*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
(This possibly is more Scientology than
TROM but this Replay has some fascinating data and comments about the
untimely deaths of some well-known, at the time,
Scientologists.)
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 B49
Date:
Fri, 20 Nov 1998 10:23:50 +0100
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
Organization:
International Viewpoints
To:
[email protected]
Administrator: trom-l
Subject:
Dennis Stephens
Date:
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 08:22:26
-0800
From:
"MICHAEL W.
BONNYCASTLE" <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Dear
Trommers,
I have noticed in a few posts and reposts a communication line
inferring that Dennis Stephens' body death of heart failure is
indicative of his case being 'out' or incomplete, or more
particularly
that Trom was not , at least for him, what he said it was. Does
this
imply that if ones case is in proper order they will transcend body
death or be at total cause over it? This is an interesting line
and
I would be very grateful for some commentary on it.
Michael Bonnycastle
Subject:
Re: Dennis Stephens
Date:
Mon, 09 Feb 1998 21:37:21
-0500
From:
[email protected]
(RDucharme)
To:
"MICHAEL W.
BONNYCASTLE" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
At 08:22 AM 2/10/98 -0800, MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE wrote:
>Dear
Trommers,
>
>
I have noticed in a few posts and reposts a
communication line
>
inferring that Dennis Stephens' body death of heart
failure is
>
indicative of his case being 'out' or incomplete, or more
particularly
>
that Trom was not , at least for him, what he said it was.
Does this
>
imply that if ones case is in proper order they will
transcend body
>
death or be at total cause over it? This is an
intersesting line and
>
I would be very grateful for some commentary on it.
>
>
Michael Bonnycastle
What it does indicate, as in the case of Irene Mumford, Capt. Bill
Robertson, and Larry West, who all, I believe, died untimely deaths
from
chronic body ailments, that they did not avail themselves of the
proper
tech for their condition. The question is why?. The answer may be
that
they did not have all the answers, or that, in their researching,
they
stumbled across something they were unprepared to handle. I doubt that
they
did not make some attempts at handling their conditions. We don't have
all
the answers to this puzzle, but it would be fascinating to have more data
on
their cases as well as that of other similar cases so that we could come
to
a more thorough understanding of what actually happened and where to
proceed
from there. Maybe others could share some added data on the illnesses
and
deaths of higly regarded tech finders.
Robert
Subject:
Re: Dennis Stephens
Date:
Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:54:39
-0800 (PST)
From:
ladyv
<[email protected]>
To:
RDucharme
<[email protected]>
CC:
"MICHAEL W.
BONNYCASTLE" <[email protected]>, [email protected]
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, RDucharme wrote:
> At 08:22 AM 2/10/98 -0800, MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE wrote:
> >Dear
Trommers,
> >
>
>
I have noticed in a few posts and reposts a
> communication line
>
>
inferring that Dennis Stephens' body death of heart
failure is
>
>
indicative of his case being 'out' or incomplete, or more
> particularly
>
>
that Trom was not , at least for him, what he said it was.
> Does this
>
>
imply that if ones case is in proper order they will
> transcend body
>
>
death or be at total cause over it? This is an
> intersesting line and
>
>
I would be very grateful for some commentary on it.
> >
>
>
Michael Bonnycastle
>
>
> What it does indicate, as in the case of Irene Mumford, Capt.
Bill
> Robertson, and Larry West, who all, I believe, died untimely deaths
from
> chronic body ailments, that they did not avail themselves of
the proper
> tech for their condition. The question is why?.
I can answer in part. Larry really
kept his illness at bay for
many years. People with cancer of the type he had usually die very
quickly once it is diagnosed. He flat denied it was true, never, ever
mentioned it. Looked for EVERYTHING else it could possibly be. He kept
disconnecting from people thinking the pains were due to the connection.
I believe the illness began during his legal battle with the CoS.
He had always had a delicate
constitution, but it was around that
time he started the round of weird diets and unusual physical
solutions.
He was on the mend when he heard
that his common-law wife of many
years (they had recently parted) was remarrying. I had to tell him, it
was as if he had been struck by lightening. An emotional stroke. He could
not stay at my place any longer, he fled. Everything here reminded him of
her including me. Two months later he was dead from a physical
stroke.
(The Doctor told me that was a
mercy because the pancreatic
cancer had started running amok and he would have been lingering in
agony.)
