SUPER SCIO #10D: NOTES - continued


Copyright 1996

All commercial rights are reserved to the author, who currently
wishes to remain anonymous and therefore is writing under the
pen name of "The Pilot".  Individuals may freely copy these files
on the internet for their own use and they may be made available
on any web server who does not charge for them and who does not
alter their contents.



The field of metaphysics suffers from a shortage of workable
techniques and processes.  However, there have been a few.
With what we know now, we can take these techniques, correct the
flaws (which may have been intentionally introduced to block
advancement) and improve them into something useful.  One example
is the chakras which I discussed earlier.  Here are a few more.



This is one of the key techniques of Yoga.  First they labor at
mastering various techniques of breathing, especially rhythmic and
hypnotic ones.  Then they work at drawing in cosmic energy (called
Prana) with the breath and running it out to the extremities of
the body or collecting it in the stomach or in the bottom chakra.

This is a mockup drill of considerable power, but few of them realize
that they are mocking up the energy for the body to draw in (a few
advanced ones are aware of this).  If you consider that the universe
is mocking up energy for you, that puts you at effect and it makes
this a long and difficult procedure.  If, however, you consider
that you are mocking up energy for the body, then it becomes a
simple and powerful technique that runs quickly and easily.

The idea of mocking the energy up outside and having the body
draw it in with the breathing is actually quite smart.  This makes
the energy acceptable to the body and brings it in on the body's
normal inflow.

You can just push golden energy into the body, but there is some
resistance and it is not easy to get the body to have or use the
energy.  Mocking up golden energy in the air around you and having
the body breath it in is orders of magnitude easier and often gives
a distinct rise in the body's energy level.  Go ahead and drill
it a little each way and you'll see what I mean.  You should 
occasionally flow some energy in contrary to the breathing just
to keep from going slavishly into agreement with the body, even
though it is much easier the other way.

There's no sense in making a big deal about the breathing itself.
With a drill like this you should consciously control your breathing,
but it hardly matters what you do with it as long as you are in
control.  It doesn't have to be rhythmic (unless you're trying for
some kind of a trance) or deep or shallow or any other specific

Realize that you are not actually breathing in energy.  You are
just fooling the body into accepting the energy that you are mocking
up for it by flowing it in with the breath.  This means that 
you can breath shallowly or erratically and still run a big flow
of energy all the way out to the fingers and toes.

An interesting drill is to mockup a cloud of golden energy around 
an object and then flow the energy in and out of it in rhythm with 
your breathing.  This might help with levitation etc.



The "Diamond Cutter" drill (sometimes found in Mahayana Buddhist
texts) was so called because it exposed the true spirit hidden
within the corporeal shell much as a diamond cutter exposed the
true diamond hidden within what seems to be an ordinary stone.

This was one of a general class of drills where one meditated on
being nothing or looked inward and found nothingness.

Occasionally these kinds of drills would produce a keyed out OT,
but usually they just keyed the person in and knocked him down scale.

Ron tried out various techniques in this direction and found that 
they generally were restimulative and unworkable (only one process, 
"Conceive a Static" worked to some degree).  Eventually he concluded 
that you could not process in this direction because a thetan had to 
have a game and the static is a no games condition.  But in this 
case he was wrong.  

The real bug in these drills is that the static is not a pure
nothingness.  It is a nothingness with potential.

If you run "I am nothing", it will kick your teeth in because it
is wrong.  If you run "I am a nothingness with infinite potential",
you are moving in the direction of truth and rehabilitating native
state and will gain in power.  The ancient drills must have
occasionally hit this the right way and so they sporadically
produced a powerful result.

But alternating techniques are much stronger than simple
contemplation.  And even with the right concept, drills on
nothingness can knock out havingness.  So our best technique
would alternate the nothingness with a powerful havingness
raising command.  This gives us the following high horsepower

Mock these up, alternately.  Don't worry about it if it seems
very vague and unreal at first, just carry on, it will get better.

A) Look within yourself and see a nothingness with infinite

B) Look within yourself and see the entire physical universe.

You can also vary this by seeing the magic universe or any other
universe that you have some reality on.



In the final analysis, you can only trap yourself.

I have labeled the 12th dynamic as "Reason" and it encompasses the
domain of logic.  That it is only the 12th and not the top implies
that it is not an absolute truth and that you can operate outside
of it.

Early on the track you could be trapped by your own logic and this
is perhaps the ultimate trap.

Zen is famous for its koans.  These are concepts to meditate on
which are aimed at freeing you from the trap by exteriorizing you
out of the game and the pattern of agreement.  An often quoted
example is "The Sound Of One Hand Clapping".  Another is "The Sound
of Silence", which doesn't mean that you hear how quiet it is or 
feel relief that the noise has stopped but rather that you
contemplate the sound of the nothingness that isn't there.

The direct approach would be to drill disagreement through mockup
processing as is done in the Philadelphia Doctorate Course.  But
any direct approach is limited by the factors of accessibility.

Zen, on the other hand, is a subtle approach which tries to
undercut the entire pattern, not just the parts that are accessible.

On a conscious level, you could, for example, mockup silence with
and without sound, but that would be missing the point of the koan.
In that kind of a drill, you are moving upwards in the pattern of
agreement and learning to disagree at a basic level, but you are
still to some degree in the game.  The koan, on the other hand,
is more like listening to a sound that was never put there in the
first place.  It is outside of the entirety of the game.

This approach can exteriorize one from the jewel of knowledge and
the entire sequence of universes.

