New OT levels vs Original OT levels

Veda

Well-known member
I have a background in both scientology and magick. All I have to do is LOOK at a BT, its size and composition, to see what it is. It's a mid-sized entity which was once a thetan, and its connection to divinity is lost. That can happen to a thetan. That connection is the difference between a thetan and an entity. Hubbard calling these things "body thetans" is a slight misnomer because they are ex-thetans (ex-divine) attached to the body. In magickal terms, a BT is vampiric because it survives (persists? lol) by sitting in the energy field of a body. Without constant renewal of an energy field, an entity will fall apart in a short time.

There are many different types of beings. Hubbard didn't catalog them. (I probably should sit down and write down the types I know.) Hubbard probably didn't catalog them because he didn't know them. There's a helluva lot Hubbard didn't know . . .
cheers
Ed
Have you seen G. Filbert's list of entities and beings?

It's been thirty five years since I've looked at it but, as I recall, it ranges from beings who are classified as AAA, then AA, the A, then, B, then C, then D, then E Targs, then, I think, Genetic Entities. Link to The Akashic Book of Truth

Filbert wanted people to believe that Scientology tech was derived from the cosmic Akashic records. Ref: Hubbard's experience while under nitrous oxide at the dentist's office in 1938.

Anyone curious about this will have to go hunting for this themselves. I don't recall where it was in the book. (If someone finds it, feel free to post it here.) Who knows? It may draw Haiqu back from the Main Body of Theta, or some such.

There's also a chapter in the book Messiah or Madman? titled Are You Haunted? that addresses this general topic.
 

JustSheila

Well-known member
You troll me and I am being pissy? You have no idea who I am and what my past training is. Ideas? Kindly quit invalidating. I have not reported this to the moderators, but I respect the rules of this forum, as you do not. You violated Nos. 1 and 8. Go bother someone else.
Troll you? :LOL: You’re confused. 😐 You’re the one trolling an exScn site promoting Scn, or was that one of your BTs?

I know from your posts that you have some, but not a lot, of education in Scientology and I assume you promote it because you don’t know any better. The alternative is that you know better and yet promote it anyway.

I am not a Scientologist so don’t believe or follow or agree with the concept that when someone states their imaginings are fact and one points out they are not, that it is “invalidation.”

Report anything you wish. In fact, I encourage it. You don’t owe me any favors nor do I owe you any, either.
 

Ed8

Active member
Have you seen G. Filbert's list of entities and beings?

It's been thirty five years since I've looked at it but, as I recall, it ranges from beings who are classified as AAA, then AA, the A, then, B, then C, then D, then E Targs, then, I think, Genetic Entities. Link to The Akashic Book of Truth

Filbert wanted people to believe that Scientology tech was derived from the cosmic Akashic records. Ref: Hubbard's experience while under nitrous oxide at the dentist's office in 1938.

Anyone curious about this will have to go hunting for this themselves. I don't recall where it was in the book. (If someone finds it, feel free to post it here.) Who knows? It may draw Haiqu back from the Main Body of Theta, or some such.

There's also a chapter in the book Messiah or Madman? titled Are You Haunted? that addresses this general topic.
Yes I am familiar with Filbert's classes of awareness.
I am not referring to that however. I am pointing more toward the construction of various spirits. :)
Ed
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
...

Unbelievable. What a cringefest!

I believe you but...I now have a masochistically morbid need to know if Heber or anyone else actually dressed up in a CARDINAL costume? LOL!


HELLO! My name is Trevor and I am the
CARDINAL OF SCIENTOLOGY.
I am here at the org on a very special mission.
Did you know that Ron said that Cardinals are
the most important people in the world to
make planetary clearing a reality? What if
I were to tell you that if you joined staff
at the Cardinal Bureau today, I can
guarantee that your entire Bridge up
to OT XV will be free and you will
given priority status to to get all
your auditing and training. And
what if i guaranteed that within
90 days you will have your
very own Cardinal Costume,
can you even imagine
how much status
that will give you?





.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
/
Troll you? :LOL: You’re confused. 😐 You’re the one trolling an exScn site promoting Scn, or was that one of your BTs?

I know from your posts that you have some, but not a lot, of education in Scientology and I assume you promote it because you don’t know any better. The alternative is that you know better and yet promote it anyway.

I am not a Scientologist so don’t believe or follow or agree with the concept that when someone states their imaginings are fact and one points out they are not, that it is “invalidation.”

Report anything you wish. In fact, I encourage it. You don’t owe me any favors nor do I owe you any, either.

