General Review of Tech

[Veda]

-snip-

So how can one find out who he/she really is?

You don't. There are no further levels. You're out of luck, kid.

 

[multixperience]

who can answer these for me...

What is above games (awareness above the level of the MEST universe)

What next when done OT8? How you find out who you really are?

Now when I die this lifetime - I am here first time - Do I end up as Body thetan?

Just dont write that I should find out myself - cause i bother with it already enough...

 

[guanoloco]

Hope they can find the exact reference for you.

A moment of pain and unconsciousness. Hmmm, I find it hard to say such moments don't exist. So, I wouldn't worry about it Jachss99.

I've run such moments on PCs and seen quite good things happen for the person after they erased the incident.

Here's the reference with the point quoted:

-snip-. "The Basic Assumption of Scientology vs. Overts" (1960 HCOB) -snip-

OMG!!! Thanks for this one!!

I have been looking for this one for too long and once I read the title it jumped right out and slapped me!

Some time back I was looking for this because it eludes to the fact that engrams aren't factual but I couldn't remember the reference and this is it!

This is what I wanted to show to Infinite and Sindy was attempting to assist me to locate it and all that.

This is a derail but so what...here's what it says that I was attempting to locate:

By evidences to date, odd as it may seem, it appears, by all processing tests, that one becomes aberrated only by means of his own, not another’s actions. I do not say that nothing can be done to a person or a being by another person or being. Obviously communication exists. I am only saying that all aberrative effects of action are created by the person who has them. Indeed none could be processed successfully through a burn or engram unless he himself were holding the aberration there—for the fire, location and other people are not consulted and are not even there in fact at the time of processing. A preclear being audited on a past incident can recover from its ill effects. Therefore it seems conclusive that he himself must be causing the ill effects in present time or he could not eradicate them since the “sources are not present”. Thus they must not have been the sources of his “ill effects”. The preclear must have been.

 

[guanoloco]

which one has the info about engrams not being true?

I found the reference!!

-snip-. "The Basic Assumption of Scientology vs. Overts" (1960 HCOB) -snip-

OMG!!! Thanks for this one!!

I have been looking for this one for too long and once I read the title it jumped right out and slapped me!

Some time back I was looking for this because it eludes to the fact that engrams aren't factual but I couldn't remember the reference and this is it!

This is what I wanted to show to Infinite and Sindy was attempting to assist me to locate it and all that.

This is a derail but so what...here's what it says that I was attempting to locate:

By evidences to date, odd as it may seem, it appears, by all processing tests, that one becomes aberrated only by means of his own, not another’s actions. I do not say that nothing can be done to a person or a being by another person or being. Obviously communication exists. I am only saying that all aberrative effects of action are created by the person who has them. Indeed none could be processed successfully through a burn or engram unless he himself were holding the aberration there—for the fire, location and other people are not consulted and are not even there in fact at the time of processing. A preclear being audited on a past incident can recover from its ill effects. Therefore it seems conclusive that he himself must be causing the ill effects in present time or he could not eradicate them since the “sources are not present”. Thus they must not have been the sources of his “ill effects”. The preclear must have been.

 

[guanoloco]

Re: Is this what you're looking for?

". . . there is no such thing as a mental image picture."

. . .

"So we do have one improper word in Scientology and that is facsimile. I don't know what we'd call it -- call it a thinnie, I guess.

All it is necessary to do is to bring one into a state of mind himself whereby he is willing to confront those pictures--thinnies, old universes, old places where he wouldn't be before. All we've got to do is put him up into a state of mind, either by confronting them or by some other artificial means whereby he's willing to confront them, and we have a Clear. Boom!"

5707C15 Theory and Definition of Auditing (last minutes of tape)

and this one too:

5708c01 Thinnies (whole tape)

Both in 18th ACC (Illusion or Truth cassettes)

First tape was on the older Class 4 and 6 checksheets.

ILove2Lurk

This was the reference:

-snip-. "The Basic Assumption of Scientology vs. Overts" (1960 HCOB) -snip-

OMG!!! Thanks for this one!!

I have been looking for this one for too long and once I read the title it jumped right out and slapped me!

Some time back I was looking for this because it eludes to the fact that engrams aren't factual but I couldn't remember the reference and this is it!

This is what I wanted to show to Infinite and Sindy was attempting to assist me to locate it and all that.

This is a derail but so what...here's what it says that I was attempting to locate:

By evidences to date, odd as it may seem, it appears, by all processing tests, that one becomes aberrated only by means of his own, not another’s actions. I do not say that nothing can be done to a person or a being by another person or being. Obviously communication exists. I am only saying that all aberrative effects of action are created by the person who has them. Indeed none could be processed successfully through a burn or engram unless he himself were holding the aberration there—for the fire, location and other people are not consulted and are not even there in fact at the time of processing. A preclear being audited on a past incident can recover from its ill effects. Therefore it seems conclusive that he himself must be causing the ill effects in present time or he could not eradicate them since the “sources are not present”. Thus they must not have been the sources of his “ill effects”. The preclear must have been.

