Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Dianetics improvements

Expand Messages
  • allphaomega
    Has anyone else noticed a need for some improvements in the dianetics tech? I don t know why it is, but people seem to try to pass off standard dianetics (or
    Message 1 of 29 , Jan 5, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Has anyone else noticed a need for some improvements in the dianetics
      tech?

      I don't know why it is, but people seem to try to pass off standard
      dianetics (or NED) as perfect tech that works perfectly every single
      time and that if it doesn't it's not the fault of the tech, it's the
      fault of the auditor or else the PC is somehow out-ethics. I know I
      cannot achieve 100% standard results with R3RA, much less Book-1. I'm
      just waiting for the free zoneers to start either facing reality on
      this or else show me what they're doing to achieve 100% results with
      standard dianetics that I can not. But there seems to be a definite
      babackoff on trying to improve the tech in any way, where the meaning
      of "standard" has become "frozen".

      When I say standard, I mean the item once run to basic never returning
      and each incident run never being charged again. When I say 100% I
      mean that no incident ever fails to flatten, no chain ever fails to
      either be either resolved, flattened, or at least well keyed out (in
      the case of auditing newbies).

      Robert D.
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DianeticR3X
    • qwert_yuiop
      I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! FOR SURE YOU DONT HAVE A CORRECT DFINITION FOR THE WORD STANDARD THE CORRECT MEANING IS : THE QUALITY APPROPRIATE FOR THE
      Message 2 of 29 , Jan 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! FOR SURE YOU DONT HAVE A CORRECT
        DFINITION FOR THE WORD" STANDARD"
        THE CORRECT MEANING IS : THE QUALITY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE
        DIANETICS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE,NOT EVERY PERSON CAN RUN AN
        ENGRAM.YOU HAVE TO PERPARE THE PC TO BE ABLE TO RUN DIANETICS.
        MY OWN SUSPICIOUN IS ,THE YOU YOURSELF CAN NOT RUN AN ENGRAM OR
        NEVER HAVE
        QWERT


        --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "allphaomega" <allphaomega@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Has anyone else noticed a need for some improvements in the
        dianetics
        > tech?
        >
        > I don't know why it is, but people seem to try to pass off
        standard
        > dianetics (or NED) as perfect tech that works perfectly every
        single
        > time and that if it doesn't it's not the fault of the tech, it's
        the
        > fault of the auditor or else the PC is somehow out-ethics. I know
        I
        > cannot achieve 100% standard results with R3RA, much less Book-1.
        I'm
        > just waiting for the free zoneers to start either facing reality
        on
        > this or else show me what they're doing to achieve 100% results
        with
        > standard dianetics that I can not. But there seems to be a
        definite
        > babackoff on trying to improve the tech in any way, where the
        meaning
        > of "standard" has become "frozen".
        >
        > When I say standard, I mean the item once run to basic never
        returning
        > and each incident run never being charged again. When I say 100% I
        > mean that no incident ever fails to flatten, no chain ever fails
        to
        > either be either resolved, flattened, or at least well keyed out
        (in
        > the case of auditing newbies).
        >
        > Robert D.
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DianeticR3X
        >
      • tom smith
        qwert_yuiop, Please, I suggest that you assume good faith and be civil. Regards, Smitty
        Message 3 of 29 , Jan 6, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          qwert_yuiop,
          Please, I suggest that you assume good faith and be civil.
          Regards,
          Smitty

          qwert_yuiop wrote:
          > I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! FOR SURE YOU DONT HAVE A CORRECT
          > DFINITION FOR THE WORD" STANDARD"
          > THE CORRECT MEANING IS : THE QUALITY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE
          > DIANETICS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE,NOT EVERY PERSON CAN RUN AN
          > ENGRAM.YOU HAVE TO PERPARE THE PC TO BE ABLE TO RUN DIANETICS.
          > MY OWN SUSPICIOUN IS ,THE YOU YOURSELF CAN NOT RUN AN ENGRAM OR
          > NEVER HAVE
          > QWERT
          >
          >
          > --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "allphaomega" <allphaomega@...>
          > wrote:
          >> Has anyone else noticed a need for some improvements in the
          > dianetics
          >> tech?
          >>
          >> I don't know why it is, but people seem to try to pass off
          > standard
          >> dianetics (or NED) as perfect tech that works perfectly every
          > single
          >> time and that if it doesn't it's not the fault of the tech, it's
          > the
          >> fault of the auditor or else the PC is somehow out-ethics. I know
          > I
          >> cannot achieve 100% standard results with R3RA, much less Book-1.
          > I'm
          >> just waiting for the free zoneers to start either facing reality
          > on
          >> this or else show me what they're doing to achieve 100% results
          > with
          >> standard dianetics that I can not. But there seems to be a
          > definite
          >> babackoff on trying to improve the tech in any way, where the
          > meaning
          >> of "standard" has become "frozen".
          >>
          >> When I say standard, I mean the item once run to basic never
          > returning
          >> and each incident run never being charged again. When I say 100% I
          >> mean that no incident ever fails to flatten, no chain ever fails
          > to
          >> either be either resolved, flattened, or at least well keyed out
          > (in
          >> the case of auditing newbies).
          >>
          >> Robert D.
          >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DianeticR3X
          >>
        • BORIS KUKARKIN
          I am not perfect in using computer and quite often I like to say something about Windows and Microsoft s not-perfectness. But in year 2006 i did it not so
          Message 4 of 29 , Jan 6, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I am not perfect in using computer and quite often I like to say something about Windows' and Microsoft's not-perfectness. But in year 2006 i did it not so often like in year 2004.I think that more I know and more I deaberrated I can use Tech more successfully.
            Best regards.
            Boris

            allphaomega <allphaomega@...> wrote:
            Has anyone else noticed a need for some improvements in the dianetics
            tech?

            I don't know why it is, but people seem to try to pass off standard
            dianetics (or NED) as perfect tech that works perfectly every single
            time and that if it doesn't it's not the fault of the tech, it's the
            fault of the auditor or else the PC is somehow out-ethics. I know I
            cannot achieve 100% standard results with R3RA, much less Book-1. I'm
            just waiting for the free zoneers to start either facing reality on
            this or else show me what they're doing to achieve 100% results with
            standard dianetics that I can not. But there seems to be a definite
            babackoff on trying to improve the tech in any way, where the meaning
            of "standard" has become "frozen".

            When I say standard, I mean the item once run to basic never returning
            and each incident run never being charged again. When I say 100% I
            mean that no incident ever fails to flatten, no chain ever fails to
            either be either resolved, flattened, or at least well keyed out (in
            the case of auditing newbies).

            Robert D.
            http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/DianeticR3 X


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com

          • allphaomega
            On the contrary, I can do engram running on EVERYONE - whether clears or wogs, as long as they are willing to be processed and can communicate. I NEVER run
            Message 5 of 29 , Jan 6, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              On the contrary, I can do engram running on EVERYONE - whether
              clears or wogs, as long as they are willing to be processed and can
              communicate. I NEVER run into problems the way I do it. But you're
              right if you're talking about R3RA. I've found it to be a very
              limited tech, as good and useful as it is. It can only be run
              properly on a limited number of people, and the results can be
              spotty, as I mentioned in my previous post.

              Robert D.
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DianeticR3X

              --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "qwert_yuiop" <tuvia.1@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! FOR SURE YOU DONT HAVE A CORRECT
              > DFINITION FOR THE WORD" STANDARD"
              > THE CORRECT MEANING IS : THE QUALITY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE
              > DIANETICS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE,NOT EVERY PERSON CAN RUN AN
              > ENGRAM.YOU HAVE TO PERPARE THE PC TO BE ABLE TO RUN DIANETICS.
              > MY OWN SUSPICIOUN IS ,THE YOU YOURSELF CAN NOT RUN AN ENGRAM OR
              > NEVER HAVE
              > QWERT
              >
            • qwert_yuiop
              IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES PROPERLY,AND I EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO EP. I.E. THE OLD POSTULATE AND A NEW
              Message 6 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES PROPERLY,AND I
                EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO EP. I.E. THE OLD
                POSTULATE AND A NEW REALIZATION. OTHERS BUT NOT ALL, CAN ALSO RUN
                ENGRAMS, BUT HERE THE SKILL AND KOWLEDGE OF THE AUDITOR IS CRUCIAL.
                DIANETICS NEEDS NO IMPROVMENT YET AUDITORS NEED COMPRHENSIVE KNOW OF
                THE MIND AS WELL AS OF THE "REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS".


