 |
|
|
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Copyright 1996
All commercial rights are reserved to the author, who currently wishes to remain anonymous and therefore is writing under the pen name of "The Pilot". Individuals may freely copy these files on the internet for their own use and they may be made available on any web server who does not charge for them and who does not alter their contents.
---------------------------------------------
15. SOME MORE TECHNIQUES FROM EASTERN PRACTICES
The field of metaphysics suffers from a shortage of workable techniques and processes. However, there have been a few. With what we know now, we can take these techniques, correct the flaws (which may have been intentionally introduced to block advancement) and improve them into something useful. One example is the chakras which I discussed earlier. Here are a few more.
---------
THE PRANA (or Pranhayana) BREATHING EXERCISES
This is one of the key techniques of Yoga. First they labor at mastering various techniques of breathing, especially rhythmic and hypnotic ones. Then they work at drawing in cosmic energy (called Prana) with the breath and running it out to the extremities of the body or collecting it in the stomach or in the bottom chakra.
This is a mockup drill of considerable power, but few of them realize that they are mocking up the energy for the body to draw in (a few advanced ones are aware of this). If you consider that the universe is mocking up energy for you, that puts you at effect and it makes this a long and difficult procedure. If, however, you consider that you are mocking up energy for the body, then it becomes a simple and powerful technique that runs quickly and easily.
The idea of mocking the energy up outside and having the body draw it in with the breathing is actually quite smart. This makes the energy acceptable to the body and brings it in on the body's normal inflow.
You can just push golden energy into the body, but there is some resistance and it is not easy to get the body to have or use the energy. Mocking up golden energy in the air around you and having the body breath it in is orders of magnitude easier and often gives a distinct rise in the body's energy level. Go ahead and drill it a little each way and you'll see what I mean. You should occasionally flow some energy in contrary to the breathing just to keep from going slavishly into agreement with the body, even though it is much easier the other way.
There's no sense in making a big deal about the breathing itself. With a drill like this you should consciously control your breathing, but it hardly matters what you do with it as long as you are in control. It doesn't have to be rhythmic (unless you're trying for some kind of a trance) or deep or shallow or any other specific thing.
Realize that you are not actually breathing in energy. You are just fooling the body into accepting the energy that you are mocking up for it by flowing it in with the breath. This means that you can breath shallowly or erratically and still run a big flow of energy all the way out to the fingers and toes.
An interesting drill is to mockup a cloud of golden energy around an object and then flow the energy in and out of it in rhythm with your breathing. This might help with levitation etc.
-------------
THE DIAMOND CUTTER: INTROSPECTIVE DRILLS ON NOTHINGNESS
The "Diamond Cutter" drill (sometimes found in Mahayana Buddhist texts) was so called because it exposed the true spirit hidden within the corporeal shell much as a diamond cutter exposed the true diamond hidden within what seems to be an ordinary stone.
This was one of a general class of drills where one meditated on being nothing or looked inward and found nothingness.
Occasionally these kinds of drills would produce a keyed out OT, but usually they just keyed the person in and knocked him down scale.
Ron tried out various techniques in this direction and found that they generally were restimulative and unworkable (only one process, "Conceive a Static" worked to some degree). Eventually he concluded that you could not process in this direction because a thetan had to have a game and the static is a no games condition. But in this case he was wrong.
The real bug in these drills is that the static is not a pure nothingness. It is a nothingness with potential.
If you run "I am nothing", it will kick your teeth in because it is wrong. If you run "I am a nothingness with infinite potential", you are moving in the direction of truth and rehabilitating native state and will gain in power. The ancient drills must have occasionally hit this the right way and so they sporadically produced a powerful result.
But alternating techniques are much stronger than simple contemplation. And even with the right concept, drills on nothingness can knock out havingness. So our best technique would alternate the nothingness with a powerful havingness raising command. This gives us the following high horsepower process:
Mock these up, alternately. Don't worry about it if it seems very vague and unreal at first, just carry on, it will get better.
A) Look within yourself and see a nothingness with infinite potential.
B) Look within yourself and see the entire physical universe.
You can also vary this by seeing the magic universe or any other universe that you have some reality on.
-------------------
ZEN AND THE ART OF DISAGREEMENT
In the final analysis, you can only trap yourself.
I have labeled the 12th dynamic as "Reason" and it encompasses the domain of logic. That it is only the 12th and not the top implies that it is not an absolute truth and that you can operate outside of it.
Early on the track you could be trapped by your own logic and this is perhaps the ultimate trap.
Zen is famous for its koans. These are concepts to meditate on which are aimed at freeing you from the trap by exteriorizing you out of the game and the pattern of agreement. An often quoted example is "The Sound Of One Hand Clapping". Another is "The Sound of Silence", which doesn't mean that you hear how quiet it is or feel relief that the noise has stopped but rather that you contemplate the sound of the nothingness that isn't there.
The direct approach would be to drill disagreement through mockup processing as is done in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course. But any direct approach is limited by the factors of accessibility.
Zen, on the other hand, is a subtle approach which tries to undercut the entire pattern, not just the parts that are accessible.
On a conscious level, you could, for example, mockup silence with and without sound, but that would be missing the point of the koan. In that kind of a drill, you are moving upwards in the pattern of agreement and learning to disagree at a basic level, but you are still to some degree in the game. The koan, on the other hand, is more like listening to a sound that was never put there in the first place. It is outside of the entirety of the game.
