|
|
| (14 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Welcome Pat & Ray -- [[User:Dl88008|Dl88008]] 00:54, 23 December 2011 (MST) ==
| |
| | | | |
| − | Welcome to ScientoliPedia! You can use these "Discussion" pages to leave messages for other users...like this. David [[User:Dl88008|Dl88008]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Standard Tech Talk -- [[User:Thetagal|Thetagal]] 23:20, 23 December 2011 (MST) ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If you are recently from the COS you probably know that in the COS there is no "tech talk" or should not be because that is all considered "verbal tech" and you have to read the HCOB.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm not in disagreement with this in training, but when one is trying to introduce someone to Scientology, everything is over the head of the new person. Engrams? What's an Engram?
| |
| − | ARC? What is that?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | In the early days we had Introducatory Lectures as a customary thing. The Anatomy of the Human Mind Course visibly demonstrated the difference between the brain and the mind. A lecturer went over the basics, the four universes, mind, body, thetan and the physical universe. Now I'm not going into these basics and others here, and I hope there will be a glossary added to this website to give simple explanations of basic terms.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Having said all of this, I'm leaping to the areas of advanced technology. I'd like to talk about what is standard tech. Not so that you Techies can learn anything, but for the vast number of people and potential people who are going to want to know, "What is this thing called Standard Tech?" One can look up the definition of "standard" to start, a definite level or degree of quality that is proper and adequate for a specific purpose" is how I recall it. If you want your car to run then you don't want a mechanic who doesn't know a bolt from a nut, or who uses a crowbar to open your hood instead of a latch.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Standard Tech came out in 1968. Before that we had lots and lots of tech. LRH did what is sometimes referred to as the experimental track. He was looking for something that will work for everyone, not work for half and not the other half. Those things such as Step Six Clearing were dropped out of the lineup, not because it didn't make Clears but because it didn't make everyone who was run on it clear. In some cases it made things worse. There was something later called "Goals Clearing" and then we had a "One Goal Clear", "Two Goal Clear" and so on. LRH was looking, if you will pardon the expression, for a "one size fits all" tech that would work on anyone.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | He had this sorted out by 1968 in a way that he could train auditors so that all pcs and pre-ots could benefit. It isn't to say that earlier tech wasn't good or didn't work it is more that he took the best of his research and put it in one basket. Primarily it was the basics of Scientology understood by auditors, and the ability to apply getting and keeping a pc in session, and getting and keeping a pc on the "bridge", that is following a Classification, Gradation, and Awareness Chart from bottom to top.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | My favoite thing is "audit with rudiments in." Sounds so easy, and there is this HCOB, C/S Series #1, Auditor's Rights that explains that and basically you can't run a pc on something major to change his case if he is upset with you, has a problem, won't talk to you and so on.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm sure each and every C/S has their own favorites, but this is stated for beginning auditors as a point of understanding.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | "One Size Fits All" is a better and faster tech than earlier methods, but that doesn't mean you should slight such things as Book Auditing, where two people read a book and take turns auditing each other on the processes in the book. Handbook for Preclears is excellent for this; it can even be done by itself as "self-auditing". We want to get charge off of the case and anything that you do as an auditor that gets charge off the case is valid auditing--whether or not it fits exactly into Standard Tech.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | A squirrel is someone who alters technology. Freezoners who aren't well trained are not necessarily squirrels. One could say what they are doing is not Standard Tech, but if it is LRH tech from books or other LRH materials and it gets charge off the case that is not squirrel.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | It is only if they alter the technology.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Pat Krenik
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == How to Recognize Friends -- [[User:Thetagal|Thetagal]] 02:13, 26 December 2011 (MST) ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Most of us know who our friends are--at least we think we do. Then come the surprises we didn't expect.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The easiest way to know if your friends really are friends is, do they flow to you? Do they let you flow to them?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Especially if you are running a Scientology Group, pay close attention to those who really help. My daughter Misty came to live here and right away one could tell she wasn't just a daughter, but a teammate. She flowed. She found what was needed and wanted and just did it. She kept the study room spotless. She found that a couple of students needed to sell more blankets (their product at http://www.snugglyminkblankets.com) and found a friend who bought several. She flowed not only to me as her mother, but to the needs and wants of the people here...our group.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | If your want your group to prosper and be successful, look for those who flow and exchange willingly. Remove those who only want to be contributed to, or those who don't really support your efforts but negate them covertly or overtly.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Friends give--they want to help you out. They don't borrow or take and not repay. They have a willingness to receive too, knowing that you like to outflow also. I'm very lucky to have so many wonderful friends--so many I'd like to thank for sharing or working together. Catherine, Rey, Mikey and Sachil helped in December. Mark Hisel, willing to come here at his travel expense to help with EMeter drills with another student. My husband Ray, who sets the coffee pot at night so I can just click the switch in the morning.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Maybe you don't have a group, but this could apply to a family group too. Remove those who won't contribute but who are only there for their "own" needs and wants. Not advocating shunning them, but don't feed the hand that bites you. It's a tough economy, but if Johnny comes trotting back to Mom because he is unemployed, accept him with love, but notice if he volunteers to carry his weight, if he is there for you, too. Don't keep him if he isn't contributing in some way, and don't force him to contribute. Good people will find a way to help the group--if they won't freely give as well as take, you don't need them. They are really not your friend and you are better off without them--they will be better off without you too.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Those that take and don't give are being continual overt cases. Don't put up with that, because to let them "use" you does them harm too.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | For a Happy New Year review your friends and take time to thank them. We are lucky to have those who love and care.
| |
| − | Pat Krenik
| |