                --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "allphaomega" <allphaomega@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > On the contrary, I can do engram running on EVERYONE - whether
                > clears or wogs, as long as they are willing to be processed and
                can
                > communicate. I NEVER run into problems the way I do it. But
                you're
                > right if you're talking about R3RA. I've found it to be a very
                > limited tech, as good and useful as it is. It can only be run
                > properly on a limited number of people, and the results can be
                > spotty, as I mentioned in my previous post.
                >
                > Robert D.
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DianeticR3X
                >
                > --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "qwert_yuiop" <tuvia.1@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! FOR SURE YOU DONT HAVE A
                CORRECT
                > > DFINITION FOR THE WORD" STANDARD"
                > > THE CORRECT MEANING IS : THE QUALITY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE
                > > DIANETICS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE,NOT EVERY PERSON CAN RUN
                AN
                > > ENGRAM.YOU HAVE TO PERPARE THE PC TO BE ABLE TO RUN DIANETICS.
                > > MY OWN SUSPICIOUN IS ,THE YOU YOURSELF CAN NOT RUN AN ENGRAM OR
                > > NEVER HAVE
                > > QWERT
                > >
                >
              • FWDtoday
                Querty, by acting so angry and using all caps, the net equivalent of shouting at the top of your voice...you accomplish nothing but seeming to be a nutcase. If
                Message 7 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Querty, by acting so angry and using all caps, the net equivalent of shouting at the top of your voice...you accomplish nothing but seeming to be a nutcase. If you want to be listened to, then cut the caps and multiple exclamation marks. It is extremely inappropriate to act this way, whether what you have to say is right or wrong. I am not saying you are a nutcase, but this behavior gives that appearance.
                  FWD 
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 3:42 AM
                  Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements


                  IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES PROPERLY,AND I
                  EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO EP. I.E. THE OLD
                  POSTULATE AND A NEW REALIZATION. OTHERS BUT NOT ALL, CAN ALSO RUN
                  ENGRAMS, BUT HERE THE SKILL AND KOWLEDGE OF THE AUDITOR IS CRUCIAL.
                  DIANETICS NEEDS NO IMPROVMENT YET AUDITORS NEED COMPRHENSIVE KNOW OF
                  THE MIND AS WELL AS OF THE "REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS".

                  --- In Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com, "allphaomega" <allphaomega@ ...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > On the contrary, I can do engram running on EVERYONE - whether
                  > clears or wogs, as long as they are willing to be processed and
                  can
                  > communicate. I NEVER run into problems the way I do it. But
                  you're
                  > right if you're talking about R3RA. I've found it to be a very
                  > limited tech, as good and useful as it is. It can only be run
                  > properly on a limited number of people, and the results can be
                  > spotty, as I mentioned in my previous post.
                  >
                  > Robert D.
                  > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/DianeticR3 X
                  >
                  > --- In Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com, "qwert_yuiop" <tuvia.1@>
                  > wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! FOR SURE YOU DONT HAVE A
                  CORRECT
                  > > DFINITION FOR THE WORD" STANDARD"
                  > > THE CORRECT MEANING IS : THE QUALITY APPROPRIATE FOR THE PURPOSE
                  > > DIANETICS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE,NOT EVERY PERSON CAN RUN
                  AN
                  > > ENGRAM.YOU HAVE TO PERPARE THE PC TO BE ABLE TO RUN DIANETICS.
                  > > MY OWN SUSPICIOUN IS ,THE YOU YOURSELF CAN NOT RUN AN ENGRAM OR
                  > > NEVER HAVE
                  > > QWERT
                  > >
                  >

                • fritz
                  I don t know why it is, but people seem to try to pass off standard dianetics.... Nice generality, Robert. But thanks for the post. It is very illustrative
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    "I don't know why it is, but people seem to try to pass off standard
                    dianetics...."

                    Nice generality, Robert.

                    But thanks for the post. It is very illustrative of why there are 10
                    points to keeping scientology working.

                    There is always some nit wit slipping past a sleeping course
                    supervisor, or word clearer, or cram off, or intern sup.

                    We must always be vigilant for the signs early enough that we don't
                    let squirrels out of our course rooms, and internships while there is
                    still something that can be done about them.

                    There is no end to the havoc they can create once they decide the tech
                    itself is bad and needs to be improved upon by them.

                    Classic.

                    But have fun running clears and OT's back down the grade chart.

                    There are plenty of standard tech people around to clean up messed up
                    PreOt's.

                    Fritz


                    --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "allphaomega" <allphaomega@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Has anyone else noticed a need for some improvements in the dianetics
                    > tech?
                    >
                    > I don't know why it is, but people seem to try to pass off standard
                    > dianetics (or NED) as perfect tech that works perfectly every single
                    > time and that if it doesn't it's not the fault of the tech, it's the
                    > fault of the auditor or else the PC is somehow out-ethics. I know I
                    > cannot achieve 100% standard results with R3RA, much less Book-1. I'm
                    > just waiting for the free zoneers to start either facing reality on
                    > this or else show me what they're doing to achieve 100% results with
                    > standard dianetics that I can not. But there seems to be a definite
                    > babackoff on trying to improve the tech in any way, where the meaning
                    > of "standard" has become "frozen".
                    >
                    > When I say standard, I mean the item once run to basic never returning
                    > and each incident run never being charged again. When I say 100% I
                    > mean that no incident ever fails to flatten, no chain ever fails to
                    > either be either resolved, flattened, or at least well keyed out (in
                    > the case of auditing newbies).
                    >
                    > Robert D.
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DianeticR3X
                    >
                  • qwert_yuiop
                    THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOU MIGHT ADD THAT I AM A DOG TOO, LOL. AUDITOR I AM SURE YOU ARE NOT ... of shouting at the top of your voice...you accomplish nothing
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOU MIGHT ADD THAT I AM A DOG TOO, LOL. AUDITOR
                      I AM SURE YOU ARE NOT


                      --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "FWDtoday" <fdavis@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Querty, by acting so angry and using all caps, the net equivalent
                      of shouting at the top of your voice...you accomplish nothing but
                      seeming to be a nutcase. If you want to be listened to, then cut the
                      caps and multiple exclamation marks. It is extremely inappropriate
                      to act this way, whether what you have to say is right or wrong. I
                      am not saying you are a nutcase, but this behavior gives that
                      appearance.
                      > FWD
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: qwert_yuiop
                      > To: Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 3:42 AM
                      > Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES PROPERLY,AND
                      I
                      > EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO EP. I.E. THE
                      OLD
                      > POSTULATE AND A NEW REALIZATION. OTHERS BUT NOT ALL, CAN ALSO
                      RUN
                      > ENGRAMS, BUT HERE THE SKILL AND KOWLEDGE OF THE AUDITOR IS
                      CRUCIAL.
                      > DIANETICS NEEDS NO IMPROVMENT YET AUDITORS NEED COMPRHENSIVE
                      KNOW OF
                      > THE MIND AS WELL AS OF THE "REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS".
                      >
                      > --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "allphaomega" <allphaomega@>
                      > wrote:
                      > >
                      > > On the contrary, I can do engram running on EVERYONE - whether
                      > > clears or wogs, as long as they are willing to be processed
                      and
                      > can
                      > > communicate. I NEVER run into problems the way I do it. But
                      > you're
                      > > right if you're talking about R3RA. I've found it to be a very
                      > > limited tech, as good and useful as it is. It can only be run
                      > > properly on a limited number of people, and the results can be
                      > > spotty, as I mentioned in my previous post.
                      > >
                      > > Robert D.
                      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DianeticR3X
                      > >
                      > > --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "qwert_yuiop" <tuvia.1@>
                      > > wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! FOR SURE YOU DONT HAVE A
                      > CORRECT
                      > > > DFINITION FOR THE WORD" STANDARD"
                      > > > THE CORRECT MEANING IS : THE QUALITY APPROPRIATE FOR THE
                      PURPOSE
                      > > > DIANETICS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE,NOT EVERY PERSON CAN
                      RUN
                      > AN
                      > > > ENGRAM.YOU HAVE TO PERPARE THE PC TO BE ABLE TO RUN
                      DIANETICS.
                      > > > MY OWN SUSPICIOUN IS ,THE YOU YOURSELF CAN NOT RUN AN ENGRAM
                      OR
                      > > > NEVER HAVE
                      > > > QWERT
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • FWDtoday
                      This type of stupid response just gets you killfiled. You could not possibly be an auditor. your actions are suppressive. FWD ... From: qwert_yuiop To:
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        This type of stupid response just gets you killfiled. You could not possibly be an auditor. your actions are suppressive.
                        FWD
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 12:46 PM
                        Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements

                        THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOU MIGHT ADD THAT I AM A DOG TOO, LOL. AUDITOR
                        I AM SURE YOU ARE NOT

