Pilot Self-Clearing Not Recommended
Mike McClaughry
Re: Pilot's Self-Clearing Procedure
The Pilot's Self- Clearing procedure is not recommended because it violates
the basics of auditing.
Self-auditing the grades denies preclears the gains that are only available
from having another audit you.
Self-auditing does not produce tone arm action - as Ron states in the
following reference:
Level 0 tape 6 February 1964 The communication cycle in auditing-LRH
"If you look over communication, you'll find out that the magic of
communication is about the only thing that makes auditing work. And if you
could sit down to a meter-a one-hand electrode-all by yourself and run some
process on yourself, it'd make a citizen out of you. And the reason it'd
make a citizen out of you, is you would see a little bit of tone arm action
at first, or if you tripped across something like an active, loud, large
GPM, why, you might get yourself a quarter or a half a tone arm division, or
a couple of needle flashes."
".....Now, the amount of tone arm action you would get doing this would make
you blink, because it's none."
"...Now, the reason for this has to do with the thetan in this universe.
Now, he has begun to consider himself MEST, and he's begun to consider
himself mass. And the being who considers himself mass, of course, responds
to the laws of electronics and the laws of Newton, and is actually incapable
of generating very much, you see, or-which is what we're interested
in-as-ising very much. That's not very much going to disappear there in the
way of mass."
"....Now I have had to explore this particular field of
auditing --self -auditing, because most anybody does it, and so forth--and
what was this all about......."
"...But the same GPM, run with the same items and so forth would produce
upwards to 175 TA divisions, down. And the GPM, self-audited, produced 2."
".....it tells us that an individual considers himself Mesty, or massy, if
you see, and therefore he has to have a second terminal. And a second
terminal is required to discharge the energy."
End of quote and now this is Mike talking live again....
Self auditing violates another law that makes auditing work:
THE AUDITOR PLUS THE PC IS GREATER THAN THE PRECLEARS BANK
THE PC MINUS THE AUDITOR IS LESS THAN THE PRECLEARS BANK
Now, some people falsely think that Solo Auditing is self-auditing. No, you
are NOT auditing yourself in Solo auditing, you are auditing another Being.
Therefore, you still have TWO terminals, an auditor and a pc, and the law of
auditing is in place, therefore it works.
Personally, I think it is a betrayal of Beings to tell them to Solo audit
the grades as in Pilot's "Self- Clearing" procedure. It denies them all the
case gain they could have had if they did it the only way it works, by
having another person audit you on the Grades. You will end up in the same
case condition as the Pilot, with your case wrapped around your head, all
restimulated and not handled, and in a mess.
The above is just one of many methods being used in the so-called Freezone
to sabotage the tech into unworkability. There are people in the Freezone
who purposefully take advantage of other people's lack of training and
understanding of the tech, all in the effort to deny case gain and prevent
anyone going OT. My advice is to avoid them like the plague. You can easily
spot who they are because they have a common denominator of stating, one way
or the other, that LRH tech does not work, and they advise you doing it some
other way than what LRH issues tell you to do.
One day, I will make known all of the specifics on how the tech has been
sabotaged into unworkability, both inside and outside of the Church. Until
then, you would be well-advised to follow LRH issues exactly. You'll be glad
you did.
ARC,
Mike
Antony Phillips
I am sending this comment also to a couple of lists I am associated
with.
I have had experience in offical Scientology from 1954 to 1983,
including training (both as instructor, in the days when we had
instructors, rather than supervisors, and as student). I have read,
with great interest and enthusiasm The Pilot's book "Self Clearing". I
have been list admin for the list selfclearing-l for a number of years
(for data on that list, go to WWW.fza.org). And finally I have some
faith in the idea that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I have not heard of anyone being "harmed" by doing Self Clearing. I
have heard of many who have benefitted, and have done so myself.
From the point of view of those with interest in this subject:
Pilot Self-Clearing Not Recommended,
I suppose we divide into three groups:
Those who hate any mention of Scientology - they should of course not
do Self Clearing.
Those who believe that Ron can do or say no wrong, and his work cannot
be improved upon - they of course should not do self clearing.
Those who hope for personal betterment and are not adverse to the idea
that the magnificient pioneer work of Ron could be developed further
with good results. Those people I invite to take a look at Self
Clearing. And this applies whether they have had contact with any form
of Scientology or not.
I was very impressed by the book. For one thing it does give basics
for auditing, and possibly helps correct some false ideas that people
have picked up. For another, it does not claim to be all embracing,
something that will do everything for you, but rather claims to be a
modest introduction to the field of metaphysics and self betterment.
There are a number of marvelous points in the book, to my mind, which
I won't go into here.
That some one should choose to attack (or devalue) something maybe
shows there is some value in it.
But try yourself - the proof of the pudding is in the eating. And
download and the associated list are free.
Hi,
Ant
n...@spam.com (Shark) wrote:
>"Mike McClaughry" <cha...@icehouse.net> wrote:
>>From: Mike McClaughry
>>
>>Re: Pilot's Self-Clearing Procedure
>>
>>
>>The Pilot's Self- Clearing procedure is not recommended because it violates
>>the basics of auditing.
Mike McClaughry then gave a number of lines quoting Ron and his own
interpretation of Roon to support his statement.
Then n...@spam.com (Shark) wrote:
>Actually this is highly recommended (for true believers) because all
>you're doing is wasting your time. At least you save money.
>As opposed to going down to your Scientology org or Ron's org or
>whatever the hell Mike is shilling for. If you go there, not only are
>you wasting your time, you're throwing thousands of dollars away.
>[snip OSA-like bullshit]
Ant Antony A Phillips
i...@post8.tele.dk
tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
Box 78
DK - 2800 Lyngby
Publisher, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page:
http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, IVy lists
Curiosus
> Re: Pilot's Self-Clearing Procedure
> The Pilot's Self- Clearing procedure is not recommended
> because it violates the basics of auditing.
> Self-auditing the grades denies preclears the gains that are
> only available from having another audit you.
I was using the self-clearing book as I was interested in handling several areas
not flat, such as protestation or false data. I did not notice unwanted effects.
I experienced end phenomena and cognitions similar to the EP of the scn grade
sessions. Looking at the questions and looking for the answers, I eventually was
discovering things about my own case and I always ended with a cognition.
Moreover I am logging the admin of my sessions, and that is very helpful for me
to see and to look back how things are changing (I miss my PC folders!)
> ".....it tells us that an individual considers himself Mesty,
> or massy, if you see, and therefore he has to have a second
> terminal. And a second terminal is required to discharge the
> energy."
So that is the explanation of why auditing needs two terminals: the mind is
considered as an electronic device, which has to be inserted between two plugs,
so that something can occur.
But if it was true, nobody could never use his mind alone! When the mind is
recording the energy of an engram, or the energy of ordinary perceptions, it
works perfectly without any auditor around to help the process.
So that if the PC is able to charge his mind alone, he should be also able to
discharge it alone.
Anyway you have two different terminals: the being, and his mind.
