*************
The following message is relayed to you by trom@lists.newciv.org
************
Sent Saturday 9th of January 2016 by
ant.phill...@post8.tele.dk (Antony Phillips)
Note that this is a
resend of a message sent some years ago, and some data (like
addresses) is
liable to be inaccurate.
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Subject: TROM: Replay B25
Date: Fri,
05 Jun 1998 07:18:46 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <i...@post8.tele.dk>
Organization: International Viewpoints
To: tro...@newciv.org
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 251 of
289
Pvt K/s
From : Dustin W. Carr
<dc...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> Fri 15 Dec
95
18:57
To : trom-l
<tro...@newciv.org>
Sat 16 Dec 95
05:24
Subj : trom 5 tape
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
dknet.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA07627 for
<a...@jacome.ping.dk>; Fri,
15 Dec 1995 20:22:56 +0100
Okay, here is a repost of the level 5 TROM tape manuscript. Hopefully
pine will cooperate with me as I try to attach it.
It worked!
Dustin
>>
This is a partial transcript of a tape Dennis Stephens
recorded
as demonstration, how Level 5 ist done. There ist more, but I
haven't
typed it in yet. This here is the most important part. In the rest
of
the tape he again admonishes everybody to stick to his instructions,
especially to do RI generously. He also warns to not leave anything
before it's not producing change anymore, specifically he says that
you
can't overrun any of the levels of the postulate failure cycle
chart.
You simply get bored if you overrun them.
Another point he makes is that it's no loss of face to
drop
back a Level, you could always drop back to Level 4, run it till no
more change and then go back to Level 5. This is something I can
back
up from my own experience as something that can bring enormous
gains.
I got the tape from Judith Methven. She wrote to Dennis to
get
a demonstration of how to run Level 5. I owe her a big, big Thankyou
for the tape. I don't know if Dennis wanted this to be made public
or
not, and to be honest I don't care much about that. But I think it's
of
general interest. Perhaps it should even be included into TROM
itself.
Best wishes,
Marc
--------
[The best way to follow this is when you have the postulate
failure
cycle chart in front of you.]
I will go through the chart, as if I'm the subject and I'm
running
Level 5. And Im starting at Level 1A. I'm starting at Level 1A and
my
goal-package I'm using is the basic to know-goal package. I'm
starting
now at Level 1A. Before I start as given in the manual I'd timebreak
all the day's activities and also I would make sure that Levels 1, 2,
3
and 4 have been run to no more change. I wouldn't attempt Level 5
until
those first 4 levels have been run to no more change and also I've
timebreaken the day's activities.
OK, here we go. Level 1A. The first thing we need is a
little
bit of space around us. Now, it doesn't matter which space you use,
you
can use the space of the present time universe around you or you can
use the space of any past moment in time. It doesn't matter. You're
not
limited in any form whatsoever. You just need some space in which to
work. So it doesn't have to be present time physical universe space
it
can be past physical universe time space. You just need some space
there to work.
So, we are at Level 1A and the first thing you would do is
put
up the postulate, the Other's postulate "must be known". The
postulate
is "must be known" and that is in the class of not-self. Now,
it
doesn't matter where you put the postulate. Most people would prefer
to
put the postulate into a mass. But there is no reason why you should
put it into a mass, you can put it into empty space if you want. But
most people find it easier to put the postulate into a mass. Even a
created mass of your own choice or into a wall, a part of the
physical
universe, a fence, a passing car. It doesn't matter where you put
it.
The important thing is that it's a "must be
known" postulate and it's
in the class of not-self. That is important. You must be certain
that
it's in the other's, the class of other's to which I will refer for
more precision as the class of not-self. So you put up that
postulate
"must be known" in the class of not-self. You yourself then
create the
postulate "must know". That postulate is in the class of self,
that's
you, right were you are. You hold the postulate "must know". So
you've
got "must be known" over that way as origin. Receipt where you
are, you
with the postulate "must know". And if you go over the column I
on the
chart you see that the level here is "forced to know". And it's
you
being forced to know. Get that? Doesn't matter what it is, you don't
have to specify as we are just working with the postulates. So you
would put up "must be known" over that way in the class of
not-self,
and then get yourself there.
Don't see yourself over that way doing this. You get
yourself
right where you are, right were you are with the "must know"
postulate.