                        --- In Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com, "FWDtoday" <fdavis@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Querty, by acting so angry and using all caps, the net equivalent
                        of shouting at the top of your voice...you accomplish nothing but
                        seeming to be a nutcase. If you want to be listened to, then cut the
                        caps and multiple exclamation marks. It is extremely inappropriate
                        to act this way, whether what you have to say is right or wrong. I
                        am not saying you are a nutcase, but this behavior gives that
                        appearance.
                        > FWD
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: qwert_yuiop
                        > To: Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com
                        > Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 3:42 AM
                        > Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES PROPERLY,AND
                        I
                        > EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO EP. I.E. THE
                        OLD
                        > POSTULATE AND A NEW REALIZATION. OTHERS BUT NOT ALL, CAN ALSO
                        RUN
                        > ENGRAMS, BUT HERE THE SKILL AND KOWLEDGE OF THE AUDITOR IS
                        CRUCIAL.
                        > DIANETICS NEEDS NO IMPROVMENT YET AUDITORS NEED COMPRHENSIVE
                        KNOW OF
                        > THE MIND AS WELL AS OF THE "REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS".
                        >
                        > --- In Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com, "allphaomega" <allphaomega@ >
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > On the contrary, I can do engram running on EVERYONE - whether
                        > > clears or wogs, as long as they are willing to be processed
                        and
                        > can
                        > > communicate. I NEVER run into problems the way I do it. But
                        > you're
                        > > right if you're talking about R3RA. I've found it to be a very
                        > > limited tech, as good and useful as it is. It can only be run
                        > > properly on a limited number of people, and the results can be
                        > > spotty, as I mentioned in my previous post.
                        > >
                        > > Robert D.
                        > > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/DianeticR3 X
                        > >
                        > > --- In Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com, "qwert_yuiop" <tuvia.1@>
                        > > wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! FOR SURE YOU DONT HAVE A
                        > CORRECT
                        > > > DFINITION FOR THE WORD" STANDARD"
                        > > > THE CORRECT MEANING IS : THE QUALITY APPROPRIATE FOR THE
                        PURPOSE
                        > > > DIANETICS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE,NOT EVERY PERSON CAN
                        RUN
                        > AN
                        > > > ENGRAM.YOU HAVE TO PERPARE THE PC TO BE ABLE TO RUN
                        DIANETICS.
                        > > > MY OWN SUSPICIOUN IS ,THE YOU YOURSELF CAN NOT RUN AN ENGRAM
                        OR
                        > > > NEVER HAVE
                        > > > QWERT
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >

                      • allphaomega
                        ... So why is it that dianetics is forbidden on clears - even though LHR said it was okay to do that*? Because they were running into problems with it. I
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "qwert_yuiop" <tuvia.1@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES PROPERLY,AND I
                          > EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO EP. I.E. THE OLD
                          > POSTULATE AND A NEW REALIZATION. OTHERS BUT NOT ALL, CAN ALSO RUN
                          > ENGRAMS, BUT HERE THE SKILL AND KOWLEDGE OF THE AUDITOR IS CRUCIAL.
                          > DIANETICS NEEDS NO IMPROVMENT YET AUDITORS NEED COMPRHENSIVE KNOW OF
                          > THE MIND AS WELL AS OF THE "REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS".

                          So why is it that dianetics is forbidden on clears - even though LHR
                          said it was okay to do that*?

                          Because "they" were running into problems with it. I dont't run into
                          any problems running dianetics on clears. In fact, I find that clears
                          run dianetics better than non-clears. But it has to be done correctly,
                          and R3R is not complete enough to be able to take on pre-OT cases.

                          Robert D.
                          * "So engrams man, engrams can be run from wog to angel.
                          Secondaries can be run all over the damn track at any grade
                          you ever heard of. On any grade you could run a secondary." -- LRH:
                          Class 8 lecture No. 6
                        • Lyn Keller
                          ... This could apply to just about anything. Any new process that has been created, tested and then decided that it works and is along the purpose of the
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- qwert_yuiop <tuvia.1@...> wrote:

                            > I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!! FOR SURE YOU DONT
                            > HAVE A CORRECT
                            > DFINITION FOR THE WORD" STANDARD"
                            > THE CORRECT MEANING IS : THE QUALITY APPROPRIATE
                            > FOR THE PURPOSE

                            This could apply to just about anything. Any "new"
                            process that has been created, tested and then decided
                            that it works and is along the purpose of the
                            "intended".

                            This is what I have out of a 1978 Tech. Dict.

                            Standard Tech:
                            1. a definite level or degree of quality that is
                            proper and adequate for a specific purpose (Class VIII
                            No. 4). 2. "Standard" in standard tech auditing is a
                            precise activity, done with good TR's, exact grade
                            processes and exact actions (HCOB 10 Sept 68).


                            The second definition sounds more like it has to
                            do with the grades, but I'm not sure.

                            Other than that, you can take any process which
                            helps a person become more aware, run off charge, goes
                            to the beginning of "time" (if you want), etc. etc.
                            and create it into a "standard" procedure. Its a
                            matter of whether it actually works or not on more
                            people than it doesn't.

                            There are even "non-Scn" processes that can be
                            considered as "standard" for their purpose.

                            The method for running out an engram is "NOT"
                            bronzed in stone, unless you are in Scn. There are
                            others who do not use Dianetics and have run out
                            engrams. An engram is an engram, how you go about
                            running it, is a different matter.

                            You have no idea just how close LRH was in having
                            Touch Assists run out engrams as well. It ran out
                            parts of them, but it was incomplete. Dianetics was
                            meant to run out the whole thing. But if someone had
                            connected the dots way back when, they would have
                            found a faster way of getting rid of somatics, caused
                            by engrams.

                            And back to the original topic, which I think was
                            about running GE's. If a person were to combine what
                            they knew about Dianetics along with a really good
                            Touch Assist they'd find out that it would clean up
                            the whole integral unit of thetan, body, mind over a
                            period of time. Its not a push one button operation,
                            but it would have been more complete and faster than
                            only Dianetics. There are reasons for this.

                            I saw this old movie of an interview with LRH on
                            Google. Its said it was the last one he did in the
                            late 60's. He described the mind briefly. However,
                            he only described it "around" the a person's head.
                            Its not - its all over the body, but is concentrated
                            mostly in the head area.

                            By combining a version of Touch Assist along with
                            the paradigm of Dianetics, you can have a much more
                            complete system as it covers "everything", not just
                            pictures and a bit of energy here and there.


                            > DIANETICS IS NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE,NOT EVERY
                            > PERSON CAN RUN AN
                            > ENGRAM.

                            Because its sometimes incomplete - it doesn't always
                            get the areas its addressing, which is why sometimes
                            its described as peeling onions, etc. Everyone can
                            run an engram, you just have to know what they are
                            most comfortable with. Not everyone may be able to
                            use "only" Dianetics. This is why its good to have
                            several "tools" under your belt. That way you can
                            customize your session according to how a person is
                            wired up, more or less.


                            YOU HAVE TO PERPARE THE PC TO BE ABLE TO RUN
                            > DIANETICS.

                            True - as in most things that are not your everyday
                            activity.

                            > MY OWN SUSPICIOUN IS ,THE YOU YOURSELF CAN NOT RUN
                            > AN ENGRAM OR
                            > NEVER HAVE

                            Is there a reason why you would put this in a
                            statement form and not in a question form?

                            Lyn

                            __________________________________________________
                            Do You Yahoo!?
                            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            http://mail.yahoo.com
                          • Lyn Keller
                            So, basically, you re saying that Dianetics is not a stand alone cure for engrams, correct? You re saying that if a person has proper grades and training,
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              So, basically, you're saying that Dianetics is not a
                              "stand alone" cure for engrams, correct? You're
                              saying that if a person has proper grades and
                              training, they'll get great results, basically - did I
                              get that right?

                              But someone else has asked whether Dianetics could be
                              improved, etc. Maybe it could, but you're saying it
                              doesn't need to be as long as you have these other
                              aspects.

                              Not everyone out there who is auditing has these other
                              aspects you speak of. Before grades were even
                              created, Dianetics was supposed to be a stand alone
                              cure for engram running. Before the exact type of
                              training was created, people ran Dianetics and
                              received great results. If you've never been run on
                              Dianetics from a person who started in 1950, you
                              haven't lived - lol!! Bob Ross used to give me
                              sessions and the whole essence was quite different
                              (and a lot more human, I might add). Maybe some
                              people didn't get the type of results others did, but
                              for its development it was a great stride in the right
                              direction.

                              But, it doesn't mean one can't improve on something.
                              That's what the idea of being independent means to me.
                              The idea of going back earlier similar and running
                              off charge seems to be a very powerful idea. But how
                              one does this, is actually a variable possibility.
                              Its not a bronzed statue.

                              My opinion,
                              Lyn


                              --- qwert_yuiop <tuvia.1@...> wrote:

                              >
                              > IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES
                              > PROPERLY,AND I
                              > EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO
                              > EP. I.E. THE OLD
                              > POSTULATE AND A NEW REALIZATION. OTHERS BUT NOT ALL,
                              > CAN ALSO RUN
                              > ENGRAMS, BUT HERE THE SKILL AND KOWLEDGE OF THE
                              > AUDITOR IS CRUCIAL.
                              > DIANETICS NEEDS NO IMPROVMENT YET AUDITORS NEED
                              > COMPRHENSIVE KNOW OF
                              > THE MIND AS WELL AS OF THE "REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS".
                              >

                              __________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                              http://mail.yahoo.com
                            • qwert_yuiop
                              YES , I DO AGREE THAT ENGRAMS CAN BE RUN ABOVE CLEAR AND WITH BENEFITS TOO. HOWEVER KEEP IN MIND THE GOAL FOR AUDITING. IT IS MY OPINION THAT ABOVE CLEAR
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                YES , I DO AGREE THAT ENGRAMS CAN BE RUN ABOVE CLEAR AND WITH
                                BENEFITS TOO. HOWEVER KEEP IN MIND THE GOAL FOR AUDITING. IT IS MY
                                OPINION THAT ABOVE CLEAR ENGRAM RUNNING WILL BE CLASSIFIED AS
                                ASSISTS AND PREPARE THE WAY FOR GETTING OFF THE VARIOUS IMPLANTS SO
                                ONE WILL BE ABLE TO DO 8-8008 PROPERLY OR THE OLD OT LEVELS.