With self-auditing, something is flowing between the spiritual being and his
mind.
> Self auditing violates another law that makes auditing work:
> THE AUDITOR PLUS THE PC IS GREATER THAN THE PRECLEARS BANK
> THE PC MINUS THE AUDITOR IS LESS THAN THE PRECLEARS BANK
The equations above are not complete. You have:
Auditor plus auditor's bank plus PC plus PC's bank
equal
Auditor + PC + two banks
So that I do not see how summing two banks is helping the process.
> Personally, I think it is a betrayal of Beings to tell them
> to Solo audit the grades as in Pilot's "Self- Clearing"
> procedure.
Personally I give no advice, as I have too many uncertainties. However I report
sometimes the results I have when I try some technique, as I believe that such
reports are valuable. If I was experiencing bad effects, I would also report
them, as I am not engaged in any apology.
That could be a good tool in order to make correct evaluations: that everybody
who is using a particular technique, makes honest reports about successes as
well as about failures.
> It denies them all the case gain they could have had if they
> did it the only way it works, by having another person audit
> you on the Grades.
I can attest that scn grades auditing is working, as I was audited for several
hundred hours with good results.
However I am not very happy to be dependant of an organization. As a traditional
PC, I was full effect. When I am self-auditing, I am taking responsibility for
my own case, and I feel that I am a player, more than a pawn.
The problem with auditing in the CoS, is that the PC is trained in being the
effect of the auditor and the C/S, so that his inner ability to take
responsibility for his own case is being atrophied. Self-auditing is being more
cause.
> You will end up in the same case condition as the Pilot,
> with your case wrapped around your head, all restimulated and
> not handled, and in a mess.
I had similar considerations myself. I was about to start self-auditing the
implants, when the Pilot crashed, and it was for me a bad indicator. I did not
dare to engage myself on that way.
But LRH also ended restimulated and in a mess.
Is it a good argument to evaluate a tech?
> The above is just one of many methods being used in the
> so-called Freezone to sabotage the tech into unworkability.
> There are people in the Freezone who purposefully take
> advantage of other people's lack of training and understanding
> of the tech, all in the effort to deny case gain and prevent
> anyone going OT. My advice is to avoid them like the plague.
> You can easily spot who they are because they have a common
> denominator of stating, one way or the other, that LRH tech
> does not work, and they advise you doing it some other way
> than what LRH issues tell you to do.
Myself I have a preference for self-auditing as I am interested in freedom, and
that is not freedom to be dependent on an organization and an auditor.
My current position is to consider that LRH developed a tech which seems
workable for a particular "race" of beings, and not for the others. The evidence
of that is that scn has recorded successes as well as failures.
You are critic of the freezone, but remember that people in the freezone are but
the failures of the CoS.
> One day, I will make known all of the specifics on how the
> tech has been sabotaged into unworkability, both inside and
> outside of the Church. Until then, you would be well-advised
> to follow LRH issues exactly. You'll be glad you did.
As in my opinion LRH is sometimes right and sometimes wrong, my position is to
try to assess and verify everything he said or has done, and not to believe
something just because LRH say it.
Curiosus
curiosus_at_altavista.com (replace _at_ by @)
----------------------------------------------------------
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.
Einstein
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike McClaughry
> > Re: Pilot's Self-Clearing Procedure
> Curiosus said:
> ... remember that people in the freezone are but
> the failures of the CoS.
Mike replies:
That's funny. I don't think its entirely true - but it is funny.
The above topic on tone arm action is not limited to what I said above,
there are a lot of other LRH issues on this topic. In order to fully
explain, we would have to start quoting other issues and I am not going to
do that. One reason is, there is non-duplication on what was already said in
my post.
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I put the
correct data out there and it is your decision to accept it or reject it. I
am under no compulsion to convince you or others. But, one thing you will
have to agree to - is you were told - and therefore any repercussions
experienced by yourself for ignoring the advice - falls on your shoulders.
Regarding your origination that you had cognitions - that is not the
auditor's hat to produce cognitions - his hat is to discharge the force from
the case. The definition of an auditor is not "one who produces cognitions"
.... it is defined as " one who can discharge the encysted force from the
case."
No TA action = no blown force from the case.
Your attention as an auditor is on the wrong thing - it is on what
cognitions were had, instead of how much force you alleviated from the case.
And, blowing force from the case requires TWO terminals.
I can give you an example when I was auditing a pc a couple of months ago. I
gave
the pc an auditing question and they introspected on it for about 15
minutes, saying nothing to me while doing so. Then, the pc looked up at me
and said " I handled that", with a smile on their face.
Now, while the pc was doing that - the tone arm was up at 4.5 and did not
move at all during that 15 minute period. The needle did not even read with
a fall when the pc said " I handled that".
I told this pc - this is not how auditing works. What I need you to do is
tell me what you were looking at for the last 15 minutes. The pc then told
me and the tone arm action was flying - 6 divisions of TA in the next ten
minutes and it blew down to 2.5 and F/N with a big cog and real VGI's. See -
the mass blew, it discharged WHEN HE TOLD ME and it did not blow when the pc
was simply looking at it by himself.
Now, if you or others do not want to apply the tech the right way - it is
you who will be the loser. You will deny yourself the gains you could have
had - which is the point of my post.
I have fulfilled my responsibility in this matter. I have communicated the
truth.
Whether you and others take advantage of the data I gave you - is your
choice.
I am simply pointing your nose in the right direction. It is up to you now
to study the subject and apply it correctly. You will be the winner for
having done so, not me.
I won't be making any further posts on this subject. You can take the advice
or not.
Phil Scott
wrote:
Hi Mike. I think its great you posted this. Another viewpoint to consider.
.. the more viewpoints the better. But please notice that Hubbard did not end
up so well either.
It may be that Hubbards whole approached was a little sucky around the edges.
Personally I think many other things work a lot better at the higher levels.
At low levels though, say life repair, arc straight wire, etc. and the original
8008, and the stunning CCH's and for me at least L-12... well those were very
very successful, so my hat is off to L Ron Hubbard on those developments.
I did like the pilots approach on many issues though. and have seen more than a
few people do very very well soloing his series.
Phil Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kevin G! Brady
> And, blowing force from the case requires TWO terminals.
I totally agree with this.
> I can give you an example when I was auditing a pc a couple of months ago.
I
> gave
> the pc an auditing question and they introspected on it for about 15
> minutes, saying nothing to me while doing so. Then, the pc looked up at me
> and said " I handled that", with a smile on their face.
>
> Now, while the pc was doing that - the tone arm was up at 4.5 and did not
> move at all during that 15 minute period. The needle did not even read
with
> a fall when the pc said " I handled that".
>
> I told this pc - this is not how auditing works. What I need you to do is
> tell me what you were looking at for the last 15 minutes. The pc then told
> me and the tone arm action was flying - 6 divisions of TA in the next ten
> minutes and it blew down to 2.5 and F/N with a big cog and real VGI's.
See -
> the mass blew, it discharged WHEN HE TOLD ME and it did not blow when the
pc
> was simply looking at it by himself.
