************* The following message is relayed to you by [email protected] ************
Sent Saturday 9th of April 2016*************
by [email protected] (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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Subject:
TROM Replay B38
Date:
Fri, 04 Sep 1998 12:49:02 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
Organization:
International Viewpoints
To:
[email protected]
Subject:
Intro: MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE
Date:
Wed, 03 Sep 1997 21:17:38 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
CC:
Ant <[email protected]>
"MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE" <[email protected]>
wrote me the following:
Hello Ant, Sept. 3, 1997
Please post the letter of mine with name and address if you
like. Sorry for the delay in response as I have been on a road
trip also. I am now running Trom level 5 exactly as layed out
by Dennis on that marvelous tape he sent to Judith. Getting
splendid results and I will continue. As far as a progressive
action after TROM, I would like to exteriorize as I havn't yet,
I think that would be one goal. I would like to pursue
training, in the COS this was always most satisfying, though I
still receive PR from the church I would far prefer to do this
in a free zone environment. With my new understanding of level
5 of TROM I will definitely see where it takes me over the next
few months.
Best Wishes,
Mike
And the following is what I asked if I could publish to the list:
> [[[[[formatted 97-08-05.02]]]]]
>
> Dear Ant,
August 2, 1997
>
> In your letter you had mentioned an interest in what my
> Scientology background was. Well, I met a fellow just over a
> year ago at an outdoor shopping mall here who introduced me
> to Scn and brought me to the org. I found it quite
> fascinating, one of those things one felt they were in
> search of their whole life. I took a few basic courses which
> taught the basic TR's, ethics, and suppression data. I then
> was approached about staff and quickly decided that this
> would be far more important to me than any considerations of
> my then full time job. I joined to go on the TTC for full
> auditor training but they had no PPO and was quickly posted
> as such. What I really enjoyed was the daily access to the
> data and I devoured every course pack I could find in the
> Qual library. I was using public transportation at the
> time(3 hours daily) so I would listen to 2-3 LRH lectures
> daily (PDC, SHSBC, Phoenix, etc.) which was a real Scn
> education. I eventually was told I was going to go to FLAG
> for magistrate training by the ED and it didn't happen. The
> FBO decided she would only pay me(20$ week) for day schedule
> although I was working the full org schedule in hours. I
> then was told I was accepted for the TTC but could clearly
> see that HCO did not want this to happen. I was instructed
> to find as many new recruits as possible to go directly on
> to the TTC although I was promised this and it didn't
> happen. In the six months on staff I had absorbed a great
> deal of data, alot more TR's and fully resolved to somehow
> continue studying the Tech. But the contradictions that
> surfaced and the realization that per the suppression data I
> was rollercoastering a great deal caused me to become fed up
> and I just left. I had copied some early PAB's and had 'Self
> Analysis' and continued to use and study these. In spite of
> the PR, I found myself now much happier off staff. Then by
> way of the internet I discovered this wonderful thing called
> the Free Zone, then Trom and Ivy, and this is where I intend
> to stay. I really had almost no 'other practioner' auditing
> before Trom but all the principles I had learned and the
> belief in the data helped tremendously. Bob Ross has
> mentioned his auditing to me in a letter and I am
> interested. What do you think might be a progreesive action
> after Trom?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Michael Bonnycastle
There is a question here which someone on the list may care to answer to
the list.
All the best,
Ant
--
Ant Antony A Phillips
[email protected]
tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
Box 78
DK - 2800 Lyngby
Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy) see Home Page:
http://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
Subject:
Re: Intro: MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE
Date:
Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:
ladyv <[email protected]>
To:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
CC:
[email protected]
On Wed, 3 Sep 1997, Antony Phillips wrote:
> "MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE" <[email protected]>
>
> wrote me the following:
>
What do you think might be a progreesive action
> > after Trom?
> >
> > Michael Bonnycastle
>
> There is a question here which someone on the list may care to answer to
> the list.
You might like to check out my stuff on the Dynamism web page.
Love,
Enid
Dynamism, 7507 Ohio Place, La Mesa, CA. 91941.
Ph: 619 462-5160 Fax: 619 465-8848
http://www.lightlink.com/dynamism
Subject:
After TROM
Date:
Thu, 04 Sep 1997 13:18:33 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
In his introduction recently MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE says:
"What do you think might be a progreesive action after Trom?
"As far as a progressive action after TROM, I would like to exteriorize
as I havn't yet, I think that would be one goal. "
What I would say is get a good (free of church indoctrination) auditor
to run S-C-S on an object
and S-C-S on the body, if thats the way you want to go. You need an
auditor with the original philosophy of Scientology, not the modern
"Hitlerian" one (Those who have read the recent IVy, No. 33, will know
what I mean). These processes (as mentioned in the coming IVy) are hard
on the auditor (practitioner) as they run his/her case also (I think the
only way to avoid that is to run robotically - and that does not help
the victim). I would _love_ to run them on him. However he would have to
get his body over to my flat (I don't need him here :-) )
However, here is another thought. Having succesfully run all levels of
TROM, how about time breaking times you went into a body, and times when
you went out.
MICHAEL also writes "I would like to pursue
training, in the COS this was always most satisfying, though I
still receive PR from the church I would far prefer to do this
in a free zone environment. With my new understanding of level
5 of TROM I will definitely see where it takes me over the next
few months."
This is a good idea -- there is an enourmous amount to be gained by the
thorough understanding of Scientology one gains from thorough training
(under the older scientology philosophy) and auditing.
Unfortunately It is perhaps not so easy to get as it was in the 50's. My
belief is that much false data was passed on in various ways as a result
of the suppressive environment of the church. That is a (minor) cause of
scientology being hated. It is one of my intentions in running IVy to
illuninate these outnesses and illogicalities in the data many have
received. I wish Michael succes in a very worthwhile intention.
I'm very curious about results from time breaking in and out.
There, Enid and I have used Michaels question to hang an advertisement
(I mean reccomendations) on - any more comers?
What one does after TROM depends very much on what one wants to
acheive. I have already expressed my scathing scorn over the goals of
Nirvanah, total freedom, OT, and others some groups coerce other to
accept as their own.
No hard feeling I hope :-) Every one has a right to his own goals, even
if I regard them as .....
Who am I any way?
--
Ant Antony A Phillips
[email protected]
tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
Box 78
DK - 2800 Lyngby
Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy) see Home Page:
http://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
Subject:
Re: After TROM
Date:
Thu, 04 Sep 1997 18:05:37 -0400
From:
"Dustin W. Carr" <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
At 01:18 PM 9/4/97 +0200, you wrote:
>In his introduction recently MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE says:
>
>"What do you think might be a progreesive action after Trom?
>"As far as a progressive action after TROM, I would like to exteriorize
>as I havn't yet, I think that would be one goal. "
>
I find that people who have been a part of the church (including myself)
have a tendency to have this goal. I dispensed with it a few years back.
My advice is this: proceed along your path of meditating or auditing without
"lust of result". Desire nothing to come of it, reach for nothing.
Then you can have anything.
Dustin
p.s. Nothing wrong with having this goal, and exteriorization is fun and
interesting, but is not all that special. Exteriorization is an easy sell.
There are bigger and better things to find.
Dustin W. Carr
[email protected]
Cornell University Physics
Clark Hall G-6
Ithaca, NY 14853
Subject:
Track Blaster, Exteriorization
Date:
Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:07:51 -0400
From:
Rowland Barkley <[email protected]>
To:
TROM <[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.
<<<
Dear Dimitri, and others, the secret is that auditor consciousness
is 10 times as important as any technique. The intense discipline necessary
to run the Track Blaster is unlikely to come from a peice of paper. For
instance, if you were to ask "GET ANY INCIDENT OF WARRING REALITIES"
usefully, you would need to be totally willing for the client to experience
any two realities, and to be there comfortably experiencing both. If you
can do this, such questions are powerful. The comfort threshold becomes a
little challenged if you have to ask the questioin 20 times, as there will
be 40 warring realities solidly in the room. You don't try to blow any of
them, because when the client ceases creating the illusion of time in that
subject area, all simply cease to exist. Just before that happens, the
intensity of charge can be truly horrendous.
EXTERIORIZATION: I was at a presentation by the Indian physicist Amit
Goswami, yesterday, at the Transpersonal Congress in Brazil. Amit
considered it proved by physics that the brain is an artifact of mind,
rather a similar idea to the universe being here by agreemnent.