The best way would be to mockup your own koans.  Contemplate that
which you consider to be truly impossible by definition and find
it anyway and discover that there is no way to communicate it but
it still is.

Being of a mathematical bent, I contemplated the place where two
and two equals five in the absolute sense (without redefining the
number line) knowing that such a place could not exist by 
definition and contemplated that location anyway.

This is a limited approach.  Even in exteriorizing from the game,
you will not actually abandon everything without viewing it.
Therefore you will put it back and reach back into it.  But it is
still an exterior condition, much like exteriorizing from the body,
but a step higher.

But there is a liability to this technique.  It can take you so
far out that you experience a severe drop in havingness and motion.
That in turn can cause you to pull things back in again.  So you
need to balance this with havingness processes and OT drills.
Especially, reaching and withdrawing from the physical universe,
and mocking up games etc.   You might also need to do a variation
of the ext/int rundown on the button of interiorizing and
exteriorizing from games or universes or frames of reference.


Having found these gems within the various Buddhist practices, and
knowing that Ron's early work drew on this material as well, you
would expect to find a tremendous degree of spiritual awareness
in the orient.

Let me disabuse you of that notion.

The vast majority of Buddhists are not practicing Zen or the
Trantras (Tantric Buddhism is the Tibetan flavor - the word
Tantra could be translated as meaning process or drill) or
the Sutras (the diamond cutter is a sutra).

Most Buddhists follow one of two popular schools.

In the one case, they pray for the coming of Matreya.  This is
the Buddha who is to come who is supposedly studying in heaven
attempting to build a better bridge.

In the other case, they pray to be reborn in the pure land.
At some point, the Amithaba Buddha (who might or might not have
been Buddha's deciple Ananda) promised that when he achieved
enlightenment, he would create a world which was so good and
pure that if you were reborn there, all your sins and karma would
fall away and you would be set free.

I think that observing this is one of the things that drove Ron
to freeze Scientology and guard it against alteration (which also
guards it against advancement).  He saw the shattered remnants of
what must have been a very advanced mental science decayed into
superstition and with its key processes mostly lost or twisted
with subtle traps and errors that would derail the majority of
the population.

But in this world, things will not remain the same.  They either
advance or decline.  It doesn't work to try and cast it all in
concrete.  That simply assures that the change, when it comes,
will be a decay instead of an improvement.

By the way, Ron didn't say that he was The Buddha (Gutama Siddartha).
He said he was the Matreya, meaning that he was the next Buddha
who'd studied and found a better way than the eightfold path.
Since the Matreya is prophesized to be a chubby westerner with
red hair and is often depicted as sitting in a chair instead
of in the lotus position, there might be some justice in the
claim.  It wouldn't surprise me if he had been one of the Buddha's
deciples and had vowed to fulfill the prophesy (this is pure
speculation).  Of course he didn't spend the last few thousand
years in heaven, but that might not have turned out to be a
practical approach to research.


                  16. THE PROTECT BUTTON

Oct 28, 1990

I stumbled on this while trying to resolve a life continuum.  We've 
known for a long time that children often try to carry on the 
valences of relatives who died around them.  This is discussed in 
the Dianetic materials of 1951.  Early on, this was considered to be 
a sort of overt/motivator phenomena with the child blowing a 
minor overt or postulate to be rid of the person up into the reason 
for their demise and doing a valence shift.

But let's say that there is a perfect child who does nothing bad 
with perfect parents with whom he is in great ARC.  Now let's say 
that Ug the barbarian comes riding by with his broadsword and 
lops the parents' heads off.  It would seem to me that this kid is 
going to do a life continuum.  And the critical button is the fact that 
he failed to protect them.

This is very much like failed help and it will run the same way.  
This incident could even be considered as an extreme example of 
failing to help.  But these are really two different things and 
trying to resolve it on failed help might not quite give you the 
right chain.  It's not really hung up on the times he didn't get them 
a bucket of water when he should have.  He's not really worried 
about that although he'll jump at it to avoid the real failure which 
was the fact that there was no way in hell that he could have 
protected these people.  These were symboiants and allies of 
great value and he sure did want them to stay around and he 
would have given anything to protect them.  You'll find that he 
made the strongest postulate he could to protect them, but he 
failed.  And then he makes his postulate stick the only way he can.  
He makes his dead ally live on by becoming them himself.

You can't go straight into the teeth of this.  Its like failed help, you 
will have trouble running it directly with a repetitive process.  What 
you do is run the positive aspect and build it up until the weight of 
what he can protect exceeds the failure and blows out the ridge.

To cure a life continuum, generalize the terminal (e.g. "a father" 
rather than a specific father etc.) and fit it into the following 

1. How could you protect a ....
2. How could a ..... protect you
3. How could another protect a .....
4. How could a ..... protect another
5. How could a ..... protect himself/herself

On a more general basis, you can use all of the help processes on 
grade 1 and reword them with "protect" in place of help.  Note 
that you should run the help processes in their original form first 
if you haven't done so already since help is a lower gradient, then 
run the protect version of these processes.  On a grades chart 
these might better fit into the beginning of grade 2 rather than 
grade 1.

Another thing that happens both with help and protection is that 
they get enforced and inhibited.  There can be quite a bit of 
charge on this.  Ron's bulletin on how help became betrayal is 
really in this realm rather than in the area of failed help and we 
haven't really gone hunting it in the current lineup of processes 
(it might sometimes show up if you get enough charge off).  This is 
a critical area and it should be run.  The processes would be as 

1. Spot times when you forced another to help you.
2. Spot times when another forced you to help them.
3. Spot times when another forced someone else to help them.
4. Spot times when you forced another to help others.
5. Spot times when another forced you to help others.
6. Spot times when another forced someone else to help others.

