learned that the pc will talk to you if you really want to hear what he has to say"). > Its actually a BIG improvement over earlier training, by using drills > before or after a concept and getting each idea exactly per a checksheet > standard, not a twin or supervisor, who says "Um, ok pass". Big > difference there, especially since twins and sups had different degrees > of understanding. Its just for the purpose of 100% standard tech. Either: a) You have sups that have real experience and understanding or b) The writeups are so good that they are self sufficient, in which case you might just distribute the packs and leave people to study them on their own. In practice, any expertise drills will require coaching with reality which means that at least the sup has really trained on the materials and knows what is real and how to get results. Has the dumb policy on using sups that only know how to sup and not the materials they are supervising been cancelled? > And mention to the Pilot that there 's been NO "Survival rundown" since > 1982. Its called "TR's and Objectives". True. I like the old name better. You must have read the appendix to self clearing, since I have also called it TR's & Objectives in other posts. I probably should make a footnote in the self clearing appendix. My thought was that I was mostly reaching people who hadn't been on lines for quite awhile, and the SRD is better known to them since it was the name in use when the orgs were at their biggest. > Has he not looked at a grade > chart in over 16 years?? hmm... Ha Ha. There is one in the latest issue of The Auditor. I dutifully stared at it and bowed towards St. Hill. > My advice if one cant make back to the > Church, would be to get a well-trained, high ARC auditor who could audit > in their sleep. Good idea. In fact a better idea to find such an auditor than to put up with mishandling at AO or Flag. Now I have had some really good auditors in both places (and very poor ones as well), but they were often forced by policy to run the wrong actions. Unfortunately, there is quite a bit of auditing based on arbitraries instead of auditing the pc in front of you. The more advanced the case gets, the more trouble they have because they get into things that don't fit the pre-concieved ideas. Things that are handleable with the 1950s technology but not with NOTS or whatever the latest hobby horse is. But the best advice is to study the tech (see below). > Nothing like a good session and knowing you're getting > the tech that has produced gains for many others. Good luck to all. > > KP My advice to you is to read the R&D volumes carefully from Volume 9 forward. I say volume 9 because that is when Ron makes the big OT breaththroughs and he is at his best and most interesting in those lectures. Of course if you're a real tech nut like I am you'll start from volume 1, but some people find the first few volumes too slow and don't persist long enough to get to the good stuff. But volume 9 is the begining of 1952 and covers the transition from Dianetics into Scientology and Ron is spotting basics and coming up with new exciting ideas in every lecture. You can move forward right on into the doctorate course which begins in volume 13 and you'll see the ideas laid out as he discovers them and you'll get the rational and the why and wherefore of what we are doing. The HCL lectures, Route to Infinity (the tech 80 lectures), the tech 88 lectures, Perception of Truth (the logics lectures), the Secrets of the Mest Universe (and other lectures that were in the OT cassettes such as Role of Earth) and the LPC (London Professional Course) lectures are all in this set of R&Ds from volume 9 up to 12 (with the PDC begining in 13). And that takes you on a smooth gradient into the PDC with real reality so that you will duplicate and be able to apply the PDC as you study it (unlike people who do the OT doctorate course and yet are afraid to apply the material on the tapes). This is the stuff that has the basics that will protect you no matter what kind of handling or mis-handling you're getting whether you're on orthodox or freezone lines. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To Lakis On The Ls TO LAKIS ON THE Ls Hi, I don't have a copy of the orthodox version of the Ls. I'd be interested in seeing it myself. I do think that we need everything. I have heard rumors that a CofS set made it out into the freezone but if so, whoever has it is still sitting on it. Maybe it will get posted someday. But right now I don't think that any of those who are supporting FZBA have a copy or we would have seen it already. See FZBA's info post. They don't have the Class 8 tapes either and I think that those would be much more interesting than the Ls. I know that there are sets of the Class 8 tapes out in the field but again people are sitting on these. The Ls that are on the net seem to be a freezone reconstruction. They are probably at least close. The freezone version might be either better or worse or simply different. Remember that the late era tech was almost completely assembled by others rather than Ron. He would just say "write up a rundown to do so and so", and it would be people like Mayo who would actually put the thing together. And the people who might put something together in the freezone are probably as good or better at this than Sea Org members under pressure. There is one specific rundown which was originally issued as as a stand alone procedure and which later became part of L9 and which subsequently was renumbered to L11. The HCOB was in the old tech volumes and has been posted to the net. It is C/S series 37. So in this case you can see the original material. The entire set of Ls is aimed at achiving the state of Clear OT. The definition of Clear OT is "No Track". This is a confidential definition. I don't have a copy of the HCOB to post but I did see it when I attested. I have not done the Ls. I got to the state by another method and I know others who made it in a similar manner in the CofS. It can be achived by deep running of grade 2 after clear. It happened with a number of us, all trained auditors as far as I know, who got expanded grade 2 when it came out after having previously had grades and gotten the clear cog in the early days. Look at the definition of L10 in the Admin Dictionary (not the Tech dictionary). It says that they work with early track heavy overts to get to the state. I know quite a few people who have gotten the Ls and those who were untrained public tend to be unstable and have trouble keeping the state. And they don't have much of an idea what happened or why they feel like they have no track sometimes. My impression both from looking at