*************
The following message is relayed to you by [email protected]
************
Sent
Saturday, 2 July 2016
by
[email protected] (Antony Phillips)
Note that there is a letter from Greg Pickering
giving an account of his part in preparing the book TROM.
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:
[Replay B50
Date:
Sat,
28 Nov 1998 06:25:25 +0100
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
Organization:
International Viewpoints
To:
[email protected]
--
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
Subject:
finding things to audit
Date:
Mon, 16 Feb 1998 08:49:10
-0800
From:
"MICHAEL W. BONNYCASTLE"
<[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
CC:
[email protected]
Randy,
Good point about finding things to audit. On level 5 I no longer
get
scenes but smaller amounts of charge lingering about here and there
in
the levels. I find it helpful, as you mentioned, to just keep
holding
that
postulate and AWARENESS of counter/complimentary postulate, holding
and
holding it. Sometimes it takes quite a while but the level can change
pretty
dramatically. Also, as I mentioned before, I find it even more efficient
to
'check' the two flows for charge at each level on the chart(others to
others,
self
to self). The level will sometimes feel a little 'massy' and I'll
run
through those two other flows on the level and it will clean up more,
then
just
continue until no more change. I definitely feel more progression
with
the
other two flows added.
best regards,
Michael Bonnycastle
Subject:
Sessionreport
Date:
Sat, 28 Feb 1998 04:20:53 EST
From:
PDexheimer
<[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Hello Tromers,
If possible I would like to have from Tromers who working on Step 4 and
on
step five a session report how they do this step for themselves.
The idea is to have a sample from different people how they do it to get
more
reality for the own work for the beginners with the higher levels of
TROM.
E.g.:
- I start with RI
- then I took the first postulate "Forced to know"
- then I get an incident which I timebreake
- I end with RI
- personel experiences during this session or sessions with the
different
postulates
Even more important would be the experiences from step five with the
- bascic Package to run,
- the junior packes and
- the junior univereses
Maybe you are interested in this idea and writing your basic experiences
so
the beginers can have much more reality.
Lots of Love
Peter
Subject:
TROM level
FIVE
Date:
Sat, 28 Feb 1998
08:49:24 -0800
From:
Randy Nicholson
<[email protected]>
To:
PDexheimer
<[email protected]>
CC:
[email protected]
References:
1
Hello Peter,
Nice to hear from you today.
Run RI in between levels or as needed and at the start and end of
sessions.
As far as the junior packages and universes, the only thing I can
tell you
is to
stay with the basic " to know" goals package. It will take you
all the way
from
what Dennis says.
You don't really need to bother with the Junior package and
universes because
the basic package will take you all the way. But they are there if you
want to
use them to get you back to the basic package when you are stuck at some
point. I
have not done any Junior package and universes yet and I plan not
to.
I start with level five and put up ALL the postulates starting with
level
1a. I put up both the must know on my end and the must be know one the
other side with
the idea of forced to know and I hold it until something comes up and
then I
timebreak it. Then I run some RI if I feel the need and then I put up
the
same 2 postulates again and timebreak anything else that shows
up.
Then I move down to 1b and I put both the postulates up and I
timebreak anything
that shows up and I repeat until I get board with it and then I run some
RI and I
move down to 2a and continue by putting both the SD and PD postulates
up
and so on it goes.
I do this round and round the chart.
I have gained a great deal using TROM and I am just beginning to use
it.
I wish you well with TROM and hope you make it to Nirvana.
Sincerely,
Randy Nicholson
PDexheimer wrote:
> Hello Tromers,
> If possible I would like to have from Tromers who working on Step 4
and on
> step five a sessionreport how they do this step for themselve.
> The idea is to have a sample from different people how they do it to
get
more
> reality for the own work for the beginners with the higer levels of
TROM.