7. Spot times when you rejected another's help.
8. Spot times when another rejected your help.
9. Spot times when another rejected other's help.

10. Spot times when you made another wrong for not helping.
11. Spot times when another made you wrong for not helping.
12. Spot times when another made others wrong for not helping.

13. Spot times when you made another wrong for helping.
14. Spot times when another made you wrong for helping.
15. Spot times when another made others wrong for helping.

Then run the same with protect in place of help.

Besides this, there appear to be some between lives implants 
which use a failed help and failed protect scene for each of the 
penalty universes.  These seem to be used in one of the upper 
between lives (i.e., between symbol bodies etc.) rather than in the 
current meat body between lives implants.  

Both the failed help and failed protect implants use the terminal 
that was defined as "This means trouble" in the original penalty 
universes.  In the failed help scene, you are the penalty universe 
terminal, and you hear a cry for help from another of the same 
terminals who has been captured by the trouble terminal.  I.E., on 
the goal To Eat, you would be a tiger and would hear the cry of 
another tiger who has been captured by natives and is being hurt.  
You try to rush in, but you get stopped in some manner.  Although 
your body doesn't die, you flinch so hard that you snap out of the 
body and can't bear to re-animate it even though the other 
terminal is screaming or whatever, and as a result, you fail to help 

In the failed protect scene, you are the "trouble" terminal.  There 
will be a crowd of some sort of beings that the penalty terminal 
hurts in the penalty universe.  For example, in the goal To Eat, 
you are the native and there will be a crowd of monkeys who 
come and beg for your protection against the tiger.  Generally 
they give you something and you agree to protect them.  Then the 
penalty terminal comes in fast and smashes you (i.e. the tiger 
comes charging in, swats your spear away, and claws you).  You 
feel pain and jump back from the body.  Although the body isn't 
dead, you can't bear to re-enter it and continue fighting.  So you 
float exterior and watch as the penalty terminal does horrible 
things to the victims you agreed to protect (i.e., you watch the tiger 
eating all the monkeys).

The failed help and protect scenes will be described in detail for 
each penalty universe on the full master list since they are easiest 
to run while running the penalty universes themselves.


                  17. HAVINGNESS GOALS

Based on the idea that there was an earlier actual GPM series
used in the magic universe, I tried to map out what it might

The actual goals of this universe seem to be oriented towards
beingness ("to be intelligent" etc.).  It seemed to me that
the magic universe goals would be havingness oriented.  So
I tried to list out "Who or what am I trying to have".  The
list went on and on, to about 500 items.  I kept going because
charge seemed to be coming off and I was feeling good about
doing it, but it was not really a valid listing question 
because it did not go to a single item.  Near the end, various
items began to rocket read (not all items, which would mean
that the correct item had been bypassed, but rather, specific
items developed a clean and consistent RR when called).

I did various corrections and cleanups and ended up with a
set of about a dozen RRing items that were each valid answers
to the question.  I realized that they had a sequence to them
and could be dated (between 100 and 1000 trillion years ago)
and had been lived in sequence.  When I arranged these, I
found more that belonged in between and came up with the
following series of goals.

These are listed from earliest (1087 trillion years ago) to
the most recent (113 trillion years ago).

















Ron once mentioned an item "To Have Unlimited Wealth" which feels
like it belongs in the same series (but not in this section of
the pattern).  There is probably a top goal which might be something
like having the entire universe or all of creation.  If this is
like the current actual GPM series, then there are a lot more of
these goals in the pattern.

I can't say for sure how this fits in.  It is uncertain whether these
are from the magic universe or earlier.  It is uncertain whether this
is really a series of actual goals or just an implant.  It is given
here as a note for future research.

I also tried this with DOINGNESS GOALS.  That gave me much more
trouble and was pretty mucked up.  I also tried various attempts
to list items (terminal-opterms) for these various goals without
coming up with any patterns that I was really satisfied with.
But I did eventually come up with a number of doingness goals
that formed a back and forth goal oppose pattern.  Again I'm
not sure what it means or if it has any significance, but I'll
include it here as an aid to future research.  The pattern was:

1. TO LEVITATE  (or "to be able"?)
                             2. TO BE A GOOD MEMBER OF SOCIETY
                             4. TO HAVE A NICE SOCIETY
                             6. TO GET AWAY FROM IT ALL
                             8. TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYBODY
                            10. TO ESCAPE
                            12. TO BE UNNOTICED
                            14. TO NOT BE BOTHERED
                            16. TO MAKE THEM LEAVE ME ALONE

Note that I casually try out listing questions without worrying
about getting in trouble.  It's not like having somebody else
jam a listing question down your throat.  If your confront on
the area is good enough to let you think up the question, and
your skill level is high enough to do it in a clean manner,
then you don't get overwhelmed or sick.  Either you discover
right away that its a wrong question and just gives a jumbled
up mess and abandon it as an incorrect action, or it lists
cleanly and simply (with a short list) and you find out something.
Only rarely have I run into things like the above which sort of
ran but didn't quite run cleanly and left me scratching my head.
I suspect that this came from taking a half right angle of
approach into something that was still heavily charged.

People who have not spent years working at this will probably
have a lot more charge and a lot less sense at the right ways
to approach things.  Therefore I would advise against playing
around with untried listing questions until you are very far
along and ready to break new ground.


                    18. ELECTIONS

If the best we can come up with is democracy (and that will fail
if the voters become too stupid, fearful, or welfare oriented),
then we should at least do it right.