There's a little danger there that you could say, Oh well, get me
over
that way. Oh no, that's wrong. You get right where you are - with
the
"must know" postulate, you understand that? Because you are
right were
you are creating a "must know" postulate. Then you simply
timebreak out
anything that shows up, any sensations that show up, your whole
situations of cameo, as a scenario, as a scene, and you timebreak
out
anything that happens. Anything that shows up, you timebreak it.
Timebreak it out until it's gone away and then you put the
postulates
back up again.
You put the postulates back up and more scenes show up from
the
past, you timebreak those back out, have a good look at them;
timebreak
them out of existence and put the postulates back up again. And you
keep on doing this until you can put the postulates up at level 1A
with
no more change occuring and you can quite happily put up the
postulate
"must be known" in the class of not self over that way while
you're
sitting there with "must know". And you got the idea that
you're being
forced to know. That's quite OK. Nothing is happening and it's all
quitened down. Right, now you're ready to move on. You started to
get
bored with that level. You've done all you can with that level, it's
now time to move on. So we now move from Level 1A to level 1B.
Now that is signified by you changing your posulate from
"must
know" to "mustn't know". You're sill at receipt point, but
you're
changing your posulate from "must know" to "mustn't
know". The
postulate "must be known" is still out there in the class of
not-self.
But now it's a game. We now have a games condition. We now have the
opposition. We now have an opposition situation. We have "must
be
known" in the class of not-self and "mustn't know" in the
class of self
and they are opposing postulates and that is a games situation. So,
you
just now hold that. Just hold that situation and timebreak out
everything that shows up. Everything that shows up there.
And you continue with it until there's no more change.
You've
timebroken out everything you quite happily have that situation
there
where you have "must be known" over there in the class of
not-self and
"mustn't know" in the class of self and you can hold that
situation.
And there's nothing else, it's all quitened down. There's nothing
else
happening. And you're getting bored with it, so it's time to move
on.
So you now move on from 1B to 2A.
Now this involves a definite change, you're going from
origin
now to receipt. That's a bigger change that happens there between 1B
and 2A. When we go from 1B to 2A you start of by still feeling
yourself
at receipt point. You start of by saying, Well, I'm in "mustn't
know",
I'm in "mustn't know" but now I'm starting to originate. You
start to
originate in "mustn't know" and drive your postulate
"mustn't know"
across to the other person, to the "must be known" there. In
other
words, instead of him being the originator and you being at the
receipt, at level 2A you're the originator of "mustn't know"
and you
drive him into the receipt of "must be known". In other words,
you're
beginning to get at him. So, you're beginning to get at the
opponent.
So it's you with "mustn't know" and him still holding his
postulate of
"must be known", but instead of him being at the origin point
he's now
at the receipt point.
But it's still a game. Then again you would do all the
necessary
timebreaking, the handling of all that shows up, clean everything up
until you're quite bored with that Level, the whole level 2A. Then
you
would go to level 2B where now you are going to actually overwhelm
the
opponent. You still stay in your "mustn't know" postulate,
you're
originating your "mustn't know" postulate at level 2b and now
you drive
him, you actually force him, you drive him by the sheer power of the
postulate, you drive him from "must be known" into
"mustn't be known".
In other words, you make him comply with your postulate. So he's
driven
from "must be known" he helt at level 2A, he now goes to
"mustn't be
known" at level 2b. And Level 2B is you yourself with "mustn't
know" at
the origin and the opponent with "mustn't be known" at receipt
point
there.
So now we've gone through a whole little cycle, haven't
we.
We've gone through a whole little cycle. We had the complementary
postulates at level 1a with "must be known" and "must
know". We've gone
through two game cycles and now we've come back to complementary
postulates again. But notice that the postulates have changed. We
are
now at 2B. I pause here because of my bad eyesight. I'm struggling
to
read this off the chart with my bad eyesight. At 2B we have
"mustn't
know" - "mustn't be know" and we are back with
complementary postulates
again. But now you are at the origin point and the "mustn't be
known"
is at the receipt point.
But again we've achieved complementary postulates. And the
level here
now, it's not a game level, this is the overt of preventing from
being
known - "mustn't know". Now I really don't have to go any
further,
because that is a complete little cycle I ran doing 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B.