people who got the Ls in CofS and looking at the freezone versions is that they try to force this state and it tends to be out gradient and evaluative. On the other hand, a deep run on grade 2 after clear seems to produce the result in an easy and stable manner. As a prerequisite you need to be capable of running repetative processes on the whole track. A deep pass on self analysis, letting back track come up gradually on the earlier similars, will do this. The people who made it on grade 2 after clear also had expanded ARC straightwire after clear, and it does tend to run this way. A road block is the idea that going whole track on overts is an attempt to non-confront current overts. That does happen, but was more likely in the old quickie era where people had very little auditing. Somebody naturally going backtrack because their confront is coming up is not the same as somebody dubbing in backtrack to avoid confronting present time and the difference is pretty obvious. Best is light repetative grade 2 processes allowed to range free and wide on the back track rather than intensive missed withhold pulling or FPRD or whatever. You don't want to badger the person, instead you want a gentle gradient of increasing confront until he is willing to face the really difficult stuff. It will generally take multiple processes because any one process would overrun before you got deep enough. And you would need to have had an ordinary grade 2 release earlier because that is such a big blowout that all grade 2 processes will overrun if you try to do them right after that. When you first make it on grade 2, you then have to run something else, such as grade 3. Much later, you can do grade 2 again and hit this second level EP which is Clear OT. One of the big mistakes in CofS is that they don't allow for the fact that all sec checking is addressing the grade 2 case. If they do it too soon after a real grade 2 EP or after the Clear OT EP, it acts like the most horrible overrun. Later (after other things have been run), grade 2 can run deeper but the sec checks and FPRD are among the poorest of grade 2 techniques. If they are running with gains, then they could have run real grade 2 processes with faster and better results. I am a big fan of grade 2 processes. That is the way to get your confront on overts up fast and painlessly. These are simple repetative techniques which let the stuff come up in the order it needs to come up in instead of an evaluative and often accusative digging for things out of sequence. So you just let the stuff come up off of the track. And then suddenly, bang, you're staring at one hell of an overt, probably a viscious thing from the tail end of a GPM in its final stages of decay, and it blows the track apart. It is your own efforts to alter the sequence of things so as to justify your overts which make the track solid. Joe hits Billy, and they fight, and then Joe says that Billy hit him first. That is an alter-is of the time and it is the most common way of justifying overts. You alter the time of the motivator so as to put it before the overt. This alter-is makes the track solid. And it is the beings own effort rather than an implant or an externally inflicted false date. When your confront comes up high enough, you blow this and stop making the track solid. Compared to having a solid time track, it feels like "no track". That doesn't mean that you can't remember things and it doesn't mean that you don't have a consecutive sequence of time and incidents and so forth. It simply means that you no longer have this solid compulsively created time track which keeps your overts justified. Having that solidity dissolve is a tremendous release. Knowing all this in theory is not the same as actually reaching the state. You need to get your confront up on overts, especially unjustifiable overts. It is not just the magnitude but the fact that one did not have any good justification and so twisted time to justify it. When it finally lets loose, it is spectacular. I couldn't stop laughing for a week. There was charge coming off in all directions. If you are in this for the gains rather than for status, there is no harm in knowing what targets you are aiming at. Just run light techniques deeper and deeper with the confidence that everything will eventually come within your ability to Itsa. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Humor - Situation Clamities On TV SITUATION CLAMITIES ON TV The American Situation Comedy is full of OUTPOINTS. They are unrealistic and lead our youth into gross out-ethics. Therefore we must fix them and bring them into alignment with Hubbard Tech and Policy. They will then become Sit-Clams instead of Sit-Coms. Here are some suggestions: 1. I Love Lucy The episode in the chocolate factory is badly slanted. It is one of the few where they do the right thing, getting the stats up by running the conveyor belt faster and faster. It is an outpoint to make fun of getting the stats up. And that DB Lucy should be put in the RPF for flubbing the ideal scene of keeping up with the belt as it keeps speeding up. 2. The Honeymooners Gleason shows proper Sea Org toughness, and would obviously be good at handling his juniors. But they make him a bus driver instead of a top executive. And in the Apple Core episode, Gleason has the idea standard tech for coring an apple, but Norton is allowed to squirrel and put standard apple coring in a bad light. Norton should be made to do steps A to E. 3. The Dick Van Dyke show An obvious joker and degrader. Disconnect from him. 4. All In The Family Bunker is obviously type III. He should disconnect from his family and get out of there. He is the moneymaker and therefore the only upstat on the show. 5. Cheers Kirsti is an upstat Scientologist. She should be shown as succeeding in her goals of becoming a big manager. The rest of them are all DBs, especially Sam who is out ethics on the 2D as well. They should show him pulling in some motivators. As for Fraiser, see below. 6. Fraiser He is one of the evil psychs. They should show him electroshocking people and screwing his patients. That would make it into a true show instead of a whitewash. 7. Taxi Judd Hursh (Reger) is a squirrel. If they got rid of him, they could get Ignatousky (Loyd) on the purif and Banta (Danza) on method 1 to handle his MUs and we'd see the stats go up right quickly. 8. Dharma & Gregg Another obvious squirrel ... oopse, she's still in good standing and bringing people in. Forget we said anything. 