The electoral college might have made sense for a loose amalgamation
of states, but that hasn't been the case since the civil war.  If
we're going to be stuck with a strong central government, then
lets at least let the people vote directly for the man who's
going to run things.

Letting congress pick the president if none of the candidates gets
a majority is downright dangerous and frightening in its

Having an entrenched 2 party system guarantees corruption and
vested interests.  It is almost impossible for a 3rd political
party to win a presidential election, and if one does, then one
of the older parties will fold up and we'll be back to 2 parties
again.  What you need is newer and older groups competing on
an equal basis.  And you need to have the established parties
worrying about new upstarts to keep them efficient and reasonably

Having only 2 viable parties means that you are usually choosing
between the lesser of two evils instead of voting for somebody
you want and makes it possible for elections to be manipulated
on a "hate" vote instead of on merit.

What we need is a "Second Chance" voting system.  You vote for
the person you want, and specify a second choice which replaces
your vote if your candidate is not one of the top two in the
first round of counting.  This lets you vote your desire first
and then fall back to a practical, but undesirable, choice.
At a minimum, this scares the established parties and causes
them to shift quickly in the direction of reform groups that
pick up high percentages in the first round.  And in the best
case, it brings new parties in quickly and overturns the back
room king makers.

This kind of voting system is often used in things like picking
the best novel or film to avoid the problem of people voting
for what they think will have a good chance instead of voting
for what they really think is best.  Because there are so many
contenders, they usually use 3 to 5 choices and multiple
elimination rounds.  We might want that eventually, but for
now its hard enough to explain the idea of two choices.


                     19. COMPUTERS

Computers are the latest rage.  They're lots of fun and very useful.
They do things for you on automatic.  It lets you get a lot done.

But automaticities can be a curse as well as a blessing.  First of
all, you should make a point of knowing what is being done for you.
And secondly, you should know how to do it yourself.  This is true
whether we are talking about a computer, or mental machinery, or
even a crowd of servants.  Don't let yourself simply be carried
along as an effect of what is being done for you.  Use the stuff and
let it help you, but also find out about it and get over to a
position of being at cause and in control.

A little time spent learning the basics about computers is well
worth the effort in the current society.


Ron did a nice series of bulletins on the subject of computers.
These are a good introduction and better than many of the beginners
books in the field.  But here we have an interesting point.  If you
are new to the field and study these and use them as a point to
launch off from, you will win.  And if you treat these as absolute
and the final word on the subject, you're setting yourself up for
failure.  These were written by a man who has an excellent ability
to identify key factors in a subject and communicate them.  But
he didn't spend decades in the trenches programming and designing
systems (I have).  There is a lot more to know in the area.

We could draw a parallel with Scientology tech.  It is good but
incomplete.  You will have that problem any time you try to limit
a subject to one and only one individual source point.  Science has
ground to a halt a number of times in the past because an extremely
bright figure (such as Archimedes or Aristotle or Newton) created
such a vast outpouring of brilliance that people put him up on
a pedestal and ceased to think for themselves.  


Computers are not self aware or creative and they are not intelligent
in the fullest sense.  But they can simulate these things.  Any
decision or postulate or way of doing something can be worked out
in advance by a programmer and set up in a program.

A computer wouldn't want to take over the world.  Computers don't
actually want anything (even if somebody has programmed one to say
that it wants something).  If a computer does announce that it
intends to take over the world, you should find out who programmed
it to do that.

What is currently called artificial intelligence has only been
successful in pattern recognition and expert systems.  An expert
system consists of simply programming the computer to mimic the
standard actions of human experts in the area being computerized.
And pattern recognition (which includes trend analysis, speech
recognition, visual identification, etc.) consists of using
sophisticated math and lots of computing power to find the closest
matches within a known set.

One way of looking at it is to consider that the actual thought
originates with the programmer and the computer is simply a way
to leverage that thought into a broad and lasting effect.

Of course an exterior thetan with enough horsepower might take
over a computer system.  That has happened on the whole track.
In that case you should be able to audit the guy (Nots etc.)
and even run him back to past lives.  Don't be fooled into thinking
that a machine has suddenly become aware of being aware.  Either
a sophisticated programmer is stringing you along or you're dealing
with a real thetan who goes all the way back to the beginning.


A program is simply an ordered series of postulates made in advance
to work on data that has not yet been presented.  One of our best
tricks is to loop these postulates around to repeat over and over,
usually on a varying stream of data.

Mental machinery can be built in the same way.  And if you can
make a postulate stick in the real world, then you can build theta
machinery which can manipulate reality.  Hypothetically, the entire
universe might be a sort of programmed manifestation generated by
a sort of theta computer (which would really be just a series of
ordered postulates).

All the various things we see in programming can be applied to
theta machinery.  You can loop postulates around on themselves.
If you loop recursively, you get fractile patterns, and these are
commonly observed in nature.

It is possible that there are system level routines in the structure
of reality.  I don't know if they are accessible here.  I think that
they were accessible in the Magic Universe.  A "spell" might really
be a series of thoughts (not easily hit by accident) including 
passwords, commands, and parameters, which would invoke a system
level routine in the "machinery" which was generating reality.

People are not computers.  But they set up a great deal of mental 
machinery that is computer like in its characteristics.  And so
we find that the field of computers is a very fertile area for
inspiration concerning the structure of the human mind and possibly
even the structure of reality itself.


                  20. ETHICS AND MORALITY

Morality consists of trying to do what is good or right by obeying
the rules of society or a particular group or a particular code of
behavior and conduct.