Love,
Enid
The answer may be that
> they did not have all the answers, or that, in their researching,
they
> stumbled across something they were unprepared to handle. I
doubt that they
> did not make some attempts at handling their conditions. We don't
have all
> the answers to this puzzle, but it would be fascinating to have more
data on
> their cases as well as that of other similar cases so that we could
come to
> a more thorough understanding of what actually happened and where to
proceed
> from there. Maybe others could share some added data on the
illnesses and
> deaths of highly regarded tech finders.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
Dynamism, 7507 Ohio Place, La Mesa, CA. 91941.
Ph: 619 462-5160 Fax: 619 465-8848
http://www.lightlink.com/dynamism
Subject:
Re: Dennis Stephens
Date:
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 22:36:28
-0800 (PST)
From:
Allen
<[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
At 08:22 AM 2/10/98 -0800, MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE wrote:
>Dear
Trommers,
... Does this
>
imply that if ones case is in proper order they will
transcend body
>
death or be at total cause over it?
Hi,
I wonder about the premise of your question.
Do you think there is an appropriate method of dropping a body / nding
a
lifetime that is preferred or more correct than any other? You know,
one
that, when someone does it, no one will ask any questions? Just nod
their
heads and recognize an end-game when they see it? Like dying peacefully
in
bed at 82?
If there is, does that mean No Exceptions? Anybody who does it any
other
way must be case-defective? Does that mean that one must stick around to
do
it that way, even if one has other plans?
And, if someone has transcended body death or is at total cause over
it,
what does that mean? What does it look like? Does it require the guy
to
live forever in the same body? If not, would it include choice of
death-style?
I kinda figured Dennis felt that he was finished and had nothing else to
do
from the position he occupied, so he walked. Maybe he was finished,
maybe
not; maybe he could have refined his work, maybe he could have.... But
he
didn't. Maybe he just walked.
Ponder: Politician, aged 82, starts a very admirable reform movement
that
is catching on. Dies of heart failure at the podium while rallying
support.
Reporter says, "...died prematurely after finally reaching his own
stride,
leaving his life-culminating work unfinished." This is a
fictional
scenario, but it could easily happen. It points out that it's all a
matter
of perspective, don't you think?
I had a friend in Las Vegas, named Nick, in the 70's. He was a Scn
"OT",
living a regular life, doing okay, not even "middle-aged". One
day he took
in a severely disturbed young man, against everyone's best advice. Later
a
mutual friend got a phone-machine message from Nick, sounding drunk
and
saying that he was going to the garden. It was too wierd to ignore, so
he
called right back, but got no answer. There was no answer at the
door
either, and no sign of anyone home as they looked around outside the
house.
When they couldn't find Nick anywhere, they called the police.
The guest had quite violently and messily murdered Nick in his sleep
with
one of those pointed soda-can / beer openers that we used to call
"church-keys", wrapped him in something and went out to dig a
hole in the
garden, where he buried him. The assumption is that Nick made the call
from
inside the wrapper, although no one was quite sure how he pulled that
off.
Was that an unacceptable death? I sure don't know.
Also in the 70's, after the Jim Jones thing happened, a bunch of us
were
talking at a party about how such a thing could happen. Someone
suggested
that if Ron put out the call to arms off-planet, it would require
everyone
who responded to drop the body and go. The conversation turned to who
would
and who wouldn't do it. Most said they would, without hesitation. Then
the
talk turned to How. A big part of it was about how to do it so it
didn't
look whacko. No consensus was reached.
-0-
|
Allen, Speaker
-0- ASC Missions Group
[email protected]
|
http://www.asc.org
Subject:
Re: Dennis Stephens
Date:
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 13:03:47
+0100
From:
"Srdjan Mihajlovic"
<[email protected]>
To:
<[email protected]>
>>Dear Trommers,
>... Does this
>>
imply that if ones case is in proper order they will
transcend body
>>
death or be at total cause over it?
Transcend body death? I don't think so. Most of the estimates I read
or
heard are that a body's max lifespan is around 400 years. But being
the
total cause over it? There are numerous stories of Zen Patriarchs who
say
last things they want to say in this lifetime, lay in bed, close
their
eyes - and die in a matter of minutes. Same goes for Hindu teachers,
Buddhists, even my great - grandmother (who was nothing of the sort)
is
supposed to have died that way. So I'd say it's realistic.
>Do you think there is an appropriate method of dropping a body /
nding a
>lifetime that is preferred or more correct than any other? You
know, one
>that, when someone does it, no one will ask any questions? Just
nod their
>heads and recognize an end-game when they see it? Like dying
peacefully in
>bed at 82?
