*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Sent 23rd of October 2015 by [email protected]
Dear Trommers - I forgot last Saturday and nobody out of our 70+ on
the
list remided me :-)
Subject:
Replay B13
Date:
Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:53:14 +0100
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
Organization:
International Viewpoints
To:
[email protected]
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 117 of
289
Snt Pvt Loc Scn
From : Antony
Phillips
2:235/159.10 Fri 23 Jun 95
08:05
To :
[email protected]
Fri 23 Jun 95
08:05
Subj : [Ross Bright] Ps forward to Ray, etc (say if you are on the
list!)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
=============================================================================
* Forwarded by Antony Phillips (2:235/159.10)
* Area : NETMAIL
* From : Lenny or Jevan Gray , 236/174.10 (Thursday June 22 1995
10:52)
* To : Antony Phillips
* Subj : Re: Re Translations - letter from Terry Scott
=============================================================================
Apparently-to: [email protected]
From: Lenny or Jevan Gray <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re Translations - letter from Terry Scott
On Thu, 22 Jun 1995, Joachim H. Steingrubner PhD wrote:
>
> (Ant, pls forward to whomever if you want)
>
> 1. "The map is not the territory" (Korzybski)
>
> Even if the map is carefully drawn and laid out as
it might
> be the case with TROM, it is still a map.
And, in fact, other maps of that same territory, no matter how
perfectly
described by Stephens' map, are not prohibited. It is just
_copy_-right
that is forbidden (though that _does_ include translation). A
rewrite,
after learning the "territory" can not be stopped.
> 2. If a contemporary text cannot be translated into other
languages,
> that means the author did a lousy job of
communicating his
> issues.
I think he just didn't _trust_ anyone but himself to represent what he
had
enscribed. Just what one would expect from a spiritual descendant of
LRH.
> 3. Dennis claims that he created TROM for the purposes of
attaining
> the goal of 'clearing the planet'. He
refutes the approach of
> a 'Church' with the same claim.
>
> If TROM is not getting distributed, Dennis' wish
would certainly
> have no chance of success.
>
> Let's say, TROM has the potential to 'clear the
planet'.
> If so, it would be highly SUPPRESSIVE to obstruct
its distribution.
>
> The latest I heard, Terry sold around a 100 copies
of TROM.
>
> How's that for a mass marketing ?
>
> Again, holding back something one believes to be
good for mankind
> is the worst possible thing a person can
do.
>From the specific situation, we must _assume_ that a new version must
be
"written" and _not_ just "translated". That approach
_does_ reserve the
specific "purity" he wanted reserving, without violating any
integrity.
The result of "clearing the planet" can _not_ be obtained any
other way
via what has been set up -- unless one considers waiting until the
copy-
right expires.
> 4. Ant said, 'a large percentage of the worlds population' does
> not speak English. I would say 'only a small
percentage of the worlds
> population' does speak English, and 'only a VERY
small percentage of the
> worlds population' speaks English so well that
'key concepts [that]
> are sometimes very fine and exact ... expressed ..
.very carefully in
> English.' can be understood.
>
> 5. As regarding Ann Stephens, as far as I know, contacts were
attempted
> but she never responded so far.
>
> 6. Per Terry 'translation [..] would be unethical and illegal'.
His
> statement, from a legal standpoint, is
nonsense.
It's _not_ nonsense. Just as-is it and move on.
> 7. Dennis himself was VERY WELL AWARE of Internet activities,
and
> he exchanged mail with (at least) me, Homer, and
Flemming about
> the subject. He did get summaries from the
first days of TROM-L
> and posts from a.c.t on the subject.
A summary is not a copyright violation.
> 8. Dennis' own responses to questions of Marc and me (both
Germans)
> showed a complete lack of understanding for
languages other than
> English. Even to the danger of being rude
and disrespectful, he
> seemed to not understand basic things about
'language' in general,
> hence, perhaps, his position on translations.
>
> 9. I'm all for leaving the English TROM untouched. If at all,
a
> version should be written from scratch that
refrains from using
> scientologese and that has more digestable
explanations.