Ethics, on the other hand, consists of attempting to do what is
truly good or right in the absolute sense.

In this universe, where the keynote of operation seems to be
"To Survive", the definition of Ethics as the contemplation of
optimum survival (on all 8 dynamics) as given by LRH would seem
to be appropriate.

For a broader definition, we might consider Ethics to be the
contemplation of optimum operation on a number of targets where
survival is only the first in a series that leads upwards towards
optimum creation at the top.

When dealing with a low level target such as survival, we need to
qualify it by pointing out that there is more than just the first
dynamic (personal survival) in the definition.  As we move upwards
to a real sense of optimum creation, the need for many unique
individuals all of whom are operating at maximum becomes more
readily apparent.

If we had contemplated and operated in the direction of optimum
creation at the very beginning, instead of sinking into limited
and self-centered creation, then we might well have realized the
need for many concurrent systems of creation and thereby avoided
the reality wars and the subsequent decay into unaware human beings.

Morality is actually a trap.  It asks you to hand off your 
responsibility to the group and stop worrying about what is really
right and wrong.

You can tell how bad off a group or society is by observing the
degree of conflict between morals and true ethics.  

I don't care very much for the Way To Happiness booklet.  Its far
too human and narrow in its viewpoint.  The Scientology code of honor, 
on the other hand, is a far more worthwhile standard.

Real ethics does require that you put aside your own destructive
impulses.  You do this because you are working towards higher
purposes that are more important to you than your immediate
abberated reactions.

This is the true application of "working towards a higher purpose".
Never use this to justify the actions you are taking against others.
Those acts must stand or fail on their own merits and on the observed
effects created.  But you should use this to push aside your own
narrow viewpoints and short term vested interests so that you can
expand outwards and work on a broader scale.

A true ethical standard would not consist of a set of rules to
follow.  That is morality and it fails in the long run because
the rules act as a substitute for actually perceiving and 
understanding the real world situations that you are confronted
with.  An ethical standard would be a series of targets to aim
for.  You need to think out these things in advance because you
do not have time to evaluate every factor in an emergency situation.

An ethical standard is a living thing.  When you apply one and
the dust has settled, you need to go back and look at the effects
you have created and any overts that resulted and feed that back
into the standard to keep it on track.

An ethical standard is an individual thing.  You have to work it
out and evolve it for yourself.  The best that anyone else can
do is to propose things that are sane and helpful.

An ethical standard works in the direction of an optimum condition
and that is the underlying target that each portion of it would
align towards.  Ron has proposed optimum survival as the desirable
target.  I would push this higher, towards optimum creation and
freedom from the trap that we have buried ourselves in.  Since
I believe that we all get out together and that at the very top
we all need each other to contribute to the richness of creation,
I would state the target as optimum creation and freedom for
everybody, not just myself or a limited group.

This leads to proposing a number of things which might fit into
an ideal ethical standard.

1. Do not work to degrade or reduce the awareness of anyone, 
whether friend or foe.

2. Do not use excessive force in crushing an opponent.  Handle
what you have to to protect yourself and others and to achieve
desirable goals, but do not try to terminatedly handle your
enemies so that they will never rise again.

3. Leave people alone as much as possible and do not introduce
arbitrary rules and restrictions.  Aim towards the minimum 
amount of regulation which keeps people from killing each other
or ruining each other's lives.  Work by encouragement and
education rather than force whenever possible.

4. Help others by encouragement and support and education.
Do this especially for your allies and for those who are also
helping others.

5. Help your enemies as well, concentrating on encouraging
any desirable traits while rejecting those things that you
consider to be truly wrong.  Seek to evolve everyone into
higher beings.

6. Work to encourage greater creativity, motion, activity,
variety, knowledge, understanding, intelligence, aesthetics,
awareness, communication, construction, love, honor, and freedom.

7. Encourage multiple sources and different ways of doing
things.  Learn to enjoy confusion and complexity.  You'll
need the variety later to keep from going insane with boredom
and falling into hubris.

8. Do not try to make others over into copies of yourself.
Delight in their uniqueness and individuality.

This is barely a start.  See what you can come up with for


                    21. POSTULATES

The ultimate ability is simply to postulate things.

A postulate is simply a projected decision or mockup.  I say
projected because a key factor is the space permeated by the
decision.  If a decision about Paris permeates the space of
New York, it can only affect the relationship of New York to
Paris and will not act on Paris directly.  Even a postulate
which permeates the space it is intended to effect is not all
encompassing because there will be things outside of the target
location which also affect the target.  And so we have a relative
degree of action which is monitored by the space encompassed by
the postulate.

One of the common failings of positive visualization techniques as
used in metaphysics is that the postulate or mockup usually only 
permeates the person's head or his immediate vicinity rather than 
being projected out into the physical universe at large.  And even 
if the person does get it out into a broader sphere, he often runs
afoul of his own "subconscious" machinery which is projecting some
contrary postulate, often from 4th and 5th dimensional locations
which he has carefully hidden from himself.

These factors can be handled.  You can drill precise placement of
postulates, decisions, and mockups.  You can drill permeation of
broad and narrow areas.  You can work on locating stuff you have
hidden in various places and make decisions in those locations.
You can run "From Where ..." style processes to spot places where
you are projecting things and get them back under control.  

When you put out a postulate, if you put aside all wishful thinking,
you can feel whether or not the postulate has taken hold.  If it
doesn't, you can start spotting and running things that are blocking
it until it does take hold.  Once the postulate does stick, you 
can search for and predict and handle counter postulates coming in
from outside of the postulate's direct sphere of operation.