I continue to nod my head in agreement.
> Now, if you or others do not want to apply the tech the right way - it is
> you who will be the loser. You will deny yourself the gains you could have
> had - which is the point of my post.
Alright.
> I have fulfilled my responsibility in this matter. I have communicated the
> truth.
You have communicated what you consider the truth to be.
> Whether you and others take advantage of the data I gave you - is your
> choice.
>
> I am simply pointing your nose in the right direction. It is up to you now
> to study the subject and apply it correctly. You will be the winner for
> having done so, not me.
>
> I won't be making any further posts on this subject. You can take the
advice
> or not.
Mike, I can respect the points you made above, even though I am a Marcabian
agent.
I continue to think that the Pilot's work is wonderful, but I agree that it
is better co-audited than solo-audited. I have witnessed many "OT's" who
claimed to have handled a lot of charge, solo. They may have looked at a
lot of stuff, but my impression was they were still keyed into a lot of it,
perhaps more overwhelmed than a lot of people I meet on the street. I would
agree that it is because they did not blow the force off the incident.
Precisely the reason why, no matter how much I look at some incident in my
life that is upsetting, it continues to upset me, until I move THROUGH the
emotion of it, blow the force off it, by means of communication. This
requires an auditor being there with me, keeping in their 2WC, and using
whatever processes they are aware of and trained with to keep the session
flying.
I find your comm pretty clean, Mike. I wonder how you can reconcile living
with Mrs. Poisoned Pen.
kgb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hellrong Swizzard
the way they were designed to be used in the first place. For those
who can't think further than scn, then the Pilots work will be
attractive. There are many non scn techs specifically designed to be
used solo, freely available on the net which some of you are aware of.
I'm not bothering to provide links,ask me if you want to know.
Another reason why you get more TA action with an auditor is because
it is MORE STIMULATING TO TALK TO SOMEONE ELSE THAN TO YOURSELF. The
TA is monitoring the communication flow from the pc to the auditor. I
have done some auditing and I noticed that some PCs were excited to
boast their whole track adventures, the e-meter was reading the energy
in the excitement not the charge on the incident. Pulling O/Ws is a
good example of this phenomenon. On a new PC you often get a very big
blowdown after he/she gives you the first O/W. This has nothing to do
with charge on the Overt but everything to do with telling the
auditor. A simultaneous thought such as, "Phew! I never thought I'd be
able to tell my auditor that one ,he's so ethical", is happening. So
the PC is pleased that he confronted another person and opened up a
bit. Big blowdown,wide smile, feel safe, F/N. There could still be
feelings of guilt, non forgiveness etc surrounding that O/W. In other
words it has been cleared as a withold but not as an overt. Incidently
the e-meter can F/N on agreement and feeling safe as much as it can on
truth.
Ofcourse you don't need an auditor to admit your harmful actions this
can be done privately and sincerly on your own if you are ready. There
is a risk though of believing you have been touched by Jesus and end
up Bible thumping in your high street on a Saturday.
Helrong
>>
> >
> >
> >
Curiosus
> Curiosus said:
>> ... remember that people in the freezone are but
>> the failures of the CoS.
> Mike replies:
> That's funny. I don't think its entirely true - but it is funny.
About 80% of the posters on ACT are reporting a past experience within the CoS.
As they left and are now "squirrels", they are the signs of CoS failures. These
failures are the indicators that something is wrong, either in the tech either
in the management.
Anyway, I do not believe that "standard tech" can work for everybody on Earth.
That is another subject I will discuss in another post.
> The above topic on tone arm action is not limited to what I
> said above, there are a lot of other LRH issues on this topic.
> In order to fully explain, we would have to start quoting other
> issues and I am not going to do that. One reason is, there is
> non-duplication on what was already said in my post.
I believe that I duplicated your point, but I do not agree fully. Duplication
and agreement are not synonyms.
The subject of the e-meter is quite interesting. The link between e-meter, mind
and spirit has to be explained. But the anatomy of the system body/mind/thetan
as proposed by LRH is not complete enough. LRH is expressing certainties which
are not supported by a complete understanding of the whole system.
> You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
> I put the correct data out there and it is your decision to
> accept it or reject it. I am under no compulsion to convince
> you or others. But, one thing you will have to agree to - is
> you were told - and therefore any repercussions experienced
> by yourself for ignoring the advice - falls on your shoulders.
As you are trying to save my life, I thank you for that.
But I prefer to be self-determined and to find my own truth by myself.
I am using very much the works of others, but the evaluation is mine.
> Regarding your origination that you had cognitions - that is
> not the auditor's hat to produce cognitions - his hat is to
> discharge the force from the case. The definition of an auditor
> is not "one who produces cognitions"
> .... it is defined as " one who can discharge the encysted
> force from the case."
My cognitions are for me valuable as they improve my understanding and lead to
positive changes in my life. As the spiritual level has no mass and no force,
some work can be done on that level without worrying about force.
Now, whether there was TA action or not, I do not know as they were sessions
without e-meter. But I noticed like some flows of energy going through my body
when I had cognitions. Perhaps I should try e-metered self-auditing sessions, in
order to check what is occurring.
> No TA action = no blown force from the case.
> Your attention as an auditor is on the wrong thing - it is
> on what cognitions were had, instead of how much force you
> alleviated from the case.
> And, blowing force from the case requires TWO terminals.
Here you are comparing the case to some electric device. I agree that in order
to have an electric flow, we have to have two terminals so that the electrons
can flow from one terminal to the other. Every battery has always two poles.
But there are other kinds of energy flows where only one terminal is required.
Examples:
1. The Sun is emitting solar rays in outer space, without any terminal in outer
space to attract the rays. That is a mono-pole emission.
2. You can build a supra-conductor ring and store electrons in it, turning
endlessly inside the ring. If you heat a little bit the ring, the whole thing is
exploding as the ring is no more supra-conductor. There is emission of energy
from a single pole.
Another conception of the mental mass could be: a closed circuit like the supra
conductor ring above. The energy is trapped in the ring. When the thetan is
looking at that mental mass, the ring is broken and the ridge explodes.
> I can give you an example when I was auditing a pc a couple
> of months ago. I gave the pc an auditing question and they
> introspected on it for about 15 minutes, saying nothing to me
> while doing so. Then, the pc looked up at me and said " I
> handled that", with a smile on their face.
> Now, while the pc was doing that - the tone arm was up at 4.5
> and did not move at all during that 15 minute period. The
> needle did not even read with a fall when the pc said " I
> handled that".
> I told this pc - this is not how auditing works. What I
> need you to do is tell me what you were looking at for the
> last 15 minutes. The pc then told me and the tone arm action
> was flying - 6 divisions of TA in the next ten minutes and it
> blew down to 2.5 and F/N with a big cog and real VGI's. See -
> the mass blew, it discharged WHEN HE TOLD ME and it did not
> blow when the pc was simply looking at it by himself.
I had also similar experiences (I was trained up to level 4). But is it really
the proof of the two-terminal theory? We could also consider that the PC was
withholding something.
