Date: 27 Jan 1999 04:00:19
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
From: pilot@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (The Pilot)
Subject: SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 44 - JAN 99 PILOT POSTS 1/2


POST44.txt 

SUPER SCIO ARCHIVE 44 - JAN 99 PILOT POSTS 1/2

The remaining posts for this month are in post45.txt


==========================================

Contents:

 subj: Super Scio - CONFIDENTIALITY EQUALS CONTROL
 subj: Super Scio - The Unclearing Course
 subj: Super Scio - Answering Mike on the Clearing Congress
 subj: Super Scio - To Bob Minton on Credibility
 subj: Super Scio - To Trender On The Survival RD
 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Lakis On The Ls
 subj: Super Scio Humor - Situation Clamities On TV
 subj: Super Scio Humor - To LR1467 On Doll Mag
 subj: Super Scio Tech - The Auditor's Or Processor's Code
 subj: Super Scio Tech - BETWEEN LIVES EXPLORATION
 subj: Super Scio Tech - To ACW On Ext/Int
 subj: Super Scio Tech - On Confronting (Attn Azeric)


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio - CONFIDENTIALITY EQUALS CONTROL


CONFIDENTIALITY EQUALS CONTROL


I hope you wouldn't mind my getting up on a soap box here
and repeating the obvious for the umpteenth time, but
this is quite important to the future well being, not only
of Scientology but of anything aimined at achiving a higher
state of awareness.

You cannot work to prevent others from finding out things 
and at the same time expect to discover new things yourself.
It is an overt.

The postulates that you make to prevent others from knowing 
will eventually turn against you and prevent your own knowing.

What goes around comes around.  It just takes a bit of time
to rebound so that you think that you can get away with it.
He who lives by the sword does die by it.  And he who lives
by the suppression of knowledge will eventually find that
he has suppressed his own ability to gain knowledge.

What happened to orthodox Scientology when it made its upper
level data confidential?

Do you realize how FAST Ron was back in 1952 or 54?  The
new awarenesses and alignment of data was incredible.  It was
breakthough after breakthrough, so fast that the entire
nature of the bridge changed every year.

By the 1970s he was down to a snails pace by comparison.
He hardly ever lectured.  The bulletins were mostly being
written by others.  Most of the "new" tech was old material
from the 50s that was being dusted off and put into a modern
context.  Even NOTS was sketched out back in 1952.  There
are only a handfull of real discoveries in the 70s compared to
about one a week back in the early days.

Why?  It should be obvious.  Keep others from finding out and
eventually your own ability to find out will shut down.

To all intents and purposes, the introduction of confidentiality
destroyed the research line.

You might well ask "what about the volumes and volumes of bulletins 
and levels issued after that point?"  But these are refinements
and codifications rather than new breakthroughs.

Take Dianetics for example.  R3R was developed in 1963.  The
standard Dianetics of 1969 is simply an improved way of
applying an existing technique.  And the 1978 upgrade into
NED mainly consisted of adding the action of getting the
postulate as part of errasing the incident.  But that data
goes back to 1952 and was stated again in 1963, it had
simply been forgotten in the 1969 standardization.

It is just amazing that the expanded grades did not include
any new processes.  They consisted exclusively of older
processes that were modernized and added back into the
lineup.  Any researcher worth his salt could find more
processes and more missing grades too.  There is so much
that you just start falling over it if you take a look
without blinders on.  But all that Ron could manage was
a rehash of older ideas.  And that is a shocker because
he had been really bright, just listen to any of the old 
ACCs.

Despite the various carpings of critics, I think that he
still wanted to find the answers and he would have discovered
more if he could.  But the later days are full of mistakes
and wrong whys.  The idea that all case stemmed from R6 is
obviously false, even the CofS rarely bothers to run the
CC implant anymore.  The quickie standard tech wrecked
cases and it took him two years before he backed down from 
this error and allowed some of the old tech to be put back 
into use.

He didn't make errors of that magnitude in the old days.
Although there were flaws in DMSMH, he moved forward
quickly and didn't just sit there insisting that all case
was coming from prenatals.  He wanted to find the real
answers.

I think that its the confidentiality.  How can you hope to
find out more if you are stopping others from finding things
out?  How can you carry on research when all the comm lines
are blocked?  How can you Itsa the charge that you are sure
to stir up while searching if you make it forbidden to
talk?

And frankly, I just don't see any horrible effects coming
from the disucssions of upper level materials.

So why are these things confidential?

I think that Ron said it again and again in the 1950s.

You make knowledge secret to control people.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================


 subj: Super Scio - The Unclearing Course


THE UNCLEARING COURSE


From The Auditor issue 278 (US. / ASHO)

There Are Now NEARLY 50,000 clears.

They used to say over 50,000.

Seems like the number is going down.

Could there be a new Unclearing course in the golden
age lineup?


PS. For the tape enthusiasts, The Communication! Freedom 
and Ability lectures recently released and advertised 
in this issue are the "Unification Congress" of December
1954.  See the tape master list which I posted last year.
Note that the master list shows 20 lectures, however the
tape set is being issued with only 16.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio - Answering Mike on the Clearing Congress


ANSWERING MIKE ON THE CLEARING CONGRESS

On 17 Jan 99, mike@enturbulate.nu (Michael 'Mike' Gormez)
asked on subject "Re: FZ BIBLE 3/12 CLEARING CONGRESS"

> In article <199805170355.FAA00633@basement.replay.com>, nobody@REPLAY.COM
> (Anonymous) wrote:
> 
> Dunno if this has been asked before.. Alas on with it: I host the sound
> file (for over a year now) of the following part of this transcript and 
> it just occurred that me that it is highly unlikely that in 1958 they had
> a video camera. Can anyone of you FZ dudes/grlzz elaborate? Was it filmed
> or just tape recorded?
> 
> >**************************************************
> >
> >Transcript of LRH Video Taped Lecture ------ Number 2 of 6
> >The Clearing Congress Lectures
> >Shoreham Hotel,  Washington, D.C.                         July 4, l958
> ....
> > We say, this thing called a Thetan is capable of producing all 
> >sorts of things, and we say, this is the person, so therefore we differ 
> >enormously from the Christian statements on the subject.  They say, "you 
> >son, must save your soul".  The fellow says, "I don't have one".  So, 
> >therefore the Christian religion cannot possible be true, and they lose all 
> >kinds of converts that way.  The fellow doesn't find his soul - not there.  
> >Somebody saving his soul is doing something very interesting.  He evidently 
> >has something set up over here, that has probable mass, that he says is his 
> >soul.  And then he goes about saving it and it turns out to be a demon 
> >circuit called mama or something.
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9169/ch-notru.wav
> (mirror) http://www.ami.com.au/~bradw/cos/Sounds/ch-notru.wav
> 
> Mike
> --
> I don't go for fancy cars, for diamond rings or movie 
> stars. Oh Lord I go for penguins -- Lyle Lovett
> http://home.wxs.nl/~mike_gormez/penguins.html


It was filmed with old style equippment.  The first time I saw
this was at an event back around 1967-8.  They set up an old
projector and were swapping these huge 10 or 12 inch reels
freequently, and the film had scratches and brown spots but
was in color.  It was like watching a good quality 16mm home
movie.