>
> 10. Dennis states, in TROM, that it would be 'quite free' in
especially
> because of its antithetical character to the
'Church' of which
> he was a member for many, many years.
> The _expression_ 'quite free' is, of course,
semantical nonsence.
>
> 11. In his last letter to me, just about 10 days before his
'departure'
> he expressed his concerns about
translations. He sent a similar
> letter to other people as well. If I
read it right, his main
> concern was the wordings in 'Level 5' and
the theoretical addendum.
>
>
> conclusion
> ----------
>
> In essence, I'm all for it to create a consensus with Ann
Stephens
> (if she responds in a timely manner).
>
> So, for all translators and would-be-translators, let's have a
moratorium
> (at least on the distribution of translated materials itself).
>
> As a compromise, I could envision that TROM Level 5 and Theory
Addendum
> remain untranslated, and the rest be translated whereby the
original
> English version would have to be included in the entire
package.
>
> As far as the 'distributor' game is going, it would be good to
ask
> Ann Stephens if the 'profit' of a 100 or 200 copies justifies
holding
> to it, or if it should be made available on the Internet.
>
> The authenticity of TROM could be asserted by attaching a PGP
signature
> to it, as, I believe Homer, suggested some months ago.
>
> Putting stops on the distribution of TROM reveals intentions/goals
contrary
> to Dennis' own goals of 'self-help' processing for 'everybody'.
>
> Or, in other words, suppressiveness.
>
> 'nuff zed !
>
> Joachim
_I_ think that full literal avoidance of copyright violation should
be
attempted, and the whole thing be rewritten in that light. The
original
can then remain cast in stone as Dennis specified.
- Lenny -
-+- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
=============================================================================
Greetings,
/ÄÄÄ\
| Ant
|
Antony A Phillips
\ÄÄÄ/
Internet address:
[email protected]
tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
Box 78
DK - 2800 Lyngby
--- GoldED 2.42.G0214+ -
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 120 of
289
Snt Pvt Loc Scn
From : Antony
Phillips
2:235/159.10 Fri 23 Jun 95
08:15
To :
[email protected]
Fri 23 Jun 95
08:15
Subj : [Ross Bright] (same treatment - my letter produced a
flood!!)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
=============================================================================
* Forwarded by Antony Phillips (2:235/159.10)
* Area : NETMAIL
* From : Flemming Funch, 236/174.10 (Thursday June 22 1995 14:18)
* To : Antony Phillips
* Subj : Re: Re Translations - letter from Terry Scott
=============================================================================
Apparently-to: [email protected]
Jun 1995 19:14:41 -0700
From: [email protected] (Flemming Funch)
Subject: Re: Re Translations - letter from Terry Scott
TROM is technically speaking copyrighted by Stephen's widow, as it is
a
transcript of his words.
However, nobody would or could uphold that copyright.
So, it is a matter of the greatest good for the greatest number.
Dennis
apparently changed his mind about it being "quite free" and
decided it
would be better for it to be restricted. That's his decision. Doesn't
have
to affect anybody else's decisions on what to do. He wanted to restrict
it.
Other people want to get it out.
I personally have little regard for copyrights when they are used to
stop.
But, to be somewhat accommodating to Stephen's intentions, let's
approach
Ann Walker and bring up the idea of translation and the idea of
electronic
distribution, possibly as shareware.
My only comm with her was that I sent her money for royalties and she
wrote
surprised back quite a while later and said thank you.
Otherwise, I think the best approach is to rewrite the materials,
presenting them in a new unit of time, including the stuff that is
missing
or confusing. Stephen's materials wouldn't translate very well
anyway.
I have written about 30 pages of a different version. However, if and
when
I write more depends on how inspired I am. It has been a while since
I
worked on it.
I sell only a trickle of TROM books now, and I doubt that Terry sells
more.
Royalties for future sales would be negligible as it is. In the
current
version it couldn't possibly be marketed to anybody but people with
a
Scientology background.