This approach can exteriorize one from the jewel of knowledge and the entire sequence of universes.
The best way would be to mockup your own koans. Contemplate that which you consider to be truly impossible by definition and find it anyway and discover that there is no way to communicate it but it still is.
Being of a mathematical bent, I contemplated the place where two and two equals five in the absolute sense (without redefining the number line) knowing that such a place could not exist by definition and contemplated that location anyway.
This is a limited approach. Even in exteriorizing from the game, you will not actually abandon everything without viewing it. Therefore you will put it back and reach back into it. But it is still an exterior condition, much like exteriorizing from the body, but a step higher.
But there is a liability to this technique. It can take you so far out that you experience a severe drop in havingness and motion. That in turn can cause you to pull things back in again. So you need to balance this with havingness processes and OT drills. Especially, reaching and withdrawing from the physical universe, and mocking up games etc. You might also need to do a variation of the ext/int rundown on the button of interiorizing and exteriorizing from games or universes or frames of reference.
-------------------
Having found these gems within the various Buddhist practices, and knowing that Ron's early work drew on this material as well, you would expect to find a tremendous degree of spiritual awareness in the orient.
Let me disabuse you of that notion.
The vast majority of Buddhists are not practicing Zen or the Trantras (Tantric Buddhism is the Tibetan flavor - the word Tantra could be translated as meaning process or drill) or the Sutras (the diamond cutter is a sutra).
Most Buddhists follow one of two popular schools.
In the one case, they pray for the coming of Matreya. This is the Buddha who is to come who is supposedly studying in heaven attempting to build a better bridge.
In the other case, they pray to be reborn in the pure land. At some point, the Amithaba Buddha (who might or might not have been Buddha's deciple Ananda) promised that when he achieved enlightenment, he would create a world which was so good and pure that if you were reborn there, all your sins and karma would fall away and you would be set free.
I think that observing this is one of the things that drove Ron to freeze Scientology and guard it against alteration (which also guards it against advancement). He saw the shattered remnants of what must have been a very advanced mental science decayed into superstition and with its key processes mostly lost or twisted with subtle traps and errors that would derail the majority of the population.
But in this world, things will not remain the same. They either advance or decline. It doesn't work to try and cast it all in concrete. That simply assures that the change, when it comes, will be a decay instead of an improvement.
By the way, Ron didn't say that he was The Buddha (Gutama Siddartha). He said he was the Matreya, meaning that he was the next Buddha who'd studied and found a better way than the eightfold path. Since the Matreya is prophesized to be a chubby westerner with red hair and is often depicted as sitting in a chair instead of in the lotus position, there might be some justice in the claim. It wouldn't surprise me if he had been one of the Buddha's deciples and had vowed to fulfill the prophesy (this is pure speculation). Of course he didn't spend the last few thousand years in heaven, but that might not have turned out to be a practical approach to research.
==================================
Oct 28, 1990
I stumbled on this while trying to resolve a life continuum. We've known for a long time that children often try to carry on the valences of relatives who died around them. This is discussed in the Dianetic materials of 1951. Early on, this was considered to be a sort of overt/motivator phenomena with the child blowing a minor overt or postulate to be rid of the person up into the reason for their demise and doing a valence shift.
But let's say that there is a perfect child who does nothing bad with perfect parents with whom he is in great ARC. Now let's say that Ug the barbarian comes riding by with his broadsword and lops the parents' heads off. It would seem to me that this kid is going to do a life continuum. And the critical button is the fact that he failed to protect them.
This is very much like failed help and it will run the same way. This incident could even be considered as an extreme example of failing to help. But these are really two different things and trying to resolve it on failed help might not quite give you the right chain. It's not really hung up on the times he didn't get them a bucket of water when he should have. He's not really worried about that although he'll jump at it to avoid the real failure which was the fact that there was no way in hell that he could have protected these people. These were symboiants and allies of great value and he sure did want them to stay around and he would have given anything to protect them. You'll find that he made the strongest postulate he could to protect them, but he failed. And then he makes his postulate stick the only way he can. He makes his dead ally live on by becoming them himself.
You can't go straight into the teeth of this. Its like failed help, you will have trouble running it directly with a repetitive process. What you do is run the positive aspect and build it up until the weight of what he can protect exceeds the failure and blows out the ridge.
To cure a life continuum, generalize the terminal (e.g. "a father" rather than a specific father etc.) and fit it into the following process.
1. How could you protect a ....
2. How could a ..... protect you
3. How could another protect a .....
4. How could a ..... protect another
5. How could a ..... protect himself/herself
On a more general basis, you can use all of the help processes on grade 1 and reword them with "protect" in place of help. Note that you should run the help processes in their original form first if you haven't done so already since help is a lower gradient, then run the protect version of these processes. On a grades chart these might better fit into the beginning of grade 2 rather than grade 1.
Another thing that happens both with help and protection is that they get enforced and inhibited. There can be quite a bit of charge on this. Ron's bulletin on how help became betrayal is really in this realm rather than in the area of failed help and we haven't really gone hunting it in the current lineup of processes (it might sometimes show up if you get enough charge off). This is a critical area and it should be run. The processes would be as follows:
1. Spot times when you forced another to help you.
2. Spot times when another forced you to help them.
3. Spot times when another forced someone else to help them.
4. Spot times when you forced another to help others.
5. Spot times when another forced you to help others.
6. Spot times when another forced someone else to help others.
7. Spot times when you rejected another's help.
8. Spot times when another rejected your help.
9. Spot times when another rejected other's help.
10. Spot times when you made another wrong for not helping.
11. Spot times when another made you wrong for not helping.
12. Spot times when another made others wrong for not helping.
13. Spot times when you made another wrong for helping.
14. Spot times when another made you wrong for helping.
15. Spot times when another made others wrong for helping.
Then run the same with protect in place of help.