Or the thing described above.
>I had a friend in Las Vegas, named Nick, in the 70's. He was a
Scn "OT",
>living a regular life, doing okay, not even
"middle-aged". One day he took
>in a severely disturbed young man, against everyone's best
advice. Later a
>mutual friend got a phone-machine message from Nick, sounding drunk
and
>saying that he was going to the garden. It was too wierd to
ignore, so he
>called right back, but got no answer. There was no answer at
the door
>either, and no sign of anyone home as they looked around outside the
house.
>When they couldn't find Nick anywhere, they called the police.
>
>The guest had quite violently and messily murdered Nick in his sleep
with
>one of those pointed soda-can / beer openers that we used to
call
>"church-keys", wrapped him in something and went out to dig
a hole in the
>garden, where he buried him. The assumption is that Nick made
the call
from
>inside the wrapper, although no one was quite sure how he pulled that
off.
>
>Was that an unacceptable death? I sure don't know.
There is a beautiful line in Richard Bach's "Illusions" where
this guy (who
is a Teacher) is killed by some angry fella. Later on, our narrator finds
a
note (or hears his voice, I cannot really remember)from him that he
is
dropping the body. As for the killing, he says, "You know I always
aimed for
the grandiose effects". Effective death cannot be overrated, I
believe, in
effect it has on people. Witness Jesus Christ.
>Also in the 70's, after the Jim Jones thing happened, a bunch of us
were
>talking at a party about how such a thing could happen. Someone
suggested
>that if Ron put out the call to arms off-planet, it would require
everyone
>who responded to drop the body and go. The conversation turned
to who
would
>and who wouldn't do it. Most said they would, without
hesitation. Then
the
>talk turned to How. A big part of it was about how to do it so
it didn't
>look whacko. No consensus was reached.
And now curiosity overwhelms me: only part that worried you was how to do
it
so it doesn't look whacko? How would you do it at all, while remaining
the
control? If you know of any process apart from the infamous R2-45 (and
it
doesn't give one much of a control, I'm afraid), I'd sure like to
know.
But living, I'd say, is more important question raised here. The
only
reasonable approach I've seen to this whole matter is L Kin's as
described
in his fourth book "From Bottom To Top". In it, the GE rundown
follows AFTER
almost the whole bridge is done (including OT levels). Before that, he
says,
one cannot expect to have real control over the body simply because
one
doesn't know what controls the body at all ("knows" as in
as-is).
After GE rundown, he continues, one has a friendly relationship with
one's
GE, to the point of handling diseases by just putting attention on GE
and
2WC with it. Does anyone here have more info on this? (I am not even
close
to this stage of my personal bridge.)
Srdjan
Subject:
Untimely Deaths
Date:
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 15:19:07
-0500
From:
Rowland Barkley
<[email protected]>
To:
TROM
<[email protected]>
>What it does indicate, as in the case of Irene Mumford, Capt.
Bill
>Robertson, and Larry West, who all, I believe, died untimely deaths
from
>chronic body ailments, that they did not avail themselves of
the proper
>tech for their condition. The question is why?. The
answer may be that
t>hey did not have all the answers, or that, in their researching,
they
>stumbled across something they were unprepared to handle. I
doubt that
they
>did not make some attempts at handling their conditions. We don't
have all
>the answers to this puzzle, but it would be fascinating to have more
data
on
t>heir cases as well as that of other similar cases so that we could
come
to
>a more thorough understanding of what actually happened and where
to
proceed
>from there. Maybe others could share some added data on the
illnesses and
>deaths of higly regarded tech finders.
>Robert
I don't see connection between Dennis Stevens's Death and Capt Bill
or
Irene Mumford. Dennis was elderly, the others died prematurely.
Capt Bill and Irene Mumford, unlike Dennis, had core beliefs as to
the
universe being something setup up as an evil trap. For them it was, as
they
both developed their systems while dying of brain cancers, and the
universe
within their own physical skulls was in fact a very serious
trap.
They both promoted that their path was they one ticket out of the
inherently bad universe. Irene once wrote that she has the only truth
and
that as have some other opinion, I am as dangerious as atom bombs. On
her
death bed she decided her system was in error.
Capt Bill was trying to handle his condition by high intention focus
down
to as small as the spaces between the molecules in his body. He was
doing
this intensely for some months before dying, unwilling to listen to the
fact
that this will destroy the body, not heal it.
The "correct tech" for these conditions includes listening to
the body,
hearing the message it is trying to communicate.
Lawrence West publicly supported the systems that were the most
popular,
while often having no belief in the system whatsoever. He often
expressed
to me how hard it was to live with himself having such
hypocrisy.
None of the above situations apply to Dennis, who was honest, and
died
elderly.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Rowland Anton Barkley the Deep Tranceforming....shaman
http://tranceform.org email: [email protected]
* * * * * * "Create your dream and step into
it"
Subject:
Re: Untimely Deaths
Date:
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:58:22
-0500
From:
[email protected]
(RDucharme)
To:
TROM
<[email protected]>
At 08:16 AM 2/12/98 -0800, ladyv wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Rowland Barkley wrote:
>
>> The "correct tech" for these conditions includes
listening to the body,
>> hearing the message it is trying to communicate.
>>
I agree with this, and furthermore the precipitating causes prior to
the
onset of the condition needs to be addressed. I believe firmly in the
adage
that was taught to us in the '70s and which seems to have been
forgotten:
Scientology is for spiritual gain, while Dianetics is for handling
unwanted
conditions. I feel that one of the biggest tech errors has been in
trying
to handle body conditions with scientology style processing. Where
TROM
fits in here I'm not sure yet. I'm wondering if those who practice it
ever
get recurrences of the conditions they address, and if so how
frequently
this happens.
>> Lawrence West publicly supported the systems that were the most
popular,
>> while often having no belief in the system whatsoever. He
often expressed
>> to me how hard it was to live with himself having such
hypocracy.
>>
> Well, yes, I can corroborate
this.
I attribute this to the violation of the adage I mentioned above as well
as
a flawed Dianetics tech along with that incredibly insane rule about
no
dianetics on clears.
By the way, I really appreciate reading all this interesting historical
data
as provided by Rowland, Allen, and Enid.
Robert
Subject:
Re: Untimely Deaths
Date:
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 08:16:54
-0800 (PST)
From:
ladyv
<[email protected]>
To:
Rowland Barkley
<[email protected]>
CC:
TROM
<[email protected]>
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Rowland Barkley wrote:
Hello Rowland,
> I don't see connection between Dennis Stevens's Death and Capt Bill
or
> Irene Mumford. Dennis was elderly, the others died
prematurely.
>
> Capt Bill and Irene Mumford, unlike Dennis, had core beliefs as to
the
> universe being something setp up as an evil trap. For them it
was, as they
> both developed their systems while dying of brain cancers, and the
universe
> within their own physical skulls was in fact a very serious
trap.
>
I am so glad you said this. I
thought that was the case, but I
did not know it was.
> They both promoted that their path was they one ticket out of
the
> inherently bad universe. Irene once wrote that she has the
only truth and
> that as have some other opinion, I am as dangerous as atom
bombs. On her
> death bed she decided her system was in error.
>
Is there a missing "I"
above? Anyway, I have difficulty
swallowing "only one" ideas.
> Capt Bill was trying to handle his condition by high intention focus
down
> to as small as the spaces between the molecules in his body.
He was doing
> this intensly for some months before dying, unwilling to listen to
the fact
> that this will destroy the body, not heal it.
>
Fascinating.
> The "correct tech" for these conditions includes listening
to the body,
> hearing the message it is trying to communicate.
>
> Lawrence West publicly supported the systems that were the most
popular,
> while often having no belief in the system whatsoever. He
often expressed
> to me how hard it was to live with himself having such
hypocracy.
>
Well, yes, I can corroborate
this.
> None of the above situations apply to Dennis, who was honest, and
died
> elderly.
I wish I had known him.
Love,
Enid
Dynamism, 7507 Ohio Place, La Mesa, CA. 91941.
Ph: 619 462-5160 Fax: 619 465-8848
http://www.lightlink.com/dynamism
Subject:
Re: Untimely Deaths
Date:
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 23:43:02
-0500
From:
[email protected]
(RDucharme)
To:
ladyv
<[email protected]>
CC:
TROM
<[email protected]>
This thread is sounding more like clear-l than TROM-l, but I find it
fascinating and will pursue it.
At 08:20 AM 2/13/98 -0800, ladyv wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, RDucharme wrote:
>
>> At 08:16 AM 2/12/98 -0800, ladyv wrote:
>> >On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Rowland Barkley wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> The "correct tech" for these conditions
includes listening to the body,
>> >> hearing the message it is trying to communicate.