9. Friends Full of out 2D and missed witholds. They need a sec checker on the show. 10. MASH The worst show ever. Not only are they out ethics, but they are jokers and degraders to boot. And the show is full of out 2D. And there is even an evil psych who shows up occasionally. They need to put some heads on a pike. Its the RPFer's RPF for these DBs. 11. Spin City They should do some good dead agenting of their political opponents. Let's get our kids hatted up on this useful tech early. 12. Burns and Allen Gracie is obviously infested with space cooties. Label it confidential and keep it off the air. 13. Martin and Lewis Appealing only to those who have been recently implanted. 14. Soap A praiseworthy show with a Scientologist in the cast. It depicts real world problems that could be solved with processing. 15. Saturday Night Live Not really a sitcom, but an obvious example of what will happen to the world if we don't get 100 percent standard tech and ethics out there fast. J&D Forever, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Humor - To LR1467 On Doll Mag TO LR1467 ON DOLL MAG On 11 Jan 99, lr1467@aol.com (LR1467) asked on subject "PILOT - 12JAN - Did you receive DM DOLL MAG?" > Posted for your enjoyment to act, mid Dec. > > The Management Yes I recieved it and it works exceedingly well. By subsituting DOLL MAG for CAL MAG on the purif, ASHO has succeeded in producing a purif that purifies the mind as well as the body. DM found out about this and his reaction might inspire you to produce a new DM doll in the spring lineup; Namely, a DM doll that soils itself, complete with toilet paper roll. Humorously, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - The Auditor's Or Processor's Code THE AUDITOR'S OR PROCESSOR'S CODE I liked the old auditor's code of 1954. The later standard tech version of 1968 seemed to be overly wordy, less accurate as far as the relative importances, and also biased towards standard tech, which at that time was the unworkable system that we now know of as "quickies". It certainly did little to prevent the subject from deteriorating into a sham. It would seem to me that it should be possible to do a better job on a code for processing. To start with, lets review the old codes: --------------- First, here is the old code from Creation of Human Ability which was posted to the net awhile ago. The bullet points are Ron's. The commentary is mine. 1. Do not evaluate for the preclear Very important. But I use the old definition of eval where it is described as forcing a datum on the pc. You must not do that even if you are right because it cuts down the pc's knowingness. But that does not mean that you can't suggest something. It does, however, mean that you can't insist that the person has witholds and better tell you. You can ask. You can even beg (joke). You can vary the question. You can even run a process to raise confront. But you must not insist even if you are correct. So much for modern sec checking as done by the CofS. 2. Do not invalidate or correct the preclear's data Inval is even more important than eval. It should come first in the list. You can't make more of the pc if you make less of him. As written, this could be misinterpreted to mean that you must not invalidate the pc's data but its ok to invalidate the pc. 3. Use the processes which improve the preclear's case Yes. Or perhaps, use whatever process is needed to improve the preclear's case. And be responsible enough to find or research a workable process or pass the pc on to somebody who can if one's particular standard techniques are not making it on this case. 4. Keep all appointments once made It is definitely bad form to break appointments, but this is not of comparable magnitude to the significant points above. And the common CofS method of keeping everyone sitting around waiting without a firm appointment (so that it isn't broken) is not a good idea, excessive waiting makes the case more solid and harder to process. Sensible and efficient scheduling with some flexibility and care to reschedule if an appointment can't be made would seem to be the most workable. 5. Do not process a preclear after 10:00 p.m. An evaluative absolute. Correct is don't process too late at night if at all possible. All the rules which are aimed at processing the pc when he is at his best are a) relative to the pc, and b) can be violated if necessary if you limit yourself to processes which are easy for the pc. A more advanced case at its worst (tired and poorly fed) may still process as well as a more heavily charged case at its best. But you must not assume that the person can run on his usual gradient if he is in poorer shape than usual. Since this is slower and more difficult for the pc, it is disadvantagous and you should not waste his time in this manner unless there is an overriding concern. So this is mainly done in emergencies (assists, etc.) 6. Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed As above. And note that the e-meter metabolism test is not properly benchmarked or validated. It is given as an absolute and there is no data as to what variations might really occur due to body weight, normal metabolism values for that particular body, or relative sensitivity settings. If such a test is used at all (instead of simply trusting the pc as used to be done), it should be relative to his usual metabolic reaction rather than measured against an absolute standard. 7. Do not permit a frequent change of auditors Avoid would be better here. 8. Do not sympathize with the preclear It is important to avoid sticking him with sympathy. It is bad to give him too much agreement on how bad things are or validate him for being messed up because it makes the condition persist. At the same time, you must not put out a heavy "no sympathy" or blame the pc or insist that he act tough. That encourages him to dramatize the condition further to prove to you how bad off he is. Best is to communicate that you understand how he feels and intend to do something about the condition. 9. Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own independent decision This is far too absolute. You mustn't let him run off when you are in the middle of something. 10. Never walk off from a preclear during a session If there is a need, always tell him that we're taking a break, don't leave him hanging. 11. Never get angry with a preclear Definitely. But this is part and parcel with not invalidating the pc. 12. Always reduce every communication lag encountered by continued use of the same question or process This is specific to a particular processing methedology. 13. Always continue a process as long as it produces change, and no longer This is more generally applicable than 12 above. 14. Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear Better stated as actully granting it rather than just being willing. This is one of the most important points, possibly THE most important point since even inval and eval might simply be considered violations of this specific point. 15. Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of various other practices Foreshadowing of KSW. Toss this one. 16. Maintain two-way communication with the preclear Another of the most important ones. 17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor's own personal profit I'm tempted to add "or for the profit of the CofS" to this one. There is something to this and CofS is in chronic violation. But its not really correct. The better statement would be that it should never be used "purely for profit". That doesn't mean that you can't charge, it just means that the profit must not be the overriding concern. And whatever is said here must apply equally to the organization and registrars and so forth. 18. Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and do not process another imagined case Good point. 19. Do not explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor mistakes whether real or imagined Note that you can (and should) indicate that something was a mistake. You can even appologize if it seems appropriate. What you mustn't do is try to make excuses or explain it away. ------------------------ And here is the later Auditor's Code. This is from old Tech Vol. 6 that was posted to the net last year. Although this is the 1976 revision, it is pretty much the same as the version used in 1969 (the last 3 points used to be in a separate 1969 HCOPL). HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 OCTOBER 1968R REVISED 1 JANUARY 1976 THE AUDITOR'S CODE In celebration of the 100% gains attainable by Standard Tech. I hereby promise as an Auditor to follow the Auditor's Code. 1. I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should think about his case in session. See point 1 of the old code. 2. I promise not to invalidate the preclear's case or gains in or out of session. See point 2 of the old code. 3. I promise to administer only Standard Tech to a preclear in the standard way. Originally this meant to do quickies and never use anything other than a handfull of processes. This is in direct violation of point 3 of the old code. So lets stick with the old one. 4. I promise to keep all auditing appointments once made. See point 4 of the old code. 5. I promise not to process a preclear who has not had sufficient rest and who is physically tired. A better statement than point 5 of the old code, but see the comment there. 6. I promise not to process a preclear who is improperly fed or hungry. As above. 7. I promise not to permit a frequent change of Auditors. See the old code. 8. I promise not to sympathize with a preclear but to be effective. See the old code. 9. I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism but to finish off those cycles I have begun. This is a better statement than the old code, but see the comments there. 10. I promise never to walk off from a preclear in session. See the old code. 11. I promise never to get angry with a preclear in session. See the old code. 12. I promise to run every major case action to a floating needle. As with the old code, this is tied to a specific methedology. 13. I promise never to run any one action beyond its floating needle. Again specific to a methedology, and furthermore is in violation of FN and EP. A correct statement for modern standard tech would be to say "beyond its end phenomena". If we define EP loosely to mean the appropriate result instead of using a fixed method specific definition, then we could define both this one and 12 above in a general manner which is appropriate to a broader selection of methods. 14. I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session. See the old code. 15. I promise not to mix the processes of Scientology with other practices except when the preclear is physically ill and only medical means will serve. Toss this one along with the old one. 16. I promise to maintain Communication with the preclear and not to cut his comm or permit him to overrun in session. This is better stated in the old code. 17. I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a session that distract a preclear from his case. Not a bad point, but perhaps better stated as simply not distracting the pc from his case. That puts the endless unnecessary actions that CofS bothers the pc with into the category of code breaks, and that feels right. Its just as bad to distract him with supposed standard tech as with comments. 18. I promise to continue to give the preclear the process or auditing command when needed in the session. Of course. But does this need to be in the code or are we distracting from the key points given earlier. 19. I promise not to let a preclear run a wrongly understood command. Excessive. This leads to 25 hours of defining things to do 5 hours of processing. Better to avoid letting him run a wrongly understood command and fix it fast if it does happen. 20. I promise not to explain, justify or make excuses in session for any Auditor mistakes whether real or imagined. See the old code. 21. I promise to estimate the current case state of a preclear only by Standard Case Supervision data and not to diverge because of some imagined difference in the case. Point 18 of the old code is better. 22. I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for punishment or personal gain. Very good. Except add "or for the benefit of the org" and also promise never to turn these over to Ethics or OSA and also never write them down in the folder as an extra safety measure. 23. I promise to see that any fee received for processing is refunded following the policies of the Claims Verification Board, if the preclear is dissatisfied and demands it within three months after the processing, the only condition being that he may not again be processed or trained. This is policy rather than processing tech. Yes, give refunds, but it doesn't belong in the code. 24. I promise not to advocate Scientology only to cure illness or only to treat the insane, knowing well it was intended for spiritual gain. More politics. This should be org policy but don't dilute the code with it. 25. I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech. More KSW aimed at suppressing the tech and keeping it from being used or further researched. Definitely a reverse point to be tossed as quickly as possible. 