Besides this, there appear to be some between lives implants which use a failed help and failed protect scene for each of the penalty universes. These seem to be used in one of the upper between lives (i.e., between symbol bodies etc.) rather than in the current meat body between lives implants.
Both the failed help and failed protect implants use the terminal that was defined as "This means trouble" in the original penalty universes. In the failed help scene, you are the penalty universe terminal, and you hear a cry for help from another of the same terminals who has been captured by the trouble terminal. I.E., on the goal To Eat, you would be a tiger and would hear the cry of another tiger who has been captured by natives and is being hurt. You try to rush in, but you get stopped in some manner. Although your body doesn't die, you flinch so hard that you snap out of the body and can't bear to re-animate it even though the other terminal is screaming or whatever, and as a result, you fail to help them.
In the failed protect scene, you are the "trouble" terminal. There will be a crowd of some sort of beings that the penalty terminal hurts in the penalty universe. For example, in the goal To Eat, you are the native and there will be a crowd of monkeys who come and beg for your protection against the tiger. Generally they give you something and you agree to protect them. Then the penalty terminal comes in fast and smashes you (i.e. the tiger comes charging in, swats your spear away, and claws you). You feel pain and jump back from the body. Although the body isn't dead, you can't bear to re-enter it and continue fighting. So you float exterior and watch as the penalty terminal does horrible things to the victims you agreed to protect (i.e., you watch the tiger eating all the monkeys).
The failed help and protect scenes will be described in detail for each penalty universe on the full master list since they are easiest to run while running the penalty universes themselves.
==================================
Based on the idea that there was an earlier actual GPM series used in the magic universe, I tried to map out what it might be.
The actual goals of this universe seem to be oriented towards beingness ("to be intelligent" etc.). It seemed to me that the magic universe goals would be havingness oriented. So I tried to list out "Who or what am I trying to have". The list went on and on, to about 500 items. I kept going because charge seemed to be coming off and I was feeling good about doing it, but it was not really a valid listing question because it did not go to a single item. Near the end, various items began to rocket read (not all items, which would mean that the correct item had been bypassed, but rather, specific items developed a clean and consistent RR when called).
I did various corrections and cleanups and ended up with a set of about a dozen RRing items that were each valid answers to the question. I realized that they had a sequence to them and could be dated (between 100 and 1000 trillion years ago) and had been lived in sequence. When I arranged these, I found more that belonged in between and came up with the following series of goals.
These are listed from earliest (1087 trillion years ago) to the most recent (113 trillion years ago).
1. TO HAVE FANTASTIC SURPRISES
2. TO HAVE BEAUTIFUL SPACES
3. TO HAVE THRILLING GAMES
4. TO HAVE PASSIONATE LOVES
5. TO HAVE EXCITING ADVENTURES
6. TO HAVE GRAND POSSESSIONS
7. TO HAVE PURE PLEASURE
8. TO HAVE DELIGHTFUL SNACKS (MEALS)
9. TO HAVE PRETTY THINGS
10. TO HAVE PLEASANT SENSATIONS
11. TO HAVE INTERESTING EXPERIENCES
12. TO HAVE EXTRAORDINARY ABILITIES
13. TO HAVE DIVINE KNOWLEDGE
14. TO HAVE WONDROUS ENERGY
15. TO HAVE FANTASTIC EXCITEMENT
16. TO HAVE AESTHETIC BODIES
Ron once mentioned an item "To Have Unlimited Wealth" which feels like it belongs in the same series (but not in this section of the pattern). There is probably a top goal which might be something like having the entire universe or all of creation. If this is like the current actual GPM series, then there are a lot more of these goals in the pattern.
I can't say for sure how this fits in. It is uncertain whether these are from the magic universe or earlier. It is uncertain whether this is really a series of actual goals or just an implant. It is given here as a note for future research.
I also tried this with DOINGNESS GOALS. That gave me much more trouble and was pretty mucked up. I also tried various attempts to list items (terminal-opterms) for these various goals without coming up with any patterns that I was really satisfied with. But I did eventually come up with a number of doingness goals that formed a back and forth goal oppose pattern. Again I'm not sure what it means or if it has any significance, but I'll include it here as an aid to future research. The pattern was:
1. TO LEVITATE (or "to be able"?)
2. TO BE A GOOD MEMBER OF SOCIETY
3. TO OVERTHROW CIVILIZATION
4. TO HAVE A NICE SOCIETY
5. TO DO WONDERFUL THINGS
6. TO GET AWAY FROM IT ALL
7. TO BE LOVED
8. TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYBODY
9. TO BE CARED FOR
10. TO ESCAPE
11. TO BE ADMIRED
12. TO BE UNNOTICED
13. TO BE RESPECTED
14. TO NOT BE BOTHERED
15. TO BE ACCEPTED
16. TO MAKE THEM LEAVE ME ALONE
Note that I casually try out listing questions without worrying about getting in trouble. It's not like having somebody else jam a listing question down your throat. If your confront on the area is good enough to let you think up the question, and your skill level is high enough to do it in a clean manner, then you don't get overwhelmed or sick. Either you discover right away that its a wrong question and just gives a jumbled up mess and abandon it as an incorrect action, or it lists cleanly and simply (with a short list) and you find out something. Only rarely have I run into things like the above which sort of ran but didn't quite run cleanly and left me scratching my head. I suspect that this came from taking a half right angle of approach into something that was still heavily charged.