Nowardays the org sells a high quality video cassette version of 
these lectures (unless they've let this go out of stock recently).
At one point Ron is wearing a white suit and looks a bit like
a bare faced Col. Saunders.  He is cheerful and grinning much
of the time.  When they do the fake (?) burning of the psych
books, there is a big cloud of smoke coming in from off stage.
Its fun to watch and he is a real showman, definitely at home
up in front of an audience.

When I was at Flag the video cassettes were playing almost 
continually in the Flag lounge.

Much thanks to FZBA for making transcripts available to those
who can't affort the enormous price of buying the video cassettes
from the org, especially as the videos don't (or didn't used to)
come with transcripts.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio - To Bob Minton on Credibility


TO BOB MINTON ON CREDIBILITY


Looks like you've lost it, and that is a shame.

All you had to do was hold your position, repeat the
message, and keep expanding your connections.

Instead you're playing P.T. Barnum and trying to make
a big circus of this, and since most people are here
for a reason rather than for a show, the house is in
an uproar.

If the Marcabs wanted to sow dissention and keep loyalists
and critics alike in perpetual unproductive infighting,
they could not have hired a better agent.  Yes I'm
joking, but it sure does fit, now doesn't it; an external
third force with its own agenda stirring the ants nest
to keep everybody on both sides busily fighting amongst
themselves.

In the hopes that you have simply slipped up rather than
intended to create this effect, let's look at what
needs to be done:


1. Dorian

If you and your cohorts made this character up, it's
time to fess up, and do it in such a ways that people
with laugh with you about it instead of at you, but
do it.

On the other hand, if there is somebody who is feeding
you a line on this, then its time to make them put up 
or shut up and report what you find to the newsgroup.
Testing him with the late reverse policies doesn't
really prove anything, anybody could concoct his
supposed analysis.

Instead, take one of the 1950s tape transcripts that
have been hitting the net.  Demand that he show you
his notes for orchestrating that.  Do it without giving
him time to write something up after the fact.  Instead
carry a tape transcript into the supposed room full
of notes and have him find his material on the spot
without advanced warning of which tape you are bringing.
I'll be he can't do it.


2. Laura

Again it's time for proof instead of unsubstantiated
babbel.

Speculations and guesswork are fun and ARS is just full 
of them.  I enjoy that game myself.  But it is not
appropriate in this case.


3. A Questions of Motives

A clear statement of your intentions would be a good
idea at this point.

And let me ask the question that I think is uppermost
in the freezone:

Hypothetically speaking, if you were to suddenly gain
control of the CofS copyrights, would you dump them
into the public domain, drop the judgements against
Grady etc., and encourage putting all the stuff up
at websites?  Or would you have some other agenda?


-------

Remember that you are damaging Stacy's & Jessie's
credibility along with your own and they have important 
experiences to relate.

I don't mean this as an attack.  I just think that
it's time for you to do the right thing.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio - To Trender On The Survival RD


TO TRENDER ON THE SURVIVAL RD

On 8 Jan 99, Trender@webtv.net (K P), posted on topic
"Great LRH Quote"


> Just wanted to share this. I dont post here much, but lurk alot. Sarah,
> you're a hoot and a real thetan...but I'm a "white boy" so whadda I
> know? :-))
> 
> LRH- "In Scientology you're dealing with a specialized group, specially
> selected. Actually these people are all pre-selected out of the races of
> earth today. It isn't a cross-section of the poulation at all. It's a
> very small minority of the population. As these people move up to more
> advanced levels of training, a further selection takes place. Their
> confront, their persistence comes up. Just look at the things that are
> required of one of these people. Look at the things that have been
> required of you in actual fact; sticking with it despite dissapointments
> and upsets and the trouble you've had. If you don't think that's a
> process of pre-selection, you should look at it someday. Just going on
> being in Scientology is a process of pre-selection. It has its rewards,
> but it also has its liabilities, and those that have survived this
> particular process have simply demonstrated the fact that they will
> obviously someday make it to OT.
> 
> 7 Nov 68- "The Relationship of Training to OT"

Unfortunately true.  I agree with Ron here and also with his
statement on cultural lag, we are well in advance of the planet
as a whole.  To me this means that we have to reach down and make
it as easy as possible for others to follow us.  I'm just giving
stuff away and trying to open the door to as many as possible.

 
> Also, there's false data being given about the new Golden Age of Tech.

Then post real data.  Post a checksheet.  Post real stories, not
just PR ("I feel so GOOD now that I have my cert") but things
that have some meat to them ("I finally learned that the pc will
talk to you if you really want to hear what he has to say").

> Its actually a BIG improvement over earlier training, by using drills
> before or after a concept and getting each idea exactly per a checksheet
> standard, not a twin or supervisor, who says "Um, ok pass". Big
> difference there, especially since twins and sups had different degrees
> of understanding. Its just for the purpose of 100% standard tech.

Either:

a) You have sups that have real experience and understanding

or

b) The writeups are so good that they are self sufficient, in
which case you might just distribute the packs and leave people
to study them on their own.

In practice, any expertise drills will require coaching with
reality which means that at least the sup has really trained
on the materials and knows what is real and how to get results.

Has the dumb policy on using sups that only know how to sup
and not the materials they are supervising been cancelled?
 
 				      
> And mention to the Pilot that there 's been NO "Survival rundown" since
> 1982. Its called "TR's and Objectives". 

True.  I like the old name better.  You must have read the
appendix to self clearing, since I have also called it TR's &
Objectives in other posts.  I probably should make a footnote
in the self clearing appendix.  My thought was that I was mostly
reaching people who hadn't been on lines for quite awhile, and
the SRD is better known to them since it was the name in use
when the orgs were at their biggest.


> Has he not looked at a grade
> chart in over 16 years?? hmm... 

Ha Ha.  There is one in the latest issue of The Auditor.
I dutifully stared at it and bowed towards St. Hill.


> My advice if one cant make back to the
> Church, would be to get a well-trained, high ARC auditor who could audit
> in their sleep. 

Good idea.  In fact a better idea to find such an auditor than
to put up with mishandling at AO or Flag.

Now I have had some really good auditors in both places (and
very poor ones as well), but they were often forced by policy
to run the wrong actions.  Unfortunately, there is quite a
bit of auditing based on arbitraries instead of auditing the
pc in front of you.  The more advanced the case gets, the
more trouble they have because they get into things that don't
fit the pre-concieved ideas.  Things that are handleable with
the 1950s technology but not with NOTS or whatever the latest
hobby horse is.

But the best advice is to study the tech (see below).


> Nothing like a good session and knowing you're getting
> the tech that has produced gains for many others. Good luck to all.
> 
> KP


My advice to you is to read the R&D volumes carefully from
Volume 9 forward.  I say volume 9 because that is when Ron
makes the big OT breaththroughs and he is at his best and most
interesting in those lectures.  Of course if you're a real tech
nut like I am you'll start from volume 1, but some people find
the first few volumes too slow and don't persist long enough to
get to the good stuff.

But volume 9 is the begining of 1952 and covers the transition
from Dianetics into Scientology and Ron is spotting basics and
coming up with new exciting ideas in every lecture.  You can
move forward right on into the doctorate course which begins
in volume 13 and you'll see the ideas laid out as he discovers
them and you'll get the rational and the why and wherefore of
what we are doing.