26. I promise to refuse to permit any being to be physically injured, violently damaged, operated on or killed in the name of "mental treatment". A nice point. I wonder if this means that the CofS auditors are all breaking the auditor's code until they unmock the Flag organization (remember Lisa?). But in fact this has nothing to do with the auditor's handling of his own pc and therefore does not belong in the code. 27. I promise not to permit sexual liberties or violation of the mentally unsound. Again a generality rather than anything specific to the pc one is handling. Possibly there should be something like this specific to one's pc and you certainly shouldn't violate them sexually even if they are mentally sound. But old point 17 is better. 28. I promise to refuse to admit to the ranks of practitioners any being who is insane. More political grandstanding. ------------------ So let's see if we can clean this up and simplify it a bit. Shorter is better as long as the important points are covered. This is not an ethical code or organizational policy or a list of what would be nice. It is a minimum statement of what has to be there to have successful sessions. And let's put the most important points first. 1. Process for the purpose of helping the preclear and not to take advantage of them. 2. Grant Beingness 3. Maintain 2 way communication 4. Do not invalidate or get angry with the pc or correct his data 5. Do not evaluate for or force the pc 6. Never let anything divulged in session be used against the pc 7. Do not upset the pc or distract him from his case or act overly sympathetic 8. Use the processes which work for the pc 9. Do not confuse the pc or fail to clear up a wrongly understood command 10. Finish what you start and do not continue a process beyond its expected result 11. Do not justify or make excuses for any mistakes 12. Avoid processing under non-optimum conditions such as insufficient food or sleep This seems short and simple enough to be broadly applicable and easy to teach and apply. --------- I must admit that I'm thinking of this especially in terms of co-auditing. What would 2 beginners have to know to keep from messing each other up. Best, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - BETWEEN LIVES EXPLORATION BETWEEN LIVES EXPLORATION There has been a lot of speculation on the afterlife and the between lives area. But it remains one of the great frontiers with little verified knowledge. I do not consider subjective knowledge, perception, or recall to be scientific proof or dependable data. It is the equivallent of rumors, a half knowledge that is probably no more accurate than the European legends of Cathay in the dark ages were in describing the actualities of China. I am sold on the idea of reincarnation. I am certain that we continue on beyond the death of the body. But how much do we really know in a verifiable scientific sense? Not much I'm afraid. My own recalls and perceptions in this area are in fact subjective. Even if I am closer to truth than others, I would not bet money on what I know about the area. Having a vague idea that there might be snow in the Himalayas is not the same as having a detailed map to the peak of Mt. Everest. Evan's excellent translations of anchient Tibetan scrolls points out an interesting fact. They had an accurate perception that there was a continent to the west which was a land of cattle eaters (American Indians eating buffalo?). But they also had a laughably inaccurate map of the world. They had a true knowledge that this was one world among many, but lacked many of the simplest basics that would be in any child's astronomy book. I think that this is the position that we are now in as regards to the between lives area. There is something there. There is a lot of half knowledge as to what. But nothing is guaranteed. And so I would call on real seekers of truth to attempt to report back on whatever they can after death. I don't think that it will be easy. The idea would be to try to find out things and then to find some way to pass the data back here before reincarnating. I know of cases where an OT picked up a new body and as a small child gave out some bit of data from their earlier lifetime. There are cases where a former life Scientologists has had processes rehabbed that had been run in the earlier life and the meter phenomena behaved appropriately. But I know of nobody who has come through with good continuous recall. Even the OTs forget their previous life and then get back little bits of it. Of course in general people might not want to remember their former lives in detail. But somebody who was seeking truth would be an exception to this because they would want every bit of data that they could get their hands on. Furthermore, the actual between lives sequence seems immensly harder to recall than the earlier lifetimes. I've picked up bits of it (described in Super Scio) but it's nothing that I would trust my recall on. My working hypothesis right now is that we are still going through some sort of memory wipeout between lives despite any wishful thinking that the between lives implants have been eliminated or can easily be bypassed. But it is also possible that this is simply coming about through some case factor or that there is some simple thing that we have not yet understood about the mechanics of memory. It is possible that the drop in havingness at death is enough by itself to cause forgetfulness unless it is remedied. As to what one might percieve between lives, there are various possibilities: a) The real world (Earth, etc.) b) Dreams c) Implant Pictures d) Other realities (including heavens & hells etc.) e) Shared Illusions I can hardly guess at the laws governing these various things or their relative degree of solidity. My advice is to be armed to the teeth with processes and to be both flexible and fearless, neither letting oneself be suckered into traps nor avoiding things. We have a large array of objective OT drills which would be very useful. Among the best are those in the first few chapters of Self Clearing. Simple alternate spotting (the locational or attention process) is extremely powerful in sorting out delusion from reality. The same goes for mocking up copies alongside of real objects. There have been various attempts to describe the between lives area. I would suspect that these are all vague half truths and not entirely accurate, but are well worth reading non-the-less so as to be properly prepared. The best is Evan's translation of "The Tibetan Book of the Dead". A nice second look with some insights of its own is "The American Book of the Dead" by E.J. Gold. Monroe's books are also highly recommended. And there are lots of interesting books in the new age section in the bookstores. ---------------- The After Death processing rundown. On of the biggest problems is to avoid a crash in havingness due to the loss of the body. One of the commonly described effects is that a person in good shape who is not heavily drugged when they die will come out with good exterior preception briefly and then will sink. This is described as the "swoon" in the Tibetan materials. One has a clear moment and then passes out and then comes briefly to consciousness again and so forth. Gold describes this as being like dropping a ball, and it keeps bouncing up again for awhile, but a bit lower each time. I would suggest that one's first action on dropping the body is to immediately work to raise havingness before one's perceptions begin to fade or one begins to go unconsious or one starts following tunnels or whatever looking for the light. Best is probably a variation on the first process of self clearing chapter 11 which is to pick a mountain and drill ext/int on it. A mountain is a big mass and it is a good anchor point to keep things located. Have a favorite mountain and flatten the ext/int drill on it now before dropping the body. Then go a bit further and drill alternately being the mountain and simply holding it as an anchorpoint from a distance. You want an ideal state where you can use this mountain as needed for mass or orientation but you are not stuck in it or held back by it. Some of the spiritualists worry about earthbound spirits who get too attached to the Mest around here. So flatten ext/int in advance and also drill mocking up copies of the mountain and throwing them away. You want it as a tool rather than a limitation. So, assuming these things have been flattened before dying, this gives us process AD-1 to be done when one exteriorized and floats above the body as it dies. AD-1) Alternately, a) look down at the dead body while reaching into the mountain as an anchor point, and b) be in the mountain, feeling the mass of it and look at the surrounding area. This can be practiced in advanced once you are up to holding a stable position exterior above the body (as discussed in self clearing chapter 11). Simply do the above drill with the body lying down with its eyes closed. Next would be to raise perception and further improve havingness. AD-2) Run either simple alternate spotting or mental reach and withdraw (chapters 1 or 2 of self clearing) on the enviornment around the body which one has dropped. Use whichever one (or both) gives you the best feeling of havingness and orientation. According to the Tibetan book of the dead, you will tend to use a spiritual mockup of your current body as it died and you want to alter this immediately so that you don't get stuck in that form. They furthmore recommend that if any demons show up to scare you (to chase you into the womb or whatever), you mock yourself up as a bigger and more frightful demon and scare them right back. This is all good advice and should be drilled. In preparation, run the self clearing chapter on Bodies while you are alive and well. Then drill the following, and use it as your third step after dropping the body. AD-3) a) mock yourself up in an young, powerful, ideal body (this can be an improved version of your current body or whatever you like and feel comfortable with) b) mock yourself up as a fearsome demon (for self defense only) c) mock yourself up as being the mountain used in the earlier drill d) mock yourself up in whatever you concieve of to be an ultimate godlike form Alternate between these 4 forms quickly until you can easily shift between them and don't feel stuck in any particular one. You might want to add a 5th form after the godlike form above which would be a cloud form that permeates things. Cloud forms are often ideal for many things but there is some early track charge on these. So see if you can flatten a simple process on alternately being a mountain and a cloud (before dying). If it goes well, add it to the above list. The 3 processes above should be done first to get one well oriented and raise havingness. Then it is time to handle the death incident. AD-4) Run the death incident by alternately a) spot something in the enviornment b) spot something in the incident Note that you have to be really careful about keeping your havingness high at this point, so I think that the above is the only safe incident running technique to use to avoid going into a reviv of the incident and loosing present time perception. After facing the impact of the incident, there still may be charge on the loss involved. It is important to flatten this and it would be best to use an easy technique that can be done in present time. So I would recommend the "blow it up" process from the first ACC. AD-5) Mockup the body (alive and well) in various places and blow it up. If you have trouble holding a stable position while doing this, locate youself above (or in) the aforementioned mountain and project the mockups from there. Continue as long as any grief turns on at blowing the body up. Note that you shouldn't be in the body that you're blowing up, just project the mockup various places. This can be run again with copies of the dead body, blowing those up too to get over any remaining flinch at the dead body. If a good bit of charge comes off on this, then check over the original version (alive and well) again to see if any more charge on the loss is now available to be run. Finally, we want to ensure retaining some recall, and there may be a tendency to forget simply because one no longer has the mass of the body to keep one oriented to the lifetime. The thing to do would be to pick some special moments in this lifetime and use them as anchor points to the recall. Again, these should be selected in advance and run through occasionally so that they are easy to connect with. Pick a half dozen or a dozen especially nice moments in time in the current lifetime, preferably ones which have some significance and will help you to remember other things when you want to. It might help to number these and think of the year they occured along with the sceen. When I talked about the possiblity of time being reset in Super Scio, I suggested that some key points be picked to act as triggers to recall in case you should find yourself going through the same lifetime again. The same list could be used for both purposes. For drilling this before death, shift into the mountain and recall the list of key moments from there because you will not have the option of recalling them from the body after dropping it. So the process would be: AD-6) Shift into the mountain, using it to remain oriented to PT, and recall each of the key moments in this lifetime (the one just completed). It might also help to mockup favorite posessions that have good recalls associated with them. The one time that my body dematerialized in this lifetime, I was extremely forgetful and very dimwitted. I described that in Super Scio chapter 9. In that case there was no impact and no implants, it was simply a side effect of being without the mass and energy of the body briefly. I expect that to happen after dropping the body. But in my one near death experience (also described in Super Scio), I was out with extremely clear perception and full intelligence, possibly because the body was still present and alive even though it had shut down completely. I think that in actually dropping the body, the high awareness state will be there briefly and then one will sink into the forgetfull not too bright state as the energy level drops. This would match the Tibetan description of having a good moment followed by the swoon. I can't guarantee how effective the above drills will be in avoiding the swoon nor can I be sure that one would have enough time to complete them before sinking. I do think that the processes should be capable of pulling you back up if you keep at them long enough, repeating the entire series a few times if necessary. But you might have to be able to continue them through a heavy period of mental fogginess. So drill the entire set of processes, AD-1 to 6 a number of times until you can do it easily. And then repeat it at least once a year so that it stays fresh in your mind and is at your fingertips. For drilling before death, on AD-4, running the death, you could pick a death in a movie you watched recently (so you'll have some things to spot in the "incident") and run it to a mild win of recalling the movie sceen clearly. Process AD-5, blowing up copies of the body, is fun even before death and blows some charge on the current body, so don't be afraid to use it before death, it doesn't hurt the body. This is a nice one to do simply for its own gains. And shifting between the mountain, an ideal body, a scary body, a godlike body, and a cloud form is also a nice process in its own right. So these are all good drills under any circumstances. You might also want to drill shifting between a few different mountains at least once so that you don't get too fixated on one. ---------- When you do drop the body, run through the above set of processes immediately, you don't know how long you will retain a clear state of consciousness. Repeat the entire set if necessary until you feel better and have confidence that you can hold a stable position and retain recall. You might have to keep some kind of form mocked up to stay oriented. Occasionally thereafter, you might want to run through the set of processes again. Up until you get this done, you should ignore anything that shows up. Just treat it as a distraction. If there are opportunities or whatever, one would expect them to repeat once they've got your attention, so just ignore any tunnels, pearly gates, visitors, or whatever until you finish your processing. Once you are done, then it is time to explore and learn things. Here the sky is the limit. Unless I was otherwise distracted, my first action would be to go around and visit people and try to establish communication. In the western tradition, one is drawn down a tunnel and rushes towards "the light at the end of the tunnel". In the Tibetan materials they suggest that you don't let yourself be pulled or pushed around but either remain unmoving or move in a reverse direction because these things are trying to get you to go to your fate rather than your desire. This is good advice. However, if I was feeling gutzy and fairly confident of shifting out of a flow or a picture and back to the mountain when I wanted, I might go along with something or even step into a possible implant just to see what I could learn. I might also go into something while also holding an external anchor point (such as a mountain) on a similar basis. Next, the western tradition is that you are met by friends and family who have died (usually this is at the end of the tunnel). The Tibetan material says that you will be met by benificial entities (even if you resist going down any tunnels). Other traditions generally have some kind of similar meetings with guides or whatever. I would suspect that all of these are seeing the same thing from different perspectives and with different dub-in layered on top of an actual truth. In other words, you will run into something which either is a friendly force or is pretending to be a friendly force (be careful) at this stage. I would further suggest that what looks like a relative or a savior or a benevolent godess should not be taken at face value. However, you may be dealing with a friendly force, so be polite and not offensive. Try doing some light processing, teaching, and exchange of knowledge and see how that goes. Think of the alien in Sagan's "Contact" wearing a friendly form to put the heroine at ease. But this could also be bait for a trap, so take care. After the benevolent entities, the Tibetan materials say that the nasty ones will show up. Here you can use the scary form if needed. But even with demons I'd be inclined to talk first and to process unless they are determined to make trouble. According to them, near the end of the nasty ones, they will try to judge you and you should reject the judgement. There also seems to be a judegement step in most of the other traditions and the Tibetan advice seems good for this. Eventually, according to the book of the dead, all this stuff will die down and you can go about the business of looking for a nice body which has some money in an area where religious studies are possible. According to Ron, there will be between lives implants, and they will try to sucker you in with nice pictures of pearly gates or whatever and then hit you with an implant and you should just sidestep these and look for a body on your own because they wouldn't actually help you find one but just dump you back here to look for yourself after wiping your recall. According to some of the other spiritual traditions, and also according to Monroe, souls will tend to cluster together and form some sort of shared mockup and exchange data before selecting a new lifetime. According to many traditions, there may be heavens and hells or other places that you might go to. According to Dante, Christ ended up in hell and tore the place apart and rescued people before resurrecting. Not a bad idea if you can do it, and if that's a bit too tough, then scare off the demons and shift back to the mountain if you find yourself in such a place. I would be inclined to explore these things and even to take chances, but also to hang onto anchor points and visit people and keep doing various processes. I would think that any process which you can remember would be worth trying again in the between lives area. It would be best to be loaded for bear before