>>
>> I agree with this, and furthermore the precipitating causes
prior to the
>> onset of the condition needs to be addressed. I believe
firmly in the
adage
>> that was taught to us in the '70s and which seems to have been
forgotten:
>> Scientology is for spiritual gain, while Dianetics is for
handling unwanted
>> conditions.
>
> Yet in the 60s we were taught
that the being could handle by
>postulate and responsibility processes. I remember feeling dreadfully
>invalidated in 68 when Standard Dianetics came out. I remember
>complaining loudly that creating all these pictures to run was super
>boring. Why was I suddenly expected to run one picture at a time when
I
>had previously been taught that a being should be able to handle
entire
>file cabinets full of them at once?
Isn't that what engram running by chains is about - running entiere
file
cabinets and not just one picture? And what about TROM? How do you
feel
about running track pictures in that way?
To me it was a degrade of my
>ability. It was also a major switch of philosophy and it certainly
did
>horrid things to my case. I actually wrote and complained to Ron
about it.
Whatever those horrid things that were done to your case, I can
assure were
not just from being made to look at harmless pictures. I would fault not
so
much the basic technique, as the method of application and how perfected
the
technique was.
> For me it was the Spirit is
Senior idea that was always
>effective. I think it depends a lot on the individual which type of
>clearing is most effective. I was a Mind over Matter type, and so the
>"strengthen the being and he will handle the body" approach
was the one
>which appealed to me and on which I made the most gain.
Unfortunately that is not a standardly applicable approach. It may
have
worked for you, but I would say that you are the exception. I would
also
say that the strength of the standard approach to tech is also its
weakness
- the fact that is that it is broadly applicable. A "one size fits
all"
attitude has to fall short somewhere in a universe where absolutes
are
unobtainable.
>> >> Lawrence West publicly supported the systems that were
the most popular,
>> >> while often having no belief in the system
whatsoever. He often
expressed
>> >> to me how hard it was to live with himself having such
hypocracy.
>> >>
>> > Well, yes, I can corroborate this.
>>
>> I attribute this to the violation of the adage I mentioned above
as well as
>> a flawed dianetics tech along with that incredibly insane rule
about no
>> dianetics on clears.
>
> Well that may have contributed,
but I would tend to attribute it
>more to ethics blind spots preventing any lasting case gain.
Even those things can be handled with such track procedure as the
false
purpose rundown and expanded dianetics. The only thing that can get in
the
way of that is unwillingness by the pc to address the issue.
Robert
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *
GPM Clearing by telephone
Technology for the recovery of
advanced spiritual abilities
http://users.ctinet.net/voltr
Full procedure writeup
available from
http://fza.org/articles/gpm1.htm
http://fza.org/articles/gpm2.htm
* * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
Subject:
Re: Untimely Deaths
Date:
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 08:20:26
-0800 (PST)
From:
ladyv
<[email protected]>
To:
RDucharme
<[email protected]>
CC:
TROM
<[email protected]>
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, RDucharme wrote:
> At 08:16 AM 2/12/98 -0800, ladyv wrote:
> >On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Rowland Barkley wrote:
>
> >
> >> The "correct tech" for these conditions includes
listening to the body,
> >> hearing the message it is trying to communicate.
>
> I agree with this, and furthermore the precipitating causes prior to
the
> onset of the condition needs to be addressed. I believe firmly
in the adage
> that was taught to us in the '70s and which seems to have been
forgotten:
> Scientology is for spiritual gain, while Dianetics is for handling
unwanted
> conditions.
Yet in the 60s we were taught that
the being could handle by
postulate and responsibility processes. I remember feeling dreadfully
invalidated in 68 when Standard Dianetics came out. I remember
complaining loudly that creating all these pictures to run was super
boring. Why was I suddenly expected to run one picture at a time when I
had previously been taught that a being should be able to handle entire
file cabinets full of them at once? To me it was a degrade of my
ability. It was also a major switch of philosophy and it certainly did
horrid things to my case. I actually wrote and complained to Ron about
it.
For me it was the Spirit is Senior
idea that was always
effective. I think it depends a lot on the individual which type of
clearing is most effective. I was a Mind over Matter type, and so the
"strengthen the being and he will handle the body" approach was
the one
which appealed to me and on which I made the most gain.
> >> Lawrence West publicly supported the systems that were the
most popular,
> >> while often having no belief in the system
whatsoever. He often
expressed
> >> to me how hard it was to live with himself having such
hypocracy.
> >>
> > Well, yes, I can corroborate this.
