Technical Bulletin of 21 April 2000

Hello again,

With getting used to remailers and PGP and all that its easier if I
posts a few replies at once.

"AMI" <amio2@gte.net> wrote:

>
>If indeed you are truly LRH, a fair number of people will need to
>put their hand in your side.  But if you are, welcome back indeed.

Thank you.

>How do you view the controversy regarding 6 month sec checks on OT
>VII?
>

The sec checks should only really occur where a Pre-OT is not
progressing well.
But then there seems to be a situation going where they get into a
grind on NOTs. They are pulling off entities and pulling off entities
and feel like they are making gains but you don't see a lot of change
happening in the person's life and conditions. So what you've got is
someone who has expanded their space and responsibility and new
overts come into view. If these aren't taken up then the person is
going to have problems with entities in the valences of those against
whom the overts were committed. It may be that they are looking in
the wrong areas for overts - OTs on NOTs will be hitting into whole
track responsibility so asking them about this lifetime stuff really
isn't going to hit it. There's also a factor of validating entities
too much as I talked about back in the days of the PDC. One needs to
shift the PC around to cause from time to time - properly run sec
checks will do that.
Misownership coming up too much is mostly out TRs. The auditor should
be looking at the PC when he asks the questions - that way he
impinges on the Pre-OT not the entity banks.

"Raymond J. Krenik, Jr." <rkrenik@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Ron,
>      I think you should re-read a few of your own 1965 policies. In
>
>particular one that mentions us exiting from the top and becoming
>the  islands which will become the sea. Orgs. indeed, infiltrated
>and squirreling  big time from the top down. Wing Angell used to
>know them all by heart from  what Refugio told me.
>     We have better Tech. outside the Orgs.
>     "Snake" would probably tell you to show this bulletin (20 April
> 2000,
>EXCALIBUR), to "Sweeney"! What happened to "All life is created
>reactively!"?
>Ray Krenik

Hi Ray,

Well quite a few things can happen to Scientologists between lives,
as you would know.

Some have carried on researching and have found parts of the upper
bridge. Their number is small and those applying the materials are
few. What they are lacking is organizations to support their efforts
and to build up the environment around them. Training is missing.

Back in the 60s I had a vision of a shorter bridge. It wasn't until
the late 70s that the enormity of the task really hit me. I tried to
build up a strong group of auditors to deliver Super Power and found
that I had to create a whole new section of the bridge just to get
their TRs in.

The islands that one could became are 7th dynamic and the sea the
8th. There is no short jump. Each of the dynamics and their
interactions must be examined. One has to look from the lower
dynamics up and from the upper dynamics down. Most of the charge can
only be encompassed by a God but the located viewpoint also retains
charge unless one looks up at the God who is oneself from one's
mortality.

So its somewhat of a bootstrapping job blowing off charge from the
top and switching back to view things from the ground up. Trying to
jump up to that 8 dynamic state without handling the lower dynamic
charge had send one up a pole. The fall is often pretty unpleasant.

edrhett <edrhett@swbell.net> wrote:

>Ron,
>
>If that is really you, then welcome back. I will be watching the
>Church of Scientology to see if it really does change. Once burned,
>twice shy.
>
>I know that the upper bridge is very important, but many people,
>myself included, got bushwhacked by "Ethics" before we really got
>started on the bridge. For us there is no upper bridge until the
>lower bridge is corrected. I will be watching to see if people are
>allowed to train and co-audit without interference from "Ethics".
>This is probably the only thing I will be looking for, because I see
>it as the only way to go up the bridge without going into a
>condition of treason against the human race. Maybe I am
>overreacting, but that was, and is, my postulate.
>
>Good luck, Ron. You have your work cut out for you.

Thanks. What I left behind, rather rapidly thrown together, was a
structure that would keep things going for a few years without a Goal
Finder. A bit like leaving a mind running on automatic without its
thetan. It was bound to run into problems of too much authority and
enforcement. I think you'll see the real changes when Super Power is
available to staffs. As they clean up their own injustices on all
flows so they'll loosen up on others.

"AMI" <amio2@gte.net> wrote:

>I hope you are going to post the upper OT levels too!

The first to have a stable group through the Briefing Course will
have the pilot project for the upper levels. They only exist in rough
form at the moment and need smoothing out in application. I really
can't see that happening outside the Church at the moment. I gave a
lecture late in '59 about individuation. That's what has happened
outside the Church. The top people don't have auditors with the
presence to clean up their O/Ws.

Heidrun Beer <concern@atnet.at> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 01:22:25 -0400 (EDT), The Apprentice wrote in
><38fe1a0f.15814715@nntp.lightlink.com>:
>
>>Hey, guys, does anybody know WTF is it??? LRH reincarnated (laugh)?
>>

There is really no such thing as reincarnation. The truth is that you
were never anything but exterior. It would be indeed be a very sad
joke were I to reincarnate. OT9 is about finding your own real
magnitude as a being. It is the refound God who must audit the upper
levels as an Operating Thetan above the dynamics.

>>Some newborn Koos channelling his thoughts? A troll from critics? A
>>spam from the Church (unbelievable)? Just someone's joke?
>
>Good question! Maybe somebody who read my group-consciousness
>material? I have a nearly identical statement in the chapter
>on failed connection attempts, http://www.sgmt.at/gce/gce4.htm
>(click "Failed Connection Attempts").

You have quite a few of the concepts there. One is single celled and
multi celled and much more. I started to explain it in Excalibur with
the concept of a self fighting symbiosis but the full concepts aren't
really realizable until one has most of the charge off the upper
dynamic GPM structures.

>The next question would be: are these informations stored somewhere
>in a database to which we can connect? If not, how come that they
>appear in different minds at the same time? The same phenomenon
>has been observed in scientific discoveries.

Yes, they are stored. In the same way that there are reactive minds
on all dynamic so exist analytical minds.
Bill Robertson sort of touched into their nature with his material on
Prime MOCOs but fell quite a bit short as they encompass all
dynamics. A few, in keyed-out states, hit what they called the
"Akashic Records" which are, in essence, our memories as the higher
dynamics.

Love,

Ron