KOAN DU JOUR
Why do Scientology tech trolls always end up

handling SPs by shattering themselves?

.
.
 

Barile

Well-known member
Huh? If the product of Scientology solo auditing is a stand alone being, with no BTs, and any newly freed BT that is not still part of a cluster, and is a stand alone single being, he would have to mock up BTs to run if he had none of his own, in order to do the OT levels. In reality he would be a candidate to do the old OT levels that were extant pre-nots. Those processes, AFAIK were aimed at a singe being capable of exteriorizing at will. Back in the sixties and seventies - the EP of OT III was no bt's.

Thus the levels, according to Hubbard, could be done successfully.

When that failed, and his explanation they quickied OT III fell apart, he moved the goal posts, finding more BTs that were unconscious. Typical Hubbard - redefine the problem when his answers failed to produce results, or claim you did it wrong. Capiche?
>> the EP of OT III was no bt's

cute. obviously the EP was, ability to be regged for OT IV. Let me say it again...
"Guy walks into a scientology bookstore and asks, "where's the humor section?"

We should develop a new Dungeons and Dragons game, based on the old grade chart.

 

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
Have you seen G. Filbert's list of entities and beings?

It's been thirty five years since I've looked at it but, as I recall, it ranges from beings who are classified as AAA, then AA, the A, then, B, then C, then D, then E Targs, then, I think, Genetic Entities. Link to The Akashic Book of Truth

Filbert wanted people to believe that Scientology tech was derived from the cosmic Akashic records. Ref: Hubbard's experience while under nitrous oxide at the dentist's office in 1938.

Anyone curious about this will have to go hunting for this themselves. I don't recall where it was in the book. (If someone finds it, feel free to post it here.) Who knows? It may draw Haiqu back from the Main Body of Theta, or some such.

There's also a chapter in the book Messiah or Madman? titled Are You Haunted? that addresses this general topic.
I found that chapter very interesting. I can't remember the title of it either, but it was 3/4 thru the Excalibur tome. Filbert claimed that 14,000 yrs ago there was an upheaval in this galaxy where those delineations of classified beings, were no longer staying confined to their assigned positions and dynamics. It was a NATURE thing according to him. Like to day with the all 'green' insanity, maybe.

Anyway, I too ran into this time period with a date/locate. Filbert also stated that the religious implants were rolled out again to remedy this. It was a wild wild west area where no assigned beingness was stable, and it was all reverting back to source or it was monkeying up the works creating instability in surrounding governance and order. It was the beginning of a new world order and chaos. I can't recall if Filbert hypothesized what kicked off the insanity. But that's what it was, INSANITY, imo, with no stable data anywhere for the disenfranchised spirits to cling to for support. This woujld have been a mass confusion, a blank slating, leaving them malleable to taking on ANY identities and programs as opposed to nadda. Kinda like today with the radical left is trying to wipe out stable, long term concepts, today.

Maybe all blank theta, whether fresh or mind-wiped, has a craving to take on a 'driver' or intention or program. It's hungry for identity as that's how it possibly came into the universe to begin with.
 

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
This guy, Vladimir Stojakovic, was a student ot Zivorad Slavinsky, and had been teaching Aspectics in Serbia and Australia, where he currently remains. His approach was somewhat like Idenics the way Vinaire categorized it. Any condition or valence or mind or universe, enclosed to itself, had location and could be returned to source. Today his latest tech is Satori Protocal. I had thought the book Integra Protocol was excellent.


There seems a fine line between BTs and some of this. I think the distinction is that the BT is oriented to the body cluster of course. But after dealing with those in and round the body, you get individual conditions, situations and universes they're being, instead of body organs etc. It's interesting when you discover a loosely knit cluster, with its thin tiny strings to one another, extending far distant , influencing to organize some ideal scene for you. All unbeknownst or forgotten by you. This is life...in action. Not a nothingness to return to. The idea that satori is nihilistic, or some empty void is wrong. It's ultimately alive
 
Last edited:

Ed8

Active member
Re; the red - not according to Hubbard. The thetan is a creator of energy, not a user of energy. It's in the basic books like 8-80, 8-8008 etc. Further, if you google and read the OT V pack on line the BT's are not vampiric. They are unconscious. They are "dead" for all practical purposes until the end of the universe or they are woken up. The OT 3 level is about shooing away the easily awoken ones. OT5 on up is about awakening the virtually dead ones. Its all there in red and white.