>
> I attribute this to the violation of the adage I mentioned above as
well as
> a flawed dianetics tech along with that incredibly insane rule about
no
> dianetics on clears.
Well that may have contributed, but
I would tend to attribute it
more to ethics blind spots preventing any lasting case gain.
>
> By the way, I really appreciate reading all this interesting
historical data
> as provided by Rowland, Allen, and Enid.
Thank-you.
Love,
Enid
Dynamism, 7507 Ohio Place, La Mesa, CA. 91941.
Ph: 619 462-5160 Fax: 619 465-8848
http://www.lightlink.com/dynamism
Subject:
Re: Untimely Deaths
Date:
Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:07:45
-0800 (PST)
From:
ladyv
<[email protected]>
To:
RDucharme
<[email protected]>
CC:
TROM
<[email protected]>
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, RDucharme wrote:
> This thread is sounding more like clear-l than TROM-l, but I find
it
> fascinating and will pursue it.
>
>
> At 08:20 AM 2/13/98 -0800, ladyv wrote:
> >On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, RDucharme wrote:
> >
> >> At 08:16 AM 2/12/98 -0800, ladyv wrote:
> >> >On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Rowland Barkley wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> The "correct tech" for these conditions
includes listening to the
body,
> >> >> hearing the message it is trying to
communicate.
> >>
> >> I agree with this, and furthermore the precipitating causes
prior to the
> >> onset of the condition needs to be addressed. I
believe firmly in the
adage
> >> that was taught to us in the '70s and which seems to have
been forgotten:
> >> Scientology is for spiritual gain, while Dianetics is for
handling
unwanted
> >> conditions.
> >
> > Yet in the 60s we were taught that the
being could handle by
> >postulate and responsibility processes. I remember feeling
dreadfully
> >invalidated in 68 when Standard Dianetics came out. I remember
> >complaining loudly that creating all these pictures to run was
super
> >boring. Why was I suddenly expected to run one picture at a time
when I
> >had previously been taught that a being should be able to handle
entire
> >file cabinets full of them at once?
>
>
> Isn't that what engram running by chains is about - running entire
file
> cabinets and not just one picture?
No. Not even close. Have you read
8-80? 8-8008?
And what about TROM? How do you feel
> about running track pictures in that way?
>
I have yet to do a full analysis. I
have seen both good and poor
results from it.
>
> To me it was a degrade of my
> >ability. It was also a major switch of philosophy and it
certainly did
> >horrid things to my case. I actually wrote and complained to Ron
about it.
>
>
>
> Whatever those horrid things that were done to your case, I
can assure were
> not just from being made to look at harmless pictures. I would
fault not so
> much the basic technique, as the method of application and how
perfected the
> technique was.
No, it was the eval, old chap. Not
to mention the inval of state
of case.
>
>
> > For me it was the Spirit is Senior idea
that was always
> >effective. I think it depends a lot on the individual which type
of
> >clearing is most effective. I was a Mind over Matter type, and
so the
> >"strengthen the being and he will handle the body"
approach was the one
> >which appealed to me and on which I made the most gain.
>
>
> Unfortunately that is not a standardly applicable approach. It
may have
> worked for you, but I would say that you are the exception.
Not at all. I am one of a higher
band of exceptions. So called
standard tech is only applicable to a narrow band of beings. Each tech
finder widens the spectrum of knowhow so a larger percentage of beings
can fit into the known tech.
One should tailor the tech to the
individual, not try and pound
square pegs into round holes.
I would also
> say that the strength of the standard approach to tech is also its
weakness
> - the fact that is that it is broadly applicable. A "one
size fits all"
> attitude has to fall short somewhere in a universe where absolutes
are
> unobtainable.
I should have left when
"standard tech" came in. And absolutes
are all around you if you care to look.
> Even those things can be handled with such track procedure as the
false
> purpose rundown and expanded dianetics. The only thing that
can get in the
> way of that is unwillingness by the pc to address the issue.
>
While I do agree that unwillingness
to address the issues is a
major barrier, those procedures you have chosen are at best feeble
attempts to address case conditions which were outside the scope of the
tech as developed by LRH.
Love,
Enid
Dynamism, 7507 Ohio Place, La Mesa, CA. 91941.
Ph: 619 462-5160 Fax: 619 465-8848
http://www.lightlink.com/dynamism
--
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,
previous-life-scio and IVy lists
***************
Replies, comments, to the list, send to [email protected]
***************
--
Antony A Phillips [email protected]
_______________________________________________
TROM mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.newciv.org/mailman/listinfo/trom