- Flemming
o
o
/ \------------------ Flemming A. Funch ------------------/
\
/ * \ World Transformation/New Civilization/Whole Systems / *
\
/ * *
\
[email protected]
/ * * \
o-------o
---------
http://newciv.org/worldtrans/----------o-------o
-+- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
=============================================================================
Greetings,
/ÄÄÄ\
| Ant
|
Antony A Phillips
\ÄÄÄ/
Internet address:
[email protected]
tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
Box 78
DK - 2800 Lyngby
--- GoldED 2.42.G0214+ -
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 121 of
289
Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Dimitri
Ivakhnenko
236/174.10 Fri 23 Jun 95
07:24
To :
[email protected]
Sat 24 Jun 95
05:22
Subj : Re: Re Translations - letter from Terry Scott
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: [email protected]
From: Dimitri Ivakhnenko <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re Translations - letter from Terry Scott
Hi folks,
- Please, please, please, write a new good book. As to my
translation
(four levels, table of contents and glossary), I gave it to my
few
friends, but since it is written like a Bible, there is no
much
interest to it, even though in my translation there is no
Scientologese. Letter from Terry Scott reminds me of phone calls
from
Moscow CofS in which I was told that I have no rights to
translate
Hubbard books.
- Tron, will trom-l archives be available by ftp?
- My friend began to do Level 4. She is pretty fluent with time
tracks.
If any questions will arise we will clarify them with
you.
- As to me, in the best Russian traditions of rough solutions I am
running TROM-like process from Rowland Barkley's L13 Rundown,
Track
Blaster, with my friend as an auditor. Still sane. Any
advices?
I wonder did Rowland Barkley know about TROM when writing L13,
after all
they were both in Australia. Maybe he can tell something more
about
TROM and such processes.
Greetings,
--
Dimi
Dimitri Ivakhnenko
Learning to Enjoy
Life
PO Box 298-9 Kiev 252034 Ukraine
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
Ä TROM (2:235/159.10)
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
TROM-L Ä
Msg : 126 of
289
Rcv Pvt K/s Scn
From : Dimitri
Ivakhnenko
236/174.10 Sat 24 Jun 95
08:05
To :
[email protected]
Sat 24 Jun 95
21:09
Subj : Track Blaster process
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
ÄÄÄÄ
Apparently-to: [email protected]
From: Dimitri Ivakhnenko <[email protected]>
Subject: Track Blaster process
Here is Track Blaster from L13 as I have got it from Joachim
Steingrubner.
As far as I know, Rowland Barkley has an e-mail address, but now is
in
Los-Angeles auditing L13.
If I unwittingly disclose any secrets, please let me know.
***********************************************************************
L13
RUNDOWN -- STATIC EXPANSION
Rowland Barkley
Research Coordinator
Copyright 1986
Static Expansion Unit
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
STATIC EXPANSION UNIT
P.O. Box 328
Coogee NSW 2074
AUSTRALIA
L13 SERIES 6
THE TRACK BLASTER PROCESS
After the setup steps the most usual process in a PC's L13 program
is
the Track Blaster Process. The purpose of this process is to as-is
the mechanism of chains or anything reactively being to the PC
"earlier similar" to anything else.
There are two main reasons why this process is vital. Firstly, very
few PCs have actually run dianetics. Those that think they have
usually just scanned some pictures and blew them, somewhat in the
manner of a mental tourist. Pictures are not what needs to be run,
only how you get to find what needs to be run. This is explained in
the SEUB Multiple Viewpoint Dianetics bulletin.
That gives you a problem as very few people on NOTs are dianetic
Clear, unless of course, you mean at the level of Static, where
every
PC is Natural Clear. None of this means he has run a damn thing at
the level he needs auditing at. However, the PC ready for L13 (flat
or overrun on NOTs) is in a type of non-interference zone, as charge
has normally been totally bypassed on his own causation of NOTs.
This process will clearhim with no such difficulty, as it blows the
whole mechanism, and ownership is totally irrelevant.
The second reason why the Track Blaster is vital is that the main
body of the rundown lists "W/W would create" chains, and as the
past
never aberrated anybody you won't find causes if the PC lists into
the past. By first erasing the mechanism by which the PC reactively
goes into the past and then taking up Create Chains, they go up to
higher planes of consciousness.
This is actually a One-Shot-Clear process which will turn somebody
off the street into a real dianetic Clear, but is far, far too rough
on both auditor and PC to be practical for that. In the likely
event
that your NOTs PC is not personally dianetic Clear, each cycle of
commands will stack up more mass in the auditing space and the
experience can become quite revolting or dramatically stressful on
both auditor and pc.
When that happens, just continue the process, running it rote. It
is
vital not to Q&A or listen to ITSA about incidents, as that will
simply increase the duration of the stressful experience. When you
have a Mest or mechanical time track, you run it out mechanically.
Spiritual phenonema are handled spiritually.
In such a situation the end phenomena for this process run at the
first level is that all the charge, incidents and masses just
suddenly aren't. Rarely is there any blow phenomena, as when the
mechanism ceases to exist, everything caused by the mechanism ceases
to exist. A blow of masses is fine, but the process would then to
be
need run at another level or more to handle the mechanism.
Sometimes you will find that the PC is intentionally choosing areas
to clear and picks related terminals so that the incidents blow one
at a time instead of going straight for the mechanism. When that
happens with good TA action just let him do it, so long as he
understands that he isn't necessarily required to do that.
The one phenonema that you do have to handle is if this process bogs
(which does not mean simply that the PC feels bad or the auditor has
great trouble avoiding vomiting). The only known cause of such a
bog
is a being variously caused a Targ, a Clone, or a Double. As the PC
has no idea of the difference between him and it, nothing as-ises.
If this is the case, 2WC what's going on, and if you see a W/N
(Wonder Needlesmooth like an F/N, exactly double speed, often
interspersed with very rapid slashes left), that's what (or who)
you're dealing with. The handling of this phenonema is to be found
in L13 Series H.
TRACK BLASTER COMMANDS
1. GET ANY INCIDENT.
2. NAME ANY TERMINAL IN THAT INCIDENT.
3. NAME ANY TERMINAL THAT EXISTS IN THE NOW.
4.GIVE ME A SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TERMINAL THEN AND THE TERMINAL
NOW.
5.GIVE ME A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TERMINAL THEN AND THE TERMINAL
NOW.
7.GET ANY INCIDENT: 1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5 REPETITIVE, till the
mechanism ceases to exist.
8.IS THERE A HIGHER LEVEL OR DYNAMIC ON WHICH WE CAN RUN THIS
PROCESS?
If so, run it steps 1-8.
9.2WC "HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR TRACK?
If there is any track, find the area and repeat steps 1-8 on
it.
NOTES ON THE TRACK BLASTER COMMANDS
The main auditor skill in running this process is to get it done in
its simplicity. The PC will often alter-is step 1 to mean "get
a
significant and charged incident of mine" and step 3 to mean
"find a
logically connected terminal in the now".
Done this way it will still work, but take much longer. Command 1
does not specify whose incident, and command 3 is a new command in a
new unit of time. If the terminal in command 3 is related, that's
the PC's business, but he must understand that the command in a new
unit of time is "Name any terminal that exists in the now.
Step 1 "Get any incident" can be prefixed with a level or area,
e.g.,
"Get any `birth of gods' incident" if that were the answer to
step 8.
Step 2 can be expressed as "Name any terminal or object in that
incident". It does not matter at all whether it's a person or
object, but preferably whichever the PC thought of first. Another
term to use instead of terminal is "anchor point."
On steps 4 and 5 it is up to the auditor's discretion whether to
state the commands exactly or whether to state the terminals named
by
the PC. In either case the words "now" and "then"
must be used. If
the PC gives the same terminal in answer to "then" and
"now", it is
vital to name the terminal. E.g., "Give me a similarity between
your
mother then and your mother now"or "Give me a difference
between the
`town hall' during that incident and the `town hall' now."
Step 8 could take a small amount of 2WC to achieve. Instead of
"higher level" you might get an area with "some other
area" or "did
you have some form of existence before this universe" and "was
that
cleared in auditing?"
On step 9 if you get an answer like "What track?" with VVGIs,
end off
the process.
This process, if run deeply, will blow the whole phenonema of things
reactively connected to things from levels ranging from genetic
charge to the creation of gods. However, if you get a few nice EPss
and the PC says it's all done (and no W/N) at the time, you can
still
end off. If, later on in L13, you start getting chains that go into
the past or too many incidents, the PC will then be happy to run the
Track Blaster more deeply.
The situation where this process might take only a half-hour or so
to
run with dramatic results is the PC with a well run lower grade
chart
and the current human identity cleared. Then this process can
expand
the same wins to other planes and areas with ease.
The most usual place in the L13 PC's program for the Track Blaster
is
just after the Truth Revealed interview. That interview will
largely
separate the PC from conditioning received in scientology and
establish the PC's own current spiritual reality. As the Track
Blaster will, in most cases, dramatically change conditions not
handled in scientology, it is a far better PC education to look at
what happened and establish what spiritual goals are real with the
Truth Revealed first.
************************************************************************
--
Dimi
Dimitri Ivakhnenko
Learning to Enjoy
Life
PO Box 298-9 Kiev 252034 Ukraine
--- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
***************'a couple of comments came in:
ubject:
Re: Replay B13
Date:
Fri, 20 Mar 1998 22:47:52
+0100
From:
Rowland Barkley
<[email protected]>
To:
<[email protected]>
>_I_ think that full literal avoidance of copyright violation should
be
>attempted, and the whole thing be rewritten in that light. The
original
>can then remain cast in stone as Dennis specified.
>
>- Lenny -
>
>-+- GIGO+ sn 299 at jacome vsn 0.99.950303
>=========================================================================>T
ROM is technically speaking copyrighted by Stephen's widow, as it is
a
>transcript of his words.
>
Greg Pickering wrote the TROM book from notes of Dennis'. Greg would
own
the copyright if he wanted it.
>But, to be somewhat accommodating to Stephen's intentions, let's
approach
>Ann Walker and bring up the idea of translation and the idea of
electronic
>distribution, possibly as shareware.
She is not interested. She is a wonderful clearing practitioner,
and
Dennis claims to have made practitioners such as her obsolete. So of
course
she is not interested.
>- As to me, in the best Russian traditions of rough solutions I
am
> running TROM-like process from Rowland Barkley's L13 Rundown,
Track
> Blaster, with my friend as an auditor. Still sane. Any
advices?
> I wonder did Rowland Barkley know about TROM when writing L13,
after all
> they were both in Australia. Maybe he can tell something more
about
> TROM and such processes.
I described the Track Blaster to Dennis in 1982, and printed it in
1984,
years before Greg Pickering compiled TROM. It is really useful that he
put
out a more primitive form of it out, safer for solo work than the
Track
Blaster. Most of my processes are unsafe solo.
>
>
L13 RUNDOWN -- STATIC EXPANSION
>
>
>Rowland Barkley
>Research Coordinator
>Copyright 1986
>Static Expansion Unit
>ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
> STATIC EXPANSION UNIT
>P.O. Box 328
>Coogee NSW 2074
>AUSTRALIA
>
>
>L13 SERIES 6
>
>
>THE TRACK BLASTER PROCESS
>
>After the setup steps the most usual process in a PC's L13 program
is
>the Track Blaster Process. The purpose of this process is to
as-is
>the mechanism of chains or anything reactively being to the PC
>"earlier similar" to anything else.
>
>There are two main reasons why this process is vital. Firstly,
very
>few PCs have actually run dianetics. Those that think they
have
>usually just scanned some pictures and blew them, somewhat in
the
>manner of a mental tourist. Pictures are not what needs to be
run,
>only how you get to find what needs to be run. This is
explained in
>the SEUB Multiple Viewpoint Dianetics bulletin.
>
>That gives you a problem as very few people on NOTs are dianetic
>Clear, unless of course, you mean at the level of Static, where
every
>PC is Natural Clear. None of this means he has run a damn thing
at
>the level he needs auditing at. However, the PC ready for L13
(flat
>or overrun on NOTs) is in a type of non-interference zone, as
charge
>has normally been totally bypassed on his own causation of NOTs.
>This process will clearhim with no such difficulty, as it blows
the
>whole mechanism, and ownership is totally irrelevant.
>
>The second reason why the Track Blaster is vital is that the
main
>body of the rundown lists "W/W would create" chains, and as
the past
>never aberrated anybody you won't find causes if the PC lists
into
>the past. By first erasing the mechanism by which the PC
reactively
>goes into the past and then taking up Create Chains, they go up
to
>higher planes of consciousness.
>
>This is actually a One-Shot-Clear process which will turn
somebody
>off the street into a real dianetic Clear, but is far, far too
rough
>on both auditor and PC to be practical for that. In the likely
event
>that your NOTs PC is not personally dianetic Clear, each cycle
of
>commands will stack up more mass in the auditing space and the
>experience can become quite revolting or dramatically stressful
on
>both auditor and pc.
>
>When that happens, just continue the process, running it rote.
It is
>vital not to Q&A or listen to ITSA about incidents, as that
will
>simply increase the duration of the stressful experience. When
you
>have a Mest or mechanical time track, you run it out
mechanically.
>Spiritual phenonema are handled spiritually.
>
>In such a situation the end phenomena for this process run at
the
>first level is that all the charge, incidents and masses just
>suddenly aren't. Rarely is there any blow phenomena, as when
the
>mechanism ceases to exist, everything caused by the mechanism
ceases
>to exist. A blow of masses is fine, but the process would then
to be
>need run at another level or more to handle the mechanism.
>
>Sometimes you will find that the PC is intentionally choosing
areas
>to clear and picks related terminals so that the incidents blow
one
>at a time instead of going straight for the mechanism. When
that
>happens with good TA action just let him do it, so long as he
>understands that he isn't necessarily required to do that.
>
>The one phenonema that you do have to handle is if this process
bogs
>(which does not mean simply that the PC feels bad or the auditor
has
>great trouble avoiding vomiting). The only known cause of such
a bog
>is a being variously caused a Targ, a Clone, or a Double. As
the PC
>has no idea of the difference between him and it, nothing
as-ises.
>If this is the case, 2WC what's going on, and if you see a W/N
>(Wonder Needlesmooth like an F/N, exactly double speed, often
>interspersed with very rapid slashes left), that's what (or who)
>you're dealing with. The handling of this phenonema is to be
found
>in L13 Series H.
>
>TRACK BLASTER COMMANDS
>
>1. GET ANY INCIDENT.
>
>2. NAME ANY TERMINAL IN THAT INCIDENT.
>
>3. NAME ANY TERMINAL THAT EXISTS IN THE NOW.
>
>4.GIVE ME A SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE TERMINAL THEN AND THE
TERMINAL
> NOW.
>
>5.GIVE ME A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TERMINAL THEN AND THE
TERMINAL
> NOW.
>
>7.GET ANY INCIDENT: 1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5 REPETITIVE, till
the
> mechanism ceases to exist.
>
>8.IS THERE A HIGHER LEVEL OR DYNAMIC ON WHICH WE CAN RUN THIS
> PROCESS?
>
> If so, run it steps 1-8.
>
>9.2WC "HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR TRACK?
>
> If there is any track, find the area and repeat steps 1-8 on
it.
>
>
>NOTES ON THE TRACK BLASTER COMMANDS
>
>The main auditor skill in running this process is to get it done
in
>its simplicity. The PC will often alter-is step 1 to mean
"get a
>significant and charged incident of mine" and step 3 to mean
"find a
>logically connected terminal in the now".
>
>Done this way it will still work, but take much longer. Command
1
>does not specify whose incident, and command 3 is a new command in
a
>new unit of time. If the terminal in command 3 is related,
that's
>the PC's business, but he must understand that the command in a
new
>unit of time is "Name any terminal that exists in the now.