The advantage with self-auditing is that there are no withholds.
> Now, if you or others do not want to apply the tech the right
> way - it is you who will be the loser. You will deny yourself
> the gains you could have had - which is the point of my post.
> I have fulfilled my responsibility in this matter. I have
> communicated the truth.
> Whether you and others take advantage of the data I gave you
> - is your choice.
> I am simply pointing your nose in the right direction. It is
> up to you now to study the subject and apply it correctly.
> You will be the winner for having done so, not me.
> I won't be making any further posts on this subject. You can
> take the advice or not.
In fact there are for me several great questions since the last two years:
1. Do I need an e-meter or not?
2. Do I need an auditor or not?
I do not have definite answers.
The fact that LRH did not hesitate to lie in order to fulfill his purposes (the
justification being: there is more survival like this) is a real problem, as I
cannot believe his words. I have to check everything.
The main objection I have about the standard tech: the PC is the effect of an
auditor and an organization. There is a lot of dev-T and money involved in the
process. The PC is trained to be effect.
The two-terminals theory is perhaps a very subtle theory designed to invalidate
any form of self-auditing. LRH could not accept self-auditing, as building the
scientology network would be impossible if self-auditing was working.
I have no definite answers.
I am searching.
Kevin G! Brady
news:rszQ7.54608$xS6....@www.newsranger.com...
> Mike McClaughry wrote:
>
> > Curiosus said:
> >> ... remember that people in the freezone are but
> >> the failures of the CoS.
>
> > Mike replies:
> > That's funny. I don't think its entirely true - but it is funny.
>
> About 80% of the posters on ACT are reporting a past experience within the
CoS.
> As they left and are now "squirrels", they are the signs of CoS failures.
This is a basic tech truth. It is the responsibility of Qual to ensure that
tech results are gotten. When results are not obtained, people begin to
squirrel. Noone goes looking for a new tech formulation when they are
winning!
> These
> failures are the indicators that something is wrong, either in the tech
either
> in the management.
Managements job is to make sure that the organization expands. The
organization's purposes are to get pc's to the auditor and trainees to the
Academy. Any other purposes creates a conflict of interests.
> Anyway, I do not believe that "standard tech" can work for everybody on
Earth.
> That is another subject I will discuss in another post.
I will be interested to read it.
> > The above topic on tone arm action is not limited to what I
> > said above, there are a lot of other LRH issues on this topic.
> > In order to fully explain, we would have to start quoting other
> > issues and I am not going to do that. One reason is, there is
> > non-duplication on what was already said in my post.
>
> I believe that I duplicated your point, but I do not agree fully.
Duplication
> and agreement are not synonyms.
WHAM.
Quote from document: "Differences Between Scientology and Metapsychology:
"...27. The Scn concept of the 'ARC Triangle' is replaced by the more
accurate MP [Metapsychology] concept of the 'Triad of Communion' --
communication, comprehension, and affection (instead of 'affinity, reality,
and communication'). A distinction is made between 'reality' (in the
scientologic sense of 'agreement') and comprehension (a sharing of ideas and
experiences). One can comprehend -- know what the other person thinks and
feels -- without necessarily agreeing with the other person. Hence
communication need not lead to a greater agreement or 'reality'. And one
can feel great affection towards others with whom one disagrees strongly, so
long as one comprehends their point of view. This leads to a more tolerant
state of mind; it is OK to like someone with whom one disagrees and to see
their viewpoint. In MP terminology, 'understanding' is differentiated from
'comprehension'. When one understands, one gives assent to what is
understood. When one comprehends, one does not necessarily give assent to
what is comprehended. One merely shares the thought or experience. Scn's
failure to differentiate between these two concepts has led to beliefs
imposed on people. In Scn, it is assumed that if you do not agree with
something in the Scn materials, you must not be comprehending it." - No
author is named, but it was originated from the Metapsych center to me, and
I am under the assumption this was written by Frank Gerbode.
> The subject of the e-meter is quite interesting. The link between e-meter,
mind
> and spirit has to be explained. But the anatomy of the system
body/mind/thetan
> as proposed by LRH is not complete enough. LRH is expressing certainties
which
> are not supported by a complete understanding of the whole system.
Can you amplify this statement?
> > You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink.
> > I put the correct data out there and it is your decision to
> > accept it or reject it. I am under no compulsion to convince
> > you or others. But, one thing you will have to agree to - is
> > you were told - and therefore any repercussions experienced
> > by yourself for ignoring the advice - falls on your shoulders.
>
> As you are trying to save my life, I thank you for that.
> But I prefer to be self-determined and to find my own truth by myself.
> I am using very much the works of others, but the evaluation is mine.
Great! One less robot.
> > Regarding your origination that you had cognitions - that is
> > not the auditor's hat to produce cognitions - his hat is to
> > discharge the force from the case. The definition of an auditor
> > is not "one who produces cognitions"
> > .... it is defined as " one who can discharge the encysted
> > force from the case."
>
> My cognitions are for me valuable as they improve my understanding and
lead to
> positive changes in my life. As the spiritual level has no mass and no
force,
> some work can be done on that level without worrying about force.
But is it producing change, or just playing mental games?
> Now, whether there was TA action or not, I do not know as they were
sessions
> without e-meter. But I noticed like some flows of energy going through my
body
> when I had cognitions. Perhaps I should try e-metered self-auditing
sessions, in
> order to check what is occurring.
Just remember that your data is senior to the emeter's reads.
Again, quoting from "Differences Between Scientology and Metapsychology":
"...42. 'Charge' is precisely defined as 'repressed, unfulfilled
intention'. It is not really energy at all, let alone harmful energy.
Charge consists of 'frozen' intention units that can be reclaimed by
handling past traumas (and in other ways). In so doing, a person's power is
augmented because his capacity to intend is augmented (power is defined as
the capacity to intend). This is a more precise formulation than the Scn
formulation of 'free theta' vs. 'enturbulated theta'."
> > I can give you an example when I was auditing a pc a couple
> > of months ago. I gave the pc an auditing question and they
> > introspected on it for about 15 minutes, saying nothing to me
> > while doing so. Then, the pc looked up at me and said " I
> > handled that", with a smile on their face.
> > Now, while the pc was doing that - the tone arm was up at 4.5
> > and did not move at all during that 15 minute period. The
> > needle did not even read with a fall when the pc said " I
> > handled that".
> > I told this pc - this is not how auditing works. What I
> > need you to do is tell me what you were looking at for the
> > last 15 minutes. The pc then told me and the tone arm action
> > was flying - 6 divisions of TA in the next ten minutes and it
> > blew down to 2.5 and F/N with a big cog and real VGI's. See -
> > the mass blew, it discharged WHEN HE TOLD ME and it did not
> > blow when the pc was simply looking at it by himself.
>
> I had also similar experiences (I was trained up to level 4). But is it
really
> the proof of the two-terminal theory? We could also consider that the PC
was
> withholding something.