Now your magick practice may think of these things in a different light, but that's not how Hubbard saw them. He saw and wrote about them as described above. Why do I know and assert that? I did the bridge on lines up to and including auditing on solo nots for several years.

Mimsey
Mims,
A thetan is indeed a creator of energy; thetans create their own energy fields. But I wrote about entities, not thetans as depending on an energy field. As for Hubbard, to my knowledge he never figured out exactly what an entity is. Filbert came close by stating it was at minimum a thought plus a picture. Calling one a thought plus a picture is accurate in an empirical sense because that is what is observed. I want to point out that a thought is always composed of volitions, and a picture requires an energy field inside which to show the picture. Therefore my analysis of an entity as a volition plus and energy field is not only accurate, but is a definition allowing further and more complete understanding of the subject.
Ed
 

JustSheila

Well-known member
Maybe all blank theta, whether fresh or mind-wiped, has a craving to take on a 'driver' or intention or program. It's hungry for identity as that's how it possibly came into the universe to begin with.
^^^I like this. :winner: This is a new line of thinking I’ve never seen before.

Certainly newborn birds, mammals, and humans crave identity. First they cling, then they imitate, then they show individual preferences and traits. Whereas science hasn’t given that much thought beyond “learning by example,” it seems craving identity would be far more basic than craving education.

Some psychologists and philosophers believed certain identity persona are ingrained (I.e., hero, merchant, Madonna, etc.), basic programming, more or less.

“All life forms are craving identity.” What a fascinating concept. :hmm: Thanks!
 

PirateAndBum

Administrator
Staff member
...



Unbelievable. What a cringefest!

I believe you but...I now have a masochistically morbid need to know if Heber or anyone else actually dressed up in a CARDINAL costume? LOL!


HELLO! My name is Trevor and I am the
CARDINAL OF SCIENTOLOGY.
I am here at the org on a very special mission.
Did you know that Ron said that Cardinals are
the most important people in the world to
make planetary clearing a reality? What if
I were to tell you that if you joined staff
at the Cardinal Bureau today, I can
guarantee that your entire Bridge up
to OT XV will be free and you will
given priority status to to get all
your auditing and training. And
what if i guaranteed that within
90 days you will have your
very own Cardinal Costume,
can you even imagine
how much status
that will give you?





.
Not quite so elaborate, but there was a costume he wore at the minister ceremony. He certainly wasn't in a 3 piece suit or SO attire. It was definitely a religous looking costume. :D

I think this was in 1980.
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
Mims,
A thetan is indeed a creator of energy; thetans create their own energy fields. But I wrote about entities, not thetans as depending on an energy field. As for Hubbard, to my knowledge he never figured out exactly what an entity is. Filbert came close by stating it was at minimum a thought plus a picture. Calling one a thought plus a picture is accurate in an empirical sense because that is what is observed. I want to point out that a thought is always composed of volitions, and a picture requires an energy field inside which to show the picture. Therefore my analysis of an entity as a volition plus and energy field is not only accurate, but is a definition allowing further and more complete understanding of the subject.
Ed
Maybe. I presume you read the HCOB on composite beings? Hubbard has been beating around this idea since the late 40's, what with demon circuits, GE's, entities, BTs and the like. I haven't a clue if any of his ideas are water tight - if Dull Old Paul were alive he'd bring up his theory of them being wiggles. ( you can search old esmb for his comments on wiggles if you wish - he was an OTIII sup.) Sometimes I think they are a mental mechanism on the order of a song stuck in your head.

I don't think an entity as you define it is capable of self determined volition, though it may have some sort of processing circuit much as a worm or ant or a rumba does. Even at that it's very limited. A BT, Per Hubbard is capable of self determined thought, when woken up. There is a step on OT 7 where you have a BT that won't blow - you tell him to go into the sky and decide where to go. You are essentially getting him to swap viewpoints from total effect to some slight degree of cause.

Mimsey
 

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
Re; the red - not according to Hubbard. The thetan is a creator of energy, not a user of energy. It's in the basic books like 8-80, 8-8008 etc. Further, if you google and read the OT V pack on line the BT's are not vampiric. They are unconscious. They are "dead" for all practical purposes until the end of the universe or they are woken up. The OT 3 level is about shooing away the easily awoken ones. OT5 on up is about awakening the virtually dead ones. Its all there in red and white.

Now your magick practice may think of these things in a different light, but that's not how Hubbard saw them. He saw and wrote about them as described above. Why do I know and assert that? I did the bridge on lines up to and including auditing on solo nots for several years.