The HCL lectures, Route to Infinity (the tech 80 lectures),
the tech 88 lectures, Perception of Truth (the logics lectures),
the Secrets of the Mest Universe (and other lectures that were
in the OT cassettes such as Role of Earth) and the LPC (London
Professional Course) lectures are all in this set of R&Ds from
volume 9 up to 12 (with the PDC begining in 13).  And that
takes you on a smooth gradient into the PDC with real reality
so that you will duplicate and be able to apply the PDC as
you study it (unlike people who do the OT doctorate course
and yet are afraid to apply the material on the tapes).

This is the stuff that has the basics that will protect you
no matter what kind of handling or mis-handling you're getting
whether you're on orthodox or freezone lines.

Best,

The Pilot


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio Tech - To Lakis On The Ls


TO LAKIS ON THE Ls

Hi,

I don't have a copy of the orthodox version of the Ls.  I'd be
interested in seeing it myself.  I do think that we need everything.

I have heard rumors that a CofS set made it out into the 
freezone but if so, whoever has it is still sitting on it.
Maybe it will get posted someday.  But right now I don't think
that any of those who are supporting FZBA have a copy or we
would have seen it already.  See FZBA's info post.  They don't
have the Class 8 tapes either and I think that those would be
much more interesting than the Ls.  I know that there are sets
of the Class 8 tapes out in the field but again people are sitting
on these.

The Ls that are on the net seem to be a freezone reconstruction.
They are probably at least close.  The freezone version might
be either better or worse or simply different.  Remember that
the late era tech was almost completely assembled by others
rather than Ron.  He would just say "write up a rundown to do
so and so", and it would be people like Mayo who would actually
put the thing together.  And the people who might put something
together in the freezone are probably as good or better at this
than Sea Org members under pressure.

There is one specific rundown which was originally issued as
as a stand alone procedure and which later became part of L9
and which subsequently was renumbered to L11.  The HCOB was
in the old tech volumes and has been posted to the net.  It
is C/S series 37.  So in this case you can see the original 
material.

The entire set of Ls is aimed at achiving the state of
Clear OT.  The definition of Clear OT is "No Track".  This
is a confidential definition.  I don't have a copy of the HCOB
to post but I did see it when I attested.

I have not done the Ls.  I got to the state by another method
and I know others who made it in a similar manner in the CofS.
It can be achived by deep running of grade 2 after clear.  It
happened with a number of us, all trained auditors as far as
I know, who got expanded grade 2 when it came out after having 
previously had grades and gotten the clear cog in the early days.

Look at the definition of L10 in the Admin Dictionary (not
the Tech dictionary).  It says that they work with early track
heavy overts to get to the state.

I know quite a few people who have gotten the Ls and those
who were untrained public tend to be unstable and have trouble
keeping the state.  And they don't have much of an idea what
happened or why they feel like they have no track sometimes.

My impression both from looking at people who got the Ls in
CofS and looking at the freezone versions is that they try
to force this state and it tends to be out gradient and
evaluative.

On the other hand, a deep run on grade 2 after clear seems
to produce the result in an easy and stable manner.

As a prerequisite you need to be capable of running repetative
processes on the whole track.  A deep pass on self analysis,
letting back track come up gradually on the earlier similars,
will do this.  The people who made it on grade 2 after clear
also had expanded ARC straightwire after clear, and it does
tend to run this way.

A road block is the idea that going whole track on overts is
an attempt to non-confront current overts.  That does happen,
but was more likely in the old quickie era where people had
very little auditing.  Somebody naturally going backtrack
because their confront is coming up is not the same as
somebody dubbing in backtrack to avoid confronting present
time and the difference is pretty obvious.

Best is light repetative grade 2 processes allowed to range
free and wide on the back track rather than intensive
missed withhold pulling or FPRD or whatever.  You don't
want to badger the person, instead you want a gentle gradient
of increasing confront until he is willing to face the really
difficult stuff.

It will generally take multiple processes because any one
process would overrun before you got deep enough.  And you
would need to have had an ordinary grade 2 release earlier
because that is such a big blowout that all grade 2 processes
will overrun if you try to do them right after that.

When you first make it on grade 2, you then have to run something
else, such as grade 3.  Much later, you can do grade 2 again
and hit this second level EP which is Clear OT.

One of the big mistakes in CofS is that they don't allow for
the fact that all sec checking is addressing the grade 2 case.  
If they do it too soon after a real grade 2 EP or after the 
Clear OT EP, it acts like the most horrible overrun.  Later 
(after other things have been run), grade 2 can run deeper 
but the sec checks and FPRD are among the poorest of grade 2 
techniques.  If they are running with gains, then they could 
have run real grade 2 processes with faster and better results.

I am a big fan of grade 2 processes.  That is the way to get
your confront on overts up fast and painlessly.  These are simple 
repetative techniques which let the stuff come up in the order
it needs to come up in instead of an evaluative and often
accusative digging for things out of sequence.

So you just let the stuff come up off of the track.  And then
suddenly, bang, you're staring at one hell of an overt, probably
a viscious thing from the tail end of a GPM in its final
stages of decay, and it blows the track apart.

It is your own efforts to alter the sequence of things so as
to justify your overts which make the track solid.

Joe hits Billy, and they fight, and then Joe says that Billy
hit him first.  That is an alter-is of the time and it is
the most common way of justifying overts.  You alter the time
of the motivator so as to put it before the overt.  This
alter-is makes the track solid.  And it is the beings own
effort rather than an implant or an externally inflicted
false date.

When your confront comes up high enough, you blow this and
stop making the track solid.  Compared to having a solid
time track, it feels like "no track".  That doesn't mean
that you can't remember things and it doesn't mean that
you don't have a consecutive sequence of time and incidents
and so forth.  It simply means that you no longer have this
solid compulsively created time track which keeps your overts
justified.  Having that solidity dissolve is a tremendous 
release.

Knowing all this in theory is not the same as actually reaching
the state.  You need to get your confront up on overts,
especially unjustifiable overts.  It is not just the magnitude
but the fact that one did not have any good justification and
so twisted time to justify it.  When it finally lets loose,
it is spectacular.  I couldn't stop laughing for a week.  There
was charge coming off in all directions.

If you are in this for the gains rather than for status,
there is no harm in knowing what targets you are aiming at.
Just run light techniques deeper and deeper with the confidence
that everything will eventually come within your ability to
Itsa.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio Humor - Situation Clamities On TV


SITUATION CLAMITIES ON TV


The American Situation Comedy is full of OUTPOINTS.

They are unrealistic and lead our youth into gross
out-ethics.

Therefore we must fix them and bring them into alignment
with Hubbard Tech and Policy.  They will then become
Sit-Clams instead of Sit-Coms.

Here are some suggestions:

1. I Love Lucy

The episode in the chocolate factory is badly slanted.
It is one of the few where they do the right thing,
getting the stats up by running the conveyor belt faster
and faster.

It is an outpoint to make fun of getting the stats up.

And that DB Lucy should be put in the RPF for flubbing
the ideal scene of keeping up with the belt as it
keeps speeding up.