Note that this is a game of relative cause and effect.  There are
many individuals and a constantly shifting flux of interacting
postulates.  There are no absolutes, neither in physical laws nor
in the power of individual thetans.  The only absolute is the sum
total of theta which exists only at the top and which is not 
attainable by an individual viewpoint by definition (because it
encompasses all individuals).

Note that this is not the same as wishing or praying in the usual
sense.  These are generally at effect rather than at cause.  In other
words they are an inflow rather than an outflow.  As such, they
are no more than begging or hoping or depending on gaining favors
from a higher power.  But don't discount these things entirely 
because sometimes you will have someone who will project and they
are postulating very strongly even if they call it praying or
wishing real hard.

Somebody pleading with God to heal them is not liable to get very
much out of it.  But some of the faith healers call to God for
the power to heal and then they project like the dickens and 
this kind of action can bring about miracles.

There is the idea that earlier postulates are senior to later ones.
This is completely false but has been heavily implanted so as to
keep people under control.

But you will not let a later postulate override an earlier one if
the earlier one is out of sight and forgotten and is doing things
that you're not sure that you can do without.  This gives your old
hidden postulates some degree of precedence not because they are
more powerful or irrevocable but only because you're afraid of the
consequences of undoing them.

There are a couple of approaches to handling this.  

One way is simply to research out all of your earlier postulates until 
you are completely aware of them and therefore can change your mind 
about them without reservation.  In other words, cleaning up your
past track.

Another is to regain awareness of your full self and what you are
doing on all levels so that you can see the complete view of all
of your postulates in present time.  This would proceed from 
simple confront of your environment and everything you have been
blocking and suppressing and go on through regaining awareness
of the various split pieces of yourself and all the machinery you
have mocked up in various spaces.

A third approach would be simply to change your mind about the right
things at a deep enough level to eliminate the need for holding
the various barriers in place.  This has the problem of knowing the
right sequence and the right things to decide, and most of the
preaching and moralizing (decisions to be good, etc.) doesn't really
lead you in the right direction.

Each of these three methods is a bit too difficult all by itself
and the workable approach is to switch off between them.  Whenever
you get stuck with one, you use another to get you past the stuck
point.  Everything we are doing in this subject has one or more
of these three underlying it.

It would be nice to simply make one super postulate which would take
you all the way out, but it doesn't work that way.

The absolute postulates are the underlying nature of theta and
they are:

a) Not only are you nothing but you never existed in the first place.


b) You are everyone and everything.

You can make these two postulates or variations of them, but it
doesn't do you much good.  If you do make one of them (and that
means being it, not simply thinking it), you become the static
and then immediately postulate yourself right back here with
everything intact because there is no gain in having fewer of

Another way of looking at this is to realize that these two things
are both true, and they are both absolutes, and they are mutually
contradictory.  What results from holding two contradictory 
absolutes in place is a flux or half-state and this is the sum
total of existence as we know it.  Since these two postulates are
always in place, you are not really making a new postulate by
mocking one of them up.  You are just recognizing or reinforcing
what already is there.  You might get over to one or the other of
these two for a moment, but its only half of the truth, so you
end up back in the flux again.

It might, however, be useful to drill holding both ideas
simultaneously since this does approximate the actual state of
affairs.  Note that this would be holding both at once in the
same space rather than thinking them alternately or in different
locations.  Any drilling of the ability to hold contradictory
ideas or postulates simultaneously might be of benefit.

Our real target is a near-ultimate state which is just a hairsbreadth
short of the absolutes.  This would give maximum ability, interest,
and games.  But that means undoing the structure carefully instead
of simply tossing it all away.  Postulates to jump into such a
state directly fail because it goes into conflict with just about
every hidden postulate that you're still holding on to, and if
you let them all go at once you get the absolute (as discussed
above) instead of the near absolute state.

But we do know quite a few decisions that are capable of knocking
out lots of undesirable old postulates without having to address
them directly.  

For example, deciding to take responsibility, deciding to forgive
others and abandoning ideas of vengeance, deciding to increase
motion rather than stopping things, are all key postulates that
will undo lots of undesirable stuff that you are holding in place.

Taking this a little further, if you are thirsting for vengeance,
then you need to hold all sorts of postulates in place about
suffering consequences.  And that means that when you make a
postulate to get away with something, it can't stick because
you wouldn't unmock the postulate for vengeance.

Unfortunately, it doesn't usually work to try and talk people
out of these things and beating sense into people just lays in
another layer of unawareness.  So we mostly have to work at
running things out and confronting the present time environment.
But the person will occasionally just change his mind of his
own free will, and if they have a good understanding of what
direction to move in, then they have a shot at shaking loose some
of this stuff wholesale.

That is how you get those big key outs on some people when they
join a subject (not just Scientology, but anything that shows them
a higher view of existence).  The person simply gets exposed to
new ideas, sees things in a new light, and simply changes his mind
about some things and a whole section of aberration falls away.

But this can't be forced.  If you coerce Joe into making the
exact same decisions that set Bill free, it will not work.
Let's say that Bill did decide to abandon vengeance.  And lets
further say that he decided for his entire self and his full
existence even though he doesn't have any conscious awareness of
more than about 5% of himself.  Now you beat up Joe and he also
decides to abandon vengeance, but his decision is only for that
tiny bit of conscious awareness and that little body that you
just kicked around and the rest of him (about 95%) is not only
thirsting for vengeance but has added you to the list of people
to be gotten even with.

The road out by simple postulates and making the correct decisions
cannot be pushed on another, but can be done by free choice.
Maybe someday we'll have a full list of the decisions that work
to get you out.  Meanwhile, you need judgment and understanding.


