New OT levels vs Original OT levels

Veda

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!


As far as I know, no one here is a proponent of Filbert. It's just a conversation.

And, yes, we know about battery designations.
 

Ed8

Active 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
Mims,
The Younger Dryas event was not experienced by very many thetans. Most of us came here much more recently. So you'll probably have to audit 10s of thousands of people to find one who experienced it. Forget them. If you want to find it, audit the G.E.. That will link you to the human species morphic field, and you should find a record of it that way.

Related to this: Inc 2 probably did not happen to ANY THETAN on this planet. The event was experienced by the group mind of life on this planet. So the human body's small mammalian ancestors hold it in their group mind. Hubbard was already mostly 'fallen' (spiritually collapsed) by the time he accessed the memory, and bluntly he misowned it. Yes I am saying he was delusional.
Ed
 

JustSheila

Well-known member
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
It’s kind of like an interactive sci-fi video game then, isn’t it? Fun to play, fun to make it up as you go and invent new terms and stories about the universe, but what about those who forget it’s a fantasy and get too caught up in it?

Do you actually believe L Ron Hubbard, a known second rate sci-fi writer, con artist, polygamist, liar and thief, was some kind of superhuman who changed size other than getting fatter and more out of shape?

You actually believe this crap, hook line and sinker? Wow! :wow: There’s naive and then there’s :duh:
 

Veda

Well-known member
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.
Some brave person, with a lot of time on his or her hands, needs to volunteer to read or re-read Filbert's photocopied typewritten (now on the Internet) book. I recall him writing that there were six L. Ron Hubbards.

He goes into some detail on this. One can never quite be sure if he's joking or being serious.

I remember the first of his "Last Ditch" processes being presented quite seriously; Two beings joined together before the physical universe. Hubbard was just screwing around when he wrote this in 1952, with Don Purcell (of Wichita) still on his mind.

It would be interesting to see Filbert's six L. Ron Hubbard's explanation, first to see if I'm remembering correctly. Then to see if anyone can discern whether he was being serious or sarcastic. :scratch:


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
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
Mims,
The Younger Dryas event was not experienced by very many thetans. Most of us came here much more recently. So you'll probably have to audit 10s of thousands of people to find one who experienced it. Forget them. If you want to find it, audit the G.E.. That will link you to the human species morphic field, and you should find a record of it that way.

Related to this: Inc 2 probably did not happen to ANY THETAN on this planet. The event was experienced by the group mind of life on this planet. So the human body's small mammalian ancestors hold it in their group mind. Hubbard was already mostly 'fallen' (spiritually collapsed) by the time he accessed the memory, and bluntly he misowned it. Yes I am saying he was delusional.
Ed
Oh well. The Younger Dryas was a mere 12 K years ago, and people have been in existence on earth for what? A couple million years? I assume they all had thetans, and were alive as you and me. But if you believe otherwise, so be it.

The problem with your list of entities is the subjunctive nature of it. While they may be completely real to you, that doesn't guarantee their existence. While there is miles and miles of subjunctiveness in Scientology, in a few places it is damn difficult to debunk.

Here's a perfect example. There's a TR drill called 8Q if I recall correctly. The drill is dead simple. It also can't be faked. And it is subjunctive as all hell. It's part of OT 6 &7.

The student sits in a chair. There's nothing reflective in front of him. No shadows of the coach from the rooms lighting to be seen by the student. The coach is behind him. The coach puts his hand some place out of the person's peripheral vision. Let's say behind the student's head. Asks where is it. The student is supposed to spot it (theta wise) and say where it is. Then he moves his hand to a different location. Asks where it is etc. At first the flunk ratio is high, but as one improves he can hit 100% correct hits. This drill is subjunctive as all get out, but completely doable and provable. Anyone who has done OT 6 & 7 has done it.

Is it theta? Is it PSI? Because anyone can do it, it's obviously a native ability. So, there you go. Is Scientology giving you anything you don't already posses? Food for thought.

Mimsey

Most say early humans first appeared between 2–3 million years ago. In common usage the word human generally just refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant species. Wiki
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.
As far as I know, no one here is a proponent of Filbert. It's just a conversation. And, yes, we know about battery designations.
.
.
Respectfully, I don't think that is necessarily true.

Have you read "The Factors" by Filbert? I highly recommend it to serious scholars of the tech.

I personally became a big proponent of Filbert just by glancing at one of his basic books, which graphically, scientifically and quite colorfully depicted the many classifications of being right there on the cover!



.
 

Ed8

Active member
Oh well. The Younger Dryas was a mere 12 K years ago, and people have been in existence on earth for what? A million years? I assume they all had thetans, and were alive as you and me. But if you believe otherwise, so be it.

The problem with your list of entities is the subjunctive nature of it. While they may be completely real to you, that doesn't guarantee their existence. While there is miles and miles of subjunctiveness in Scientology, in a few places it is damn difficult to debunk.