2. The Honeymooners

Gleason shows proper Sea Org toughness, and would obviously
be good at handling his juniors.  But they make him a
bus driver instead of a top executive.

And in the Apple Core episode, Gleason has the idea
standard tech for coring an apple, but Norton is allowed
to squirrel and put standard apple coring in a bad light.
Norton should be made to do steps A to E.


3. The Dick Van Dyke show

An obvious joker and degrader.  Disconnect from him.


4. All In The Family

Bunker is obviously type III.  He should disconnect from
his family and get out of there.  He is the moneymaker
and therefore the only upstat on the show.


5. Cheers

Kirsti is an upstat Scientologist.  She should be shown
as succeeding in her goals of becoming a big manager.
The rest of them are all DBs, especially Sam who is
out ethics on the 2D as well.  They should show him
pulling in some motivators.  As for Fraiser, see below.


6. Fraiser

He is one of the evil psychs.  They should show him
electroshocking people and screwing his patients.  That
would make it into a true show instead of a whitewash.


7. Taxi

Judd Hursh (Reger) is a squirrel.  If they got rid of
him, they could get Ignatousky (Loyd) on the purif and
Banta (Danza) on method 1 to handle his MUs and we'd see 
the stats go up right quickly.


8. Dharma & Gregg

Another obvious squirrel ... oopse, she's still in
good standing and bringing people in.  Forget we said
anything.


9. Friends

Full of out 2D and missed witholds.  They need a sec
checker on the show.


10. MASH

The worst show ever.  Not only are they out ethics, but
they are jokers and degraders to boot.  And the show is
full of out 2D.  And there is even an evil psych who
shows up occasionally.

They need to put some heads on a pike.  Its the RPFer's
RPF for these DBs.


11. Spin City

They should do some good dead agenting of their political
opponents.  Let's get our kids hatted up on this useful
tech early.


12. Burns and Allen

Gracie is obviously infested with space cooties. Label it
confidential and keep it off the air.


13. Martin and Lewis

Appealing only to those who have been recently implanted.  


14. Soap

A praiseworthy show with a Scientologist in the cast.
It depicts real world problems that could be solved
with processing.


15. Saturday Night Live

Not really a sitcom, but an obvious example of what will
happen to the world if we don't get 100 percent standard
tech and ethics out there fast.


J&D Forever,

The Pilot


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio Humor - To LR1467 On Doll Mag


TO LR1467 ON DOLL MAG

On 11 Jan 99, lr1467@aol.com (LR1467) asked on subject
"PILOT - 12JAN - Did you receive DM DOLL MAG?"


> Posted for your enjoyment to act, mid Dec.
> 
> The Management

Yes I recieved it and it works exceedingly well.

By subsituting DOLL MAG for CAL MAG on the purif, 
ASHO has succeeded in producing a purif that purifies
the mind as well as the body.

DM found out about this and his reaction might inspire
you to produce a new DM doll in the spring lineup;
Namely, a DM doll that soils itself, complete with
toilet paper roll.

Humorously,

The Pilot


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio Tech - The Auditor's Or Processor's Code


THE AUDITOR'S OR PROCESSOR'S CODE


I liked the old auditor's code of 1954.  The later standard
tech version of 1968 seemed to be overly wordy, less accurate 
as far as the relative importances, and also biased towards
standard tech, which at that time was the unworkable system
that we now know of as "quickies".  It certainly did little
to prevent the subject from deteriorating into a sham.

It would seem to me that it should be possible to do a 
better job on a code for processing.

To start with, lets review the old codes:

---------------

First, here is the old code from Creation of Human Ability
which was posted to the net awhile ago.

The bullet points are Ron's.  The commentary is mine.


1. Do not evaluate for the preclear

Very important.  But I use the old definition of eval where it
is described as forcing a datum on the pc.  You must not do
that even if you are right because it cuts down the pc's
knowingness.  But that does not mean that you can't suggest
something.

It does, however, mean that you can't insist that the person
has witholds and better tell you.  You can ask.  You can even
beg (joke).  You can vary the question. You can even run a process 
to raise confront.  But you must not insist even if you are 
correct.  So much for modern sec checking as done by the CofS.


2. Do not invalidate or correct the preclear's data

Inval is even more important than eval.  It should come first
in the list.  You can't make more of the pc if you make less
of him.

As written, this could be misinterpreted to mean that you
must not invalidate the pc's data but its ok to invalidate
the pc.


3. Use the processes which improve the preclear's case

Yes.  Or perhaps, use whatever process is needed to improve
the preclear's case.  And be responsible enough to find or
research a workable process or pass the pc on to somebody
who can if one's particular standard techniques are not
making it on this case.


4. Keep all appointments once made

It is definitely bad form to break appointments, but this is
not of comparable magnitude to the significant points above.
And the common CofS method of keeping everyone sitting around
waiting without a firm appointment (so that it isn't broken)
is not a good idea, excessive waiting makes the case more solid
and harder to process.  Sensible and efficient scheduling 
with some flexibility and care to reschedule if an appointment
can't be made would seem to be the most workable.


5. Do not process a preclear after 10:00 p.m.

An evaluative absolute.  Correct is don't process too late
at night if at all possible.

All the rules which are aimed at processing the pc when he
is at his best are a) relative to the pc, and b) can be
violated if necessary if you limit yourself to processes
which are easy for the pc.

A more advanced case at its worst (tired and poorly fed)
may still process as well as a more heavily charged case
at its best.  But you must not assume that the person
can run on his usual gradient if he is in poorer shape
than usual.

Since this is slower and more difficult for the pc, it
is disadvantagous and you should not waste his time in
this manner unless there is an overriding concern.
So this is mainly done in emergencies (assists, etc.)


6. Do not process a preclear who is improperly fed

As above.  And note that the e-meter metabolism test is
not properly benchmarked or validated.  It is given as
an absolute and there is no data as to what variations
might really occur due to body weight, normal metabolism
values for that particular body, or relative sensitivity
settings.  If such a test is used at all (instead of
simply trusting the pc as used to be done), it should
be relative to his usual metabolic reaction rather than
measured against an absolute standard.


7. Do not permit a frequent change of auditors

Avoid would be better here.


8. Do not sympathize with the preclear

It is important to avoid sticking him with sympathy.  It is
bad to give him too much agreement on how bad things are or
validate him for being messed up because it makes the condition
persist. At the same time, you must not put out a heavy 
"no sympathy" or blame the pc or insist that he act tough.
That encourages him to dramatize the condition further to
prove to you how bad off he is. Best is to communicate that 
you understand how he feels and intend to do something about
the condition.


9. Never permit the preclear to end the session on his own 
independent decision

This is far too absolute.  You mustn't let him run off when
you are in the middle of something.


10. Never walk off from a preclear during a session

If there is a need, always tell him that we're taking a
break, don't leave him hanging.


11. Never get angry with a preclear

Definitely.  But this is part and parcel with not invalidating
the pc.


12. Always reduce every communication lag encountered by
  continued use of the same question or process

This is specific to a particular processing methedology.


13. Always continue a process as long as it produces change, and 
  no longer

This is more generally applicable than 12 above.


14. Be willing to grant beingness to the preclear

Better stated as actully granting it rather than just being
willing.  This is one of the most important points, possibly
THE most important point since even inval and eval might
simply be considered violations of this specific point.