                    22. AFTERWORD

For those who are still in good standing within the CofS, I would
urge you to get auditor training (if you have not already done
so) and to study the early tech with great vigor.  Put aside
any compulsive agreement with current CofS operating policies and
begin to take responsibility yourself and evaluate things from
your own sense of ethics and integrity.

If you see some diamonds in a pile of dung, you carefully pick
them out and clean them off.  You don't have to swallow the
entire foul mess.  And it would be foolish to pass up the diamonds.
Although you might get in trouble, you will be far happier, 
and if you're really good and keep pushing and validating 
what is right in the orgs, you can get away with a lot of 
disagreement on the things that are really wrong.

I would hope that you will push for reforms, that you will object
to abuses and outrageous prices, that you will present the subject
honestly as a research line and an exploration into the uncharted
regions of the human mind, that you will cease to shoot at
squirrels and most of all I hope that you will begin to think
for yourself.

For the freezone, I would encourage you to drop any fight or
game condition with the CofS.  Run out any bypassed charge or
O/W on the orgs so that you can cleanly end cycle and turn your
sights to higher goals.  The real target is the vast amount of
research that is still needed and you can't think clearly as
long as you are busily trying to make Ron or the orgs wrong.
I know that many of you had real cause for being upset, but you
can't get anywhere as long as you keep wallowing in what has been
done to you.

I would hope that you will indeed carry forward the research and
that you will publish what you find.  If you are worried about
giving things away for free, remember that DMSMH was published
as a complete technique that was intended for use at home and yet
it resulted in a flood of people rushing into the early Dianetic
Research Foundations.  Unless you are only offering a sham and
rip off, it does not protect your business to hide your discoveries.

I suppose it is the most ridiculous wishful thinking, but what
I'd really like to see is the orgs delivering the well mapped
out core technology to the masses and the freezone doing the
leading edge of research and the two groups operating together
with mutual respect and support.

For those who were once members and have abandoned it all and
become complete anti-cultists, I'm sorry for you and I hope that
what I wrote in the early parts of this series might give you some
comfort and a better understanding of what was going on.  Books
such as "The Road To Xenu" (available on the internet) show the
most horrible mis-application of the tech.  Its no wonder that
the author has turned against the subject.  And yet one can see
that the she had made some gains and then tossed the baby out
with the bathwater (albeit a very tiny baby and a great deal of
exceedingly dirty bathwater).  Her only real hope would be to
get into the freezone (and even there she needs to keep her eyes
open and think for herself because some know what they are doing
and some don't).

For those anti-cultists who were never involved in the subject
and never even tried to understand, I really don't think you have 
a right to criticize the religious beliefs of others.  On that
basis, the only justified objections are those overts committed
by the CofS which have crossed the line into the society at
large.  Demand that Scientology clean up its act, but leave
the internals to people who have really immersed themselves
in the subject.  

And if you're going around feeling afraid of these dangerous
culties, please notice that Scientologists are, in general,
non-violent.  The abuses of the RPF are only practiced by
Sea Org members against each other, and even there they mainly
work with restraining and controlling people rather than any
direct violence.  If they make an effort to overwhelm somebody,
it is always an effort to overwhelm mentally rather than physically.
So pull yourself together and be not afraid and you'll come through
it alright.


As for myself, I would like to see anything and everything that
might help my own understanding and forward the research.

One big overlooked item among the confidential materials is
the series of Saint Hill Staff Clearing tapes (the R6 tapes).
There are about 28 of these and they are listed in the old
tech volumes.  These include "Pattern of the Bank" which is
available on the internet, but most of them were not included
in the modern R6 course and are unknown even to most Class VIII
auditors.  These tapes give the theory behind the R6 and Clearing
courses.  The first one is titled "Summary of R6 part 1" lecture
SHSC-1A dated Dec 30, 1963.

For the loyalists, it would be nice if they would push to get
the R&D series volumes done for the tapes of 1952 to 1954.

As for the freezone, I would expect that at least some of them
have come up with additional processes, platens etc. and they
also may have valuable experience and observations concerning
the subject.  

Maybe if we put together everything we've got, we might be in 
reach of the top.


The first attempt to issue transcripts of all of Ron's tapes in
the R&D volumes bogged down after issuing volume 10.  The
next volume (11 - never issued), would have contained the
HCL lectures (March 1952) and have begun documenting what I
consider to be Ron's "keyed-out OT" period.  I assume that this
was stalled because of arguments about what should or shouldn't
be included, but I'm only guessing about this.  Note that the
HCL series contains the early research into NOTS among other

Then they went back and began redoing the R&D volumes again
starting from number 1.  The expressed reason was that the first
version had been edited and altered.  Offhand, I know of one
little anecdote in the Dianetic Cassettes (some lectures from
1950 that were available on cassette for a brief time back around
1980) where he mentions going out drinking with somebody.  This
story (and probably others) were left out of the first version
of the R&Ds for PR reasons.  I have not sat down with the old
and new R&D sets and whatever actual tapes I have to see if
these things have all been corrected or whether even more is
being edited out.  The lectures of 1950 and 1951 would not
contain anything which the CofS considered to be confidential
and either series seems to be accurate as to technical materials.

In the new R&D series, they are squeezing more into each volume,
so they covered the same material in 8 and 1/2 volumes that was
covered in the entire 10 volumes of the first version.  The
first 10 HCL lectures are in the second half of new volume 9
and the rest along with the tech 80 lectures and the beginning of
the tech 88 series are in new volume 10.

