Newsgroup Postings : Re: Pros and Cons

Re: Pros and Cons
From: Alan Walter <wisdom@cyberstation.net>
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons
Date: 1999/05/25
Message-ID: <374AD7AD.4E1C7EED@cyberstation.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7ie852$4o6$1@autumn.news.rcn.net>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: typ11.nn.bcandid.com 927651805 207.2.210.171
 (Tue, 25 May 1999 13:03:25 EDT)
Organization: Cyberstation, Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: wisdom@cyberstation.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:03:25 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology




Rogers wrote:

> Pros and Cons.
>
> Just come across some "archetypal" quotes and concepts that I think embody
> the basic (practical) issues around the "pros" and the "cons" to
> Scientology.
>
> Firstly, (December 1962) Ron said, "... a pc running on right Routine 2
> would forgive the Pope for having a forked tail."

I believe that is R2-12 type processes. Not the R2 processes that are in COHA.

> Okay, this is in the context of a particular rundown, but it most certainly
> applies in general.  A pc (or student, I might add) making big wins, with
> reality, is going to consider any criticism as irrelevant.
>
> Next (and on the other hand) we have the concept of "List One" and people
> who are ASSOCIATING Scientology, and people and things connected with
> Scientology, with their own Oppterms.  This induces continuous PTP phenomena
> in connection with the Scientology item that is perceived as opposing one's
> own goals.  This "PTP" effectively slows or negates any forward progress in
> Scientology.  There is a continuous by-passing of at least one side of the
> PTP and Ron proposes that "This is the pc's biggest missed withhold of all."
> Later he comments, "The most insidious By-Passed Items are those that remain
> in present time prompting the pc to commit senseless overts to the dismay of
> his good sense and the peril of his case condition."

I cover this later. See below.

> In the same bulletin (23 Nov '62) Ron says, "It's pathetic.  In the largest
> percentage of cases, the auditor is opening the door to the next two hundred
> trillion years and the pc is reactively trying to get even with
> grasshoppers."
>
> Here again, a stickler for the truth must admit that these above comments
> and concepts were in a specific context, however, anyone with a grasp on
> Scientology tech can see that these same things can be true, to a lesser
> extent, when one considers any type of BPC and any aspect of case.
>
> Now, flashback to Book One.  Experiments verified that the person,
> restimulated (and since restimulation is "unhandled charge" it is just
> another form of BPC), NEVER identifies the real restimulator.  They look
> around in vain and find so many "reasons" for their behavior, but never
> identify the true source.

Correct.

> Okay, assuming the above to be true, let's just accept it as a "given" that
> a person with BPC on Scientology or LRH will not (CANNOT in fact) fully
> identify the source of that "charge" in the absence of some careful
> auditing.  However, perhaps the choices could at least be whittled down a
> bit, at least for the critics with a Scientology background.

I have handled this phenomena by the use of Presence Processes 3 and 4.

Most of the auditors that have done our pro processor courses learn to do this
as a matter of course.

We not only find the continuous PT O/W's but we find and erase the Term - Opterm
identities that are impelling the pc to commit the continuous PT O/W's.

But the most disappointing thing for me is how quickly they take this for
granted. They do not realize how many years, the blood, sweat and tears and a
lot of good people were destroyed before this handling was found. Nor do they
realize what an enormous amount of background data is contained in these
processes. (Whadda victim!)

> Keep in mind that this might be a bit restimulative, but probably not too
> much more than one is currently experiencing.  But be content to keep it
> shallow.  We are not trying to get THE item here.  It is probably
> unavailable as already stated.  All we are looking for (at this time) is a
> vague notion of what might have been left unflat or what might have
> activated some other case phenomenon.  I can't guarantee that this will be
> therapeutic, but I DON'T think that it will have a negative result as long
> as one is willing to accept that one is looking "in the vicinity" of some
> BPC.  Be willing to experience a bit of a flare-up of BPC if necessary.
>
> The procedure is simply:  Get the earliest ARC break with Scientology (WHEN)
> and recall WHAT one was running at the time.  That's all!  You're probably
> gonna have to KEEP most of that BPC until you can hopefully get it handled
> somehow later, but this might just take the edge off.
>
> Les C. Rogers.

Please don't do this. Go for the earlier continuous PT overt. It underlies the
ARC X.

And even better learn how to find the PT Term and Opterm identities. Though
these maybe locks items on the Actual PT truncated GPM, they give enormous
relief. As the truncated GPM moves off the pc.

> P.S.
> Ron (the eternal optimist) has another neat comment on Dec 30, 1962, but
> please pay particular attention to his remark in parens, "It is the most
> gratifying (and sometime hair-raising) auditing I have ever done or viewed.
> You can't oversell Routine 2.  You just can't.  For it is the first gateway
> to light, life and liberty for all Mankind at last."

R2-12.

> I think Scientology is sold all wrong.  The whole expectation is that it is
> easy.  The whole idea that a "pc route" to Clear is even a feasibility is
> probably an irresponsibly false concept.  (But I might ask, "Is this what
> Earthlings demand?"  Easy, no strain, no challenge?
> Short-attention-span-fast-results?)
>
> You know, with Magick and so many other "paths" there is the appreciation
> that it might be dangerous or it might be difficult or it might be both
> dangerous and difficult.  Furthermore, you might not make it - only a few
> do!  Hell, you might not survive it!
>
> Yet Scientology is supposed to be "a breeze?" (and I know it's hyped that
> way).  This fits right in with my "expectations resulting in protests"
> concept that I brought up a long time ago.
>
> When I was reading Alan Walter's account of the early sixties (in a thread
> on my "GPM Question"), I was thinking to myself, here's a time that demanded
> the "right stuff."
>
> (And I wondered to myself, "Would *I* have had it?  Would I have been first
> out of the door as soon as the going got tough?"  Answer.  Can't be sure, my
> toughness is, um, unpredictable.)

Well it was even much tougher than that.

In the Z unit we co-audited in the chapel. The chapel is not very big, about
2,000 squ. ft.

The Z unit would have about 20 to 25 co-audit teams. We were lined up alongside
each other with about a foot of space between each session, the pc's would have
their back to the wall and the auditor would have their backs to the center of
the room.

Now it was a G.A.E. if your pc went out of session.

Often Ron, Mary-Sue and Herbie Parkhouse would parade up and down the room
observing and writing out pink slips of your auditing.

If you were running the latest R/D then Ron would pull up a chair and sit just
behind your right shoulder. Intently watching the meter and your handling of the
pc, as well as observing how the new R/D was working.

One of the funny aspects of this close quartered auditing was if one pc got off
a W/H then it would restimulate the pc's on either side of him, slowly the W/H
was being gotten off all away along the line.

Fights would often break-out, meters, or chairs or tables would get thrown,
fists would fly, and you still had to keep your pc in session. It was something
if a fight broke out right next to you and your table and chairs were flying
around. You would just scoop up the meter and your clip board and you and your
pc would go ambulatory and get out of the road and at the same time keep
auditing.

Man did you learn the basics, TR's and comm cycle. You could REALLY put and KEEP
a pc in session. :-)))

People like Jane Kember, Yvonne and Peter Gillham, David and Merril Mayo, David
Gaiman, and many other scio notables were on the Original BC at this time and
all trained under these conditions.

If you thought TV demo's were stressy, try having LRH pull up a chair alongside
of you and watch you audit.

It was the greatest training, it made one a true pro.

Alan

PS Great post Les.