15. Never mix the processes of Scientology with those of 
  various other practices

Foreshadowing of KSW.  Toss this one.


16. Maintain two-way communication with the preclear

Another of the most important ones.  


17. Never use Scientology to obtain personal and unusual favors or
 unusual compliance from the preclear for the auditor's own
 personal profit

I'm tempted to add "or for the profit of the CofS" to this
one.  There is something to this and CofS is in chronic
violation.

But its not really correct.  The better statement would be
that it should never be used "purely for profit".  That
doesn't mean that you can't charge, it just means that the
profit must not be the overriding concern.

And whatever is said here must apply equally to the organization
and registrars and so forth.


18. Estimate the current case of your preclear with reality and
   do not process another imagined case

Good point.


19. Do not explain, justify or make excuses for any auditor
     mistakes whether real or imagined

Note that you can (and should) indicate that something was
a mistake.  You can even appologize if it seems appropriate.
What you mustn't do is try to make excuses or explain it
away.

------------------------

And here is the later Auditor's Code.  This is from old Tech
Vol. 6 that was posted to the net last year.  Although this
is the 1976 revision, it is pretty much the same as the version
used in 1969 (the last 3 points used to be in a separate 1969
HCOPL).


     HCO POLICY LETTER OF 14 OCTOBER 1968R
	     REVISED 1 JANUARY 1976

	       THE AUDITOR'S CODE

    In celebration of the 100% gains attainable by Standard Tech.

    I hereby promise as an Auditor to follow the Auditor's Code.

1.  I promise not to evaluate for the preclear or tell him what he should
    think about his case in session.

See point 1 of the old code.

2.  I promise not to invalidate the preclear's case or gains in or out of
    session.

See point 2 of the old code.

3.  I promise to administer only Standard Tech to a preclear in the
    standard way.

Originally this meant to do quickies and never use anything other
than a handfull of processes.  This is in direct violation of
point 3 of the old code.  So lets stick with the old one.

4.  I promise to keep all auditing appointments once made.

See point 4 of the old code.


5.  I promise not to process a preclear who has not had sufficient rest and
    who is physically tired.

A better statement than point 5 of the old code, but see the
comment there.


6.  I promise not to process a preclear who is improperly fed or hungry.

As above.


7.  I promise not to permit a frequent change of Auditors.

See the old code.


8.  I promise not to sympathize with a preclear but to be effective.

See the old code.


9.  I promise not to let the preclear end session on his own determinism but
    to finish off those cycles I have begun.

This is a better statement than the old code, but see the
comments there.


10. I promise never to walk off from a preclear in session.

See the old code.


11. I promise never to get angry with a preclear in session.

See the old code.


12. I promise to run every major case action to a floating needle.

As with the old code, this is tied to a specific methedology.


13. I promise never to run any one action beyond its floating needle.

Again specific to a methedology, and furthermore is in violation
of FN and EP.  A correct statement for modern standard tech
would be to say "beyond its end phenomena".

If we define EP loosely to mean the appropriate result instead
of using a fixed method specific definition, then we could
define both this one and 12 above in a general manner which is
appropriate to a broader selection of methods.


14. I promise to grant beingness to the preclear in session.

See the old code.


15. I promise not to mix the processes of Scientology with other practices
    except when the preclear is physically ill and only medical means will
    serve.

Toss this one along with the old one.


16. I promise to maintain Communication with the preclear and not to cut his
    comm or permit him to overrun in session.

This is better stated in the old code.


17. I promise not to enter comments, expressions or enturbulence into a
    session that distract a preclear from his case.

Not a bad point, but perhaps better stated as simply not distracting
the pc from his case.  That puts the endless unnecessary actions
that CofS bothers the pc with into the category of code breaks, and
that feels right.  Its just as bad to distract him with supposed
standard tech as with comments.
 

18. I promise to continue to give the preclear the process or auditing 
  command when needed in the session.

Of course.  But does this need to be in the code or are we
distracting from the key points given earlier.


19. I promise not to let a preclear run a wrongly understood command.

Excessive.  This leads to 25 hours of defining things to do 5 hours
of processing.  Better to avoid letting him run a wrongly understood
command and fix it fast if it does happen.


20. I promise not to explain, justify or make excuses in session for any
    Auditor mistakes whether real or imagined.

See the old code.


21. I promise to estimate the current case state of a preclear only by
    Standard Case Supervision data and not to diverge because of some 
    imagined difference in the case.

Point 18 of the old code is better.


22. I promise never to use the secrets of a preclear divulged in session for
    punishment or personal gain.

Very good.  Except add "or for the benefit of the org" and also
promise never to turn these over to Ethics or OSA and also never
write them down in the folder as an extra safety measure.


23. I promise to see that any fee received for processing is refunded
    following the policies of the Claims Verification Board, if the preclear
    is dissatisfied and demands it within three months after the processing,
    the only condition being that he may not again be processed or trained.

This is policy rather than processing tech.  Yes, give refunds, but
it doesn't belong in the code.


24. I promise not to advocate Scientology only to cure illness or only to
    treat the insane, knowing well it was intended for spiritual gain.

More politics.  This should be org policy but don't dilute the
code with it.


25. I promise to cooperate fully with the legal organizations of Dianetics 
and Scientology as developed by L. Ron Hubbard in safeguarding the ethical 
use and practice of the subject according to the basics of Standard Tech.

More KSW aimed at suppressing the tech and keeping it from being
used or further researched.  Definitely a reverse point to be
tossed as quickly as possible.


26. I promise to refuse to permit any being to be physically injured, 
violently damaged, operated on or killed in the name of "mental treatment".

A nice point.  I wonder if this means that the CofS auditors 
are all breaking the auditor's code until they unmock the Flag
organization (remember Lisa?).

But in fact this has nothing to do with the auditor's handling
of his own pc and therefore does not belong in the code.


27. I promise not to permit sexual liberties or violation of the mentally
    unsound.

Again a generality rather than anything specific to the pc
one is handling.  Possibly there should be something like
this specific to one's pc and you certainly shouldn't violate
them sexually even if they are mentally sound.

But old point 17 is better.


28. I promise to refuse to admit to the ranks of practitioners any 
being who is insane.

More political grandstanding.


------------------

So let's see if we can clean this up and simplify it a bit.
Shorter is better as long as the important points are covered.

This is not an ethical code or organizational policy or a
list of what would be nice.  It is a minimum statement of what
has to be there to have successful sessions.

And let's put the most important points first.  


1. Process for the purpose of helping the preclear and not
to take advantage of them.

2. Grant Beingness

3. Maintain 2 way communication

4. Do not invalidate or get angry with the pc or correct his data

5. Do not evaluate for or force the pc

6. Never let anything divulged in session be used against the pc

7. Do not upset the pc or distract him from his case or
act overly sympathetic

8. Use the processes which work for the pc

9. Do not confuse the pc or fail to clear up a wrongly
understood command

10. Finish what you start and do not continue a process
beyond its expected result

11. Do not justify or make excuses for any mistakes

12. Avoid processing under non-optimum conditions such as
insufficient food or sleep


This seems short and simple enough to be broadly applicable
and easy to teach and apply.