People who have not spent years working at this will probably have a lot more charge and a lot less sense at the right ways to approach things. Therefore I would advise against playing around with untried listing questions until you are very far along and ready to break new ground.
==================================
If the best we can come up with is democracy (and that will fail if the voters become too stupid, fearful, or welfare oriented), then we should at least do it right.
The electoral college might have made sense for a loose amalgamation of states, but that hasn't been the case since the civil war. If we're going to be stuck with a strong central government, then lets at least let the people vote directly for the man who's going to run things.
Letting congress pick the president if none of the candidates gets a majority is downright dangerous and frightening in its implications.
Having an entrenched 2 party system guarantees corruption and vested interests. It is almost impossible for a 3rd political party to win a presidential election, and if one does, then one of the older parties will fold up and we'll be back to 2 parties again. What you need is newer and older groups competing on an equal basis. And you need to have the established parties worrying about new upstarts to keep them efficient and reasonably honest.
Having only 2 viable parties means that you are usually choosing between the lesser of two evils instead of voting for somebody you want and makes it possible for elections to be manipulated on a "hate" vote instead of on merit.
What we need is a "Second Chance" voting system. You vote for the person you want, and specify a second choice which replaces your vote if your candidate is not one of the top two in the first round of counting. This lets you vote your desire first and then fall back to a practical, but undesirable, choice. At a minimum, this scares the established parties and causes them to shift quickly in the direction of reform groups that pick up high percentages in the first round. And in the best case, it brings new parties in quickly and overturns the back room king makers.
This kind of voting system is often used in things like picking the best novel or film to avoid the problem of people voting for what they think will have a good chance instead of voting for what they really think is best. Because there are so many contenders, they usually use 3 to 5 choices and multiple elimination rounds. We might want that eventually, but for now its hard enough to explain the idea of two choices.
========================================
Computers are the latest rage. They're lots of fun and very useful. They do things for you on automatic. It lets you get a lot done.
But automaticities can be a curse as well as a blessing. First of all, you should make a point of knowing what is being done for you. And secondly, you should know how to do it yourself. This is true whether we are talking about a computer, or mental machinery, or even a crowd of servants. Don't let yourself simply be carried along as an effect of what is being done for you. Use the stuff and let it help you, but also find out about it and get over to a position of being at cause and in control.
A little time spent learning the basics about computers is well worth the effort in the current society.
-----------
Ron did a nice series of bulletins on the subject of computers. These are a good introduction and better than many of the beginners books in the field. But here we have an interesting point. If you are new to the field and study these and use them as a point to launch off from, you will win. And if you treat these as absolute and the final word on the subject, you're setting yourself up for failure. These were written by a man who has an excellent ability to identify key factors in a subject and communicate them. But he didn't spend decades in the trenches programming and designing systems (I have). There is a lot more to know in the area.
We could draw a parallel with Scientology tech. It is good but incomplete. You will have that problem any time you try to limit a subject to one and only one individual source point. Science has ground to a halt a number of times in the past because an extremely bright figure (such as Archimedes or Aristotle or Newton) created such a vast outpouring of brilliance that people put him up on a pedestal and ceased to think for themselves.
-----------
Computers are not self aware or creative and they are not intelligent in the fullest sense. But they can simulate these things. Any decision or postulate or way of doing something can be worked out in advance by a programmer and set up in a program.
A computer wouldn't want to take over the world. Computers don't actually want anything (even if somebody has programmed one to say that it wants something). If a computer does announce that it intends to take over the world, you should find out who programmed it to do that.
What is currently called artificial intelligence has only been successful in pattern recognition and expert systems. An expert system consists of simply programming the computer to mimic the standard actions of human experts in the area being computerized. And pattern recognition (which includes trend analysis, speech recognition, visual identification, etc.) consists of using sophisticated math and lots of computing power to find the closest matches within a known set.
One way of looking at it is to consider that the actual thought originates with the programmer and the computer is simply a way to leverage that thought into a broad and lasting effect.
Of course an exterior thetan with enough horsepower might take over a computer system. That has happened on the whole track. In that case you should be able to audit the guy (Nots etc.) and even run him back to past lives. Don't be fooled into thinking that a machine has suddenly become aware of being aware. Either a sophisticated programmer is stringing you along or you're dealing with a real thetan who goes all the way back to the beginning.
------------
A program is simply an ordered series of postulates made in advance to work on data that has not yet been presented. One of our best tricks is to loop these postulates around to repeat over and over, usually on a varying stream of data.
Mental machinery can be built in the same way. And if you can make a postulate stick in the real world, then you can build theta machinery which can manipulate reality. Hypothetically, the entire universe might be a sort of programmed manifestation generated by a sort of theta computer (which would really be just a series of ordered postulates).
All the various things we see in programming can be applied to theta machinery. You can loop postulates around on themselves. If you loop recursively, you get fractile patterns, and these are commonly observed in nature.