Yes, but if the PC is withholding something from himself, is he the person
best qualified to be his own auditor? If his responsibility level is high
enough, he could confront what he had been withholding from himself, but if
not, soloing would fail because the person could not confront the withhold,
and so would be trying to audit over out-ruds.
> The advantage with self-auditing is that there are no withholds.
I think this is too broad of an assumption. If we weren't withholding
things from ourselves (compulsively) we would have wide open and full track
recall at will, fully able to view any charge that came up on inspection.
> > Now, if you or others do not want to apply the tech the right
> > way - it is you who will be the loser. You will deny yourself
> > the gains you could have had - which is the point of my post.
> > I have fulfilled my responsibility in this matter. I have
> > communicated the truth.
> > Whether you and others take advantage of the data I gave you
> > - is your choice.
> > I am simply pointing your nose in the right direction. It is
> > up to you now to study the subject and apply it correctly.
> > You will be the winner for having done so, not me.
> > I won't be making any further posts on this subject. You can
> > take the advice or not.
>
> In fact there are for me several great questions since the last two years:
> 1. Do I need an e-meter or not?
> 2. Do I need an auditor or not?
I would answer both of those questions conditionally. Some actions are
considered best handled on a meter, like assessments, L & N, line plotting,
correction lists, etc. My personal feeling is that self-auditing can only
be done by people who are not compulsively trapped in an identity other than
that of an auditor. This would exclude most people, I would think, until
they had keyed out of any GPM's they might be dramatizing. (Might happen on
CC or OT II pretty stably, or less stably on any other grade that touched
one of these GPMs and keyed it out).
> I do not have definite answers.
My answers are certainly only theoretical.
> The fact that LRH did not hesitate to lie in order to fulfill his purposes
(the
> justification being: there is more survival like this) is a real problem,
as I
> cannot believe his words. I have to check everything.
This is the best way to own the tech, anyway.
> The main objection I have about the standard tech: the PC is the effect of
an
> auditor and an organization. There is a lot of dev-T and money involved in
the
> process. The PC is trained to be effect.
As is the auditor, who must carry out a C/S's orders, even if they bypass
his own judgment- this is an enforced reality that an auditor is trying to
bypass throughout a session, program, or even a pc's entire bridge. The
auditor should be trained to think with the tech, and shown where something
he did might have been in conflict with basic axioms, but not DICTATED the
process he must use, etc.
> The two-terminals theory is perhaps a very subtle theory designed to
invalidate
> any form of self-auditing. LRH could not accept self-auditing, as building
the
> scientology network would be impossible if self-auditing was working.
LRH wrote Self-Analysis and Handbook for Preclears. Having an org there for
a Qual function, even on solo actions, isn't such a bad thing. LRH's had
two functions stressed for an org: bring pcs to auditors, so that auditors
are not wasting time soliciting pcs, and train new auditors, perhaps in
reversed sequence of importance, there.
> I have no definite answers.
>
> I am searching.
Good. Operating on the basis that you know it all precludes making gains in
study. So does operating on the basis that others know it all- eliminates
the very important step of critical thinking.
kgb
Curiosus
>> Curiosus (answering to Mike McClaughry):
>> I believe that I duplicated your point, but I do not agree fully.
>> Duplication and agreement are not synonyms.
> WHAM.
> Quote from document: "Differences Between Scientology and Metapsychology:
[snipped a lot of interesting stuff]
Still a new trend, Metapsychology, I know nothing about.
I am constantly wondering at the extent of my ignorance.
>> The subject of the e-meter is quite interesting. The link
>> between e-meter, mind and spirit has to be explained. But the
>> anatomy of the system body/mind/thetan as proposed by LRH is
>> not complete enough. LRH is expressing certainties which
>> are not supported by a complete understanding of the whole system.
> Can you amplify this statement?
1. There are many interesting reactions from the e-meter. In scientology it is
used to detect mental charge. But it is also an emotion detector. For example
you have relations such as:
Contentment <=> Flying Needle
Hostility <=> Dirty Needle
Apathy about something <=> Rising needle
These reactions are not fully explained. For example, how to explain the flying
needle? How to explain its particular pattern and rhythm?
2. The definition of mind in scientology is quite unclear. It is neither
spiritual, neither MEST. It is recording energy, but that is not the energy of
the physicist, as that energy has the ability to go from one lifetime to the
other. This means that there is another kind of energy around, no MEST energy.
Scientology cannot explain what occurs really when I decide to move a muscle;
how exactly the spiritual impulse is transformed into a nervous impulse? But
scientology has the pretense to explain that mental energy can flow only between
two different people.
There are many affirmations like this based on incomplete knowledge.
>> My cognitions are for me valuable as they improve my
>> understanding and lead to positive changes in my life. As
>> the spiritual level has no mass and no force, some work can
>> be done on that level without worrying about force.
> But is it producing change, or just playing mental games?
It is producing change. For example writing O/Ws solo is quite efficient to spot
unwanted ethic conditions, then to decide and to apply changes in my life; I am
doing it from time to time. "Writing letters" to people, as proposed by the
Pilot (without sending the letters) is quite efficient to handle ARC breaks with
these people, even when they are dead or far away. Or after solo-auditing "power
by dynamics", as proposed by Ralph Hilton, I decided to post on A.C.T. Some
changes also, after using materials from the theosophy frame.
However the danger of just playing a mental game exists also.
[...]
>> The advantage with self-auditing is that there are no withholds.
> I think this is too broad of an assumption. If we weren't
> withholding things from ourselves (compulsively) we would
> have wide open and full track recall at will, fully able to
> view any charge that came up on inspection.
I was thinking about these things the PC sees quite clearly, but does not want
to communicate to the auditor as he is afraid that the auditor could possibly
misuse the given data. With self auditing, this particular problem does not
exist.
>> In fact there are for me several great questions since the
>> last two years:
>> 1. Do I need an e-meter or not?
>> 2. Do I need an auditor or not?
> I would answer both of those questions conditionally. Some
> actions are considered best handled on a meter, like assessments,
> L & N, line plotting, correction lists, etc. My personal feeling
> is that self-auditing can only be done by people who are not
> compulsively trapped in an identity other than that of an auditor.
> This would exclude most people, I would think, until they had keyed
> out of any GPM's they might be dramatizing. (Might happen on
> CC or OT II pretty stably, or less stably on any other grade that
> touched one of these GPMs and keyed it out).
Perhaps I am able to do some self auditing as I was holding the cans for several
hundred hours when I was in the CoS. In fact I am not invalidating the
usefulness of the auditors. But if there is some chance to do it solo, let us do
it: higher responsibility level, less dev-T, less expensive.
> LRH wrote Self-Analysis and Handbook for Preclears. Having
> an org there for a Qual function, even on solo actions, isn't
> such a bad thing. LRH's had two functions stressed for an org:
> bring pcs to auditors, so that auditors are not wasting time
> soliciting pcs, and train new auditors, perhaps in
> reversed sequence of importance, there.
I was requested when in the CoS not to self audit Self Analysis. The handbook
for preclears was practically unknown. I discovered it on the shelves of the
academy, but I never read it as a PC and I never studied it as a student.
>> I am searching.
> Good. Operating on the basis that you know it all precludes
> making gains in study. So does operating on the basis that
> others know it all- eliminates the very important step of
> critical thinking.
Indeed the step of critical thinking is very important, and that is just now
that I fully understand it.
After being trained for twenty years in the avoidance of critical thinking, it
took me three years in order to recover and to start looking at the accumulated
data with critical thinking. All these things stored in my mind have to be
evaluated.
Ralph Hilton
-0800 in msg <3c10...@news2.lightlink.com>, :
>From: Mike McClaughry
>
>Re: Pilot's Self-Clearing Procedure
Your post is gross out tech on several points.
GPMs were run solo. Read the R6EW course.
Solo, before clear, is not addressing other beings.
I would agree that "self-auditing" is out-tech for all but a rare few. Study
class 8 tapes for further data. I posted references on this before. Go dig
up the archives.
--
Ralph Hilton
http://www.fzint.org/rhilton
Freezone International: http://www.fzint.org
C-Meter: http://www.inquisitive-instruments.co.uk/
Kevin G! Brady
> Kevin G! Brady wrote:
>
> >> Curiosus (answering to Mike McClaughry):
> >> I believe that I duplicated your point, but I do not agree fully.
> >> Duplication and agreement are not synonyms.
>
> > WHAM.
> > Quote from document: "Differences Between Scientology and
Metapsychology:
> [snipped a lot of interesting stuff]
>
> Still a new trend, Metapsychology, I know nothing about.
> I am constantly wondering at the extent of my ignorance.
Join the club. I find it best to consider a generic form of clearing
technology & philosophy.
> >> The subject of the e-meter is quite interesting. The link
> >> between e-meter, mind and spirit has to be explained. But the
> >> anatomy of the system body/mind/thetan as proposed by LRH is
> >> not complete enough. LRH is expressing certainties which
> >> are not supported by a complete understanding of the whole system.
>
> > Can you amplify this statement?
>
> 1. There are many interesting reactions from the e-meter. In scientology
it is
> used to detect mental charge. But it is also an emotion detector. For
example
> you have relations such as:
> Contentment <=> Flying Needle
> Hostility <=> Dirty Needle
> Apathy about something <=> Rising needle
> These reactions are not fully explained. For example, how to explain the
flying
> needle? How to explain its particular pattern and rhythm?
http://www.trans4mind.com/transformation/transform4.3.htm
BTW, that book is FASCINATING, from cover to cover, and I have to remember
to download it- it certainly has a place in any clearing practitioner's
library.
> 2. The definition of mind in scientology is quite unclear. It is neither
> spiritual, neither MEST. It is recording energy, but that is not the
energy of
> the physicist, as that energy has the ability to go from one lifetime to
the
> other. This means that there is another kind of energy around, no MEST
energy.
> Scientology cannot explain what occurs really when I decide to move a
muscle;
> how exactly the spiritual impulse is transformed into a nervous impulse?
But
> scientology has the pretense to explain that mental energy can flow only
between
> two different people.
A good question, which I have not found a good answer to in any text. The
best I can do is say that intention is a non-physical (symbolic?) catalyst.
If all of co-creation consists of extended points to view, and these points
are extended through intention, then any change in the location or direction
or magnitude of an intention would cause changes in the co-creation, to the
extent that they were not counter-intended. Sound general and cumbersome
enough?
> There are many affirmations like this based on incomplete knowledge.
>
> >> My cognitions are for me valuable as they improve my
> >> understanding and lead to positive changes in my life. As
> >> the spiritual level has no mass and no force, some work can
> >> be done on that level without worrying about force.
>
> > But is it producing change, or just playing mental games?
>
> It is producing change. For example writing O/Ws solo is quite efficient
to spot
> unwanted ethic conditions, then to decide and to apply changes in my life;
I am
> doing it from time to time.
It has helped me in the past, but I get to a point where I hit "the wall".
I cannot recall an earlier similar overt or withhold, and the one I am
working on will not discharge. When this happens, I give up in frustration,
and hope against hope that I will run into an auditor with a solution.
> "Writing letters" to people, as proposed by the
> Pilot (without sending the letters) is quite efficient to handle ARC
breaks with
> these people, even when they are dead or far away.
Problem is, you don't get an acknowledgment! Not a huge problem, you can
always acknowledge yourself, and perhaps save the letter with the intention
of delivering it to that person when they become willing and able to receive
it. Note that this means the cycle is still unfinished, so one's theta will
still be bound up in creating it. I don't know about that one, but if it
works for you, cool beans.
>Or after solo-auditing "power
> by dynamics", as proposed by Ralph Hilton, I decided to post on A.C.T.
I never read that one. I'll have to look it up in Homer's archives, I
guess.
> Some
> changes also, after using materials from the theosophy frame.
I'm not that familiar with theosophy- isn't that some form of christian
meditation?
> However the danger of just playing a mental game exists also.
I surmise that as one proceeds up the tone scale, that danger recedes.
> [...]
> >> The advantage with self-auditing is that there are no withholds.
>
> > I think this is too broad of an assumption. If we weren't
> > withholding things from ourselves (compulsively) we would
> > have wide open and full track recall at will, fully able to
> > view any charge that came up on inspection.
>
> I was thinking about these things the PC sees quite clearly, but does not
want
> to communicate to the auditor as he is afraid that the auditor could
possibly
> misuse the given data. With self auditing, this particular problem does
not
> exist.
Oh, agreed. Unless there are things that the pc does not feel comfortable
allowing himself to remember, because it would mean he would have to be the
identity he was wearing when he did those things, in order to defend being
right to have been that identity in the first place.
> >> In fact there are for me several great questions since the
> >> last two years:
> >> 1. Do I need an e-meter or not?
> >> 2. Do I need an auditor or not?
>
> > I would answer both of those questions conditionally. Some
> > actions are considered best handled on a meter, like assessments,
> > L & N, line plotting, correction lists, etc. My personal feeling
> > is that self-auditing can only be done by people who are not
> > compulsively trapped in an identity other than that of an auditor.
> > This would exclude most people, I would think, until they had keyed
> > out of any GPM's they might be dramatizing. (Might happen on
> > CC or OT II pretty stably, or less stably on any other grade that
> > touched one of these GPMs and keyed it out).
>
> Perhaps I am able to do some self auditing as I was holding the cans for
several
> hundred hours when I was in the CoS. In fact I am not invalidating the
> usefulness of the auditors. But if there is some chance to do it solo, let
us do
> it: higher responsibility level, less dev-T, less expensive.
I think, again, that at low-tone levels, solo processing would be, at best,
ineffective. I think the solo auditor would be continually bypassing their
own charge, because part of being low on the tone scale is an inability to
perceive and handle truth very well. Getting out of the trap we have built
for ourselves, without help, seems like it would usually be dependent on
accidental key-out, followed by adopting a new identity and being successful
at it, and then looking back and handling charge from the new, higher toned
viewpoint. Perhaps running pleasure moments, successes, etc. would be the
way to audit oneself, until you hit a key out, and then proceed with
handling more core kinds of charge (upsets, trauma, losses). Other than
that, I think one had best look for an auditor. Early on, studying the tech
and co-auditing is the route I favor, with an experienced and highly trained
C/S-Supervisor ensuring proper application and results.
