|
where to start Author: bob Posted: 2001-12-21 01:29 where do I start with scientology? Author: underdog Posted: 2001-12-21 20:05 BOB have you read any books by L. Ron Hubbard? if so which ones? Underdog Author: bob Posted: 2001-12-22 01:29 Just abuot all of them. Basiclly. What is the best way to shovel---so I don't have to stand around in the crap anymore? Author: underdog Posted: 2001-12-22 17:33 BOB i like Self Analysis. there are actions you can do on yourself. and you should. also the taped lectures starting in order with Human Eval Course 1951 (one set on sale now at www.ebay.com search "scientology") if you live near a major city you could take a few courses in the Cof$. (to some FreeZoners i just sinned) i like the Purification Rundown, TRs&Obj, Student Hat, and Pro TRs (with claytable proc). i do not think anyone anywhere will put these skills "in" better than Cof$. if you do not live near a Cof$ Org and can not move, i would look at Handbook for Preclears next. i have 32 years of active (very active) Scn under my belt. the upper Bridge (Advanced Courses) are quite nicely worked out by CBR & Ron's Org. but i would not view any advanced materials for one second for a billion dollars if i were you. i have seen cases bogged almost beyond hope. so be very careful. Underdog Author: Peter Steenkamp Posted: 2001-12-23 09:37 see also my reply in another thread: http://talk.fza.org/viewtopic.php?topic=183&forum=13&1 Author: underdog Posted: 2001-12-23 16:00 BOB i have read Peter's post and have no trouble with it. can you get a twin?????? Cof$ is cheaper for beginners if an Org or mission is available to you. and true, not all is well with Cof$ especially the upper Bridge and the subject of money (lean green, mulla, dough, big bucks, etc) i have not read the pilot's but hear good things about it. there is a book "Super Scio" by Pilot which contains upper Bridge information. DO NOT READ ANYTHING UPPER BRIDGE. YOU WILL BE SAD, NOT HAPPY. i have a friend who is a top top OT case cracker (and can crack ANY case) she is approached by low level cases who read upper stuff. they are out of luck. they do not count. NO SERVICE for stupid people. you have been warned twice. keep in touch - Underdog Author: virginia Posted: 2001-12-23 16:34 Underdog and Bob, i have not read the pilot's but hear good things about it. there is a book "Super Scio" by Pilot which contains upper Bridge information. DO NOT READ ANYTHING UPPER BRIDGE. YOU WILL BE SAD, NOT HAPPY. *See Mike's post re: the pilot. Self-auditing is not a workable method. i have a friend who is a top top OT case cracker (and can crack ANY case) she is approached by low level cases who read upper stuff. *Who is your friend? Virginia Author: virginia Posted: 2001-12-23 16:40 Peter, In doing some general crossfiling, I notice you (IP wise) have a predilection for using quite a few "nyms". Now that I know what these are, and what roles the "nyms" played, and in what, the picture that is painted is quite interesting. I STRONGLY suggest that you consider just exactly what is your intention for being on this board, instead of over at FZINT board. Virginia Author: virginia Posted: 2001-12-23 17:05 Bob, underdog etc. etc., Re: pilot, in case you missed it... This is Mike's post that was posted under Scientology (forum index) LRH in regards the non-workability of self-auditing Posted: 2001-12-06 01:21 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relay post from Mike McClaughry ----start From: Mike McClaughry Re: Pilot's Self-Clearing Procedure The Pilot's Self- Clearing procedure is not recommended because it violates the basics of auditing. Self-auditing the grades denies preclears the gains that are only available from having another audit you. Self-auditing does not produce tone arm action - as Ron states in the following reference: Level 0 tape 6 February 1964 The communication cycle in auditing-LRH "If you look over communication, you'll find out that the magic of communication is about the only thing that makes auditing work. And if you could sit down to a meter-a one-hand electrode-all by yourself and run some process on yourself, it'd make a citizen out of you. And the reason it'd make a citizen out of you, is you would see a little bit of tone arm action at first, or if you tripped across something like an active, loud, large GPM, why, you might get yourself a quarter or a half a tone arm division, or a couple of needle flashes." ".....Now, the amount of tone arm action you would get doing this would make you blink, because it's none." "...Now, the reason for this has to do with the thetan in this universe. Now, he has begun to consider himself MEST, and he's begun to consider himself mass. And the being who considers himself mass, of course, responds to the laws of electronics and the laws of Newton, and is actually incapable of generating very much, you see, or-which is what we're interested in-as-ising very much. That's not very much going to disappear there in the way of mass." "....Now I have had to explore this particular field of auditing --self -auditing, because most anybody does it, and so forth--and what was this all about......." "...But the same GPM, run with the