tangling with the between lives area. Learn as much as you can and process as much as you can first. Even if your body is in bad shape, I would recommend hanging on and processing as long as possible rather than dropping it. At the top one materializes and dematerializes real bodies at will. That makes you senior to any cycle of life and death. I'm not there yet, but its where we are going. You don't need to die to do this, instead you unmock the body and then mock it up again. As I see it, there is no need to drop the body to continue research as Ron was reported to have done. I suspect that that was just a shore story. But if one is stuck with the fact of the body having died, then use it as part of the research effort. And please try to report back whatever you find out. In the meantime, the after death rundown should be practiced, not only against the possiblity of dying by accident, but also to make it safe to unmock the body if you get up to that level. That one time where my body did vanish left me feeling that it was unsafe to do that, because I forgot so much while I was in that state that I might not have remembered to come back if the girl hadn't been there calling me. Good Luck, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - To ACW On Ext/Int TO ACW ON EXT/INT On 24 Jan 99, "Alan C. Walter" posted on subject "Ext/Int: Innies and Outties" > There are basically two types of client operating conditions. > > Type 1: > > Innies: > > These are spiritual beings who operate from the viewpoints of that they are > inside their heads. > > > Type 2: > > Outties: > > These are spiritual beings who are aware they operate through the body but > operate from a much greater spacation and encompass a greater span of space. > > The majority of spiritual beings today that reach for our services are > outties, they maybe unknowing outties, but never-the-less they are exterior. > > Outties tend to be leaders, as they have great trouble being contained. > > Innies tend to be followers as they have great trouble leading. > > Knowing Innies from Outties is vital is in processing. > > Many poorly trained, highly charged processors are Innies. Robotic > processors are Innies. > > Should an Innie process an Outtie the Outtie will have a great deal of > trouble being processed. > > As an Outtie fights like crazy to stay out. (the rest of this extremely interesting post snipped for brevity) Quite right, except that you missed a third type: Biggies. The ones who are past this business & can be in and out simultaneously, bigger than the body (when they feel like it) or simply don't consider themselves located in space and permeate things. In fact, I would expect that this is very much in keeping with other observations of yours concerning permeation, size, etc., so I suspect that this was a simple oversight on your part. Biggies also have trouble when Innies audit them, but they tend to permeate the Innie and take over the session. Of course this leads to the cog that they could be running faster on their own without the distraction of the Innie. Probably half of my auditing (as a pc) felt like that, hence my great willingness to self audit and the great wins I had doing that. Outties usually get away with auditing biggies, but sometimes it scares them because the biggie is very willing to interiorize and has a lot of fun doing so since they don't get stuck. Biggies do very well auditing either type because they don't mind either viewpoint and can duplicate them comfortably. There is the speed differential, but an Innie can run fast if the process is exactly on the right gradient. Also a biggie tends to bring a case temporarily upscale so that they run above their usual level. Hope this helps, The Pilot ========================================== subj: Super Scio Tech - On Confronting (Attn Azeric) ON CONFRONTING (Attn Azeric) On 20 Jan 99, azeric asked on topic "Question about Confronting" > I feel that I am confronting people less than in the past. > > I have done numerous confront drills in the past and gained > alot from them at the time. For about 2 years I had a high level of > confront around people and felt comfortable and at ease talking with > them. > > Now I feel I have lost that ability. Is this typical? > > A few years ago I did the Communications Course, the TR(Training > Routines) & Objectives Course, coached/twinned with someone through the > TRs on the Pro-TRs Course, and coached several other people on their > Comm. Course and TR drills. > > I am a little disappointed because I thought I had gained a permanent > ability. I know I can do the TRs again-- if I find a twin outside the > Church, but I am curious to know if others have experienced this also. There are 2 possiblities: 1) Invalidation The business of being connected to an SP and rollercoastering is a subset of this. It's that suppression generally works via invalidation. But not all inval comes from "SPs". Simply overrunning something is usually an inval and can turn off a gain until you rehab it. Best to just clean off invalidation, and if you notice that it all seems to be coming from one source, then consider whether that terminal might be suppressive towards you. 2) Growth Absolute and total TRs would of course bring about as-isness and so forth and would be up at the top of the scale. You should be able to stop a speeding bullet by acknowledgement alone. Fully confronting the wall in all its aspects should allow you to walk through it if you feel like. Of course we are nowhere near that level. Therefore the EP has to be considered to be relative. This means that eventually you will expand and bump into the next layer. If that is happening, rehabs etc. will leave you feeling unsatisfied because you are ready to go further. Note that major stable gains on TRs will rehab just like a major processing action. Even the org does that when they run a TRs Debug. But often with TRs its going to be that you are ready to confront at a different order of magnitude. After major EPs on TRs and then Grade 5 and hitting a keyed out OT state, when I did TRs again I saw entities and energy fields and other people's masses and machinery and all sorts of wild stuff. The whole business needed a second pass at a new level. The trouble with TRs is that you need a twin who is up to that rather than someone who is going to push you back into a body. So you might have to settle for solo drills that raise your confront. If its growth, then you find new kinds of stuff on repeating an action. If you're just getting the same old thing, its simply inval and you rehab and then do something else for more gains. Best, 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. ------------------