It is possible that there are system level routines in the structure of reality. I don't know if they are accessible here. I think that they were accessible in the Magic Universe. A "spell" might really be a series of thoughts (not easily hit by accident) including passwords, commands, and parameters, which would invoke a system level routine in the "machinery" which was generating reality.
People are not computers. But they set up a great deal of mental machinery that is computer like in its characteristics. And so we find that the field of computers is a very fertile area for inspiration concerning the structure of the human mind and possibly even the structure of reality itself.
========================================
Morality consists of trying to do what is good or right by obeying the rules of society or a particular group or a particular code of behavior and conduct.
Ethics, on the other hand, consists of attempting to do what is truly good or right in the absolute sense.
In this universe, where the keynote of operation seems to be "To Survive", the definition of Ethics as the contemplation of optimum survival (on all 8 dynamics) as given by LRH would seem to be appropriate.
For a broader definition, we might consider Ethics to be the contemplation of optimum operation on a number of targets where survival is only the first in a series that leads upwards towards optimum creation at the top.
When dealing with a low level target such as survival, we need to qualify it by pointing out that there is more than just the first dynamic (personal survival) in the definition. As we move upwards to a real sense of optimum creation, the need for many unique individuals all of whom are operating at maximum becomes more readily apparent.
If we had contemplated and operated in the direction of optimum creation at the very beginning, instead of sinking into limited and self-centered creation, then we might well have realized the need for many concurrent systems of creation and thereby avoided the reality wars and the subsequent decay into unaware human beings.
Morality is actually a trap. It asks you to hand off your responsibility to the group and stop worrying about what is really right and wrong.
You can tell how bad off a group or society is by observing the degree of conflict between morals and true ethics.
I don't care very much for the Way To Happiness booklet. Its far too human and narrow in its viewpoint. The Scientology code of honor, on the other hand, is a far more worthwhile standard.
Real ethics does require that you put aside your own destructive impulses. You do this because you are working towards higher purposes that are more important to you than your immediate abberated reactions.
This is the true application of "working towards a higher purpose". Never use this to justify the actions you are taking against others. Those acts must stand or fail on their own merits and on the observed effects created. But you should use this to push aside your own narrow viewpoints and short term vested interests so that you can expand outwards and work on a broader scale.
A true ethical standard would not consist of a set of rules to follow. That is morality and it fails in the long run because the rules act as a substitute for actually perceiving and understanding the real world situations that you are confronted with. An ethical standard would be a series of targets to aim for. You need to think out these things in advance because you do not have time to evaluate every factor in an emergency situation.
An ethical standard is a living thing. When you apply one and the dust has settled, you need to go back and look at the effects you have created and any overts that resulted and feed that back into the standard to keep it on track.
An ethical standard is an individual thing. You have to work it out and evolve it for yourself. The best that anyone else can do is to propose things that are sane and helpful.
An ethical standard works in the direction of an optimum condition and that is the underlying target that each portion of it would align towards. Ron has proposed optimum survival as the desirable target. I would push this higher, towards optimum creation and freedom from the trap that we have buried ourselves in. Since I believe that we all get out together and that at the very top we all need each other to contribute to the richness of creation, I would state the target as optimum creation and freedom for everybody, not just myself or a limited group.
This leads to proposing a number of things which might fit into an ideal ethical standard.
1. Do not work to degrade or reduce the awareness of anyone, whether friend or foe.
2. Do not use excessive force in crushing an opponent. Handle what you have to to protect yourself and others and to achieve desirable goals, but do not try to terminatedly handle your enemies so that they will never rise again.
3. Leave people alone as much as possible and do not introduce arbitrary rules and restrictions. Aim towards the minimum amount of regulation which keeps people from killing each other or ruining each other's lives. Work by encouragement and education rather than force whenever possible.
4. Help others by encouragement and support and education. Do this especially for your allies and for those who are also helping others.
5. Help your enemies as well, concentrating on encouraging any desirable traits while rejecting those things that you consider to be truly wrong. Seek to evolve everyone into higher beings.
6. Work to encourage greater creativity, motion, activity, variety, knowledge, understanding, intelligence, aesthetics, awareness, communication, construction, love, honor, and freedom.
7. Encourage multiple sources and different ways of doing things. Learn to enjoy confusion and complexity. You'll need the variety later to keep from going insane with boredom and falling into hubris.
8. Do not try to make others over into copies of yourself. Delight in their uniqueness and individuality.
This is barely a start. See what you can come up with for yourself.
========================================
The ultimate ability is simply to postulate things.
A postulate is simply a projected decision or mockup. I say projected because a key factor is the space permeated by the decision. If a decision about Paris permeates the space of New York, it can only affect the relationship of New York to Paris and will not act on Paris directly. Even a postulate which permeates the space it is intended to effect is not all encompassing because there will be things outside of the target location which also affect the target. And so we have a relative degree of action which is monitored by the space encompassed by the postulate.
One of the common failings of positive visualization techniques as used in metaphysics is that the postulate or mockup usually only permeates the person's head or his immediate vicinity rather than being projected out into the physical universe at large. And even if the person does get it out into a broader sphere, he often runs afoul of his own "subconscious" machinery which is projecting some contrary postulate, often from 4th and 5th dimensional locations which he has carefully hidden from himself.
These factors can be handled. You can drill precise placement of postulates, decisions, and mockups. You can drill permeation of broad and narrow areas. You can work on locating stuff you have hidden in various places and make decisions in those locations. You can run "From Where ..." style processes to spot places where you are projecting things and get them back under control.
When you put out a postulate, if you put aside all wishful thinking, you can feel whether or not the postulate has taken hold. If it doesn't, you can start spotting and running things that are blocking it until it does take hold. Once the postulate does stick, you can search for and predict and handle counter postulates coming in from outside of the postulate's direct sphere of operation.
Note that this is a game of relative cause and effect. There are many individuals and a constantly shifting flux of interacting postulates. There are no absolutes, neither in physical laws nor in the power of individual thetans. The only absolute is the sum total of theta which exists only at the top and which is not attainable by an individual viewpoint by definition (because it encompasses all individuals).
Note that this is not the same as wishing or praying in the usual sense. These are generally at effect rather than at cause. In other words they are an inflow rather than an outflow. As such, they are no more than begging or hoping or depending on gaining favors from a higher power. But don't discount these things entirely because sometimes you will have someone who will project and they are postulating very strongly even if they call it praying or wishing real hard.
Somebody pleading with God to heal them is not liable to get very much out of it. But some of the faith healers call to God for the power to heal and then they project like the dickens and this kind of action can bring about miracles.
There is the idea that earlier postulates are senior to later ones. This is completely false but has been heavily implanted so as to keep people under control.
But you will not let a later postulate override an earlier one if the earlier one is out of sight and forgotten and is doing things that you're not sure that you can do without. This gives your old hidden postulates some degree of precedence not because they are more powerful or irrevocable but only because you're afraid of the consequences of undoing them.
There are a couple of approaches to handling this.
One way is simply to research out all of your earlier postulates until you are completely aware of them and therefore can change your mind about them without reservation. In other words, cleaning up your past track.
Another is to regain awareness of your full self and what you are doing on all levels so that you can see the complete view of all of your postulates in present time. This would proceed from simple confront of your environment and everything you have been blocking and suppressing and go on through regaining awareness of the various split pieces of yourself and all the machinery you have mocked up in various spaces.
A third approach would be simply to change your mind about the right things at a deep enough level to eliminate the need for holding the various barriers in place. This has the problem of knowing the right sequence and the right things to decide, and most of the preaching and moralizing (decisions to be good, etc.) doesn't really lead you in the right direction.
Each of these three methods is a bit too difficult all by itself and the workable approach is to switch off between them. Whenever you get stuck with one, you use another to get you past the stuck point. Everything we are doing in this subject has one or more of these three underlying it.
It would be nice to simply make one super postulate which would take you all the way out, but it doesn't work that way.
The absolute postulates are the underlying nature of theta and they are:
a) Not only are you nothing but you never existed in the first place.
AND
b) You are everyone and everything.
You can make these two postulates or variations of them, but it doesn't do you much good. If you do make one of them (and that means being it, not simply thinking it), you become the static and then immediately postulate yourself right back here with everything intact because there is no gain in having fewer of us.
Another way of looking at this is to realize that these two things are both true, and they are both absolutes, and they are mutually contradictory. What results from holding two contradictory absolutes in place is a flux or half-state and this is the sum total of existence as we know it. Since these two postulates are always in place, you are not really making a new postulate by mocking one of them up. You are just recognizing or reinforcing what already is there. You might get over to one or the other of these two for a moment, but its only half of the truth, so you end up back in the flux again.
It might, however, be useful to drill holding both ideas simultaneously since this does approximate the actual state of affairs. Note that this would be holding both at once in the same space rather than thinking them alternately or in different locations. Any drilling of the ability to hold contradictory ideas or postulates simultaneously might be of benefit.
Our real target is a near-ultimate state which is just a hairsbreadth short of the absolutes. This would give maximum ability, interest, and games. But that means undoing the structure carefully instead of simply tossing it all away. Postulates to jump into such a state directly fail because it goes into conflict with just about every hidden postulate that you're still holding on to, and if you let them all go at once you get the absolute (as discussed above) instead of the near absolute state.
But we do know quite a few decisions that are capable of knocking out lots of undesirable old postulates without having to address them directly.
For example, deciding to take responsibility, deciding to forgive others and abandoning ideas of vengeance, deciding to increase motion rather than stopping things, are all key postulates that will undo lots of undesirable stuff that you are holding in place.
Taking this a little further, if you are thirsting for vengeance, then you need to hold all sorts of postulates in place about suffering consequences. And that means that when you make a postulate to get away with something, it can't stick because you wouldn't unmock the postulate for vengeance.
Unfortunately, it doesn't usually work to try and talk people out of these things and beating sense into people just lays in another layer of unawareness. So we mostly have to work at running things out and confronting the present time environment. But the person will occasionally just change his mind of his own free will, and if they have a good understanding of what direction to move in, then they have a shot at shaking loose some of this stuff wholesale.
That is how you get those big key outs on some people when they join a subject (not just Scientology, but anything that shows them a higher view of existence). The person simply gets exposed to new ideas, sees things in a new light, and simply changes his mind about some things and a whole section of aberration falls away.
But this can't be forced. If you coerce Joe into making the exact same decisions that set Bill free, it will not work. Let's say that Bill did decide to abandon vengeance. And lets further say that he decided for his entire self and his full existence even though he doesn't have any conscious awareness of more than about 5% of himself. Now you beat up Joe and he also decides to abandon vengeance, but his decision is only for that tiny bit of conscious awareness and that little body that you just kicked around and the rest of him (about 95%) is not only thirsting for vengeance but has added you to the list of people to be gotten even with.
The road out by simple postulates and making the correct decisions cannot be pushed on another, but can be done by free choice. Maybe someday we'll have a full list of the decisions that work to get you out. Meanwhile, you need judgment and understanding.
==================================
For those who are still in good standing within the CofS, I would urge you to get auditor training (if you have not already done so) and to study the early tech with great vigor. Put aside any compulsive agreement with current CofS operating policies and begin to take responsibility yourself and evaluate things from your own sense of ethics and integrity.
If you see some diamonds in a pile of dung, you carefully pick them out and clean them off. You don't have to swallow the entire foul mess. And it would be foolish to pass up the diamonds. Although you might get in trouble, you will be far happier, and if you're really good and keep pushing and validating what is right in the orgs, you can get away with a lot of disagreement on the things that are really wrong.
I would hope that you will push for reforms, that you will object to abuses and outrageous prices, that you will present the subject honestly as a research line and an exploration into the uncharted regions of the human mind, that you will cease to shoot at squirrels and most of all I hope that you will begin to think for yourself.
For the freezone, I would encourage you to drop any fight or game condition with the CofS. Run out any bypassed charge or O/W on the orgs so that you can cleanly end cycle and turn your sights to higher goals. The real target is the vast amount of research that is still needed and you can't think clearly as long as you are busily trying to make Ron or the orgs wrong. I know that many of you had real cause for being upset, but you can't get anywhere as long as you keep wallowing in what has been done to you.
I would hope that you will indeed carry forward the research and that you will publish what you find. If you are worried about giving things away for free, remember that DMSMH was published as a complete technique that was intended for use at home and yet it resulted in a flood of people rushing into the early Dianetic Research Foundations. Unless you are only offering a sham and rip off, it does not protect your business to hide your discoveries.
I suppose it is the most ridiculous wishful thinking, but what I'd really like to see is the orgs delivering the well mapped out core technology to the masses and the freezone doing the leading edge of research and the two groups operating together with mutual respect and support.
For those who were once members and have abandoned it all and become complete anti-cultists, I'm sorry for you and I hope that what I wrote in the early parts of this series might give you some comfort and a better understanding of what was going on. Books such as "The Road To Xenu" (available on the internet) show the most horrible mis-application of the tech. Its no wonder that the author has turned against the subject. And yet one can see that the she had made some gains and then tossed the baby out with the bathwater (albeit a very tiny baby and a great deal of exceedingly dirty bathwater). Her only real hope would be to get into the freezone (and even there she needs to keep her eyes open and think for herself because some know what they are doing and some don't).
For those anti-cultists who were never involved in the subject and never even tried to understand, I really don't think you have a right to criticize the religious beliefs of others. On that basis, the only justified objections are those overts committed by the CofS which have crossed the line into the society at large. Demand that Scientology clean up its act, but leave the internals to people who have really immersed themselves in the subject.
And if you're going around feeling afraid of these dangerous culties, please notice that Scientologists are, in general, non-violent. The abuses of the RPF are only practiced by Sea Org members against each other, and even there they mainly work with restraining and controlling people rather than any direct violence. If they make an effort to overwhelm somebody, it is always an effort to overwhelm mentally rather than physically. So pull yourself together and be not afraid and you'll come through it alright.
-----------------------------------
As for myself, I would like to see anything and everything that might help my own understanding and forward the research.
One big overlooked item among the confidential materials is the series of Saint Hill Staff Clearing tapes (the R6 tapes). There are about 28 of these and they are listed in the old tech volumes. These include "Pattern of the Bank" which is available on the internet, but most of them were not included in the modern R6 course and are unknown even to most Class VIII auditors. These tapes give the theory behind the R6 and Clearing courses. The first one is titled "Summary of R6 part 1" lecture SHSC-1A dated Dec 30, 1963.
For the loyalists, it would be nice if they would push to get the R&D series volumes done for the tapes of 1952 to 1954.
As for the freezone, I would expect that at least some of them have come up with additional processes, platens etc. and they also may have valuable experience and observations concerning the subject.
Maybe if we put together everything we've got, we might be in reach of the top.
-----------------------------------
The first attempt to issue transcripts of all of Ron's tapes in the R&D volumes bogged down after issuing volume 10. The next volume (11 - never issued), would have contained the HCL lectures (March 1952) and have begun documenting what I consider to be Ron's "keyed-out OT" period. I assume that this was stalled because of arguments about what should or shouldn't be included, but I'm only guessing about this. Note that the HCL series contains the early research into NOTS among other things.
Then they went back and began redoing the R&D volumes again starting from number 1. The expressed reason was that the first version had been edited and altered. Offhand, I know of one little anecdote in the Dianetic Cassettes (some lectures from 1950 that were available on cassette for a brief time back around 1980) where he mentions going out drinking with somebody. This story (and probably others) were left out of the first version of the R&Ds for PR reasons. I have not sat down with the old and new R&D sets and whatever actual tapes I have to see if these things have all been corrected or whether even more is being edited out. The lectures of 1950 and 1951 would not contain anything which the CofS considered to be confidential and either series seems to be accurate as to technical materials.
In the new R&D series, they are squeezing more into each volume, so they covered the same material in 8 and 1/2 volumes that was covered in the entire 10 volumes of the first version. The first 10 HCL lectures are in the second half of new volume 9 and the rest along with the tech 80 lectures and the beginning of the tech 88 series are in new volume 10.
Note that they occasionally retitle a tape (usually with a better title - for example, HCL-6A "Question and Answer Period" was renamed "Whole Track Facsimiles"). Also, they do not use the old lecture numbering system or mention alternate titles and sometimes they put things under different headings (the last of the HCLs are under the heading "Lectures (Phoenix, Arizona)" in new R&D 10). Also, the old lecture titles were not always unique (there were 3 different lectures titled "Theta Bodies" that were given in March and April of 1952). Their adjustments are generally sensible, but they make it difficult to detect it when they leave tapes out of the volume because you don't see the gaps in the numbering.
I have not gone over it with a fine tooth comb, but the new R&D 10 does have a good bit of background material on NOTS and they seem to have faithfully transcribed the lectures that they did choose to include. But they completely omitted quite a few lectures and they don't mention that they did this.
A 69 page almost complete list of 2910 taped lectures was issued as Flag Info Letter number 148 dated 18 April 1978. Based on this, I have compiled a list of the tapes omitted from R&D 10.
Those tapes marked with a "*" were available on reels until recent times (they are in Pubs catalogue #5). Those marked with a "**" used to be available on reels (they were in Pubs catalogue #4) and were declared to be confidential and made unavailable when NOTS was released. Those tapes marked with a "***" were at one time offered by Golden Era as part of an outrageously expensive "complete" run of all the unavailable tapes that they had in their archives which they were offering to rich Scientologists (I believe that this project was canceled well before they ran all the tapes that appeared on their list - there were over a thousand tapes that they were going to produce).
So here is the list of what's missing from new Volume 10 (HCL and the immediately following related lectures in Phoenix):
* HCL-16 10 Mar 52 The anatomy of Fac One (continue demo)
* HCL-18 10 Mar 52 Entities (Demo continued)
** HCL-23 .. Mar 52 Theta Bodies
*** HCL-23A 22 Mar 52 Impulses of a Thetan
*** HCL-24A .. Mar 52 Theta Bodies
* HCL-25 25 Mar 52 An analysis of memory, part I
* HCL-26 25 Mar 52 An analysis of memory, part II
** HCL-Spec . Apr 52 Electrpsychometric Scouting - Battle of the universes (Mary Sue audits LRH)
--- 15 Apr 52 Demo and brief explanation (whole track and bodies in pawn)
*** --- 16 Apr 52 Anatomy of the theta body
*** --- 20 Apr 52 The goals and purposes of Theta and Mest
--- 6 May 62 Anatomy of Thought (no copy in archives).
Of these 12, only the last one is marked on the flag info letter as being missing from the archives (no copy available) and only one other one was omitted from Golden Era's special project (possibly because their only copy was too poor to reproduce).
Note that there is also a lecture missing from the tech 80 lectures, both in the cassette series and in the R&D 10 transcripts. It is titled "Early methods of dealing with people, entities" and is the second lecture given on 20 May 1952.
Note that I was careful to account for every lecture that was included in R&D 9 and 10 to eliminate the problems of retitling or shifting a lecture in sequence because the exact date had been determined.
-----------------------------------
The picture I have put together so far is, unfortunately, quite confusing. There are so many different factors. There is no single answer. If there were, then somebody would occasionally stumble on it and turn into a god.
The truth of the matter is that no single factor could keep you down. You might sink briefly, but then you would rebound. Any aberration or limitation that has a serious impact on you or persists for a significant period of time will have many reasons behind it. Otherwise it would be no more than a shadow which only touched you briefly.
The things that devastate you are always the last straw rather than the entire weight. The things that release you and let you rise towards freedom are also straws which, once removed, shift the balance enough to let you rise under the weight of what remains. And if you rise high enough, perhaps you can shrug off the rest.
There is a good side to this. You don't have to find the one and only exactly correct reason behind a a particular aberration to get rid of it. There might be a dozen reasons, all valid, and you can often blow it (at least temporarily) on any one of them. And if one isn't enough, then two or three might do it. This does leave you a bit unstable because those other reasons can get stirred up, but if you keep moving forward, you can undercut the whole mess before this catches up with you. So the real target is to gain horsepower rather than handle each little thing in an excessively thorough manner. You can always reopen an area and do a bit more if it seems needed.
-----------------------------------
This is hardly more than a beginning. The road out is long. But as soon as you really begin to expand and have some wins, the trip becomes pleasant.
Its only the stops and failures that make the trip out seem arduous.
It was at one time said "if it isn't fun, it isn't Scientology". That is basically correct. Although there is hard work involved, hard work is fun when it is interesting and productive and your strength and abilities are increasing.
When it hasn't been fun, when it has resulted in misery and despair, it has been due to the subject itself going off the rails, whether due to misapplication or to real errors in tech or policy.
Of course there are momentary stops and barriers that have to be pushed through. But the fun is there on the other side.
And if this isn't the case, then maybe its time to find out what's wrong and fix it.
It really is a "feel good" kind of subject. But its not just a surface feeling. Its the deep good feeling that comes from becoming more knowledgeable, and more able, and more aware.
For a parting thought, I will leave you with one of the underlying basics of metaphysics. It has been said by Bob Heinline, the science fiction writer, and by Alexander Scriabin, the mystic composer, and by endless other great minds stretching down through time.
"Thou Art God".
Its time you woke up and took responsibility for your creations.
|
|
|