> E.g.:
> - I start with RI
> - then I took the first postulate "Forced to know"
> - then I get an incident which I timebreake
> - I end with RI
> - personel experiences during this session or sessions with the
different
> postulates
>
> Even more important would be the experiences from step five with
the
> - bascic Package to run,
> - the junior packes and
> - the junior univereses
>
> Maybe you are interested in this idea and writing your basic
experiences so
> the beginers can have much more reality.
>
> Lots of Love
>
> Peter
Subject:
Re: <Autofrwd>Replay B13
Date:
Fri, 20 Mar 1998 19:08:27
+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 they are not needed. 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.
>
>
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.
>
* * * Rowland Anton Barkley the Deep TranceForming Shaman *
* *
* * * Email: [email protected]
http://www.tranXceform.org
* * *
* * * Fax: +61-2-9475-0374 * * *
Subject:
TROM:
Its history, from Greg Pickering
Date:
Wed,
25 Mar 1998 07:45:28 +0100
From:
Antony Phillips <[email protected]>
Organization:
International Viewpoints
To:
[email protected], [email protected]
Greg Pickering <[email protected]>, on Sun, 22 Mar 98
23:52:53
-0000 (sorry for delay) sent the following message to me (Re:
<Autofrwd>Replay B13)
--
Ant
Antony A Phillips
[email protected]
MESSAGE FROM Greg Pickering:
Hello to all TROMers out there,
It's time for me to step out of lurking mode and say my piece for the
record in the interests of setting the record straight.
Rowland [Barklay] and I met recently and had time to discuss some issues
regarding
TROM. I think it is because of comments I made to him that he has posted
to TROM and I thank him for his support.
I would like to give a bit of history, if you can bear with me, which
might help everyone align events and opinions.
I met with Dennis and Ann about 4 yrs and we had a very enjoyable
afternoon sipping tea and getting to know each other. During our
conversations about life the universe and everything (apologies to
Douglas Adams) Dennis related how he had somehow felt 'damaged' after
participating in the early years of the SHSBC. In an effort to resolve
his personal issues, he spent some years developing the program you now
know as TROM. The bulk of his research was completed by 1978 according
to the research papers, with an addendum produced later.
I was intrigued when Dennis was relating to me how his 'postulate
processing' as he called it, not only corrected the 'damage' but also
meant that when later he saw the OT materials for the first time and
tried to audit them, he just found a persistent F/N and deemed
himself
to
be flat on those materials also.
I told him that I thought it important that his research not be lost and
if he would like it then I would put his research notes onto computer
for archiving. This he thought was a good idea and, after much typing,
TROM was born. The manuscript went back and forth between Dennis and
myself until he was happy that it was correct and as he wanted it.
At
no
time during this stage was it envisioned that TROM had a name or
would
be
distributed. It was purely and archival exercise which I thought
important and for which I take credit.
A little later Dennis told me that he had made contact with some friends
in the U.K. and asked if I could send them a copy. Discussion was then
had between Dennis and myself about distributing TROM and I explained
that due to other committments I really wasn't interested in being
responsible for distribution. So it came about that Terry and Flemming
became the official planetary distributors and I went on with my life.
I kept in touch with Dennis until his passing and I had no part in
discussions as to who 'inherited' his work or ownership thereof. That
Judith has accepted responsibility for the future direction of TROM is a
game of her own choosing and I thank her for taking up the
standard.
Unfortunately once the work was distributed I started hearing criticism
that the book didn't have and index; that there were spelling errors;
that it wasn't easy to understand; wasn't available in other languages;
etc. Well the fact is that the original compilation wasn't designed for
mass distribution and it showed. Any imperfections were as Dennis was
comfortable with because he approved the manuscript.
As for myself I have previously stated that I renounce any fair claim to
copyright for TROM. I did my duty in bringing the work into
circulation.
All I ask is that people show some appreciation for my having made
the
work known and assessible. I would take credit where it is due and
leave
others their own.
Dennis was egalitarian. He wanted to make self help therapy accessible
and cheap so that the working man could improve his lot. He wanted to
make a difference. I think he did - lets also give the man his
due.
Happy TROMing
Greg Pickering
--
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