This is a complete little cycle, these four. In fact it's a quarter
of
the whole set. And if you can follow that quarter, than the other
quarters, the rest of the postulate failure cycle chart, this three
more quarters, they all follow the same pattern as that first
quarter.
So if you follow what I've just given you, you got it.
Basically the difficulty is a lack of understanding that
you're
dealing purely with postulates. You're not dealing with effects here
on
the chart, you're dealing with postulates. That's all your putting
up,
it's postulates. You're not putting up effects, you're not putting
up
sensations, or you're not creating people, you're not mocking up
people, you're not mocking up walls, or floors, or situations.
You're
simply mocking up postulates. What we're working with are just
postulates. That's the whole level of level 5, it's postulates.
That's
all we are working with at level 5, it's postulates. We don't work
with
anything else, we timebreak out anything else that shows up. We only
work with postulates at level 5.
It's an incredible thing to work with. At first ist seems
very
strange and so forth, very odd and peculiar to be just working with
postulates. But after one get's used to it, when you get into Level
5
you get to a point eventually where you wouldn't dream of working
with
anything else but postulates because you get the fastest results
working with postulates and you always work with just postulates.
You
simply timebreak out everything else that shows up. Any incidents
that
show up, or sensations, or emotions or whatever will show up. You
simply timebreak them out. So at level 5 you're working purely with
postulates. Once you grasp that, you got it. You got it. You can
work
then on level 5 and realize what you're doing.
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950801
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 252 of
289
Pvt K/s
From : Bill Maier
<ci...@ix.netcom.com>
Sat 16 Dec 95
02:57
To : Dustin W. Carr
<dc...@newton.ruph.cornell.edu> Sat 16 Dec
95
07:32
Subj : Re: Trom effects
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
11617 for <a...@jacome.ping.dk>; Sat, 16 Dec 1995 03:08:41
+0100
You wrote:
>>
>Is anyone able to quantify any abilities gained through
TROM.
>> Has a
>> >'god' state really been achieved and what does this
imply.
>>
>> Yes, I would like to hear this from those that are in Level 5 of
TROM.
>> Some time ago I came up with "Maier's Criteria", which
are the basic
OT
>> abilities I am looking for from any clearing technology:
>>
>> 1) ability to exteriorize at will with full perceptics
>> 2) ability to move, create, and/or destroy matter in the
physical
>> universe without use of a body
>
>At one point in time I actually was seeking after these sort of
things
as
>well. After almost a year of level 5, I am actually very happy
with
>being human. I am here in this body, being this body for a very
good
>purpose and for a definite period of time. I am more than
content to
>live out the passion and the drama that is this life.
>
>TROM can be most effective when it is done for its own sake, without
lust of
>result. Equilibrium is the law of our world. You don't
create 1)
>without creating -1) (referring to the above). You can be
Buddha and
>choose not to create or desire anything, or you can be the Son of Man
and
>live out your life on earth according to your divine will.
These are,
of
>course, not your only choices.
>
>I don't see any special advantages being gained from 1) and 2)
above.
In
>1), why do you say full perceptics? Do you mean you want to go
through
>all of this trouble just to gain the ability to see the world as you
>already see it, only from different viewpoints? You are selling
yourself
>short. Creating a plane of existence where you can
"see" things and
>understand their relation to you in a much deeper way than your eyes
allow
>would be much more desirable, no?
>
>I suppose being able to create and destroy physical objects is
>desirable, but if you look around, you will see all of the beautiful
>objects you have created. You say that you still can't create
and
>destroy at will? I would suggest that you do not confuse your
"will"
>with chemical fluctuations in your brain. Arbitrary thoughts
and
desires
>are not what drive your existence.
>
>You can create and destroy at will all right. Indeed you
can.
>
There is a very definite point to the abilities I've listed above. I
want freedom from the need for a body. This does not mean that I might
not decide to keep a body around, and to continue to operate from it.
But I do want to choose either according to my whim. My goal is
freedom. The two abilities I've listed I consider to be rather
elementary in that quest. I have many more goals above those. I
consider freedom to be the achievement of my goals, not selling out for
something short of them.
Bill
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950801
--
Ant
Antony A Phillips
i...@post8.tele.dk
tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
Box 78
DK - 2800 Lyngby
Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page:
http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, IVy lists
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
TROM@lists.newciv.org
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom