Edited and enhanced 01/21/11 Friday 6:56pm EST
     Writen before Ken died and before PURPOSES, ORIGINATIONS AND


      For Ken Ogger - 2007

     LRH described engrams as a facsimile (mental image picture) of an
incident that happened to the being.  They are kind of a picture bank
full of pain and unconciousness that could later control the being when
particular incidents came into restimulation.

     A deeper theory claims that engrams are continuing entanglements of
the being with the past, he never left it behind, and a part of him is
still there.  This of course implies there is a past to get stuck in
that is as real as the present, but in any case some engrams are SO
HEAVY they might as well be continuing direct involvments with the past.

     By defining engrams as mere pictures of the past, which of course
may also exist, one diminishes the problems involved in running them

     Running out a picture of the past, and running out a continued
misinvolvment with the past are two different things, because the past
is a different order of magnitude than a picture of the past!

     Dealing with a picture of tiger that bit you, and dealing with a
tiger biting you are not the same ball game.

     Not even the same ball park.

     LRH talked about being buttered all over the universe, we indicate
this includes being buttered all over time.

     We find that in running engrams, we might as well be running the
tiger biting us now in present time, before the event becomes no longer
a problem, be it entanglement with a mere picture of the past or the
very past itself.

     If we consider an engram as a continued involvement in the past,
then the tiger IS biting us now until we fully disentangle ourselves
from that past and bring all of our self back to present time.

     The picture of the tiger biting us we can then sell as a souvenir.

     From this we have our first LAW OF ENGRAMS:

     An engram, be it a mere picture of the past or an actual continued
entanglement with the past in present time, will not erase until one

     In other words if we discover a set of actions that will heal us
absolutely of the engram in present time, those same actions would have
healed us absolutely of the incident in the past when it happened in the
first place.  The incident would have been self healing, no engram left
at the end of it.  The body may have remained damaged but the being
would have remained clear, and picture/entanglement free.

     At the OT level, the body would have healed in the ending of the
incident too, and the thing would be as if never been.

     How do we know when an incident is or was handled properly?

     No residue picture left, and no continued entanglement of free
theta in the past.

     Further no damage to our lives remaining, and all course
corrections completed, meaning back on course even if from another

     This only happens when a being passes through any moment of time,
be it good or bad, fully upping everyone and everything, thus creating
no persisting wake of residue born of resentment to be carried along
with him in present time.

     See discussion on UPPING AND DOWNING BELOW.

     Anyhow whether we consider engrams to be mere pictures of the past,
or actual present time involvement IN THE PAST RIGHT NOW, we still need
to deal with them.

     Engrams can exist in two states, they can either not exist at all,
or they can exist.

     If they exist, they can either be in a state of non restimulation
or a state of acute restimulation, or a state of chronic restumulation.

     It is easy to confuse the state of non existence with the state of
existence but non restimulation.

     The difference is that non existent engrams can't be restimulated
but existing engrams can be :)

     Non restimulated engrams, when restimulated, produce short lasting
acute reactions called dramatizations, followed by acute somatics if the
reactions fail or are perceived to be no good.

     A dramatization means to bring drama to.

     Drama is defined as seriousness, importance, permanence and pain.

     Dramatization also includes action and thoughts about things.

     Chronic restimulated engrams produce continuous life
dramatizations, and chronic somatics when such dramatizations fail, or
are perceived to be no good.


     Dramatization of any engram can fail either by force or by

     Failure by force means the being is forced, usually by others, or
the nature of things as they are, to break the dramatization, making it
too dangerous or impossible for the person to dramatize further.

     A murder engram gets restimulated and the being gets murderously
mad.  So he hits a wall with his fist trying to 'kill it', as he was
killed in the original incident.

     This not only hurts his fist, but also turns on the original death
incident full force, he will feel HE is dying.

     The dramatization of hitting the wall failed by force, the wall
exerted more force against his dramatization than he could bring to bear
against the wall.  He thus considers that the dramatization failed, that
it did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish.

     Thus HE ends up sitting back in valence feeling himself being

     Or the same person gets murderously mad, and goes out and buys a
gun, but before he can shoot his intended victim, the police surrond him
and throw a net over him and relieve him of his gun.  He is not injured
in the melee, but he feels the original death incident overcoming him
none the less.

     When you call up a powerful engram and then ATTEMPT BUT FAIL to
carry out the dramatization, it leaves you sitting full force in your
own valence, and in that incident you died, so you feel that death in
the moment of failure of dramatization.

     There is probably no greater evidence that you have lived before
than dramatizing and failing an engram of having been killed before :)

     It makes you feel like you are all torn up inside, being killed
from the inside out.

     This can happen on a gradient scale.  Covert hostility is a mildly
broken dramatization of overt hostility.

     Propitiation is a deeper level of broken dramatization, and at
grief and apathy we have a total break of dramatization.

     Failure by reversal means the being regrets the dramatization, and
decides that dramatizing this way is a bad thing, and tries to restrain
it himself.

     The being gets murderously mad at his girl friend and throws her
off a cliff, which is what was done to him as a girl a while back.

     The dramatization SUCCEEDS in this case.  He wins, he feels GREAT.

     Suddenly he sees the girl's beautiful sad eyes, and regrets the
action, and he tries to go earlier than the engram he dramatized to make
it all not have happened.  This sticks him at the beginning of the
engram IN VALENCE, and again he feels the past death as if it were
happening in present time.  And there he sits for the rest of time being
a dead girl!

     Regret of dramatization is seriously no good for you.

     Time can not be turned back, but your time track can be, and
sitting in your own engrams, except to remind you never to do THAT
again, serves little purpose, so the being needs to find another way to

     Both failure by force and failure by reversal lead to somatics
which are the in valence experience of the engram after calling it up
and dramatizing or trying to dramatize it.

     In general engrams are restimulated by events in the environment,
or by one's own actions either good or bad, or by a conscious decision
to USE them to one's advantage, the advantage of being disadvantaged.

     In the normal course of things, one gets into survival trouble,
falls down to anger on the tone scale, and finds one's self swimming in
images of everyone who ever was sucessfully angry at you.

     Remember in the original incident you were in apathy near or at
death, but the other guy was at anger.  So when one is pushed down to
anger on the tone scale, one has a tremendous assortment of angry
killers of you to chose from to solve the present time problem.

     The being knows these valences work, because they worked on him!

     It is thus tempting and easy to don one of these images (valences)
dripping in pain and unconsciousness, and dramatize it outwardly at the
source of one's own non survival in order to make it wrong, make it
guilty, dominate it, or outright kill it.

     As long as one is able to dramatize successfully the out of valence
winner, one will feel only the experience of the out of valence being,
mostly triumph, vindication etc.

     But should any dramatization fail, either by force or reversal, the
being will fall back into his own valence and feel his own pain and
unconsciousness in the incident.

     There are two kinds of dramatization, out of valence dramatization
and in valence dramatization.

     During an out of valent dramatization the being actually takes on
the valence of the winning valence and DOES what they did.

     During an in valent dramatization, the being remains in valence but
attributes to self the various thoughts, ideas, postulates and
considerations about himself that the winning valence had at the time it

     The being does not DO what the winning valence did, but goes into
agreement with the winning valence's ideas about the being.  The being
also takes on the state he was in during the incident, since he is in
his own valence.

     Near dead.

     In valent dramatizations make one believe about oneself everything
that one's ememies in the past believed or expressed in the incident.
The pain during the in valent position convinces the being the thoughts
must be right.

     "You are no good!" swipe, his head is cut off.  So later the being
walks around feeling he is no good, but doesn't go about swiping other's
heads off.  But his neck always hurts.

     During an out of valent dramatization the being feels just fine
about himself all the while telling others they are no good just before
swiping their heads off.

     LRH by the way named these two things slightly differently.

     He called the out of valence dramatization a dramatizing psychotic.

     And he called the in valence dramatization, a computing psychotic.

     However they are both psychotic, and they are both dramatizations.

      There is a third twist to the in valent dramatization which is the
sympathy engram.

      Foe says 'You are no good!' and swipes your head off, but golden
ally stands by your side saying 'Oh you poor dear', holding your severed
head to her breast.

     You have been wanting to get your face between her tits for years,
now you have got it.

     The being can dramatize this out of valence as either the villain
or the golden ally, and can dramatize it in valence as a computing
psychotic who thinks he is a poor dear that is no good!

     Out of valence the being will go around as the villain cutting
people's heads off, or as the golden ally giving sympathy for those
without heads.  Or both at the same time.  First he cuts their
heads off, then 'Oh you poor dear!'

     In valence the being will go around like he is near death, and the
only thing that will spark him up is someone saying the exact words in
the sympathy engram 'Oh you poor dear'.  He will glom onto them and not
let go.  If he is forced to let go, he will go back to sick, dying or

     It can be argued that the only engrams a being will dramatize in
valence ARE symapthy engrams when he tries to use those engrams to get
symapthy from others like his golden ally, but in the end what he gets
are the computations of the villain about himself.

     So he goes around feeling 'I am no good' and looking for
someone who will say "Oh you poor dear!"

     Beings will use their symapthy engrams against almost anyone who is
not being cooperative, particularly if they even vaguely resemble the
original golden ally.

     If they only way to get his mother to appreciate him is
to have his head cut off, then he will go to great lengths
to either have it happen or fake it via restimulation of
the prior sympathy engram.

     This might work at first, but usually fails to work shortly
thereafter, and the being is stuck in valence trying harder and harder
to get sympathy, and only getting an education about his lack of worth
from the original villain in the piece driven home with the pain of

     Usually sympathy engrams only work against the true original Golden
Ally, and "only the exact words of the golden ally will sooth the heart
of the aberrated soul."- LRH

      Beware therefore the sympathy engram where the golden ally was
reading Swahili to the sick kid, they can be a bitch to run.

      Beware also the sympathy engram where mother was both
villain and golden ally.  During an attempted abortion with
knitting needles she is say 'Oh you poor dear, I just have to
get rid of you, having you around would just ruin everything but
it will be so sad to not have you around...'

     This will create a monster who doesn't know whether to love or

     He also doesn't know whether to be around which will ruin
everything for everyone, or not be around which will make everyone sad.

     These kind of computations will drive him crazy and leave him in a
permanent indecision about whether to be or not to be.

     We are probably most familiar with the dramatizing psychotic,
mother beats up on kid, so kid beats up on his children.  If it was good
enough for mother, then it is good enough for him.

     Some children will do the OPPOSITE of what mother did, mother
always made them brush their teeth, so now that they are adults they
never brush their teeth and never watch after their kids that they brush
theirs too.

     This too is a dramatization, a negative dramatization, doing the
opposite of what the winning valence did in order to win against them.
Needless to say negative dramatizations are slightly higher tone than
full blown dramatizations, at least the guy is still trying to fight the
winning valence rather than becoming what he feared most.

     Anyhow, doing to other's what someone did to you, that made you
lose, is more likely than not a bad computation.

     Engrams are not thought out carefully before they dramatize the
person into action, and thus almost always are a bad computation, even
if by chance it might be a pro survival action in some particular

     In other words anything a reactive bank makes you do is probably
not a good thing even if it happens to be 'right' once in a while.

     Better to do it on a fair chosen basis, than on a 'being dramatized
into doing it' basis.

     LRH described the engram as a held down 7 forcing bad computations
on the being's computations in life.

     This applies to the fundamental law of survival,


     The being's analytical mind is constantly computing what to DO from
what it WANTS and what it KNOWS.

     If the being has a held down 7 in what it knows, 'the way to
succeed is to be a freeloader and a bum', then it will compute wildly
off course doings to get there.

     Engrams are in fact a lot worse than this, the engram TAKES OVER
AND MAKES THE BEING ACT AGAIN.  Very little time to compute anything at
all even with a held down 7.

     The held down 7 plays a greater role in the decision to USE engrams
so that they dramatize one continuously without thinking at all.  'The
way to survive is to hit everyone over the head with a hammer'.

     So the guy has a death engram of being hit over the head with a
hammer, and his held down 7 says this is always a good idea, so he will
PARK himself out of valence in the engram so that it dramatizes him
automatically into hitting others over the head with hammers, without
him having to think about it anymore.

     Once the being starts to USE engrams to his advantage, he does so
by taking on some miscomputation or another which cements in place
forever the justification for letting that engram dramatize him.

     The being thus chooses his own held down 7's according to his needs
and schemes of the moment.

     Thus we wish to run out the engram bank, the source of reactivity
and absurd solutions.

     The end result is we can "be our own advisor, select our own
decisions, and keep our own counsel." - LRH

     "Dignity is being the sole operator of your self." - Adore

     The subject of what makes an engram persist, and thus available to
being reactivated in the first place, is related to the subject of what
makes things persist in general.

     Thus an understanding of creation, persistence and vanishment are
central to handling the engram bank, and probably all other aspects of
life too.


     We define UPPING as the act of putting up a mockup.

     We define DOWNING as the act of taking down a mockup BY ceasing to
up it any more.

     Downing, in its purest form, is simply the cessation of upping, one
ceases to up a mockup, and it vanishes, end of story.

      The first law of persistence is this:

      One can not down something by upping something else.


      In other words if one has upped A, and now wants to down it, one
can not down A by upping B, no matter what B is.

      The second law of persistence is:

      If one has upped B IN ORDER TO DOWN A, one must down B first,
before A will down.

      The idea that upping B can down A creates a considered causal
connection between B and A.

     The consideration of causal connection between A and B forever ties
A and B together, as B would never have been upped except for the desire
to down A.

     It is tempting to say that taking one's attention off of upping A
by putting it on upping B, will result in a cessation of upping A.

     But the fact that one is upping B BECAUSE one wants to down A,
implies that one has already considered that one IS upping A before one
starts to up B, but more importantly can't just down A without resorting
to upping B.

     The first postulate is that A is being upped and can't be downed
merely by ceasing upping it.

     The second postulate to up B commits to the first postulate that A
is being upped in the first place and can't be just downed.  This in
fact solidifies the upping of A making it impossible to down A ever
again as long as one continues to try to down A by upping B.

     Thus if one wants to down A, one needs to cease upping A BEFORE one
gets involved in anything at all about B, unless B has already been
upped first in order to down A, in which case B must be downed before A
will down.

     If one can simply down A, one won't get involved with upping B at
all, because upping B was conceived as a solution to downing A, but if A
no longer exists as a problem, then B will never get created as a

     Whether or not A continues to persist is a matter of your
relationship to *A* alone, and not to anything else in existence.  This
aloneness with A is a necessary function to downing it, because you were
alone with A when you upped it in the first place.

     Bringing the upping of B into the picture as a solution to the
problem of downing A, destroys your aloneness with A, and thus not only
fails to cause the desired downing of A, but solidifes the upping of A
where it can't be downed any more.

     The only way then to down A, is to down B first, and THEN when you
are alone with A again, (no future solutions being conceived or upped),
you are free to cease upping A and it will down in the mere non
consideration of it.


     Now all universes are a resonant group of beings bound into a
single shared dream by an invite and a unanimous decision that it be so.

     This means that not only can you up something for yourself, you can
also up something for another, and they can up things for you.

     This doesn't mean that you are upping everything they are upping
for you, but you are continuing to up their invite into your dream, so
they can then originate ups and downs for you, and you them.

     Without that invite and unanimous acceptance of that invite, they
couldn't up or down anything for you, nor you them, as they might as
well not exist at all for you, as there could be no cause or effect
between you.

     No invite = no cause or effect on or from others.

     So here is the third law of persistence.

     Persistence of resonant groups is held together by desired and
denied unanimous invite.

     You will see why shortly.

     The resonant group was designed by unanimous invite, and so at
first it is well known through out the group that unanimous invite holds
the group together.

     However that very awareness tends to disolve the bonds, so the
group has to constantly keep putting itself there.

     The group in a high state of awareness of unanimous invite is
constantly evaporating, "Hey you come back here, we aren't done yet!"

     To handle this problem of vanishment, the group designs in
unawareness of the unanimous invite.

      Once awareness of the unanimous invite is lost, it is no longer a
problem keeping the group together because the laws of persistence keep
it going, you can't down something (the invite) you aren't admitting
you are upping.
     In fact the group becomes impossible to tear apart no matter how
much they hate each other and pretend to BE apart.

     But the game also starts to become very serious.

     You can't down what you consider you aren't upping or are unwilling
to up or to have upped.

     Since "nobody" created it, no invite, no one can destroy it, and so
now the game is forever.

     The way to destroy something is to down it, but you can't down it,
if YOU aren't upping it!

     By serious we mean the individual has lost sight of his choice to
enter and play the game, and to invite the adversaries in.

     Thus responsibility for condition goes to zero.

     People no longer want to play but only to win, and they want to win
only to end the game *FOREVER*, not to enjoy playing it.

     They don't enjoy playing it because for one, no one likes to play a
game they didn't choose to play (they think), and two the consequences
of losing are too serious.

     In particular the most serious consequence of losing any game is
not ever being able to play any more games FOREVER.

     Your mortal meatball suffers from this like a man hanging on a

     If he loses the game of survival, he's dead, that's it bud forever
and ever amen.

     And he plays like it too, mostly by letting others play for him.

     He gets other's to take the risk, and he steals the rewards of
survival at the other's expense.

     Your average mortal meatball has the ethics of an asp viper, he
will cheat to the end of time to win the game of survival, lest he never
get to play again.

     This hatred of the game means no one is willingly upping it
anymore, nor considering the unanimous invite that brought everyone
together, thus the friendship with the game and its opponents is gone.

     And there is no downing in the absence of knowing willing upping.

     Thus you get what you resist seriously.

     Serious means I didn't, wouldn't, couldn't shouldn't have upped
this thing.

     This solves the problem of the game falling apart spontaneously
from too much awareness of invite, but guarantees that the whole group
is on its way to hell forever in a handbasket, as affinities die and
people want to end the game and get away from each other but can't.

     Remember forevers of anything in time violate the sovereign while
in which any creation exists, including a group bond or game.

     This includes both wanting a game to last forever or to end

     Thus wanting to end a game forever, NEVER to be played again, or to
wish non existence forever off on any other member so that you can
continue to play the game in peace forever, immediately results in a
violation of sovereign desire which IS hell, and this hell lasts forever
until the considerations of forever are removed.

     The only way to keep a game from self vanishing, is to make sure no
one wants to play it, but has to anyhow, all the while being desperate
about not losing the game, lest they can never play any game again!

     The mortal game of survival is such a game.

     1.) They didn't chose to come into the game.

     2.) They don't want to play the game, but feel they must because
death is too painful to face.

     3.) If they do lose it, they will never be able to play any other
game ever again because they will be dead forever.

     4.) So they give into corruption, temptation and seduction to
get others to play for them and take their winnings.
     Boy do such beings have a bone to chew with God, or barring
awareness of divinity, with the AllThatIs.

     The manifestations of the AllThatIs are still around because
everyone hates it so much!

     The only way to remove the considerations of forever against one's
adversaries in the game and the game itself, is to recognize and
reoperate the unanimous invite.

     The restoration of responsibility for condition thus brings the
game out of the permanent persistence of hatred (no one upping it), and
back up to the vanishing willingness of friendship.

     The end result of the total vanishingness of friendship is peace.

     At hate it LOOKS like friendship has vanished, but in fact love has
merely been polarized wrong way to, its still there, and its still love
but it loves to hate.

     And love masquerading as hate will persist for as long as you can
stand it.

     Which, thank God, is not very long in an Eternity of things.

     "There is peace in the knowledge that one day all men will attain
the awakened state" - Sufi.

     Once friendship is restored, everyone goes back to sleep in the big
slumber party in the sky called the Big Snooze.

     "If you would that people be Friends, then teach them the words of

     "This dream ends forever when the circle of friends are all holding
hands again.

     "Class is an attitude, that ALL should live forever and be my

     "Class and Free Fancy power the dance." - Adore.

     Class is basically invite.


     So games exist of various different players upping and downing
things for each other.

     Remember that since everyone entered the room, joined the game, on
a fair chosen invite, and agreed unanimously with all the other players
there that they should play a game of whatever kind, full repsonsibility
for condition obtains at all times.

     One is NOT responsible for what others do in the game, but one IS
responsible for you AND them being in that particular game at that time.
You AND them couldn't be in that game together unless YOU agreed to it,
and them also.

     Thus one, in theory, could cease upping the room and the invite one
extended to the other players, and the game would end for one

     It would probably also end for everyone else too, as the unanimity
would be broken, and the remaining players would have to all renegotiate
from the bottom up.

     Might just a well start a whole new game, only this time get signed
agreements not to quit in the middle.

     This ability to cease upping one's involvement in the game however
is buried under many layers of further persistence, most of which were
created and designed as solutions to being in a game "one had nothing to
do with creating" and thus couldn't down if one wanted to.

     Thus many things surrounding you in your life which is an unwanted
persistence, was at one time upped in order to down a no longer wanted
game of one kind or another which one considered one couldn't just down,
because one considered one never upped it in the first place!

     The post invite solutions which were upped, committed to the
postulate that the invite not only could not be downed but didn't exist
in the first place, so until those solutions are downed in their
entirety, the committment to total irresponsibility remains in force and
the original invite will remain up.

     Responsibility however is a subtle thing, and in fact applies all
the way up and down the line from the invite to the end of the game.

     For example one can not only up things for oneself and for others,
one can up OTHERS upping things for one's self and others.

     Thus one can intend that another create a mockup, and he will.

     If you can't write great songs, you find a great song writer and
you say 'Write a great song for me!' and he does.

     Market negotiations and physical universe vias can make this a
complex process by design, but underlying all the nonsense you can up
anyone to up anything.

     Thus you go up to Joe, and you up Joe upping an apple, and there
you have an apple.  It's Joe's apple you see, HE upped it, but YOU upped
him upping it.

     He upped it, but he upped it BECAUSE you upped him upping it.

     You caused him to cause.  You are responsible for him being

     Then you cease upping Joe upping an apple, and the apple

     Joe might on his own accord then want to re up the apple on his own
determinism, but that's a different apple than the one you upped him

     Joe in fact might seem quite surprised at finding himself upping an
apple for no reason, but you can explain to him that you think he ups
fine apples, and so you had him up one for you.  He will probably say
'Oh fine, here have it, they do look good.'

     People don't mind being upped to up things by and for other people,
it is part of the original game play.

     It's called projection of intention.

     You intend that he intends, and he does until you stop intending
that he intend.

     Intention is just another up, you can down any intention that
another is upping by intending that he intend as he already is, until it
becomes YOUR up that he is intending.  Then you can down it just like
any other up by letting go of it.



     Psychosis is total devotion to stopping with no effort to start.
It's nuts because one stops BY starting again and then letting go.

     Most players and pieces in a game are just praying someone will up
some intelligent move in them that they can't up themselves.  That's
what most prayer is, "Hey Lord, up me a bright idea will ya!"

     But just as often people up things on their own determinism either
for themselves or others.

     So let's say Joe does up an apple for you first, and there you have
an apple.

     Let's also say that today you don't like apples, and so you want
Joe to stop upping his apple for you.

     Well you could up a hammer, and bang Joe on the head with it, but
that would violate the first law of upping and downing.

     You can never down anything by upping something else!

     That includes asking Joe to down his apple for you.  In polite
society that might work, but in not so polite society it never works.

     That's because asking Joe to stop upping, is upping something other
than just upping Joe upping the apple and then ceasing to do so.

     So what you need to do is cease upping Joe upping his apple.

     Then it would go away.

the apple on his own determinism.

     So here is where the magic comes in.

     One is not in fact responsible for something that someone else
up's, but one CAN AFTER the fact of them upping it, UP THEM UPPING IT.

     Then you can cease upping him upping it, and he will do so.

      That's called *TAKING RESPONSIBILITY* after the fact.


     Now normally when someone ups something for you, they expect you to
either fight it by upping something else in an effort to down it, or to
take it and run with it and use it for something, like eat it, which is
ALSO upping something else.

     When Joe ups his apple for you, he is EXPECTING you to up something
else, because if you don't it becomes very hard for Joe to continue
upping that apple all by himself for very long.

     Pure upping is self vanishing.  So when someone ups something he is
thinking 'So alter-is this already, what do you think I am upping this
apple for, my health?!'

     Do you have any idea how hard it is to up something and keep it
around by your little old lonesome?

     It is so hard, entire universes 40 billion light years deep have
been built to solve the problem.

     Thus if you simply up Joe upping that apple, as if you had upped
Joe upping the apple in the first place, Joe will kind of let go of
upping the apple himself, and the apple that remains then is now YOUR
upping of Joe upping the apple.

     Thus when you cease upping Joe upping the apple, it will vanish.

     Thus the way to vanish anything that another is upping for you, is
to up them upping it until their upping it is YOURS, then cease upping
them upping it.

     That's called taking responsibility for condition, and taking
responsibility will vanish or down ANYTHING that was upped, no matter
who upped it originally or for who.


     So why do engrams persist?

     Because during the incident the preclear (pc) didn't up the other
side upping the impact on the pc until he could cease to up it himself.

     If he had, he would have experienced a self healing engram.

     An engram is a moment where the pc tried to down something by
upping something else, usually force, unconsciousness, blackness,
invisibility and elsewhereness, thus the engram persists.

     If something get's upped for you, upping a lot of nothing to get

     Your average Black V case is not even a Black V, he can't see true
blackness at all.  He's an invisible V case at best.

     But that invisibility is not a nothing there, its a mockup of
nothing there and is thus a something there.

     It's a something that looks like a nothing.

     Omni good work.

     If there really were nothing there, the pc could put as much
something there as he wanted, but instead he is putting 100 percent of
his theta into a mockup of nothing there, which is a SOMETHING THERE
even though it LOOKS like a nothing there.  So he has no free theta to
put anything else there.

     Ever notice how SOLID that black V nothing there is?

     It may LOOK like nothing there, but man does it have mass!

     As he comes up tone by the way, he will come up from invisiblity to
BLACKNESS, not just the pitiful dark red brown color of the back of his
closed eye lids, but real honest to goodness Lord God Almighty Save Me
blackness so thick and real he could cut it up and sell it for a markup.

     He can see color again, BLACKNESS!  Endless eons of it.

      But that blackness and then invisibility was put there for a
reason, he tried to down an intolerability, by upping blackness and

     It may be an ugly intolerability, that's what humans understand,
but it may also be a beauty intolerability.  Most likely its both,
something intolerably ugly AND beautiful.

     Sometimes life is not all bad, sometimes life is too good.

     He still has some get up and go in life because his black V is
protecting him from the absolute certainty that nothing at all is
worthwhile any more.  But he is running on a substitute purpose that
will usually make him ill the more he pursues it.

     Run intolerable beauty and ugly until beautiful *BLACKNESS* turns
on, see what happens.

     What made *EVERYTHING*, every possible purpose, un worthwhile?

     The ability to have a purpose and the ability to mockup are
directly related.  Purpose's give rise to originated communications via

     No mockups means no originated communications which means no
purpose which is still worthwhile.

     So the reason the pc can't down what another upped, is because he
is refusing to up them upping it!  He can't down what he isn't taking
full responsibility for!

     The pc thinks, Joe shouldn't have upped an apple, apples are very
bad things, the priests frown on apple uppers, God sends apple uppers to
hell, I just GOTTA stop Joe from upping apples, or Joe is toast!

     So in that frame of mind where the pc couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't
up an apple himself, or up anyone else upping apples, lest he cause THEM
to sin, he certainly isn't going to succeed to down Joe upping an apple,
because to do so he would have UP Joe upping an apple and we don't do
that kind of thing.

     You can't down what *YOU* aren't upping.

     Upping = invite.


     That's a *QUESTION* by the way in case you are collecting them.

     Thus the self righteous are doomed by their own righteousness.

     So the pc gets stuck forever more with Joe upping apples that
shouldn't be upped, NO MATTER WHAT ELSE THE PC TRIES TO UP to prevent Joe
from upping apples.

     There is perhaps a cruel justice here, all the pc had to do to get
rid of something that shouldn't be made is to make it again for a
moment, but noooo, gotta be right and good.  Its so much better to get
stuck with failure forever, than succeed.

     If screwing a whore would end prostitution for all time, would God
approve of you screwing the whore?

     If legalizing and licensing prostitution with government oversight
would end the aids epidemic forever more, would God approve the

     Think about it.  Just how nuts is your God on the subject of being

     Just as hate is love polarized wrong way to, cruelty is humor
polarized wrong way to.

     Look on the other side of hate and you will find love.

     Look on the other side of cruelty and you will find humor.

     We never offered that truth was acceptable to the aberrated.

     So the engram persists because something or someone upped something
for the pc that the pc found unacceptable.

     Instead of upping the other side upping the unacceptability, the pc
upped all kinds of counter ups against the other side upping the
unacceptability in order to make it wrong, make nothing of it, or forget
it, all of which created persistence of the incident.


     Engrams are caused by moments of unconfronted unwillingness.

     In games of kinetics where survival is all, engrams are caused by
moments of non optimum motion, either too much or too little motion of
one kind or another.

     Motion is anything on the physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual
planes of existence.

     Too much or too little water would be a physical non optimality
both of which would cause an engram.

     Too much motion or too little motion both create states of severe
non survival and thus pain in the being.

     The being CHOOSES to deal with these moments with unconsciousness,
blackness, invisibility, denial and elsewhereness, and thus creates a
persistence of the event while hoping to not-is it out of existence.

     As we said, there are two broad theories as to what an engram is
made of.

     The second theory is that an engram is a continued entanglement of
the thetan in a moment in the past.  Only part of the thetan moved ahead
into present time, leaving the rest of himself in a stuck position
actually in the past.

     This in part explains why engrams can be so heavy, they ARE the
original event still taking place.

     The reason the being is stuck in the past is because he is failing
to up the other side upping the impact that he is resisting.

     Joe is upping an apple, and the pc is resising it, rather
than himself upping Joe upping the apple.

     In stead he pretends the whole thing isn't happening, and that all
of him made it to present time.


     This also explains why the engram won't disengage and run out until
the pc learns how to do what he should have done in the original
incident to assure full recovery of theta and freedom to move into the
future leaving nothing behind.

     This would be a wound that was healed in the making of it.

     To the degree that the being did the wrong thing, namely tried to
down the incident by upping something else, blackness, invisibility,
not-isness, or elsewhereness, the being remains stuck in the past and
the wound never heals because it is constantly being made right there
where he is stuck right now.

     The first theory of engrams says that the being is constantly
taking pictures of his every moment of existence, forming a picture
perfect video time track of his life.

     These pictures are made of mental matter, energy, space and time,
just like a mental mockup is.  They can be replayed with 3D
revivification later, and they can be restimulated by similar events in
the environment that reminds the person of the prior recorded event.

     When moments of non survival happen, including pain and loss, these
pictures become unpleasant to the being because they are recordings of
his non survival which is unpleasant.  He tries to deal with them by
not-ising them rather than by perfectly re upping their sources as they

     In fact the picture is as big, heavy and massy as the pc failed
himgself to up the moment as it occured.

     Engrams are caused by counter efforts, forces coming in at the pc
from other's or things outside of himself.

     Upping a source of counter effort means taking full repsonsibility
for the counter effort BY upping the source upping the counter effort.

      It's not enough to merely SAY I am causing that, one must extend
the invite and operate the will into the counter effort's CREATOR.

     It's not enough to say I am making Joe's apple, you have to say I
am making Joe, and making Joe make an apple!

     For example, if you have a photograph of an old girl friend you
really detest now, you might try to do a number of things with it.

     You could just burn it, or you could put it away somewhere far away
from you where you won't ever run into it again, or you could spray
paint it with black paint, so nothing shows through.

     This last is kind of what an engram is in this theory, its a
crystal clear picture of impact covered with MORE mental energy
consisting of blackness, invisibility, unconsciousness, elsewhereness,
and other forms of 'not thereness' and 'this never happened'.

     Thus as the being reviews his entire time track he will find areas
that are painted black, and areas that are 'thrown away', attached to
space ships going to Andromeda, hoping to cart them off, and even loops
in the track where yesterday has been fused to tomorrow, leaving out
today completely.

     Now the joke is of course that no matter how much the being tries
to cut it up, or throw it way, or paint it with black or invisibility,
the entire time track is still there, because you can't EVER down
something by upping something else!


     Let's go over this again.

     True persistence is caused by simply not ceasing to up something.

     You up it, and you up it, and you keep upping it, but the moment
you forget to up it, its gone, because a true up is self vanishing.

     Trying to down A BY upping B *COMMITS* to the postulate that A *IS*
being upped, and thus locks A into the up position until that
committment ceases.

     Committment means you have given the go to doing all kinds of
things BECAUSE A is up, that you wouldn't do if A were not up.

     The creation of the causal connection between "A is up" and B,
namely everything ELSE you are doing BECAUSE "A is up", thus forces the
postulate that "A is up" to be true, and thus A can not be downed.

     You think you are trying to up B to down A, but in reality you are
still upping A, and upping A, and upping A, and you can't take your
attention off of upping A because you are so busy upping B in order to
down A which means A is still up you see?

     So removing your attention from upping A would down A.

     But putting your attention on upping B in order to down A creates a
covert attention on A that keeps upping A.

     As long as the being is trying to down A by upping B, he can't let
go of A, or else why is he trying to up B?

     Once he let's go of upping B, he can then get back to letting go of
A and A will down.

     The effort to down A by upping B creates time, because B is in the
future of A.  By attending to upping B, the being is no longer in the
time of A's creation and thus can not down A.

     One needs to be alone with A in the time of A in order to down A.

     Thus the more the pc dumps on the detested parts of his time track
to make them 'never have been', the more they will always continue to

     This results in the dwindling spiral.

     And a very heavy time track.

     Only a pure down or as-isness of an event will produce a true
'never have been'.

     Remember native state has no memory.

     If a native state being ups A, that's the 'first time' A has ever
been upped.  If the being then downs A, there is no record left anywhere
in eternity that A was ever created.  It's gone and might as well never
have been.

     Thus if he ups A again, it's still the first time A has ever been

     NO MEMORY is an amazing thing.

     It can't be held against you if it's completely as-ised, which is
why no hell can outlast a true confession.

     If it is as good as never happened, it never happened, you see?

     But back to our preclear dumping black on his time track.

     Any part of the track can be restimulated by his present time
environment, because the restimulation contacts the track on the back
side where everything is crystal clear, not the side he painted black.

     Thus no matter how much black paint he sprays on a part of it, it
can be just as easily restimlated as any other part!

     What makes this bad is that when a black painted area is
restimulated, he will feel the pain and unconciousness, but won't have a
clue what it was all about!

     This however turns out to be an advantage when he wants to use some
of these pains in the head to get out of school, but he certainly
doesn't want either himself or his mother to know it's coming from a
prenatal where the mother was screwing the milkman.

     However the minute he turns unknowing effect into a survival
advantage, he is sunk.  He is using an unknown to handle his survival

     Worse if he doesn't know exactly why he is not surviving, too much
confusion, and then he ALSO starts to use being an unknowing effect to
handle that non survival situation, he has fallen into using unknowns to
handle unknowns, and thus is well on his way to oblivion.

     Oblivion is using things that one is oblivious to, to handle
survival threats from things that one is also oblivious to.

     All in all the timetrack turns out to be just what the being needs
for dire survival situations.  He runs into something dangerous in the
environment, and his bank reacts in a split second, much faster than he
could consciously, and TELLS him what to do, in fact MAKES him do it, so
as to protect his sorry ass.

     We call this dramatization, but in fact the bank is dramatizing him
into action.

     Only later does he have time and awareness to ruminate over what
happened and why, and whether his reaction was appropriate.

     Now reactions in the game of life tend to be appropriate, in their
proper time and place, but they can be messed with through intentional
or not so intentional events, thus guaranteeing that some bank reactions
are very non survival indeed.

     In particular once some part of the bank is put into USE by the
being to make someone or something wrong, then it becomes suicidal,
because a continuing reaction ALL THE TIME TO EVERYTHING can't possibly
be good for anyone.

     Yet people call these chronic reactions their personality.

     So there becomes auditing, which is the process of running the
engram bank out.

     "Up something making nothing of you."

     One can ask if it would be better to just run out the nuttiness of
the bad parts of the bank, and leave the rest of it in place since it is
pretty good at quick reactions that need to take place faster than

      Such a state would be a keyed out clear.

      This might be true for a body that didn't have a guiding thetan,
but the thetan can in fact think faster than any body can react, and as
long as the thetan is out of the body and able to control or direct it,
the thetan is in general better off without the engram bank than with

     It can also be pointed out that the thetan and the body BOTH have
engram banks of their own, and since the body pretty much IS an engram
bank, we don't really want to run out the body's bank anyhow.

     We just want to run out the thetan's bank, in particular the
chronic restimulations, and then the remaining dormant reactivities that
might surprise a thetan later.

     The *THETAN* has no need for an engram bank at all, it was a good
idea at the time that went to hell very fast, and now that time is over.

     But there is a lot to dig through to get to the beginning of it.

     The good news is, the bank is all just things we have upped trying
to down other earlier things.

     In auditing as one approaches a problem area it will consist of a
core A surrounded by all the B's that were upped as a solution to A.

     By putting attention on the A, the B's fall away for lack of
attention, and the being can slide into the seat of sovereignty again on
A until he can up it with complete crystal clarity and high appreciation
for ludicrous demise at which point he can let it go and it will vanish.

      The attention on upping all those B's is what makes the TA rise.

     That's how you find the auditable area, the rising TA points the
way to the constellation.

     The B's are easy as hell to let go of and they vanish with out
trouble, as long a attention is withdrawn back to their original A.
     That is what makes the TA come back down.

     Once he let's go of A, its gone as if it never happened.

     That is what makes the needle float.

     Floating needle means brand new being.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com

Sun Jun 10 21:21:51 EDT 2007