>
>Step 1 "Get any incident" can be prefixed with a level or
area, e.g.,
>"Get any `birth of gods' incident" if that were the answer
to step 8.
>
>Step 2 can be expressed as "Name any terminal or object in
that
>incident". It does not matter at all whether it's a person
or
>object, but preferably whichever the PC thought of first.
Another
>term to use instead of terminal is "anchor point."
>
>On steps 4 and 5 it is up to the auditor's discretion whether to
>state the commands exactly or whether to state the terminals named
by
>the PC. In either case the words "now" and
"then" must be used. If
>the PC gives the same terminal in answer to "then" and
"now", it is
>vital to name the terminal. E.g., "Give me a similarity
between your
>mother then and your mother now"or "Give me a difference
between the
>`town hall' during that incident and the `town hall' now."
>
>Step 8 could take a small amount of 2WC to achieve. Instead
of
>"higher level" you might get an area with "some other
area" or "did
>you have some form of existence before this universe" and
"was that
>cleared in auditing?"
>
>On step 9 if you get an answer like "What track?" with
VVGIs, end off
>the process.
>
>This process, if run deeply, will blow the whole phenonema of
things
>reactively connected to things from levels ranging from genetic
>charge to the creation of gods. However, if you get a few nice
EPss
>and the PC says it's all done (and no W/N) at the time, you can
still
>end off. If, later on in L13, you start getting chains that go
into
>the past or too many incidents, the PC will then be happy to run
the
>Track Blaster more deeply.
>
>The situation where this process might take only a half-hour or so
to
>run with dramatic results is the PC with a well run lower grade
chart
>and the current human identity cleared. Then this process can
expand
>the same wins to other planes and areas with ease.
>
>The most usual place in the L13 PC's program for the Track Blaster
is
>just after the Truth Revealed interview. That interview will
largely
>separate the PC from conditioning received in scientology and
>establish the PC's own current spiritual reality. As the
Track
>Blaster will, in most cases, dramatically change conditions not
>handled in scientology, it is a far better PC education to look
at
>what happened and establish what spiritual goals are real with
the
>Truth Revealed first.
>
Download TROM:
http://tranceform.org/trom/trom.exe
This version proudly has the "errors" that were the subject
of a "tsk tsk"
last week, namely "pt" changed to "present time". I
made the change as
Judith requested it. Why use Denniss' "cast in stone"
terminology on the
Internet, when only a few fundamentalist cult members will have any
idea
what "pt" is an abbreviation for?
* * * Rowland Anton Barkley the Deep TranceForming Shaman * * *
* * * Email: [email protected]
<
http://www.tranceform.org/
>
http://www.tranceform.org * * *
* * * Fax: +61-2-9475-0374 * * *
*************************and a second comment (these really need
editing
down, don't they)***
Subject:
Re: Replay B13
Date:
Sat, 21 Mar 1998 02:18:17
-0500
From:
[email protected]
(RDucharme)
To:
<[email protected]>
At 10:47 PM 3/20/98 +0100, Rowland Barkley wrote:
>>But, to be somewhat accommodating to Stephen's intentions, let's
approach
>>Ann Walker and bring up the idea of translation and the idea of
electronic
>>distribution, possibly as shareware.
>
>She is not interested. She is a wonderful clearing
practitioner, and
>Dennis claims to have made practitioners such as her obsolete. So of
course
>she is not interested.
Do you share that belief too? Has nobody here found value in diversity
of
processes or dual processing? Pardon me for being a maverick here, but
if a
one process trip were so good, then why would all the various but
similar
objective processes (not to mention subjective processes) each produce
their
own individual results? Wouldn't the product of a one dimentional
process
wind up with results of a more narrow scope than the product of
various
processes?
Robert
******************************************
--
Ant
Antony A Phillips
[email protected]
tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
Box 78
DK - 2800 Lyngby
Publisher, International Viewpoints (= IVy). See Home Page:
http://home8.inet.tele.dk/ivy/
Administrator: trom-l, selfclearing-l, superscio-l, IVy lists
--
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