---------

I must admit that I'm thinking of this especially in terms
of co-auditing.  What would 2 beginners have to know to
keep from messing each other up.


Best,

The Pilot


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio Tech - BETWEEN LIVES EXPLORATION


BETWEEN LIVES EXPLORATION


There has been a lot of speculation on the afterlife and the
between lives area.

But it remains one of the great frontiers with little verified
knowledge.

I do not consider subjective knowledge, perception, or recall
to be scientific proof or dependable data.  It is the equivallent
of rumors, a half knowledge that is probably no more accurate
than the European legends of Cathay in the dark ages were in
describing the actualities of China.

I am sold on the idea of reincarnation.  I am certain that we
continue on beyond the death of the body.

But how much do we really know in a verifiable scientific
sense?  Not much I'm afraid.

My own recalls and perceptions in this area are in fact
subjective.  Even if I am closer to truth than others, I
would not bet money on what I know about the area.

Having a vague idea that there might be snow in the Himalayas
is not the same as having a detailed map to the peak of
Mt. Everest.

Evan's excellent translations of anchient Tibetan scrolls
points out an interesting fact.  They had an accurate perception
that there was a continent to the west which was a land of
cattle eaters (American Indians eating buffalo?).  But they 
also had a laughably inaccurate map of the world.  They had a 
true knowledge that this was one world among many, but lacked
many of the simplest basics that would be in any child's
astronomy book.

I think that this is the position that we are now in as
regards to the between lives area.

There is something there.  There is a lot of half knowledge
as to what.  But nothing is guaranteed.

And so I would call on real seekers of truth to attempt to
report back on whatever they can after death.

I don't think that it will be easy.  The idea would be to
try to find out things and then to find some way to pass
the data back here before reincarnating.

I know of cases where an OT picked up a new body and as a
small child gave out some bit of data from their earlier
lifetime.  There are cases where a former life Scientologists
has had processes rehabbed that had been run in the earlier
life and the meter phenomena behaved appropriately.

But I know of nobody who has come through with good
continuous recall.  Even the OTs forget their previous
life and then get back little bits of it.

Of course in general people might not want to remember
their former lives in detail.  But somebody who was
seeking truth would be an exception to this because they
would want every bit of data that they could get their
hands on.

Furthermore, the actual between lives sequence seems
immensly harder to recall than the earlier lifetimes.
I've picked up bits of it (described in Super Scio) but
it's nothing that I would trust my recall on.

My working hypothesis right now is that we are still going
through some sort of memory wipeout between lives despite
any wishful thinking that the between lives implants have
been eliminated or can easily be bypassed.  But it is also
possible that this is simply coming about through some
case factor or that there is some simple thing that we have
not yet understood about the mechanics of memory.  It is
possible that the drop in havingness at death is enough
by itself to cause forgetfulness unless it is remedied.

As to what one might percieve between lives, there are
various possibilities:

a) The real world (Earth, etc.)
b) Dreams
c) Implant Pictures
d) Other realities (including heavens & hells etc.)
e) Shared Illusions

I can hardly guess at the laws governing these various
things or their relative degree of solidity.  My advice
is to be armed to the teeth with processes and to be
both flexible and fearless, neither letting oneself be
suckered into traps nor avoiding things.

We have a large array of objective OT drills which would
be very useful.  Among the best are those in the first
few chapters of Self Clearing.  Simple alternate spotting
(the locational or attention process) is extremely powerful
in sorting out delusion from reality.  The same goes for
mocking up copies alongside of real objects.

There have been various attempts to describe the between
lives area.  I would suspect that these are all vague half
truths and not entirely accurate, but are well worth reading
non-the-less so as to be properly prepared.

The best is Evan's translation of "The Tibetan Book of the
Dead".  A nice second look with some insights of its own
is "The American Book of the Dead" by E.J. Gold.  Monroe's
books are also highly recommended.  And there are lots
of interesting books in the new age section in the
bookstores.

----------------

The After Death processing rundown.

On of the biggest problems is to avoid a crash in havingness
due to the loss of the body.  One of the commonly described
effects is that a person in good shape who is not heavily
drugged when they die will come out with good exterior
preception briefly and then will sink.  This is described
as the "swoon" in the Tibetan materials.  One has a clear
moment and then passes out and then comes briefly to
consciousness again and so forth.  Gold describes this
as being like dropping a ball, and it keeps bouncing
up again for awhile, but a bit lower each time.

I would suggest that one's first action on dropping the
body is to immediately work to raise havingness before
one's perceptions begin to fade or one begins to go unconsious
or one starts following tunnels or whatever looking for
the light.

Best is probably a variation on the first process of self 
clearing chapter 11 which is to pick a mountain and drill
ext/int on it.  A mountain is a big mass and it is a good
anchor point to keep things located.  Have a favorite 
mountain and flatten the ext/int drill on it now before 
dropping the body.  Then go a bit further and drill alternately
being the mountain and simply holding it as an anchorpoint
from a distance.

You want an ideal state where you can use this mountain as
needed for mass or orientation but you are not stuck in
it or held back by it.  Some of the spiritualists worry
about earthbound spirits who get too attached to the
Mest around here.  So flatten ext/int in advance and also
drill mocking up copies of the mountain and throwing them
away.  You want it as a tool rather than a limitation.

So, assuming these things have been flattened before
dying, this gives us process AD-1 to be done when one
exteriorized and floats above the body as it dies.

AD-1) Alternately, a) look down at the dead body while
reaching into the mountain as an anchor point, and
b) be in the mountain, feeling the mass of it and
look at the surrounding area.

This can be practiced in advanced once you are up to
holding a stable position exterior above the body (as
discussed in self clearing chapter 11).  Simply do the
above drill with the body lying down with its eyes
closed.

Next would be to raise perception and further improve
havingness.

AD-2) Run either simple alternate spotting or mental
reach and withdraw (chapters 1 or 2 of self clearing)
on the enviornment around the body which one has dropped.
Use whichever one (or both) gives you the best feeling
of havingness and orientation.

According to the Tibetan book of the dead, you will tend
to use a spiritual mockup of your current body as it
died and you want to alter this immediately so that you
don't get stuck in that form.  They furthmore recommend
that if any demons show up to scare you (to chase you
into the womb or whatever), you mock yourself up as
a bigger and more frightful demon and scare them right
back.

This is all good advice and should be drilled.  In
preparation, run the self clearing chapter on Bodies
while you are alive and well.  Then drill the following,
and use it as your third step after dropping the body.

AD-3) 
a) mock yourself up in an young, powerful, ideal body
   (this can be an improved version of your current body
   or whatever you like and feel comfortable with)
b) mock yourself up as a fearsome demon (for self defense only)
c) mock yourself up as being the mountain used in the
  earlier drill
d) mock yourself up in whatever you concieve of to be
  an ultimate godlike form 

Alternate between these 4 forms quickly until you can
easily shift between them and don't feel stuck in any
particular one.

You might want to add a 5th form after the godlike 
form above which would be a cloud form that permeates 
things.  Cloud forms are often ideal for many things 
but there is some early track charge on these.  So 
see if you can flatten a simple process on alternately
being a mountain and a cloud (before dying).  If it
goes well, add it to the above list.

The 3 processes above should be done first to get one
well oriented and raise havingness.  Then it is time
to handle the death incident.

AD-4) Run the death incident by alternately 
a) spot something in the enviornment
b) spot something in the incident

Note that you have to be really careful about keeping
your havingness high at this point, so I think that the
above is the only safe incident running technique to
use to avoid going into a reviv of the incident and loosing
present time perception.

After facing the impact of the incident, there still
may be charge on the loss involved.  It is important
to flatten this and it would be best to use an easy 
technique that can be done in present time.  So I
would recommend the "blow it up" process from the first
ACC.

AD-5) Mockup the body (alive and well) in various places
and blow it up.  If you have trouble holding a stable
position while doing this, locate youself above (or in)
the aforementioned mountain and project the mockups
from there.  Continue as long as any grief turns on at
blowing the body up.  Note that you shouldn't be in
the body that you're blowing up, just project the mockup
various places.

This can be run again with copies of the dead body,
blowing those up too to get over any remaining flinch
at the dead body.  If a good bit of charge comes off
on this, then check over the original version (alive
and well) again to see if any more charge on the loss
is now available to be run.

Finally, we want to ensure retaining some recall, and
there may be a tendency to forget simply because one
no longer has the mass of the body to keep one oriented
to the lifetime.

The thing to do would be to pick some special moments
in this lifetime and use them as anchor points to
the recall.  Again, these should be selected in 
advance and run through occasionally so that they
are easy to connect with.

Pick a half dozen or a dozen especially nice moments
in time in the current lifetime, preferably ones
which have some significance and will help you to
remember other things when you want to.  It might
help to number these and think of the year they
occured along with the sceen.

When I talked about the possiblity of time being
reset in  Super Scio, I suggested that some key 
points be picked to act as triggers to recall in 
case you should find yourself going through the
same lifetime again.  The same list could be used
for both purposes.

For drilling this before death, shift into the
mountain and recall the list of key moments from
there because you will not have the option of
recalling them from the body after dropping it.

So the process would be:

AD-6) Shift into the mountain, using it to remain
oriented to PT, and recall each of the key moments
in this lifetime (the one just completed).

It might also help to mockup favorite posessions
that have good recalls associated with them.

The one time that my body dematerialized in this
lifetime, I was extremely forgetful and very
dimwitted.  I described that in Super Scio chapter 9.
In that case there was no impact and no implants,
it was simply a side effect of being without
the mass and energy of the body briefly.  I expect
that to happen after dropping the body.

But in my one near death experience (also described
in Super Scio), I was out with extremely clear
perception and full intelligence, possibly because
the body was still present and alive even though it 
had shut down completely.

I think that in actually dropping the body, the
high awareness state will be there briefly and
then one will sink into the forgetfull not too
bright state as the energy level drops.  This
would match the Tibetan description of having
a good moment followed by the swoon.

I can't guarantee how effective the above drills
will be in avoiding the swoon nor can I be sure
that one would have enough time to complete them
before sinking.  I do think that the processes
should be capable of pulling you back up if you
keep at them long enough, repeating the entire
series a few times if necessary.  But you might
have to be able to continue them through a heavy
period of mental fogginess.

So drill the entire set of processes, AD-1 to 6
a number of times until you can do it easily.
And then repeat it at least once a year so that
it stays fresh in your mind and is at your fingertips.

For drilling before death, on AD-4, running the
death, you could pick a death in a movie you
watched recently (so you'll have some things
to spot in the "incident") and run it to a mild
win of recalling the movie sceen clearly.

Process AD-5, blowing up copies of the body,
is fun even before death and blows some charge
on the current body, so don't be afraid to use
it before death, it doesn't hurt the body.
This is a nice one to do simply for its own
gains.

And shifting between the mountain, an ideal body, 
a scary body, a godlike body, and a cloud form is 
also a nice process in its own right.  So these are 
all good drills under any circumstances.

You might also want to drill shifting between
a few different mountains at least once so that
you don't get too fixated on one.

----------

When you do drop the body, run through the above
set of processes immediately, you don't know how
long you will retain a clear state of consciousness.

Repeat the entire set if necessary until you feel
better and have confidence that you can hold
a stable position and retain recall.  You might
have to keep some kind of form mocked up to stay
oriented.  Occasionally thereafter, you might
want to run through the set of processes again.

Up until you get this done, you should ignore anything
that shows up.  Just treat it as a distraction.  If
there are opportunities or whatever, one would expect
them to repeat once they've got your attention, so
just ignore any tunnels, pearly gates, visitors,
or whatever until you finish your processing.

Once you are done, then it is time to explore and
learn things.  Here the sky is the limit.

Unless I was otherwise distracted, my first action
would be to go around and visit people and try to
establish communication.

In the western tradition, one is drawn down a tunnel
and rushes towards "the light at the end of the
tunnel".  In the Tibetan materials they suggest
that you don't let yourself be pulled or pushed
around but either remain unmoving or move in a
reverse direction because these things are trying
to get you to go to your fate rather than your
desire.

This is good advice.  However, if I was feeling
gutzy and fairly confident of shifting out of
a flow or a picture and back to the mountain when
I wanted, I might go along with something or even
step into a possible implant just to see what I
could learn.  I might also go into something while
also holding an external anchor point (such as
a mountain) on a similar basis.

Next, the western tradition is that you are met by
friends and family who have died (usually this is
at the end of the tunnel).  The Tibetan material
says that you will be met by benificial entities
(even if you resist going down any tunnels).  Other
traditions generally have some kind of similar
meetings with guides or whatever.

I would suspect that all of these are seeing the
same thing from different perspectives and with
different dub-in layered on top of an actual truth.
In other words, you will run into something which
either is a friendly force or is pretending to
be a friendly force (be careful) at this stage.

I would further suggest that what looks like a
relative or a savior or a benevolent godess should
not be taken at face value.  However, you may
be dealing with a friendly force, so be polite
and not offensive.  Try doing some light processing,
teaching, and exchange of knowledge and see how
that goes.  Think of the alien in Sagan's "Contact"
wearing a friendly form to put the heroine at ease.
But this could also be bait for a trap, so take
care.

After the benevolent entities, the Tibetan materials
say that the nasty ones will show up.  Here you
can use the scary form if needed.  But even with
demons I'd be inclined to talk first and to process
unless they are determined to make trouble.

According to them, near the end of the nasty ones,
they will try to judge you and you should reject
the judgement.  There also seems to be a judegement
step in most of the other traditions and the
Tibetan advice seems good for this.

Eventually, according to the book of the dead, all
this stuff will die down and you can go about the
business of looking for a nice body which has some
money in an area where religious studies are 
possible.

According to Ron, there will be between lives
implants, and they will try to sucker you in with
nice pictures of pearly gates or whatever and then
hit you with an implant and you should just sidestep
these and look for a body on your own because they
wouldn't actually help you find one but just dump
you back here to look for yourself after wiping
your recall.

According to some of the other spiritual traditions,
and also according to Monroe, souls will tend to
cluster together and form some sort of shared
mockup and exchange data before selecting a new
lifetime.

According to many traditions, there may be heavens
and hells or other places that you might go to.

According to Dante, Christ ended up in hell and
tore the place apart and rescued people before
resurrecting.  Not a bad idea if you can do it, and
if that's a bit too tough, then scare off the
demons and shift back to the mountain if you
find yourself in such a place.

I would be inclined to explore these things and
even to take chances, but also to hang onto 
anchor points and visit people and keep doing
various processes.  I would think that any process
which you can remember would be worth trying again
in the between lives area.

It would be best to be loaded for bear before
tangling with the between lives area.  Learn as
much as you can and process as much as you can
first.  Even if your body is in bad shape, I would
recommend hanging on and processing as long as
possible rather than dropping it.

At the top one materializes and dematerializes real
bodies at will.  That makes you senior to any cycle
of life and death.  I'm not there yet, but its
where we are going.  You don't need to die to do
this, instead you unmock the body and then mock it
up again.

As I see it, there is no need to drop the body to
continue research as Ron was reported to have done.
I suspect that that was just a shore story.  But
if one is stuck with the fact of the body having
died, then use it as part of the research effort.

And please try to report back whatever you find out.

In the meantime, the after death rundown should be
practiced, not only against the possiblity of dying
by accident, but also to make it safe to unmock the
body if you get up to that level.  That one time
where my body did vanish left me feeling that it was
unsafe to do that, because I forgot so much while I
was in that state that I might not have remembered to
come back if the girl hadn't been there calling me.



Good Luck,

The Pilot


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio Tech - To ACW On Ext/Int


TO ACW ON EXT/INT

On 24 Jan 99, "Alan C. Walter" <wisdom@cyberstation.net>
posted on subject "Ext/Int: Innies and Outties"


> There are basically two types of client operating conditions.
> 
> Type 1:
> 
> Innies: 
> 
> These are spiritual beings who operate from the viewpoints of that they are
> inside their heads.
> 
> 
> Type 2:
> 
> Outties:
> 
> These are spiritual beings who are aware they operate through the body but
> operate from a much greater spacation and encompass a greater span of space.
> 
> The majority of spiritual beings today that reach for our services are
> outties, they maybe unknowing outties, but never-the-less they are exterior.
> 
> Outties tend to be leaders, as they have great trouble being contained.
> 
> Innies tend to be followers as they have great trouble leading.
> 
> Knowing Innies from Outties is vital is in processing.
> 
> Many poorly trained, highly charged processors are Innies. Robotic
> processors are Innies.
> 
> Should an Innie process an Outtie the Outtie will have a great deal of
> trouble being processed.
> 
> As an Outtie fights like crazy to stay out.

(the rest of this extremely interesting post snipped for brevity)

Quite right, except that you missed a third type: Biggies.

The ones who are past this business & can be in and out
simultaneously, bigger than the body (when they feel like it)
or simply don't consider themselves located in space and
permeate things.  In fact, I would expect that this is very
much in keeping with other observations of yours concerning
permeation, size, etc., so I suspect that this was a simple 
oversight on your part.

Biggies also have trouble when Innies audit them, but they tend
to permeate the Innie and take over the session.  Of course
this leads to the cog that they could be running faster on
their own without the distraction of the Innie.  Probably
half of my auditing (as a pc) felt like that, hence my great
willingness to self audit and the great wins I had doing
that.

Outties usually get away with auditing biggies, but sometimes
it scares them because the biggie is very willing to interiorize
and has a lot of fun doing so since they don't get stuck.

Biggies do very well auditing either type because they don't
mind either viewpoint and can duplicate them comfortably.
There is the speed differential, but an Innie can run fast
if the process is exactly on the right gradient. Also a biggie 
tends to bring a case temporarily upscale so that they run 
above their usual level.


Hope this helps,

The Pilot


==========================================

 subj: Super Scio Tech - On Confronting (Attn Azeric)


ON CONFRONTING (Attn Azeric)

On 20 Jan 99, azeric <azeric@pop.flash.net> asked on
topic "Question about Confronting"

> I feel that I am confronting people less than in the past.
> 
> I have done numerous confront drills in the past and gained 
> alot from them at the time. For about 2 years I had a high level of
> confront around people and felt comfortable and at ease talking with
> them.
> 
> Now I feel I have lost that ability.  Is this typical?
> 
> A few years ago I did the Communications Course, the TR(Training
> Routines) & Objectives Course, coached/twinned with someone through the
> TRs on the Pro-TRs Course, and coached several other people on their
> Comm. Course and TR drills.
> 
> I am a little disappointed because I thought I had gained a permanent
> ability.  I know I can do the TRs again-- if I find a twin outside the
> Church, but I am curious to know if others have experienced this also.

There are 2 possiblities:

1) Invalidation

The business of being connected to an SP and rollercoastering is
a subset of this.  It's that suppression generally works via 
invalidation.

But not all inval comes from "SPs".  Simply overrunning something
is usually an inval and can turn off a gain until you rehab it.

Best to just clean off invalidation, and if you notice that
it all seems to be coming from one source, then consider whether
that terminal might be suppressive towards you.


2) Growth

Absolute and total TRs would of course bring about as-isness
and so forth and would be up at the top of the scale.  You
should be able to stop a speeding bullet by acknowledgement
alone.  Fully confronting the wall in all its aspects should
allow you to walk through it if you feel like.

Of course we are nowhere near that level.

Therefore the EP has to be considered to be relative.

This means that eventually you will expand and bump into
the next layer.

If that is happening, rehabs etc. will leave you feeling
unsatisfied because you are ready to go further.

Note that major stable gains on TRs will rehab just like
a major processing action.  Even the org does that when
they run a TRs Debug.

But often with TRs its going to be that you are ready
to confront at a different order of magnitude.

After major EPs on TRs and then Grade 5 and hitting a
keyed out OT state, when I did TRs again I saw entities
and energy fields and other people's masses and machinery
and all sorts of wild stuff.  The whole business needed 
a second pass at a new level.

The trouble with TRs is that you need a twin who is up
to that rather than someone who is going to push you
back into a body.  So you might have to settle for solo
drills that raise your confront.

If its growth, then you find new kinds of stuff on 
repeating an action.  If you're just getting the same
old thing, its simply inval and you rehab and then
do something else for more gains.

Best,

The Pilot


==========================================

The following trailer was used on these posts

------------------
The free Self Clearing Book, The Super Scio book, and the
"SCIENTOLOGY REFORMER'S HOME PAGE" are all over the net.

See The Self Clearing Homepage for URLs to these sites
http://fza.org/pilot/selfclr.htm or
http://www.proweb.co.uk/~tech/clear.htm

Or see The Pilots Home Page at http://fza.org/pilot/index.htm

Some translations are available, see
In German  - www.sgmt.at/pilot.htm
In Hungarian - www.extra.hu/self/index.html
In Russian - http://www.user.cityline.ru/~cisergem/ and www.aha.ru/~espinol
  and http://www.tagil.ru/~sk/pilot/pilot.html.

All of this week's posts will be collected in Super Scio Archives
#44 and 45 and posted to ACT.  See the Pilot Archives at FZA.ORG.

Also, the individual posts to ARS are being double posted to
ACT rather than cross posted to foil the spambot.  So if you
pick up a spam replaced one on ARS you can get the real one from
ACT or find a good one on dejanews.

Note that some of my posts only go to ACT.  I cannot be reached by email.
I watch ARS and ACT for messages with Pilot in the subject line.

------------------