Mimsey
Having read some Crowley and Dion Fortune, I understand that Ed8 uses different reference points in communicating his ideas . I feel one framework is healthier than the other. But, Ron's Org even included handlings for Black Static/Shadow thetans, cut off from their divinity, seemingly forever. I ran into this phenomena, only once. It gave me the heebie jeebies. I'd rather think of such beings as being unconscious or dead, and not deliberately seeking to make you mest.

Ed:
Yes Hatshepsut anything can be an entity, but not necessarily a BT. An entity is a general term, while BT (body thetan) describes a specific size and type of entity. All entities, including BTs, are formed of one or more volitions (directed Will) placed into MEST, specifically into energy fields. The simple formula is: volition + MEST = a Being.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
Mims,
A thetan is indeed a creator of energy; thetans create their own energy fields. But I wrote about entities, not thetans as depending on an energy field. As for Hubbard, to my knowledge he never figured out exactly what an entity is. Filbert came close by stating it was at minimum a thought plus a picture. Calling one a thought plus a picture is accurate in an empirical sense because that is what is observed. I want to point out that a thought is always composed of volitions, and a picture requires an energy field inside which to show the picture. Therefore my analysis of an entity as a volition plus and energy field is not only accurate, but is a definition allowing further and more complete understanding of the subject.
Ed
In occult literature, usually what you seem to be describing is a thought-form, or emotion-form, which is created, either deliberately or inadvertently.

Throughout Dianetics and Scientology, there is a pattern of Hubbard describing certain things (as foolish or "aberrated") and then doing those same things to others, or instructing others to do them to others, or to themselves, in some fashion or other. Often Hubbard seemed to know he was doing this, and sometimes, he seemed to be unaware.

In 1952, Hubbard described repeated use of the word "eternity" as a control mechanism used frighten people. Thirty years later, he used the word "eternity" repeatedly as a control mechanism to frighten people.

Did he have "eternity, eternity, eternity" in his bag of tricks, consciously? Or did he use it unconsciously?

At 1:32 of the below video, to 1:53, almost sounds like part of a NOTs procedure:


People who had done OT 3 were completely certain they had no more BTs, until they were told, on NOTs, that they had lots more and, then, they did.
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
The big problem is all this - is the PC mocking up something to run.

Hubbard wrote DMSMH in which he described the engram, the reactive mind etc. While moments of restimulation, loss and pain do exist, he put it in a context that lead one to mock them up to run. This concept of mocking up something to run, runs through all of scientology bottom to OT7 ( I never did 8 but I'll bet it holds true there)

Now, Paul had a thread on Lives Between Lives, in which the person after death goes there and decides on the pattern of his next life. This was discovered via hypnotism. But how does one test it? I never had any interest in getting hypnotized to find out because I had been exposed to the idea. Preconditioned if you will. That is where you get into trouble. It is also a good divining rod.

This is how it works:

Never that I can find, and nowhere that I recall has anyone run past lives concerning the Younger Dryas boundary catastrophe. This was a period of massive die offs etc. You would think, if whole track recall, or auditing were true, it would come up because it was a time of massive travail.

Crickets.

What does come up? Space opera, cavemen, knights and princesses, implant stations, ripping air covers off planets etc. Stuff the PC was fed, read about or mocked up.

So, that tells us that for the most part, whole track recall is bogus. Not all. But much of it. I have had incidents in and out of session come up that were real as this room around me, and I don't doubt their veracity. In two of them that come to mind - there was nothing fed to me. No preconception. They just happened. One was a past life recall as a teen prior to my exposure to the concept of past lives.

So, where this leads - how many of these entities did you or Filbert mock up? How many are real? And how would you discern the difference?

Mimsey
 

Ed8

Active member
Maybe. I presume you read the HCOB on composite beings? Hubbard has been beating around this idea since the late 40's, what with demon circuits, GE's, entities, BTs and the like. I haven't a clue if any of his ideas are water tight - if Dull Old Paul were alive he'd bring up his theory of them being wiggles. ( you can search old esmb for his comments on wiggles if you wish - he was an OTIII sup.) Sometimes I think they are a mental mechanism on the order of a song stuck in your head.

I don't think an entity as you define it is capable of self determined volition, though it may have some sort of processing circuit much as a worm or ant or a rumba does. Even at that it's very limited. A BT, Per Hubbard is capable of self determined thought, when woken up. There is a step on OT 7 where you have a BT that won't blow - you tell him to go into the sky and decide where to go. You are essentially getting him to swap viewpoints from total effect to some slight degree of cause.