> > LRH wrote Self-Analysis and Handbook for Preclears. Having
> > an org there for a Qual function, even on solo actions, isn't
> > such a bad thing. LRH's had two functions stressed for an org:
> > bring pcs to auditors, so that auditors are not wasting time
> > soliciting pcs, and train new auditors, perhaps in
> > reversed sequence of importance, there.
>
> I was requested when in the CoS not to self audit Self Analysis.
How did they justify this request?
> The handbook
> for preclears was practically unknown. I discovered it on the shelves of
the
> academy, but I never read it as a PC and I never studied it as a student.
I bought it when I was buying packages of books. I read parts of it, but it
seemed really mystical to me, and I never ran any of it.
> >> I am searching.
>
> > Good. Operating on the basis that you know it all precludes
> > making gains in study. So does operating on the basis that
> > others know it all- eliminates the very important step of
> > critical thinking.
>
> Indeed the step of critical thinking is very important, and that is just
now
> that I fully understand it.
>
> After being trained for twenty years in the avoidance of critical
thinking, it
> took me three years in order to recover and to start looking at the
accumulated
> data with critical thinking. All these things stored in my mind have to be
> evaluated.
A rundown to help with that would be nice. Do you know anything about a
"Knowledge Intensive"?
In MP, realigning what has previously been learned is part of the Rightness
Section, which parallels the CofS's Grade 4, although it has some steps
added and some changes in the order that it is applied.
Thanks for the mental exercise!
kgb
Antony Phillips
article in, which has reference to it, and I got permissin to pubish.
It is by James Moore. Best wishes to all, Ant)
*********************************************
Self ClearinggI came across an interesting note recently on the
Internet News Group, alt.clearing.technology. There is a "post
Hubbard" book called Self Clearing. A marvellous book for those who
would begin or continue an auditing path alone. Some one on the
newsgroup warned that it did
not work, quoting Ron. This, despite the fact that there are numerous
reports of results.In Scientology we started with self auditing being
allowed (in 1954 I was encouraged to do the book Self Analysis at home
by my auditor between session, and my mother also was). Then there was
a period when self auditing was not allowed, and final Solo auditing
(purportedly different from self auditing) was allowed.One of the main
arguments against self auditing was the "mathematical" equation that
auditor plus pc were greater than the pc's bank, whereas pc alone, as
in self auditing were smaller than the bank. I and I guess a few
other's accepted that without question (it was not all that easy to
question what Ron said, as you could not say "hi, Ron, I
disagree......")As I see it now, the missing factor, resulting in
oversimplification, was that you never in auditing handled (which is
to say confronted) the whole of the preclears bank at one time. Ideal
auditing was to key in a small amount, confrontable, and handle that,
before going on to more. It never was "the auditor plus the preclear
were greater than the totality of the preclears bank". When you keyed
in too much of the pc's bank, as I think happened in the 5th London
ACC (one had to find the biggest whole track engram) things did not go
well.So there is nothing impossible, or "wrong" about self auditing.
It requires a bit of practice, a bit of understanding (admirably given
in the Pilot's book), and persistence.Are you sure you are not taking
for Ultimate Truth, some of the things you have learned in
Scientology, and worse, set yourself goals based on those things.And
those who have not been in Scientology, the official body, may still
be accepting beliefs of others, perhaps even your parents, without
examining them. We are all about as frail in the direction of not
updating our beliefs, but those who have been in a cult, like
Scientology became, may show signs more obviously! And of course is is
understandable, as is any form of overconservatism. We have stable
data. Things we have been accustomeed to. According to a very valued
stable datum passed to us by Ron (Problems of Work), new data that
shakes one or more of our stable data makes us feel confused,
uncomfortable. It is nicer to hold to the old beliefs if we can.
******************************************
Curiosus
> A good question, which I have not found a good answer to in any
> text. The best I can do is say that intention is a non-physical
> (symbolic?) catalyst. If all of co-creation consists of extended
> points to view, and these points are extended through intention,
> then any change in the location or direction or magnitude of an
> intention would cause changes in the co-creation, to the extent
> that they were not counter-intended. Sound general and cumbersome
> enough?
Enough to start a new religion with :-)
>> For example writing O/Ws solo is quite efficient to spot
>> unwanted ethic conditions, then to decide and to apply changes
>> in my life; I am doing it from time to time.
> It has helped me in the past, but I get to a point where I hit
> "the wall". I cannot recall an earlier similar overt or withhold,
> and the one I am working on will not discharge. When this happens,
> I give up in frustration, and hope against hope that I will run
> into an auditor with a solution.
In fact I was more thinking about applying the ethics conditions in solo, not
really auditing. So my example was not an example about auditing.
I believe that even when there is charge, some work can be done on the analytic
level and by-pass the case. Assessing one's ethics condition from time to time
should be a regular practice, in order to avoid degradation.
>> "Writing letters" to people, as proposed by the Pilot (without
>> sending the letters) is quite efficient to handle ARC breaks with
>> these people, even when they are dead or far away.
> Problem is, you don't get an acknowledgment! Not a huge problem,
> you can always acknowledge yourself, and perhaps save the letter
> with the intention of delivering it to that person when they become
> willing and able to receive it. Note that this means the cycle
> is still unfinished, so one's theta will still be bound up in
> creating it. I don't know about that one, but if it works for
> you, cool beans.
Currently I have no theoretical explanation, however it works. That is similar
to writing a diary: for centuries, many people were relieved by the act of
writing a private diary without acknowledgements. However there are two flows:
outflow to write down, inflow when reading back. There is also the fact that
mental matter is transformed into physical matter. Maybe the mental mass is
transmuted into ink?
>> Some changes also, after using materials from the theosophy frame.
> I'm not that familiar with theosophy- isn't that some form
> of christian meditation?
There are several currents in theosophy, they have even some kind of a free
zone. They have in common the following principles:
- The current human line started 18 million years ago.
- It is guided by a spiritual hierarchy.
- The Christ and Buddha are part of that hierarchy.
- At the bottom of the hierarchy are initiates.
- The initiates have the purpose to climb up the spiritual ladder.
- At the top, the "masters" are operating in a disembodied state.
- There are several initiation levels, scheduled on many lifetimes.
- Each level has its own techniques, processes and specific abilities.
- The keynote is brotherhood and service.
- The solar system is itself a sentient being.
- We are somewhat the "body thetans" of the solar system.
- The solar system is born from the ashes of a previous solar system.
- Planetary systems are going through several lifetimes.
- From one lifetime to the following, they are learning and improving.
These things were published in the 19th century and come from an ancient
tradition. I found that I could use some of the processes.