The problem with "exteriorization" is that the premise is false. Such
transcendent states are simply shifting perspective to a higher
consciousness body you already have. While processes will free you of gunk
at a lower level, and therefore may make you accident prone to accidentally
reaching a higher dimension, learning to shift perspective, as an
elementary step to multiple perspectives, is more to the point.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Rowland Anton Barkley the Deep Tranceforming....shaman
http://tranceform.org email: [email protected]
* * * * * * "Create your dream and step into it"
Subject:
Re: Track Blaster, Exteriorization
Date:
Mon, 08 Sep 1997 23:16:36 -0400
From:
"Dustin W. Carr" <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
>The problem with "exteriorization" is that the premise is false. Such
>transcendent states are simply shifting perspective to a higher
>consciousness body you already have. While processes will free you of gunk
>at a lower level, and therefore may make you accident prone to accidentally
>reaching a higher dimension, learning to shift perspective, as an
>elementary step to multiple perspectives, is more to the point.
>
This is quite an enlightening way of putting things. Thanks for sharing it.
Dustin
> * * * * * * * * * * *
>Rowland Anton Barkley the Deep Tranceforming....shaman
> http://tranceform.org email: [email protected]
> * * * * * * "Create your dream and step into it"
>
Dustin W. Carr
[email protected]
Cornell University Physics
Clark Hall G-6
Ithaca, NY 14853
Subject:
Re: After TROM
Date:
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 17:51:30 +1000
From:
Judith Anderson <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Dear Ant and List Members, I have already sent Michael a reply as to
suggestions as to what he should do after TROM, privately. At this point it
would be difficult for anyone to know what to do when he gets to the end,
only then will he know wha he has and what he needs. love Judith A.
, At 01:18 PM 9/4/97 +0200, you wrote:
>In his introduction recently MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE says:
>
>"What do you think might be a progreesive action after Trom?
>"As far as a progressive action after TROM, I would like to exteriorize
>as I havn't yet, I think that would be one goal. "
>
>What I would say is get a good (free of church indoctrination) auditor
>to run S-C-S on an object
>and S-C-S on the body, if thats the way you want to go. You need an
>auditor with the original philosophy of Scientology, not the modern
>"Hitlerian" one (Those who have read the recent IVy, No. 33, will know
>what I mean). These processes (as mentioned in the coming IVy) are hard
>on the auditor (practitioner) as they run his/her case also (I think the
>only way to avoid that is to run robotically - and that does not help
>the victim). I would _love_ to run them on him. However he would have to
>get his body over to my flat (I don't need him here :-) )
>
>However, here is another thought. Having succesfully run all levels of
>TROM, how about time breaking times you went into a body, and times when
>you went out.
>
>MICHAEL also writes "I would like to pursue
> training, in the COS this was always most satisfying, though I
> still receive PR from the church I would far prefer to do this
> in a free zone environment. With my new understanding of level
> 5 of TROM I will definitely see where it takes me over the next
> few months."
>
>This is a good idea -- there is an enourmous amount to be gained by the
>thorough understanding of Scientology one gains from thorough training
>(under the older scientology philosophy) and auditing.
>
>Unfortunately It is perhaps not so easy to get as it was in the 50's. My
>belief is that much false data was passed on in various ways as a result
>of the suppressive environment of the church. That is a (minor) cause of
>scientology being hated. It is one of my intentions in running IVy to
>illuninate these outnesses and illogicalities in the data many have
>received. I wish Michael succes in a very worthwhile intention.
>
>I'm very curious about results from time breaking in and out.
>
>There, Enid and I have used Michaels question to hang an advertisement
>(I mean reccomendations) on - any more comers?
>
>What one does after TROM depends very much on what one wants to
>acheive. I have already expressed my scathing scorn over the goals of
>Nirvanah, total freedom, OT, and others some groups coerce other to
>accept as their own.
>
>No hard feeling I hope :-) Every one has a right to his own goals, even
>if I regard them as .....
>Who am I any way?
>
>
>--
> Ant Antony A Phillips
> [email protected]
> tlf: (+45) 45 88 88 69
> Box 78
> DK - 2800 Lyngby
>Editor, International Viewpoints (= IVy) see Home Page:
> http://home.sn.no/home/trone/IVy.html
>
>
>
Subject:
Re: Black-5
Date:
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 18:12:00 -0400
From:
[email protected] (William T Fenton)
To:
[email protected]
To:Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
From:Frank Gordon via <[email protected]>
Re:Black-five
Date:5 Sept 1997
Dear Ant:
I have a few comments on the subject of the "black-five."
The term originated with Hubbard, and he remarks upon it in his article
on Straight Wire
(Tech Vol 2) on p.229.
"Now let's take his thing we call a Black Five...He only sees blackness
in front of him...it
prevents him from seeing pictures...and being victimized by all these
pictures. We don't
have a special category of (1) people who get pictures, (2) and people
who get blackness.
We have only one category. We get people who have pictures of various
things and
people who have pictures of special things."
I assume what he's saying here, is that a picture is just a picture, and
he goes on to
describe ways he's found to handle any picture, if you wish to do so.
In Tech Vol I, under "Basic Reason-Basic Principles," he discusses on
p.150 two major
types of cases: the wide-open (who has been invalidated) and the occluded
(who has had
his self-determinism interrupted).
He then goes on to discuss ways to handle these.
The trom approach
As I said in my article on TROM (IVy31), I have been very cautious with
it. But it has one
very good idea, the idea of complementary postulates (and these don't
have to include a
must).
Another point is that when Hubbard asserted that the only part of games
which could be
processed were overwhelms (questionable in my mind), he said that these
should be done
separately; i.e., put out into the environment.
So I've experimented with blackness by putting out TWO terminals facing
one another,
one postulating "not to be known" and the other "not to know." And with
both of them
doing this quite consciously and agreeably and without the slightest hint
of mustness.
Kind of interesting. There are many ways to do this other than using
black screens such as
just "wool-gathering" or not being present. And if this were to be made
into a pleasant
game, it could be done by adding just the faintest hint of a must, like:
"If you really want
to be cultured, shouldn't you --?"
The above is typical of how I've gone at TROM. Cautiously. I tend to shy
away from long
drawn out procedures you MUST do JUST SO or else!
Best, Frank
Subject:
[Fwd: re mockups and Dennis
Date:
Wed, 10 Sep 1997 07:37:27 +0200
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
As you can see, I have Rowlands OK to pass this on.
The earlier mail I referred to included the following:
PASTE:
When I visited Dennis and Anne Stevens in 1983, his wife used the name
Anne
Walker, she just hadn't copied his name. I visited to ask what
processes
they had really seen work, as Anne was D of P in London when some early
books were written. The conversation was mostly about creative
processing
circa 1952, as that was what they had seen get results more than
anything
else over the years.
Dennis said Creative Processing went out as nobody had the idea of
completing, but of participating in the discovery of wherever Ron was
at.
Paradoxically, he saw no reason to do it now, as he said before you mock
something up, you already know what it is. Maybe he was a "human
knowing",
and I am a "human doing".
END PASTE
--
Ant Antony A Phillips
[email protected]
Subject:
[Fwd: [Fwd: Replay 25]]
Date:
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 15:08:32 -0400
From:
Rowland Barkley <[email protected]>
To:
"INTERNET:[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Dear Antony,
>>>You say of Dennis: "Paradoxically, he saw no reason to do it now,
"as he said before you mock something up, you already know what it is"
refferring to creative processing. That does not make much sense to me.
And I can't really explain why.<<<
If I am about to "Mock up a Piano", I have the sense of a piano about to
appear, so Dennis thought the mock-up itself wouldn't do anything. My
interest was how great inventors like Nicola Tesla made mockups they could
hardly distinguish from "reality". I feel that actually doing the mock-up,
or even making it in clay, gets what you are working with in lower
dimensions, and more likely to result in practical application.
Scientologists have gotten into the habit of "just postulating" what they
want, but the is an incredible emphasis in the PDC tapes where Ron referrs
to magicians using ritual to enable them to track of what effects result
from their causes. "Just postulating" or "just knowing what you are about
to mock up" leaves no feedback to help correct errors. My other interest
was that in asking Anne and Dennis what they had actually seen produce
"advertised OT results", they both only named mock-up processes as applied
in the 50s as doing that.
I don't know their official marital feelings at the time (1983-4), only
that they were sitting at the table together for some hours seeming
perfectly friendly. None of us showed any restriction as to information,
so I am a little surprised to hear of later restriction. Maybe that is an
advertising stunt to get people to reach. I described the Track Blaster,
Dennis said he was working on something like it, so we both took the
principle to be self-evident, so didn't spend much time on it. My whole
purpose of the visit was "have they actually witnessed advertised OT
results, and if so what process did that", and I had little interest in
claims of clearing or people feeling better in the absence of advertised
abilities.
Anything you want ot post to the list of this you can.
- Rowland
--
Ant Antony A Phillips
[email protected]
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
***************
Replies, comments, to the list, send to [email protected]
***************
_______________________________________________ TROM mailing list [email protected] http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