Mimsey
Mims,
Yes I know what a composite is. Humans are composites. Thetans have composite case. I was referencing Filbert who said something to the effect that AT MINIMUM an entity is one thought plus one picture. But there are much more complex ones, with trillions of thoughts and pictures held in its mind. and anything in between those extremes. The more complex an entity is, the more choices it has in its other determined volition. Only a full thetan has any self determined volition, and on this planet the thetans often have much more other determined than self determined, lol.

I mentioned earlier today that I should write down the different types of spirits. well. I started the document; it's not complete yet. But if you want to see it I'll send it to you backchannel so the trolls on here don't get to mock it with their stupidities.
Ed
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
Dr. Steven Hassan, has an interesting debunking story. I don't recall all the specifics, but he has some cult member mock up the aura or whatever he was claiming the cult gave him - and the person realized - it wasn't something the cult gave him - it was something he himself was mocking up as real. You should google Just Bill's web pages - he has a lot of interesting articles about different aspects of Scientology. Especially how the meter reads on belief.

This sounds an awful like an RI in a GPM. "But there are much more complex ones, with trillions of thoughts and pictures held in its mind. and anything in between those extremes. The more complex an entity is, the more choices it has in its other determined volition."

Mimsey
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.
.

.
Have you seen G. Filbert's list of entities and beings? It's been thirty five years since I've looked at it but, as I recall, it ranges from beings who are classified as AAA, then AA, then A, then, B, then C, then D. . . . .
.
.

I would suggest that many upper-level Scientologists are extremely familiar with that tech and have a high level of certainty that it really works!

Personally, I get wins from that tech virtually every day when I am studying and insouciantly moving around the identical assortment of used MEST batteries, on this planet!




1624140010236.jpeg

.
 

Barile

Well-known member
.
.


.


I would suggest that many upper-level Scientologists are extremely familiar with that tech and have a high level of certainty that it really works!

Personally, I get wins from that tech virtually every day when I am studying and insouciantly moving around the identical assortment of used MEST batteries, on this planet!


dude... ebay has got some pretty decent price to win ratio items

 

Ed8

Active member
In occult literature, usually what you seem to be describing is a thought-form, or emotion-form, which is created, either deliberately or inadvertently.

Throughout Dianetics and Scientology, there is a pattern of Hubbard describing certain things (as foolish or "aberrated") and then doing those same things to others, or instructing others to do them to others, or to themselves, in some fashion or other. Often Hubbard seemed to know he was doing this, and sometimes, he seemed to be unaware.

In 1952, Hubbard described repeated use of the word "eternity" as a control mechanism used frighten people. Thirty years later, he used the word "eternity" repeatedly as a control mechanism to frighten people.

Did he have "eternity, eternity, eternity" in his bag of tricks, consciously? Or did he use it unconsciously?

At 1:32 of the below video, to 1:53, almost sounds like part of a NOTs procedure:


People who had done OT 3 were completely certain they had no more BTs, until they were told, on NOTs, that they had lots more and, then, they did.
Quite a bit to address there, Veda. :)
Hubbard was an initiate, a member of Crowley's organization the O.T.O. Therefore he knew about thoughtforms. I don't usually use that word because it's 12 letters long and 'entity' is quicker to type, lol. :)
"deliberately or inadvertently" is correct. I can teach you how to create a small thought based one. Easy: think a thought and shove it out of your head unless you already created it outside. It should have some distance from your center of consciousness. Then in the center of your consciousness, change your attitude toward that thought. Decide you don't like it and reject it. That rejection frees it to be independent.

Animism is correct: there is life in everything. Even solid MEST such as a rock can be awakened. So the rural blacks he seems to be disrespectful toward are correct, and he knew they were.

Re that change in Hubbard:
Hubbard had an ascension experience. At some point that ascension collapsed. Filbert mentions a change in Hubbard's size and demeanor somewhere in his book. A collapse would have occurred at that time. Hubbard may even have suffered a series of collapses, getting smaller and less aware each time. Overts are what usually causes such collapses. The morphic fields/group minds of those affected by the overts will fight back and force the perpetrator to shrink.

As for "eternity, eternity, eternity", if you say 'eternity' to an awake thetan it is taken as infinity to be celebrated. If you say 'eternity' to a sleeping thetan which is being MEST, it inverts into infinite MEST and the prospect of death forever.
cheers
Ed
 
Top