                                --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "allphaomega" <allphaomega@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "qwert_yuiop" <tuvia.1@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES PROPERLY,AND
                                I
                                > > EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO EP. I.E. THE
                                OLD
                                > > POSTULATE AND A NEW REALIZATION. OTHERS BUT NOT ALL, CAN ALSO
                                RUN
                                > > ENGRAMS, BUT HERE THE SKILL AND KOWLEDGE OF THE AUDITOR IS
                                CRUCIAL.
                                > > DIANETICS NEEDS NO IMPROVMENT YET AUDITORS NEED COMPRHENSIVE
                                KNOW OF
                                > > THE MIND AS WELL AS OF THE "REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS".
                                >
                                > So why is it that dianetics is forbidden on clears - even though
                                LHR
                                > said it was okay to do that*?
                                >
                                > Because "they" were running into problems with it. I dont't run
                                into
                                > any problems running dianetics on clears. In fact, I find that
                                clears
                                > run dianetics better than non-clears. But it has to be done
                                correctly,
                                > and R3R is not complete enough to be able to take on pre-OT cases.
                                >
                                > Robert D.
                                > * "So engrams man, engrams can be run from wog to angel.
                                > Secondaries can be run all over the damn track at any grade
                                > you ever heard of. On any grade you could run a secondary." --
                                LRH:
                                > Class 8 lecture No. 6
                                >
                              • pat freespirit
                                You know, running Dianetics on Clears is not a good idea. How come Dianetics instead of their next level? Even if it wasn t harmful in itself (and it usually
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  You know, running Dianetics on Clears is not a good idea. How come
                                  Dianetics instead of their next level? Even if it wasn't harmful in itself
                                  (and it usually is and has to be corrected) it is a substute for the actual
                                  bridge.

                                  Pat





                                  Scientology(tm) vs. Scientology(tm) softcover or E-book for sale at ebay.com





                                  >From: "allphaomega" <allphaomega@...>
                                  >Reply-To: Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com
                                  >To: Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com
                                  >Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements
                                  >Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:15:40 -0000
                                  >
                                  >--- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "qwert_yuiop" <tuvia.1@...> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES PROPERLY,AND I
                                  > > EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO EP. I.E. THE OLD
                                  > > POSTULATE AND A NEW REALIZATION. OTHERS BUT NOT ALL, CAN ALSO RUN
                                  > > ENGRAMS, BUT HERE THE SKILL AND KOWLEDGE OF THE AUDITOR IS CRUCIAL.
                                  > > DIANETICS NEEDS NO IMPROVMENT YET AUDITORS NEED COMPRHENSIVE KNOW OF
                                  > > THE MIND AS WELL AS OF THE "REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS".
                                  >
                                  >So why is it that dianetics is forbidden on clears - even though LHR
                                  >said it was okay to do that*?
                                  >
                                  >Because "they" were running into problems with it. I dont't run into
                                  >any problems running dianetics on clears. In fact, I find that clears
                                  >run dianetics better than non-clears. But it has to be done correctly,
                                  >and R3R is not complete enough to be able to take on pre-OT cases.
                                  >
                                  >Robert D.
                                  >* "So engrams man, engrams can be run from wog to angel.
                                  >Secondaries can be run all over the damn track at any grade
                                  >you ever heard of. On any grade you could run a secondary." -- LRH:
                                  >Class 8 lecture No. 6
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >Galac Patra international group. Success story, sites, materials, news.
                                  >Members - only close friends of Free Zone.(Conference not for
                                  >conversations). Language - English.
                                  >http://www.galac-patra.narod.ru
                                  >
                                  >Get Skype and call for free http://www.skype.com/go/download.
                                  >
                                  >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >

                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                  Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
                                  http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
                                • allphaomega
                                  ... Well, you ve seen examples already on this list, saying no improvements are necessary. That means either the tech is perfect as it is, or the people who
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Jan 7, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "fritz" <schreiner_fritz@...>
                                    wrote:
                                    >
                                    > "I don't know why it is, but people seem to try to pass off standard
                                    > dianetics...."
                                    >
                                    > Nice generality, Robert.

                                    Well, you've seen examples already on this list, saying no
                                    improvements are necessary. That means either the tech is perfect as
                                    it is, or the people who want no change are satisfied with imperfect
                                    tech.

                                    As for the rest of your post, you've made your position quite clear.
                                    Myself, I prefer to discuss facts and not get into any heated
                                    arguments over beliefs.

                                    Robert D.
                                  • Edgar Gaumond
                                    It just never ceases to amaze me why people want to run more Dianetics after the EP of it is supposedly reached!! The EP of Dianetics is supposed to be
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                        It just never ceases to amaze me why people want to run more Dianetics after the EP of it is supposedly reached!!  The EP of Dianetics is supposed to be erasure of all engrams, correct?  Isn't that what LRH said in Book One?  So, then why keep running it after someone is Clear?  Talk about beating your dead horses!!  How many people keep the ignition key turned to the "start" position after the engine is running?  Wouldn't you call them nuts if they did that? 
                                       
                                      Randy G
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:09 PM
                                      Subject: RE: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements

                                      You know, running Dianetics on Clears is not a good idea. How come
                                      Dianetics instead of their next level? Even if it wasn't harmful in itself
                                      (and it usually is and has to be corrected) it is a substute for the actual
                                      bridge.

                                      Pat

                                      Scientology( tm) vs. Scientology( tm) softcover or E-book for sale at ebay.com

                                      >From: "allphaomega" <allphaomega@ earthlink. net>
                                      >Reply-To: Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com
                                      >To: Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com
                                      >Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements
                                      >Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:15:40 -0000
                                      >
                                      >--- In Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com, "qwert_yuiop" <tuvia.1@... > wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES PROPERLY,AND I
                                      > > EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO EP. I.E. THE OLD
                                      > > POSTULATE AND A NEW REALIZATION. OTHERS BUT NOT ALL, CAN ALSO RUN
                                      > > ENGRAMS, BUT HERE THE SKILL AND KOWLEDGE OF THE AUDITOR IS CRUCIAL.
                                      > > DIANETICS NEEDS NO IMPROVMENT YET AUDITORS NEED COMPRHENSIVE KNOW OF
                                      > > THE MIND AS WELL AS OF THE "REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS".
                                      >
                                      >So why is it that dianetics is forbidden on clears - even though LHR
                                      >said it was okay to do that*?
                                      >
                                      >Because "they" were running into problems with it. I dont't run into
                                      >any problems running dianetics on clears. In fact, I find that clears
                                      >run dianetics better than non-clears. But it has to be done correctly,
                                      >and R3R is not complete enough to be able to take on pre-OT cases.
                                      >
                                      >Robert D.
                                      >* "So engrams man, engrams can be run from wog to angel.
                                      >Secondaries can be run all over the damn track at any grade
                                      >you ever heard of. On any grade you could run a secondary." -- LRH:
                                      >Class 8 lecture No. 6
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >Galac Patra international group. Success story, sites, materials, news.
                                      >Members - only close friends of Free Zone.(Conference not for
                                      >conversations) . Language - English.
                                      >http://www.galac- patra.narod. ru
                                      >
                                      >Get Skype and call for free http://www.skype. com/go/download.
                                      >
                                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >

                                      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                                      Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
                                      http://imagine- windowslive. com/search/ kits/default. aspx?kit= improve&locale= en-US&source= hmemailtaglineno v06&FORM= WLMTAG

                                    • allphaomega
                                      ... Dianetics after the EP of it is supposedly reached!! The EP of Dianetics is supposed to be erasure of all engrams, correct? Isn t that what LRH said in
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar Gaumond" <gaumond3@...>
                                        wrote:
                                        >
                                        > It just never ceases to amaze me why people want to run more
                                        Dianetics after the EP of it is supposedly reached!! The EP of
                                        Dianetics is supposed to be erasure of all engrams, correct? Isn't
                                        that what LRH said in Book One? So, then why keep running it after
                                        someone is Clear? Talk about beating your dead horses!! How many
                                        people keep the ignition key turned to the "start" position after
                                        the engine is running? Wouldn't you call them nuts if they did
                                        that?

                                        Anybody who thinks clears have no engrams is not tracking with
                                        reality.

                                        The book Dianetics Today contains a slew of cases personally C/S'd
                                        by Ron where clears were audited on dianetics.

                                        Robert D.
                                      • Lyn Keller
                                        As my x-2d used to tell me, sometimes when running something directed to the body and what you believe to be the thetan (and nothing but the thetan) in front
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          As my x-2d used to tell me, sometimes when running
                                          something directed to the body and what you believe to
                                          be the "thetan" (and nothing but the thetan) in front
                                          of you, you unwittingly wake up a whole neighborhood.
                                          I can attest to "that" :).

                                          What an amazing feeling it was to have a memory just
                                          drop into a dead end. Took me a moment and for my
                                          X-2d to let me know that it may not be mine and take a
                                          look. Low and behold - it wasn't! What a shocker. I
                                          hadn't realized that could happen (this was about 17
                                          years ago). I can totally see how the case could
                                          grind to a halt without recognizing what or "who" the
                                          possibilities are when running Dianetics. However, it
                                          didn't "screw me up" - it just didn't "run".

                                          After awhile, since at Clear I didn't really have my
                                          "own" mechanisms in place, and since I seem to be
                                          borrowing from others for havingness purposes, it
                                          doesn't seem necessary to run Dianetics as it would be
                                          in Book One because what pops up would take forever
                                          trying to handle each being that is attached, with
                                          book one. The "paradigm" of going earlier in events
                                          (whole track), and so forth, could still apply, but to
                                          "whom" might be the question.

                                          I have people telling me that I should do OT III and
                                          it just doesn't indicate for "me" - it doesn't seem to
                                          be there. But then I haven't completely done a full
                                          NOTs either (just enough to get some major junk off)
                                          and so there "are" implants still there, but they
                                          don't feel like mine. So, as strange as this sounds
                                          "I" don't feel like I need to do this, but perhaps
                                          some who are still attached to me "do" need to do
                                          this. I hope that makes sense.

                                          For me clear on the first dynamic feels like that I
                                          myself have no case (as a being). I have to let case
                                          come in through vias, which I do at times (like the
                                          body). But yet, I can switch it off at will for the
                                          most part. There are still body situations that are
                                          more difficult for me to switch off. Most likely
                                          because I haven't totally inspected the areas.

                                          As I wrote the above and have read some other people's
                                          posts, I think that the way someone looks at past
                                          events or goes about becoming aware of them, takes a
                                          different turn at different levels of awareness and
                                          capability.

                                          Again the basic paradigm is there which is looking at
                                          something from the past and getting to the nitty
                                          gritty of it or when or how it was created - getting
                                          off the charge of it and then as-ising it. That basic
                                          seems to be there throughout just about everything.
                                          Does anyone else believe this to be true?

                                          Lyn






                                          --- kickwilstra <tourtel@...> wrote:

                                          > A Clear is just in regards to the 1st dynamic, I
                                          > believe we have some
                                          > more dynamics than just that one. The horses may not
                                          > be so dead after
                                          > all.
                                          >
                                          > kw
                                          >

                                          __________________________________________________
                                          Do You Yahoo!?
                                          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                          http://mail.yahoo.com
                                        • allphaomega
                                          Being clear puts one exterior to the bank. One can look at his track incidents and choose to be uninvolved (exterior to it) and not care about it, and that is
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Being clear puts one exterior to the bank. One can look at his
                                            track incidents and choose to be uninvolved (exterior to it) and not
                                            care about it, and that is an ability in itself. But when that
                                            person is in session and is being run on the incident with engram
                                            running, that is when the tears flow and the agony appears and the
                                            emotions show up. After the incident is totally cleared, the
                                            person has a feeling of having regained some theta that had been
                                            encapsulated in MEST for trillions of years, and with it a personal
                                            sense of expanded space. That is more attention and ability
                                            available in present time. I see that type of clearing as a quite
                                            worthwhile endevour, as do my PCs, and I see it as a direct path to
                                            higher states of being, or OT states. If, as Ron says, OT is a
                                            totally cleared whole track, then I believe the state of clear
                                            should not serve as a stumbling block to achievement of OT states.

                                            --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, Lyn Keller <infiniteaeons@...>
                                            wrote:
                                            >
                                            > As my x-2d used to tell me, sometimes when running
                                            > something directed to the body and what you believe to
                                            > be the "thetan" (and nothing but the thetan) in front
                                            > of you, you unwittingly wake up a whole neighborhood.
                                            > I can attest to "that" :).
                                            >
                                            > What an amazing feeling it was to have a memory just
                                            > drop into a dead end. Took me a moment and for my
                                            > X-2d to let me know that it may not be mine and take a
                                            > look. Low and behold - it wasn't! What a shocker. I
                                            > hadn't realized that could happen (this was about 17
                                            > years ago). I can totally see how the case could
                                            > grind to a halt without recognizing what or "who" the
                                            > possibilities are when running Dianetics. However, it
                                            > didn't "screw me up" - it just didn't "run".
                                            >
                                            > After awhile, since at Clear I didn't really have my
                                            > "own" mechanisms in place, and since I seem to be
                                            > borrowing from others for havingness purposes, it
                                            > doesn't seem necessary to run Dianetics as it would be
                                            > in Book One because what pops up would take forever
                                            > trying to handle each being that is attached, with
                                            > book one. The "paradigm" of going earlier in events
                                            > (whole track), and so forth, could still apply, but to
                                            > "whom" might be the question.
                                            >
                                            > I have people telling me that I should do OT III and
                                            > it just doesn't indicate for "me" - it doesn't seem to
                                            > be there. But then I haven't completely done a full
                                            > NOTs either (just enough to get some major junk off)
                                            > and so there "are" implants still there, but they
                                            > don't feel like mine. So, as strange as this sounds
                                            > "I" don't feel like I need to do this, but perhaps
                                            > some who are still attached to me "do" need to do
                                            > this. I hope that makes sense.
                                            >
                                            > For me clear on the first dynamic feels like that I
                                            > myself have no case (as a being). I have to let case
                                            > come in through vias, which I do at times (like the
                                            > body). But yet, I can switch it off at will for the
                                            > most part. There are still body situations that are
                                            > more difficult for me to switch off. Most likely
                                            > because I haven't totally inspected the areas.
                                            >
                                            > As I wrote the above and have read some other people's
                                            > posts, I think that the way someone looks at past
                                            > events or goes about becoming aware of them, takes a
                                            > different turn at different levels of awareness and
                                            > capability.
                                            >
                                            > Again the basic paradigm is there which is looking at
                                            > something from the past and getting to the nitty
                                            > gritty of it or when or how it was created - getting
                                            > off the charge of it and then as-ising it. That basic
                                            > seems to be there throughout just about everything.
                                            > Does anyone else believe this to be true?
                                            >
                                            > Lyn
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > --- kickwilstra <tourtel@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > A Clear is just in regards to the 1st dynamic, I
                                            > > believe we have some
                                            > > more dynamics than just that one. The horses may not
                                            > > be so dead after
                                            > > all.
                                            > >
                                            > > kw
                                            > >
                                            >
                                            > __________________________________________________
                                            > Do You Yahoo!?
                                            > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                            > http://mail.yahoo.com
                                            >
                                          • Edgar Gaumond
                                            But the whole premise of Dianetic auditing was to clear out the held down fives, or sevens, depending upon which quote you want to reference. So if there
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                But the whole premise of Dianetic auditing was to "clear out" the held down fives, or sevens, depending upon which quote you want to reference.  So if there are still some of those kicking around in the memory banks, then you don't have a real Clear now, do you?  Or are there shades and gradations of being Clear??  If you take a glass of water and pour out the contents, then what is the point of continuing to hold the glass upside down after it is empty?  You see, this is where Ron's statement that "Dianetics is engineering applied to the humanities" breaks down.  We're then moving from solid and provable results to lots of maybes.  And I like to know that any bridge I attempt to cross was built upon solid results, and not guesses as to how much load that bridge can carry safely. 
                                               
                                              Randy G
                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:12 PM
                                              Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements

                                              --- In Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com, "Edgar Gaumond" <gaumond3@.. .>
                                              wrote:
                                              >
                                              > It just never ceases to amaze me why people want to run more
                                              Dianetics after the EP of it is supposedly reached!! The EP of
                                              Dianetics is supposed to be erasure of all engrams, correct? Isn't
                                              that what LRH said in Book One? So, then why keep running it after
                                              someone is Clear? Talk about beating your dead horses!! How many
                                              people keep the ignition key turned to the "start" position after
                                              the engine is running? Wouldn't you call them nuts if they did
                                              that?

                                              Anybody who thinks clears have no engrams is not tracking with
                                              reality.

                                              The book Dianetics Today contains a slew of cases personally C/S'd
                                              by Ron where clears were audited on dianetics.

                                              Robert D.

                                            • Lone Ranger
                                              ... And in 1978, he sed no Dns is to be run on Clears and gives the reason that BTs have the engrams, but then YOU dont think BTs are real, ey?
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "allphaomega" <allphaomega@...> wrote:

                                                > The book Dianetics Today contains a slew of cases personally C/S'd
                                                > by Ron where clears were audited on dianetics.
                                                >
                                                > Robert D.
                                                >

                                                And in 1978, he sed no Dns is to be run on Clears and gives the reason
                                                that BTs have the engrams, but then YOU dont think BTs are real, ey?
                                              • allphaomega
                                                ... reason ... I don t recall saying that. And no, he didn t say that as far as I know. The exact truth of it is that a bulletin came out with his name
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "Lone Ranger" <LR2447@...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "allphaomega" <allphaomega@>
                                                  wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > > The book Dianetics Today contains a slew of cases personally C/S'd
                                                  > > by Ron where clears were audited on dianetics.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Robert D.
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  > And in 1978, he sed no Dns is to be run on Clears and gives the
                                                  reason
                                                  > that BTs have the engrams, but then YOU dont think BTs are real, ey?

                                                  I don't recall saying that.

                                                  And no, he didn't say that as far as I know. The exact truth of it is
                                                  that a bulletin came out with his name printed at the bottom of it
                                                  saying something to that effect. Anything more than that is implied or
                                                  hearsay.

                                                  LRH was reportedly in pretty bad health around that time, so how much
                                                  in control of things he was I don't know for sure. The circumstances
                                                  surrounding Mayo's development of NOTs around that time are pretty
                                                  murky.

                                                  I do know that I benefited from having had NOTs run on me, I benefited
                                                  from applying the NOTs tech, but, as the name would imply, NOTs is NOT
                                                  dianetics, and cannot do the job of dianetics. No other tech that I
                                                  know of can replace dianetics.

                                                  Do I think BTs are real? I've audited them many times, in fact I
                                                  wrote up a technique for doing so on the Dianetic R3X list. But
                                                  Scientology is about personal subjective reality on things, and I
                                                  cannot say whether BTs are separate beings or simply ridges that
                                                  appear to come alive when energized by the thetan's energy as LRH
                                                  often said about them, as in the '52 lecture "The Role of Earth".

                                                  Be that as it may, I have been able to circumvent the need to address
                                                  entity cases and handle case issues directly by addressing the PC's
                                                  own case. That method has worked beautifully so far. For example,
                                                  one PC has complained about this or that entity bothering her, so I
                                                  had her find the point where she picked it up and ran that
                                                  dianetically. Poof, it was gone after that. She has quite a specific
                                                  reality on entities, and that method works quite well for her every
                                                  time. We still address entities at times, but not to solve present
                                                  time key-ins, and usually when we're addressing one or more of the
                                                  higher dynamics.

                                                  Robert D.
                                                • allphaomega
                                                  ... the held down fives, or sevens, depending upon which quote you want to reference. So if there are still some of those kicking around in the memory banks,
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar Gaumond" <gaumond3@...>
                                                    wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > But the whole premise of Dianetic auditing was to "clear out"
                                                    the held down fives, or sevens, depending upon which quote you want
                                                    to reference. So if there are still some of those kicking around in
                                                    the memory banks, then you don't have a real Clear now, do you?


                                                    Why not? A clear is "able to be at cause over mental MEST as
                                                    regards the first dynamic". Okay, so now he is able to Q & A with
                                                    the bank's forces, or not as he wishes. If he decides to tame his
                                                    tendencies to dramatize bank facsimiles, then he will lead a calmer
                                                    and more in-control life. If he cannot help but dramatize bank
                                                    facsimiles, then I'd say he is not clear. In either case, he is not
                                                    fully OT to the degree that his whole track still has a portion of
                                                    his beingness locked up in it, keeping facsimiles there if in a
                                                    dormant state.


                                                    >Or are there shades and gradations of being Clear??


                                                    Mayo would have you believe that, but if that's true, then it
                                                    renders the state of clear totally meaningless as far as that
                                                    bulletin is concerned, no? In other words, if clear is gradual,
                                                    then where does it start? I know a lot of people who are not keyed
                                                    in because they're rich and on a vacation. But transport them to a
                                                    more primitive setting, like say, oh, let's get REALLY primitive,
                                                    St. Louis Missouri, then his "clear" state will suddenly go by the
                                                    wayside, especially if he's in the jungles of East St. Louis.


                                                    >If you take a glass of water and pour out the contents, then what
                                                    is the point of continuing to hold the glass upside down after it is
                                                    empty?


                                                    That's a simplistic premise that I don't buy.


                                                    >You see, this is where Ron's statement that "Dianetics is
                                                    engineering applied to the humanities" breaks down. We're then
                                                    moving from solid and provable results to lots of maybes. And I
                                                    like to know that any bridge I attempt to cross was built upon solid
                                                    results, and not guesses as to how much load that bridge can carry
                                                    safely.

                                                    I do too, which is why I prefer to cross a bridge that can be
                                                    crossed by anybody at any time, and has no arbitraries. No-dianetics-
                                                    on-clears is an arbitrary for dianetics tech that I have proven is
                                                    not necessaary because the problems one encounters by doing so can
                                                    be overcome with the correct tech.

                                                    Robert D.


                                                    >
                                                    > Randy G
                                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                                    > From: allphaomega
                                                    > To: Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:12 PM
                                                    > Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar Gaumond" <gaumond3@>
                                                    > wrote:
                                                    > >
                                                    > > It just never ceases to amaze me why people want to run more
                                                    > Dianetics after the EP of it is supposedly reached!! The EP of
                                                    > Dianetics is supposed to be erasure of all engrams, correct?
                                                    Isn't
                                                    > that what LRH said in Book One? So, then why keep running it
                                                    after
                                                    > someone is Clear? Talk about beating your dead horses!! How many
                                                    > people keep the ignition key turned to the "start" position
                                                    after
                                                    > the engine is running? Wouldn't you call them nuts if they did
                                                    > that?
                                                    >
                                                    > Anybody who thinks clears have no engrams is not tracking with
                                                    > reality.
                                                    >
                                                    > The book Dianetics Today contains a slew of cases personally
                                                    C/S'd
                                                    > by Ron where clears were audited on dianetics.
                                                    >
                                                    > Robert D.
                                                    >
                                                  • pat freespirit
                                                    You are right on there...seven other dynamics at least!! Takes a tough clear to hold his position with what could be a lot of counter intention--that is why it
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      You are right on there...seven other dynamics at least!!

                                                      Takes a tough clear to hold his position with what could be a lot of counter
                                                      intention--that is why it is so important for a clear to go through the
                                                      no-interference area soon as possible.

                                                      Love, Pat









                                                      >From: "kickwilstra" <tourtel@...>
                                                      >Reply-To: Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com
                                                      >To: Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com
                                                      >Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements
                                                      >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 19:17:38 -0000
                                                      >
                                                      >A Clear is just in regards to the 1st dynamic, I believe we have some
                                                      >more dynamics than just that one. The horses may not be so dead after
                                                      >all.
                                                      >
                                                      >kw
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >--- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar Gaumond" <gaumond3@...>
                                                      >wrote:
                                                      > >
                                                      > > It just never ceases to amaze me why people want to run more
                                                      >Dianetics after the EP of it is supposedly reached!! The EP of
                                                      >Dianetics is supposed to be erasure of all engrams, correct? Isn't
                                                      >that what LRH said in Book One? So, then why keep running it after
                                                      >someone is Clear? Talk about beating your dead horses!! How many
                                                      >people keep the ignition key turned to the "start" position after the
                                                      >engine is running? Wouldn't you call them nuts if they did that?
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Randy G
                                                      > > ----- Original Message -----
                                                      > > From: pat freespirit
                                                      > > To: Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com
                                                      > > Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 2:09 PM
                                                      > > Subject: RE: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements
                                                      > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > You know, running Dianetics on Clears is not a good idea. How
                                                      >come
                                                      > > Dianetics instead of their next level? Even if it wasn't harmful
                                                      >in itself
                                                      > > (and it usually is and has to be corrected) it is a substute for
                                                      >the actual
                                                      > > bridge.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Pat
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Scientology(tm) vs. Scientology(tm) softcover or E-book for sale
                                                      >at ebay.com
                                                      > >
                                                      > > >From: "allphaomega" <allphaomega@...>
                                                      > > >Reply-To: Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com
                                                      > > >To: Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com
                                                      > > >Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements
                                                      > > >Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 19:15:40 -0000
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >--- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "qwert_yuiop" <tuvia.1@>
                                                      >wrote:
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > >
                                                      > > > > IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT ANYONE WHO DID HIS GRADES
                                                      >PROPERLY,AND I
                                                      > > > > EMPHESIZE PROPERLY, WILL BE ABLE TO RUN ENGRAMS TO EP. I.E.
                                                      >THE OLD
                                                      > > > > POSTULATE AND A NEW REALIZATION. OTHERS BUT NOT ALL, CAN ALSO
                                                      >RUN
                                                      > > > > ENGRAMS, BUT HERE THE SKILL AND KOWLEDGE OF THE AUDITOR IS
                                                      >CRUCIAL.
                                                      > > > > DIANETICS NEEDS NO IMPROVMENT YET AUDITORS NEED COMPRHENSIVE
                                                      >KNOW OF
                                                      > > > > THE MIND AS WELL AS OF THE "REMEDY OF HAVINGNESS".
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >So why is it that dianetics is forbidden on clears - even though
                                                      >LHR
                                                      > > >said it was okay to do that*?
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >Because "they" were running into problems with it. I dont't run
                                                      >into
                                                      > > >any problems running dianetics on clears. In fact, I find that
                                                      >clears
                                                      > > >run dianetics better than non-clears. But it has to be done
                                                      >correctly,
                                                      > > >and R3R is not complete enough to be able to take on pre-OT
                                                      >cases.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >Robert D.
                                                      > > >* "So engrams man, engrams can be run from wog to angel.
                                                      > > >Secondaries can be run all over the damn track at any grade
                                                      > > >you ever heard of. On any grade you could run a secondary." --
                                                      >LRH:
                                                      > > >Class 8 lecture No. 6
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >Galac Patra international group. Success story, sites,
                                                      >materials, news.
                                                      > > >Members - only close friends of Free Zone.(Conference not for
                                                      > > >conversations). Language - English.
                                                      > > >http://www.galac-patra.narod.ru
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >Get Skype and call for free http://www.skype.com/go/download.
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > > >
                                                      > >
                                                      > > __________________________________________________________
                                                      > > Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
                                                      > > http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?
                                                      >kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
                                                      > >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >Galac Patra international group. Success story, sites, materials, news.
                                                      >Members - only close friends of Free Zone.(Conference not for
                                                      >conversations). Language - English.
                                                      >http://www.galac-patra.narod.ru
                                                      >
                                                      >Get Skype and call for free http://www.skype.com/go/download.
                                                      >
                                                      >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >

                                                      _________________________________________________________________
                                                      Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
                                                      http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
                                                    • Edgar Gaumond
                                                      But you re operating off of a different definiton of what the State of Clear was originally supposed to be! Ron said that when one had cleared out ALL of the
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                          But you're operating off of a different definiton of what the State of Clear was originally supposed to be!  Ron said that when one had cleared out ALL of the old computations that were being used in obtaining new solutions for new problems, THEN you'd have a Clear! 
                                                          Per LRH's own words, when he started to develop Dianetics, he was only trying to find a way to weed out the people who were applying for positions in his expeditions and might cause problems when under stress.  So he was trying to find out why people went nuts under stressful conditions and acted sometimes as if they were totally looney.  And he found that there was this mental mechanism which he termed an engram and it had some other things affiliated with it, which he called secondaries and locks. 
                                                          So, why didn't he come out and say that he'd made an error about the State of Clear after he'd discovered 100% proof that past lives were as real as the nose on your face and that there were too many engrams to run them all out?  If there are too many engrams to run them all out, then you couldn't ever possibly achieve that State now, could you?  If you had a glass of water that never ran out of water, then no matter how long you held it upside down, it would never be empty.  Water would just continue to pour out of it for all eternity.  Don't you see the contradiction there?  In my opinion, Ron should have formulated some other term to take into account this new data, instead of trying to expand the old definition to fit it.  If you're only keying out the engrams and not erasing them all, then how could one be called a Clear?  See?  The two things don't balance out against each other. 
                                                          Where does this Q&A stuff fit in?  Either a Being has no held down fives or he does!  Held down fives are supposed to be the past computations which are soldered in place and can't be avoided.  The State of clear was supposed to be an absolute, but then it was changed to something else.  Take any garden variety of calculator, electronic or mechanical, and rig it so that one of the numbers stays down or the clear button doesn't work.  Now you have a stimulous-response mechanism that cannot possibly compute properly. 
                                                          You can't have a science called engineering that leaves variables all over the place.  When I calculate the load that will be placed on any given part of a machine I design, it's not done by guess and by gosh.  I know how many PSI that piece of steel or other metal is capable of handling before breaking or bending, and then I put in a safety factor of at least 4.  There's no safety factor in Dn or Scn, and THAT I feel is why it fails when it does.  The subjects operate at or near the breaking point and often do so!  Scn is a workable system, but only up to a point.  And that failure point is its downfall. 
                                                         
                                                        Randy G
                                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                                        Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 5:01 PM
                                                        Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements

                                                        --- In Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com, "Edgar Gaumond" <gaumond3@.. .>
                                                        wrote:
                                                        >
                                                        > But the whole premise of Dianetic auditing was to "clear out"
                                                        the held down fives, or sevens, depending upon which quote you want
                                                        to reference. So if there are still some of those kicking around in
                                                        the memory banks, then you don't have a real Clear now, do you?

                                                        Why not? A clear is "able to be at cause over mental MEST as
                                                        regards the first dynamic". Okay, so now he is able to Q & A with
                                                        the bank's forces, or not as he wishes. If he decides to tame his
                                                        tendencies to dramatize bank facsimiles, then he will lead a calmer
                                                        and more in-control life. If he cannot help but dramatize bank
                                                        facsimiles, then I'd say he is not clear. In either case, he is not
                                                        fully OT to the degree that his whole track still has a portion of
                                                        his beingness locked up in it, keeping facsimiles there if in a
                                                        dormant state.

                                                        >Or are there shades and gradations of being Clear??

                                                        Mayo would have you believe that, but if that's true, then it
                                                        renders the state of clear totally meaningless as far as that
                                                        bulletin is concerned, no? In other words, if clear is gradual,
                                                        then where does it start? I know a lot of people who are not keyed
                                                        in because they're rich and on a vacation. But transport them to a
                                                        more primitive setting, like say, oh, let's get REALLY primitive,
                                                        St. Louis Missouri, then his "clear" state will suddenly go by the
                                                        wayside, especially if he's in the jungles of East St. Louis.

                                                        >If you take a glass of water and pour out the contents, then what
                                                        is the point of continuing to hold the glass upside down after it is
                                                        empty?

                                                        That's a simplistic premise that I don't buy.

                                                        >You see, this is where Ron's statement that "Dianetics is
                                                        engineering applied to the humanities" breaks down. We're then
                                                        moving from solid and provable results to lots of maybes. And I
                                                        like to know that any bridge I attempt to cross was built upon solid
                                                        results, and not guesses as to how much load that bridge can carry
                                                        safely.

                                                        I do too, which is why I prefer to cross a bridge that can be
                                                        crossed by anybody at any time, and has no arbitraries. No-dianetics-
                                                        on-clears is an arbitrary for dianetics tech that I have proven is
                                                        not necessaary because the problems one encounters by doing so can
                                                        be overcome with the correct tech.

                                                        Robert D.

                                                        >
                                                        > Randy G
                                                        > ----- Original Message -----
                                                        > From: allphaomega
                                                        > To: Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com
                                                        > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 12:12 PM
                                                        > Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > --- In Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com, "Edgar Gaumond" <gaumond3@>
                                                        > wrote:
                                                        > >
                                                        > > It just never ceases to amaze me why people want to run more
                                                        > Dianetics after the EP of it is supposedly reached!! The EP of
                                                        > Dianetics is supposed to be erasure of all engrams, correct?
                                                        Isn't
                                                        > that what LRH said in Book One? So, then why keep running it
                                                        after
                                                        > someone is Clear? Talk about beating your dead horses!! How many
                                                        > people keep the ignition key turned to the "start" position
                                                        after
                                                        > the engine is running? Wouldn't you call them nuts if they did
                                                        > that?
                                                        >
                                                        > Anybody who thinks clears have no engrams is not tracking with
                                                        > reality.
                                                        >
                                                        > The book Dianetics Today contains a slew of cases personally
                                                        C/S'd
                                                        > by Ron where clears were audited on dianetics.
                                                        >
                                                        > Robert D.
                                                        >

                                                      • allphaomega
                                                        ... State of Clear was originally supposed to be! Ron said that when one had cleared out ALL of the old computations that were being used in obtaining new
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          --- In Galac_Patra@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar Gaumond" <gaumond3@...>
                                                          wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          > But you're operating off of a different definiton of what the
                                                          State of Clear was originally supposed to be! Ron said that when
                                                          one had cleared out ALL of the old computations that were being used
                                                          in obtaining new solutions for new problems, THEN you'd have a
                                                          Clear!

                                                          I'm going on the definition that was used in the '70s, before the
                                                          NOTs period, when standard tech was being preached and adhered to.
                                                          What you just said fits there too.


                                                          In one LRH lecture which I don't remember the title to, LRH said
                                                          there were 2 ways to achieve clear, one was by erasing all the
                                                          engrams in the bank and the other was to rise above the bank.


                                                          > Per LRH's own words, when he started to develop Dianetics, he
                                                          was only trying to find a way to weed out the people who were
                                                          applying for positions in his expeditions and might cause problems
                                                          when under stress. So he was trying to find out why people went
                                                          nuts under stressful conditions and acted sometimes as if they were
                                                          totally looney. And he found that there was this mental mechanism
                                                          which he termed an engram and it had some other things affiliated
                                                          with it, which he called secondaries and locks.
                                                          > So, why didn't he come out and say that he'd made an error about
                                                          the State of Clear after he'd discovered 100% proof that past lives
                                                          were as real as the nose on your face and that there were too many
                                                          engrams to run them all out? If there are too many engrams to run
                                                          them all out, then you couldn't ever possibly achieve that State
                                                          now, could you?

                                                          That last statement is non-sequitur.

                                                          Besides, you don't need to run all the engrams out. You just need
                                                          to run out the basic on each chain plus maybe a few heavy incidents
                                                          along the way. That's why engram running by chains was such a
                                                          revolutionary step.


                                                          > If you had a glass of water that never ran out of water, then no
                                                          matter how long you held it upside down, it would never be empty.
                                                          Water would just continue to pour out of it for all eternity. Don't
                                                          you see the contradiction there?


                                                          No. Besides, I never agreed to the "glass of water" analogy in the
                                                          first place.


                                                          > In my opinion, Ron should have formulated some other term to take
                                                          into account this new data, instead of trying to expand the old
                                                          definition to fit it. If you're only keying out the engrams and not
                                                          erasing them all, then how could one be called a Clear? See?


                                                          Clear is mainly about rising above forces of the bank, not about
                                                          erasing the whole thing.


                                                          > The two things don't balance out against each other.
                                                          > Where does this Q&A stuff fit in? Either a Being has no held
                                                          down fives or he does!

                                                          A clear may be associated with a human body, but he doesn't have to
                                                          emotionally react to life's circumstances and become the effect of
                                                          his own postulates he makes/reinforces at the moment he has those
                                                          reactions. That's what makes him clear, not whether his bank has
                                                          dormant engrams in it that are not impinging on him at the moment.
                                                          On the other hand, even though they're dormant, they are still in an
                                                          encysted form by use of his own entrapped energy. Release that
                                                          encysted energy and you've collected theta off the track for the PC
                                                          and thus making him that much bigger a being. I consider that a
                                                          very worthwhile pursuit.


                                                          > Held down fives are supposed to be the past computations which are
                                                          soldered in place and can't be avoided. The State of clear was
                                                          supposed to be an absolute, but then it was changed to something
                                                          else.

                                                          There are no absolutes in this universe. But it is a finite state.
                                                          The clear cognition is the pivitol point. After that it is up to
                                                          the individual as to whether he wants to maintain that state or dive
                                                          back into the bank. But if he does so he does so willingly and
                                                          knowingly. Myself, I never looked back. And when I did have
                                                          relapses, I audited it out with R3R. So I believe one has to be an
                                                          auditor as well as a PC to remain clear indefinitely.


                                                          > Take any garden variety of calculator, electronic or mechanical,
                                                          and rig it so that one of the numbers stays down or the clear button
                                                          doesn't work. Now you have a stimulous-response mechanism that
                                                          cannot possibly compute properly.
                                                          > You can't have a science called engineering that leaves
                                                          variables all over the place. When I calculate the load that will
                                                          be placed on any given part of a machine I design, it's not done by
                                                          guess and by gosh. I know how many PSI that piece of steel or other
                                                          metal is capable of handling before breaking or bending, and then I
                                                          put in a safety factor of at least 4. There's no safety factor in
                                                          Dn or Scn, and THAT I feel is why it fails when it does. The
                                                          subjects operate at or near the breaking point and often do so! Scn
                                                          is a workable system, but only up to a point. And that failure
                                                          point is its downfall.


                                                          And that's the very reason why it's up to us to take up the slack
                                                          and "build a better bridge" as one famous person once said. I
                                                          believe I've played my part in that direction. I may not have
                                                          exactly built a bridge, but at the very least I've put together a
                                                          workable OT repair procedure as well as a viable extention to the
                                                          bridge for after OT-3 - and all based on LRH materials.

                                                          Robert D.
                                                        • Edgar Gaumond
                                                          But just rising above the bank of engrams is NOT the same as erasing (as-ising) them! They are still there, and so can key-in again, but when they are
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                              But just "rising above" the bank of engrams is NOT the same as erasing (as-ising) them!  They are still there, and so can key-in again, but when they are erased, THEY ARE GONE GONE GONE!  Except as a memory with no charge on it. 
                                                              My statement is PERFECTLY sequiter.  If as per Ron one must run out an engram in order to get rid of it, and you don't do that, then you'll still have it!  Locking away some item in a closet is not the same thing as tossing it out on the trash heap.  True, you will lose sight of it either way, but only one action will get rid of it.  Even running out just the basic on each chain is a formidable task!  We've got a time track of what, 76 trillion years, give or take?  And how many millions of bodies have we had in that amount of time?  And how many engrams do we have besides the most obvious ones of the birth/death cycle?  So Ron's analogy of clearing the old data out of an adding machine to describe the State of Clear was seriously flawed due to his lack of knowledge and proof of past lives. 
                                                              I don't care if you agree to whether or not 2 plus 2 equals four or the glass of water analogy, the fact remains that the logic of each statement is correct.  Just because you don't happen to agree with something doesn't make it false. 
                                                              You (and LRH) say that there are no absolutes in this universe, but when I clear the data out of a calculator, it's gone!  Completely!  That's as absolute as anything could be.  That old answer WILL NOT ever interfere with the next computation being done!  It's not lurking somewhere in the calculator, waiting to spring into action when I least expect it to. 
                                                              First you say that you never looked back, and then you say that you've had relapses.  So which is it?  One excludes the other. 
                                                              Where pray tell did LRH say that clearing was mainly about rising above forces of the bank and not erasing it?  That's a new one on me.  
                                                              Your statement about a Clear being associated with a body a body... etc doesn't make any sense.  You're mixing up your apples with your oranges there.  Where does Ron say that stuff about what makes one Clear?  
                                                             
                                                            Randy G  
                                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                                            Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 8:22 PM
                                                            Subject: [Galac_Patra] Re: Dianetics improvements

                                                            --- In Galac_Patra@ yahoogroups. com, "Edgar Gaumond" <gaumond3@.. .>
                                                            wrote:
                                                            >
                                                            > But you're operating off of a different definiton of what the
                                                            State of Clear was originally supposed to be! Ron said that when
                                                            one had cleared out ALL of the old computations that were being used
                                                            in obtaining new solutions for new problems, THEN you'd have a
                                                            Clear!

                                                            I'm going on the definition that was used in the '70s, before the
                                                            NOTs period, when standard tech was being preached and adhered to.
                                                            What you just said fits there too.

                                                            In one LRH lecture which I don't remember the title to, LRH said
                                                            there were 2 ways to achieve clear, one was by erasing all the
                                                            engrams in the bank and the other was to rise above the bank.

                                                            > Per LRH's own words, when he started to develop Dianetics, he
                                                            was only trying to find a way to weed out the people who were
                                                            applying for positions in his expeditions and might cause problems
                                                            when under stress. So he was trying to find out why people went
                                                            nuts under stressful conditions and acted sometimes as if they were
                                                            totally looney. And he found that there was this mental mechanism
                                                            which he termed an engram and it had some other things affiliated
                                                            with it, which he called secondaries and locks.
                                                            > So, why didn't he come out and say that he'd made an error about
                                                            the State of Clear after he'd discovered 100% proof that past lives
                                                            were as real as the nose on your face and that there were too many
                                                            engrams to run them all out? If there are too many engrams to run
                                                            them all out, then you couldn't ever possibly achieve that State
                                                            now, could you?

                                                            That last statement is non-sequitur.

                                                            Besides, you don't need to run all the engrams out. You just need
                                                            to run out the basic on each chain plus maybe a few heavy incidents
                                                            along the way. That's why engram running by chains was such a
                                                            revolutionary step.

                                                            > If you had a glass of water that never ran out of water, then no
                                                            matter how long you held it upside down, it would never be empty.
                                                            Water would just continue to pour out of it for all eternity. Don't
                                                            you see the contradiction there?

                                                            No. Besides, I never agreed to the "glass of water" analogy in the
                                                            first place.

                                                            > In my opinion, Ron should have formulated some other term to take
                                                            into account this new data, instead of trying to expand the old
                                                            definition to fit it. If you're only keying out the engrams and not
                                                            erasing them all, then how could one be called a Clear? See?

                                                            Clear is mainly about rising above forces of the bank, not about
                                                            erasing the whole thing.

                                                            > The two things don't balance out against each other.
                                                            > Where does this Q&A stuff fit in? Either a Being has no held
                                                            down fives or he does!

                                                            A clear may be associated with a human body, but he doesn't have to
                                                            emotionally react to life's circumstances and become the effect of
                                                            his own postulates he makes/reinforces at the moment he has those
                                                            reactions. That's what makes him clear, not whether his bank has
                                                            dormant engrams in it that are not impinging on him at the moment.
                                                            On the other hand, even though they're dormant, they are still in an
                                                            encysted form by use of his own entrapped energy. Release that
                                                            encysted energy and you've collected theta off the track for the PC
                                                            and thus making him that much bigger a being. I consider that a
                                                            very worthwhile pursuit.

                                                            > Held down fives are supposed to be the past computations which are
                                                            soldered in place and can't be avoided. The State of clear was
                                                            supposed to be an absolute, but then it was changed to something
                                                            else.

                                                            There are no absolutes in this universe. But it is a finite state.
                                                            The clear cognition is the pivitol point. After that it is up to
                                                            the individual as to whether he wants to maintain that state or dive
                                                            back into the bank. But if he does so he does so willingly and
                                                            knowingly. Myself, I never looked back. And when I did have
                                                            relapses, I audited it out with R3R. So I believe one has to be an
                                                            auditor as well as a PC to remain clear indefinitely.

                                                            > Take any garden variety of calculator, electronic or mechanical,
                                                            and rig it so that one of the numbers stays down or the clear button
                                                            doesn't work. Now you have a stimulous-response mechanism that
                                                            cannot possibly compute properly.
                                                            > You can't have a science called engineering that leaves
                                                            variables all over the place. When I calculate the load that will
                                                            be placed on any given part of a machine I design, it's not done by
                                                            guess and by gosh. I know how many PSI that piece of steel or other
                                                            metal is capable of handling before breaking or bending, and then I
                                                            put in a safety factor of at least 4. There's no safety factor in
                                                            Dn or Scn, and THAT I feel is why it fails when it does. The
                                                            subjects operate at or near the breaking point and often do so! Scn
                                                            is a workable system, but only up to a point. And that failure
                                                            point is its downfall.

                                                            And that's the very reason why it's up to us to take up the slack
                                                            and "build a better bridge" as one famous person once said. I
                                                            believe I've played my part in that direction. I may not have
                                                            exactly built a bridge, but at the very least I've put together a
                                                            workable OT repair procedure as well as a viable extention to the
                                                            bridge for after OT-3 - and all based on LRH materials.

                                                            Robert D.

                                                          • Timecops
                                                            This is offtop. moderator
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Jan 8, 2007
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              This is offtop.

                                                              moderator
                                                              
                                                              ---------------------------------------

                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.