> I think, again, that at low-tone levels, solo processing would
> be, at best, ineffective. I think the solo auditor would be
> continually bypassing their own charge, because part of being
> low on the tone scale is an inability to perceive and handle
> truth very well. Getting out of the trap we have built for
> ourselves, without help, seems like it would usually be dependent
> on accidental key-out, followed by adopting a new identity and being
> successful at it, and then looking back and handling charge from
> the new, higher toned viewpoint.
I have no certainties in that area. It has to be put under test. There are some
examples around. For example, there are millions of Buddhists who are by-passing
their case and improving with Buddhism. That is perhaps a matter of following
the appropriate gradient.
Anyway, I think also that auditors are quite helpful.
That is just that I want to try the solo route.
> Perhaps running pleasure moments, successes, etc. would be the
> way to audit oneself, until you hit a key out, and then proceed
> with handling more core kinds of charge (upsets, trauma, losses).
LRH wrote:
"Every session of dianetic processing must be ended by running one or more
pleasure moments"
Organizational memorandum, 16 Nov 1950
In my own experience, it is quite helpful to run pleasure moments, or to
"celebrate the wins". That is an easy way to achieve key-outs.
>> I was requested when in the CoS not to self audit Self Analysis.
> How did they justify this request?
They said: "The tech has improved since the early times. Now it is better to run
self analysis with an auditor."
>> All these things stored in my mind have to be evaluated.
> A rundown to help with that would be nice. Do you know
> anything about "Knowledge Intensive"?
No, but I have the intention to perform a critical analysis of the accumulated
data.
> In MP, realigning what has previously been learned is part
> of the Rightness Section, which parallels the CofS's Grade 4,
> although it has some steps added and some changes in the order
> that it is applied.
I followed your link about MP. A lot of interesting stuff. It sounds like
parallel scientology. Perhaps from a parallel universe :-) ?
> Thanks for the mental exercise!
Thanks too.
You are right, mental exercises are better when done with another terminal!
Rogers
A little belated getting onto this thread, but here goes.
"Mike McClaughry" <cha...@icehouse.net> wrote in message
> The Pilot's Self- Clearing procedure is not recommended because it
violates
> the basics of auditing.
>
> Self-auditing the grades denies preclears the gains that are only
available
> from having another audit you.
>
> Self-auditing does not produce tone arm action - as Ron states in the
> following reference:
As much as I like the book "Self Clearing," I'm inclined to agree with you
about the folly of self-auditing.
However, I don't think it "denies" the gains. I mean, I think you and I are
on the same page here, it's like self-auditing hardly RUNS the processes at
all, so the worst thing that can happen is that those same processes will
need to be run (properly) by an auditor one day. Run with real TA.
I don't think even the Pilot was sure that Self Clearing was feasible or
do-able. It was an optimistic thought and good intentions that went behind
that book. And it has merit in many ways. If I recall correctly, the Pilot
did insert a caveat at the beginning.
And funnily enough, it would not violate the paradigm of that work, if, when
a person who had done Self Clearing showed up at auditor's doorstep, those
same processes were now run on a DEEPER (TA producing) level.
Les.
Kevin G! Brady
news:3c189ed3$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
Or, they could co-audit it.
kgb
Lion (In Solar Explorer)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cle...@lightlink.com [mailto:cle...@lightlink.com]On Behalf Of
>Rogers
>Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 4:43 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list
Mr. Rogers:
>As much as I like the book "Self Clearing," I'm inclined to agree with you
>about the folly of self-auditing.
Lion:
I agree but for different reasons, perhaps.
But, if self auditing, gets one to move, when one wasn't moving, it is worth
it's weight in Gold.
Love, Lion.
Rogers
> But, if self auditing, gets one to move, when one wasn't moving, it is
worth
> it's weight in Gold.
I wholeheartedly agree, Lion. For one thing, intentions DO count, so even
being willing to have a go at Self Clearing is a wonderful thing. Besides,
in particular, the book Self Clearing has a lot going for it in so many
respects, it's a good book.
Les.
Kathie Lynch
those who cannot afford the high prices in or out of the church, although
they are much higher IN the church?
Maybe it is a little less effective for some than having another terminal
there, but at least they are getting case gain and having wins. In fact, it
probably works much better for some than the suppressive environment of the
orgs.
And I think I remember The Pilot mentioning something about learning how to
do Self Clearing as an answer for how to handle oneself while in-between
lives or out of the body. In that case, I don't think an auditor or an
e-meter would be much good.
Kathie
"Rogers" <here-...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:3c1b46c3$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
Rogers
"Kathie Lynch" <kathi...@home.com> wrote in message
> I know people who have gotten case gain from Self-Clearing. What about
> those who cannot afford the high prices in or out of the church, although
> they are much higher IN the church?
I'm inclined to agree that somehow or another, by hook or by crook, one
needs to TRY to get oneself up to Clear. And better to get some gains than
none at all. Just as importantly, "Self Clearing" provides such a great
education. Well, the way I remember it (haven't looked at the book for some
time, alas) there were so many insightful little R-factors everywhere.
> Maybe it is a little less effective for some than having another terminal
> there, but at least they are getting case gain and having wins. In fact,
it
> probably works much better for some than the suppressive environment of
the
> orgs.
> And I think I remember The Pilot mentioning something about learning how
to
> do Self Clearing as an answer for how to handle oneself while in-between
> lives or out of the body. In that case, I don't think an auditor or an
> e-meter would be much good.
It is not meant to be a reflection on Ken's wonderful intent in putting out
that book (and for FREE!), but to keep the isness in, it may very well be a
lot less than a "little less effective." I mean, I'm all for people having
a go at it and getting the most out of it that they can, but I wouldn't want
to encourage the delinquency of a thetan (hee hee) by leading them on to
believe that those "gains" are it, and that they couldn't get a terrific
amount more gain if, say, they co-audited it.
Les.
Ralph Hilton
in msg <pkeT7.77064$Sx.21...@news1.elcjn1.sdca.home.com>, :
>I know people who have gotten case gain from Self-Clearing. What about
>those who cannot afford the high prices in or out of the church, although
>they are much higher IN the church?
>Maybe it is a little less effective for some than having another terminal
>there, but at least they are getting case gain and having wins. In fact, it
>probably works much better for some than the suppressive environment of the
>orgs.
>And I think I remember The Pilot mentioning something about learning how to
>do Self Clearing as an answer for how to handle oneself while in-between
>lives or out of the body. In that case, I don't think an auditor or an
>e-meter would be much good.
From the early 50s LRH tried to give people a solo approach. The book
"Handbook for Preclears" is an example. But very few could make it through.
It seems that only the top few in awareness can manage a self-clearing
approach. Co-auditing is empirically a far more workable approach.
The materials are available. If someone can't get it together to find a
co-auditor then I'd say they have little chance on their own. It's somewhat
of a catch-22 that those least able to create the resources for Clearing
need them the most.
LRH said early on to help those who would help others. For quite unaware
beings the route to Clear could be thousands of hours.
People aren't going to be able to handle the between lives area until their
exterior perception is stably good which is a long way advanced above Clear.