Note that they occasionally retitle a tape (usually with a better
title - for example, HCL-6A "Question and Answer Period" was renamed 
"Whole Track Facsimiles").  Also, they do not use the old lecture
numbering system or mention alternate titles and sometimes they
put things under different headings (the last of the HCLs are
under the heading "Lectures (Phoenix, Arizona)" in new R&D 10).
Also, the old lecture titles were not always unique (there were
3 different lectures titled "Theta Bodies" that were given in
March and April of 1952).  Their adjustments are generally sensible, 
but they make it difficult to detect it when they leave tapes out
of the volume because you don't see the gaps in the numbering.

I have not gone over it with a fine tooth comb, but the new R&D
10 does have a good bit of background material on NOTS and they
seem to have faithfully transcribed the lectures that they did
choose to include.  But they completely omitted quite a few lectures
and they don't mention that they did this.

A 69 page almost complete list of 2910 taped lectures was issued
as Flag Info Letter number 148 dated 18 April 1978.  Based on this,
I have compiled a list of the tapes omitted from R&D 10.

Those tapes marked with a "*" were available on reels until recent
times (they are in Pubs catalogue #5).  Those marked with a "**"
used to be available on reels (they were in Pubs catalogue #4) and
were declared to be confidential and made unavailable when NOTS was
released.  Those tapes marked with a "***" were at one time offered
by Golden Era as part of an outrageously expensive "complete" run
of all the unavailable tapes that they had in their archives which
they were offering to rich Scientologists (I believe that this
project was canceled well before they ran all the tapes that
appeared on their list - there were over a thousand tapes that 
they were going to produce).

So here is the list of what's missing from new Volume 10 (HCL and 
the immediately following related lectures in Phoenix):

*   HCL-16  10 Mar 52  The anatomy of Fac One (continue demo)

*   HCL-18  10 Mar 52  Entities (Demo continued)

**  HCL-23  .. Mar 52  Theta Bodies 

*** HCL-23A 22 Mar 52  Impulses of a Thetan

*** HCL-24A .. Mar 52  Theta Bodies

*   HCL-25  25 Mar 52  An analysis of memory, part I

*   HCL-26  25 Mar 52  An analysis of memory, part II

**  HCL-Spec . Apr 52  Electrpsychometric Scouting - Battle of
                        the universes (Mary Sue audits LRH)
    ---     15 Apr 52  Demo and brief explanation (whole track and
                        bodies in pawn) 

*** ---     16 Apr 52  Anatomy of the theta body

*** ---     20 Apr 52  The goals and purposes of Theta and Mest

    ---      6 May 62  Anatomy of Thought (no copy in archives).

Of these 12, only the last one is marked on the flag info letter as
being missing from the archives (no copy available) and only one
other one was omitted from Golden Era's special project (possibly
because their only copy was too poor to reproduce).  

Note that there is also a lecture missing from the tech 80 lectures,
both in the cassette series and in the R&D 10 transcripts.  It is
titled "Early methods of dealing with people, entities" and is the
second lecture given on 20 May 1952.

Note that I was careful to account for every lecture that was included
in R&D 9 and 10 to eliminate the problems of retitling or shifting
a lecture in sequence because the exact date had been determined.


The picture I have put together so far is, unfortunately, quite
confusing.  There are so many different factors.  There is no
single answer.  If there were, then somebody would occasionally
stumble on it and turn into a god.

The truth of the matter is that no single factor could keep you
down.  You might sink briefly, but then you would rebound.
Any aberration or limitation that has a serious impact on you
or persists for a significant period of time will have many
reasons behind it.  Otherwise it would be no more than a shadow
which only touched you briefly.

The things that devastate you are always the last straw rather
than the entire weight.  The things that release you and let
you rise towards freedom are also straws which, once removed,
shift the balance enough to let you rise under the weight of
what remains.  And if you rise high enough, perhaps you can
shrug off the rest.

There is a good side to this.  You don't have to find the
one and only exactly correct reason behind a a particular
aberration to get rid of it.  There might be a dozen reasons,
all valid, and you can often blow it (at least temporarily)
on any one of them.  And if one isn't enough, then two or
three might do it.  This does leave you a bit unstable because
those other reasons can get stirred up, but if you keep moving
forward, you can undercut the whole mess before this catches
up with you.  So the real target is to gain horsepower rather
than handle each little thing in an excessively thorough manner.
You can always reopen an area and do a bit more if it seems


This is hardly more than a beginning.  The road out is long.
But as soon as you really begin to expand and have some wins,
the trip becomes pleasant.

Its only the stops and failures that make the trip out seem

It was at one time said "if it isn't fun, it isn't Scientology".
That is basically correct.  Although there is hard work involved,
hard work is fun when it is interesting and productive and your
strength and abilities are increasing.

When it hasn't been fun, when it has resulted in misery and
despair, it has been due to the subject itself going off the
rails, whether due to misapplication or to real errors in tech
or policy.

Of course there are momentary stops and barriers that have to be
pushed through.  But the fun is there on the other side.

And if this isn't the case, then maybe its time to find out
what's wrong and fix it.  

It really is a "feel good" kind of subject.  But its not just
a surface feeling.  Its the deep good feeling that comes from
becoming more knowledgeable, and more able, and more aware.

For a parting thought, I will leave you with one of the 
underlying basics of metaphysics.  It has been said by Bob
Heinline, the science fiction writer, and by Alexander Scriabin,
the mystic composer, and by endless other great minds stretching
down through time.

"Thou Art God".

Its time you woke up and took responsibility for your creations.