Here's a perfect example. There's a TR drill called 8Q if I recall correctly. The drill is dead simple. It also can't be faked. And it is subjunctive as all hell. It's part of OT 6 &7.

The student sits in a chair. There's nothing reflective in front of him. No shadows of the coach from the rooms lighting to be seen by the student. The coach is behind him. The coach puts his hand some place out of the person's peripheral vision. Let's say behind the student's head. Asks where is it. The student is supposed to spot it (theta wise) and say where it is. Then he moves his hand to a different location. Asks where it is etc. At first the flunk ratio is high, but as one improves he can hit 100% correct hits. This drill is subjunctive as all get out, but completely doable and provable. Anyone who has done OT 6& & has done it.

Is it theta? Is it PSI? Because anyone can do it, it's obviously a native ability. So, there you go. Is Scientology giving you anything you don't already posses? Food for thought.

Mimsey
???????????
You haven't seen my list of entities. And I certainly am not going to show it to you now.

So many negative people on here.
:)
Ed
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
???????????
You haven't seen my list of entities. And I certainly am not going to show it to you now.

So many negative people on here.
:)
Ed
Thanks! That's the problem - when facts get it the way - call the provider of said facts a bad name. But, instead, why not do what scientists are trained and supposed to do? Revise your theory to include the new data? That's the logical response. After all the best hypothesis is the one that resolves the most facts, scenarios, etc.

Mimsey
 

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
^^^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!
I experienced this when having gone thru the grades. While I had sloughed off some chronic modes of being in, I STILL possessed the spiritual fabric they'd come with. These were somehow just empty. Blank. Yet I saw them as a blackboard desiring to be written on. I wasn't going to clutter up myself by doing any 'hatting'. But to my chagrin, others projected onto me their own roles. It seems if you don't have a specific goal for yourself, you'll be assigned some. Maybe we can't resist tampering with what hasnt been 'earmarked' yet. Like a dog with his fire hydrant or.....

 
Last edited:

JustSheila

Well-known member
???????????
You haven't seen my list of entities. And I certainly am not going to show it to you now.

So many negative people on here.
:)
Ed
I’m sorry if you sensed negativity. I’m sure you are quite talented at making stuff up and imagining things.

That’s different from Hats, and folks like her are rare. Hats has educated herself on a variety of different subjects and studied them so deeply that she can come up with a fresh concept that gels as an explanation bridging science, philosophy and religion that doesn’t contradict current biological or geological science. She tosses around abstract concepts against the concrete realm as easily as bouncing a tennis ball off the wall. In my entire life I’ve never known anyone who can do this like her. RogerB and I were left more than once with our jaws dropped open. Hats is a treasure.

Then you have Mimsey, who is far more well-read than you can possibly know and who did it L Ron’s way much further than you for much longer, only to find it was not what it was claimed to be.

So you come along all swaggering about your woowoo credentials and thinking you’re so deep because you have wilder sci-fi stories than even LCon, but we’ve heard it before.

You’re probably not a bad person or anything, but it’s clear you’re not the guru you think you are. Finding that out can be an enlightening experience for you. That’s positive, isn’t it? Getting past that big ego is vital to your spiritual development.
 

Veda

Well-known member
???????????
You haven't seen my list of entities. And I certainly am not going to show it to you now.

So many negative people on here.
:)
Ed
Throw caution to the wind.

Start a List of Entities thread.

Why not?

I've posted all sorts of content that is totally incomprehensible to many people, and received plenty of ridicule.

No big deal.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
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.

Thanks!

I remember in the 70s when Hubbard ordered everyone to drop what they were doing and instantly do the MINISTER'S COURSE, which consisted mainly of reading a little paperback book listing the world's "great" religions other than Scientology. In retrospect, I think it was appropriate that Scn. Ministers did not waste time studying about their own religion, since the Scientology religion turned out to be not that "great".

The reason at that time that the Scn Minister's Course was absolutely mandatory for all Scientologists was because Dr. Hubbard's research had not yet discovered the amazing tech breakthrough known as volunteer ministers.

There was quite a bit of disagreement and confusion when Hubbard first ordered everyone to wear minister's costumes with gargantuan crosses! On top of that, the telex lines were so overloaded with queries that a lot of transcriptionist typos ensued--causing many staff to have crashing MU's on what was considered standard priest-wear.

Here's a snapshot I took of the first couple graduates of the Minister's Course!



.
 
Last edited:

Ed8

Active member
Throw caution to the wind.

Start a List of Entities thread.

Why not?

I've posted all sorts of content that is totally incomprehensible to many people, and received plenty of ridicule.

No big deal.
I was hoping to make new friends on here, and have interesting post-scientology discussions of spiritual techniques. What I find are rude trolls acting as gatekeepers for their beliefs (yes disbelief is a type of belief). You're nice, Veda, but some others are complete abusers. I believe in being polite and respectful of others. I suppose I will have to mute the bad ones, as blocking them completely doesn't seem to be an option. Pity, that.
cheers
Ed
 

Bill

Well-known member
<snip>
So many negative people on here.
:)
Ed
Hubbard redefined True and False as "Theta" and "Entheta". This allowed him to get Scientologists to accept his statements without verifying them with reality. It's a good trick.

I believe you are redefining "positive people" as "those who don't argue with me" and "negative people" as "those who don't believe as I do". With those definitions, then, yes, there are "negative people" here.
 

JustSheila

Well-known member
I experienced this when having gone thru the grades. While I had sloughed off some chronic modes of being in, I STILL possessed the spiritual fabric they'd come with. These were somehow just empty. Blank. Yet I saw them as a blackboard desiring to be written on. I wasn't going to clutter up myself by doing any 'hatting'. But to my chagrin, others projected onto me their own roles. It seems if you don't have a specific goal for yourself, you'll be assigned some. Maybe we can't resist tampering with what hasnt been 'earmarked' yet. Like a dog with his fire hydrant or.....

I love this. 💕♥

Why do animals imitate human behavior? Why is it so difficult, and usually unsuccessful, to return them to the wild after being humanized? What is the phenomenon behind this inability to return to animal behavior? If it were instinctual, wouldn’t natural, instinctive behavior easily override human education? But it usually doesn’t.

Because the animal identified with one or more humans and found a self-identity. Because identity is stronger, or at least equal to, instinctual behavior. That’s a powerful drive!

Good for you resisting the urge to let someone else write on your blackboard! Maybe that’s why you can think in the abstract so easily and see so much of life as a metaphor for key concepts.

I hope you stick around a while. :hug:
 

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
'
Throw caution to the wind.

Start a List of Entities thread.

Why not?

I've posted all sorts of content that is totally incomprehensible to many people, and received plenty of ridicule.

No big deal.
Yes, We need a new edition. Seriously though.

1624148452570.png
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
I love this. 💕♥

Why do animals imitate human behavior? Why is it so difficult, and usually unsuccessful, to return them to the wild after being humanized? What is the phenomenon behind this inability to return to animal behavior? If it were instinctual, wouldn’t natural, instinctive behavior easily override human education? But it usually doesn’t.

Because the animal identified with one or more humans and found a self-identity. Because identity is stronger, or at least equal to, instinctual behavior. That’s a powerful drive!

Good for you resisting the urge to let someone else write on your blackboard! Maybe that’s why you can think in the abstract so easily and see so much of life as a metaphor for key concepts.

I hope you stick around a while. :hug:
Thanks for all your compliments Sheila. I'm overwhelmed. Now, for sure, my balloon will never land. LOL. You make me blush with all you say about me. Chuckling too as I consider myself semi literate. I love you.
 
Last edited:

Hatshepsut

Well-known member
I love this. 💕♥

Why do animals imitate human behavior? Why is it so difficult, and usually unsuccessful, to return them to the wild after being humanized? What is the phenomenon behind this inability to return to animal behavior? If it were instinctual, wouldn’t natural, instinctive behavior easily override human education? But it usually doesn’t.

Because the animal identified with one or more humans and found a self-identity. Because identity is stronger, or at least equal to, instinctual behavior. That’s a powerful drive!

Good for you resisting the urge to let someone else write on your blackboard! Maybe that’s why you can think in the abstract so easily and see so much of life as a metaphor for key concepts.

I hope you stick around a while. :hug:
This is very true. I feed everthing here in the neighborhood. The raccoons run straight at me at night, just about grabbing my thigh for their hot dogs. Skunks, possums, rabbits too. I'd have thought living alone among their own group for so long they'd remain aloof. Nope. The squirrels let you touch their tiny fingers even. My heart melts.
 
Last edited:

JustSheila

Well-known member
Thanks for all your compliments Sheila. I'm overwhelmed. Now, for sure, my balloon will never land. LOL. I love ya.
Ha ha! :hug: I know you play with ideas and concepts like Tinkertoys. Others may have taken some of your imaginings a bit too seriously. I don’t care if you believe in Sci-fi past lives or not, because you’re always tying it back to real-life things where these ideas are useful. Or you’re just having fun. It doesn’t matter. You have your feet on the ground and how does that famous quote go? Oh yeh…

“If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them.” –Henry David Thoreau.
 

Ed8

Active member
Hubbard redefined True and False as "Theta" and "Entheta". This allowed him to get Scientologists to accept his statements without verifying them with reality. It's a good trick.

I believe you are redefining "positive people" as "those who don't argue with me" and "negative people" as "those who don't believe as I do". With those definitions, then, yes, there are "negative people" here.
Your belief is inaccurate, Bill.
Ed
 
Top