same items and so forth would produce upwards to 175 TA divisions, down. And the GPM, self-audited, produced 2." ".....it tells us that an individual considers himself Mesty, or massy, if you see, and therefore he has to have a second terminal. And a second terminal is required to discharge the energy." End of quote and now this is Mike talking live again.... Self auditing violates another law that makes auditing work: THE AUDITOR PLUS THE PRECLEAR IS GREATER THAN THE PRECLEARS BANK THE PRECLEAR MINUS THE AUDITOR IS LESS THAN THE PRECLEARS BANK Now, some people falsely think that Solo Auditing is self-auditing. No, you are NOT auditing yourself in Solo auditing, you are auditing another Being. Therefore, you still have two terminals, an auditor and a pc, and the law of auditing is in place, therefore it works. Personally, I think it is a betrayal of Beings to tell them to Solo audit the grades as in Pilot's "Self- Clearing" procedure. It denies them all the case gain they could have had if they did it the only way it works, by having another person audit you on the Grades. You will end up in the same case condition as the Pilot, with your case wrapped around your head, all restimulated and not handled, and in a mess. The above is just one of many methods being used in the so-called Freezone to sabotage the tech into unworkability. There are people in the Freezone who purposefully take advantage of other people's lack of training and understanding of the tech, all in the effort to deny case gain and prevent anyone going OT. My advice is to avoid them like the plague. You can easily spot who they are because they have a common denominator of stating, one way or the other, that LRH tech does not work, and they advise you doing it some other way than what LRH issues tell you to do. One day, I will make known all of the specifics on how the tech has been sabotaged into unworkability, both inside and outside of the Church. Until then, you would be well-advised to follow LRH issues exactly. You'll be glad you did. ARC, Mike --end relay Should Bob underdog etc be interested in self-auditing, I suggest you go to FZINT board instead. Virginia Author: bob Posted: 2001-12-24 01:35 underdog & Peter, Thank you for your suggestions. I will use them wisly. virginia, You seem like your on the defencive. We arn't attack you. Please don't attack us. Happy Holidays to all, bob Author: virginia Posted: 2001-12-24 03:52 Well "Bob", You seem like your on the defencive. *Hmmm I call someone on their black propaganda (which IS AN ATTACK by that person), and you try to turn that around. You are just a little too quick on your agreement with those that Black PR. If I had to guess I would say you are yet another one in a long line of "nyms" that come here to disrupt things. Consider this a warning to be careful who you are "chummy with", comprende? And by the by....Who is "we" you refer to below? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? 
bob typed: We arn't attack you. Virginia Author: bob Posted: 2001-12-25 00:09 You seem like your on the defencive. *Hmmm I call someone on their black propaganda (which IS AN ATTACK by that person), and you try to turn that around. What are you talking about? Did they attack you because of my question or elsewhere? Positive communication was taking place here. Is "black propaganda" what you call positive communication? The word "differentiate" comes to mind. You are just a little too quick on your agreement with those that Black PR. If I had to guess I would say you are yet another one in a long line of "nyms" that come here to disrupt things. I had a question---they anwsered it. Consider this a warning to be careful who you are "chummy with", comprende? I don't get "chummy with" anyone. And by the by....Who is "we" you refer to below? Those who I am having positive comm. with. Do you have a mouse in your pocket? If you only knew what is in my pocket!! bob typed: We arn't attack you. I stand by what I typed. bob Author: virginia Posted: 2001-12-25 15:18 bob, I believe you woule be in better company, more in agreement with your mu's and lack of understanding of Black Propaganda, over on FZINT board. I suggest you take your discussion there, as you are intent on deliberately misunderstanding and acting "innocent" about the "we" (Peter Steenkamp) you are having "positive communication with". ---a little agents and their games hatting for readers. What are you talking about? *The above is a prime example of inability to follow a sequence, as well as the ole "I just don't get it" routine. Positive communication was taking place here. *Variation on KEvin Brady's I'm just a "theta" guy, see see see!. Just because some acting is used, does NOT make it theta communication. Lies are entheta, truth is theta. Those that Black Pr (lie), deal in entheta comm, no matter how sugar coated it is. Is "black propaganda" what you call positive communication? The word "differentiate" comes to mind. *Now he puts Black propaganda in quotes, a fairly skilled understanding actually inherent there that belies the whole "I just don't get it" routine. All done while white pring Black PR as "positive communication". Not bad..not bad at all. 
You are just a little too quick on your agreement with those that Black PR. If I had to guess I would say you are yet another one in a long line of "nyms" that come here to disrupt things. I had a question---they anwsered it. *Notice the non-addressing of the point on bob being yet another nym that come here to disrupt things. Consider this a warning to be careful who you are "chummy with", comprende? I don't get "chummy with" anyone. *Notice the "caught in his own lie" thing here. Earlier he refers to positive communication, which would mean in ARC with, but NOW he isn't "chummy with" (another way of saying in agreement affinity and communication with). This one above is humorous, but is also quite skilled, again out of character for an "I just don't get it" kinda guy. I said:And by the by....Who is "we" you refer to below? He said: Those who I am having positive comm. with. *Well, that was a flippant answer. Especially because he makes another mistake in that Peter Steenkamp would be in that "we" "having positive communication", and is who Black Pred Mike, which, is an attack. Something which "Bob", remember, doesn't seem to understand. lol I said Do you have a mouse in your pocket? He said If you only knew what is in my pocket!! *Uh oh, it's that macho guy thing again, This is a verbal sparring match to this guy. Of course, that again leads to the whole intentional "disruption" thing. If he is following true to the enemy line, not too long in the future should be something about how innocently they are here and they were just horribly attacked and attacking/censoring of "positive communication", yada yada yada. Boring. bob typed: We arn't attack you. I stand by what I typed. *I'm sure he does, that's part of the standard enemy line. With the extra sometimes used intention meant to be viewed by the audience as "look I have integrity! Poor innocent me is standing up to evil overbearing you, SO THERE!" You know, these type of people sure are concerned with image, did anyone ever notice that? I guess because if they didn't have the 1.1 mask on, well, then they'd lose THEIR image, which seems quite important to them, and for good reason it seems. Well, enough of that, Merry Christmas All! Virginia Author: bob Posted: 2001-12-25 18:29 I'm sure we all know who is black PRing. bob Author: bob Posted: 2001-12-25 18:34 And yes, it has gotten boring. bob Author: virginia Posted: 2001-12-26 02:23 Well Bob, Then I guess you'll be leaving then, since you are finding my pointing out of Black Pr so boring and all.. Right? I'm sure "your" viewpoint will be welcome in a tacit agreement kind of way, over on FZINT. Have fun, they need some new material anyway, maybe you can help with that. Bye, Virginia P.S. Oh, and NOT a real good cover to say "where do I start with Scientology?", then all of a sudden develop a good understanding of Black PR, as well as just happen to forward the same enemy line towards me as others before you.....that's stretching the brand new scientologist thing just a BIT much, you might want to rethink that one. Just a suggestion. 
Author: bob Posted: 2002-01-06 01:08 Virginia, Do you have any suggestions about where to start? Can we stop playing games? Maybe try to get on the same team. bob Author: virginia Posted: 2002-01-06 07:19 Bob, As I have said to other "new to scientology" nyms, Self analysis, and then make it go right to find someone you can train and co-audit with, and get to Clear as a first major goal. That's how it's done. As to your other question, first things first. Are you going to correct your earlier statements as to that I am "Black PRing"? Virginia Author: bob Posted: 2002-01-09 00:28 On 2002-01-06 07:19, virginia wrote: As to your other question, first things first. Are you going to correct your earlier statements as to that I am "Black PRing"? I was called names by you. Let' just call it even----OK? Author: Jontu Posted: 2002-01-09 16:09 When Virginia said: "Are you going to correct your earlier statements as to that I am "Black PRing"?" bob said: "I was called names by you. Let' just call it even----OK?" Bob, could you please provide the data on this? The exact quote and the place it can be found? Thanks. Jontu |