 

[rodent]

"A Clinical Trial of Dianetic Theory

In cooperation with the Dianetic Research Foundation, Los Angeles, California, AND using Hubbards own proposal on the theory of Dianetics IN Dianetics - which stated that if you drugged someone with sodium pentothol to render them unconcious and and then created some pain, and spoke to the person, you would create an engram.

Anything said to the person during the incident could be recovered..claimed Hubbard.


The clinicians involved, then drugged her, applied the pain... and read a passage to her from a physics textbook..

The Hubbard's Dianeticists then tried to get the information out of the gal using "Dianetics Auditing" - for six months.

Here are images of the original documents about this "Test" These should be collected, and printed out, by anyone wishing to EXIT a Scientologist from Scientology.."

Well, the only problem with this experiment is that, depending on the test patient's case, the information could be relatively easily accessible, or it could take a long time - maybe the person would have to be brought nearly to clear to access it. So I'm not sure 6 months would be enough, but the methodology seems sound, otherwise.

Also.... 6 months of auditing, if it was done DMSMH style, not using some later 'improvement' of Dianetics, then I'd imagine the experiment would yield interesting results even before recovering that implanted text. Something worthy at least of some further research, you know?

And what about hypnosis? You could implant the phrase, see if the patient could recall it normally, afterwards, then access it using hypnosis. That would have proven at least part of it, and would have been quicker.

I'm inclined to think this is not a very good experiment. Also
Hubbard wasn't right about everything!

Well, if he was wrong about that, what else is left?

It would probably be against medical ethics to administer sufficient pain.
For example one dosn't necessarily go unconscious when breaking an arm or leg. Also physics texts would be long detailed and probably boring and unrelated to the pain and unconciousness in any real way. Also there would seem to be no shock involved.

It's always funny to hear Scientologists (or ex-$scientologists - stress on the dollar sign) talking about Dianetics. First, you get confused, because there's DMSMH (1950), then there's new Dianetics, revised Dianetics, New Era Dianetics, even newer Dianetics and Buddah knows what else. All those improvements on the 1950 theory were a lunatic's improvements (and the chief lunatic was - you've guessed it). They deal with postulates, reincarnation, exteriorization (taking you thetan for a stroll out of your body) and with cosmic meaning, they incorporate the IDIOTIC new-age notion that a person karmically attracts accidents and illnesses, that everything that happens to us we somehow choose/cause to happen. This drivel is diametrically opposed to the 1950 theory, yet when you say 'Dianetics', those guys think you're talking about them, and I don't know which of all of those 'procedures' was used in this experiment from 1959. Maybe I should read that link....

Engrammic commands are not like pages of physics texts. They are general
simple phrases. One might for example having had a car accident hear the firemen shout "He's stuck" or similar. This could be picked up in dianetic auditing as something to use repeater technique on.

Engrammatic commands are any piece of texts that could be interpreted as a command, and they come in all shapes and sizes, so I don't know what you're talking about, or, rather, you don't. And why always this example of a car accident? Is this the only example y'all know? Programmed commands usually come from earlier in life, and from the prenatal period.

Implanting a piece of random text is totally legit. It becomes part of the contents of the engram, and if engrams really exist, then it should be recoverable using either therapy or hypnosis (quicker).

British Rail is generally a rather pragmatic organisation, unless leaves on
tracks or the wrong sort of snow etc raise there ugly heads. They use
Dianetics in the form of TIR to handle trauma of those who need such counseling.

Funny, that's how I got to this page. I did a search for TIR....

 

[rodent]

Veda, I'm yet to meet one detractor of the 1950 theory who actually understands it. Is it so much to ask? That you understand the thing you're criticizing? Regardless of whether it's true or not, this:

Another example from 1950 Dianetics is the "ally computation." Someone comes out of the blue and helps another person, helps the other person in some way or other. The "help" could be indifferently offered, or insincerely offered, but if the needy person regards it as aiding in his "Survival!" (or well being, or the alleviation of pain or the attainment of pleasure or relief), then (so the theory goes) the "ally" mechanism is in place and in effect. For example, an uncle, who may not be a particularly nice fellow, gets his little nephew a glass of water when that nephew is sick in bed and thirsty. The uncle (in the mind of the little nephew) becomes an "ally," and the uncle become identified with "Survival!"

is not what Hubbard said, in DMSMH, about ally computation. Firstly, the child needs to be seriously ill, to the point where he or she will not be fully conscious (remember that important condition for the creation of an engram - unconsciousness?). Secondly, the intended ally will never becomes an ally unless he speaks. And he needs to speak as an ally: "everything will be alright", "we'll get through this" (or "you'll get through this"), "just hang in there, and everything will be fine". Then the ally can say anything else they want, to add more drama to the computation (aka neurosis).

Have you never seen people who were unnaturally fond of an uncle, or of a grandparent, or even of one of their parents? Who were very severely affected when that person died?

 

[rodent]

eldritch cuckoo said WTF? to this post

Well, you've learned how to click da button, that means you've earned a cookie!