Home

freedom

By Lana M

In the last week I had a preclear who had been shunted around by the C of S for years. Due to his past history he was treated like a hot potato and bounced in and out and around the org, despite his desire to study and get auditing.  While on a TRs and Objectives Co-audit, he and his twin were made to audit an arbitrary number of hours, regardless of wins, cognitions or EPs reached. We cleaned up the bypassed charge and rehabbed the CCHs done, and then completed those that had not been done. We then did a thorough Life Repair program, which has brought great relief. Here is his success story:

“The Life Repair delivered to me has been a true awakening. I am becoming more and more confident with my own knowingness. I now know that my spiritual freedom is a certainty and that all the things that I once wondered about are now so very clear to me.

“I feel energised and enthusiastic to continue my adventures to spiritual freedom and complete knowingness of who I truly am”  Sincerely, Madhuvalla

 

33 thoughts on “Life Repair

  1. Great wins and great job !!!

    Since we are talking about wins, I will take the opportunity to talk about mines with a friend I’ve been handling which are on a similar subject.

    My friend had been on the squirrel GAT 2 , “Survival Rundown” program. For those of you who doesn’t know about it, it is basically a battery of Objectives with many, many “undercuts” arbitrarily added to it and all processes run per the “purpose” section of each one as an “EP” instead of your regular “Cog, F/N, VGIs and Release” per many HCOBs including “Floating Needle And End Phenomena”

    So if your PC has a bright cog , VGIs, with an obvious release point, he is kept on the process till he originate “verbating” ALL the points listed on the “purpose” section for that process. Verbal data is being spread about : “Objectives can’t be overrun” violating all HCOBs on EPs, Overrun and the reasons for Rehab Tech. No “new” LRH HCOB is ever shown to “prove” their point , just the “hidden data line” of : “LRH issues were found that…”
    and : ” See the GAT 2 event , to find out” , etc, etc.

    A book on “undercut” processes , with hundreds of them was released with processes organized by “gradients of undercut” , believe or not. So out of those 100 undercuts, the closest they get to the 100th one, the more “undercut” they are. So the C/S decides how “deep” he wants to go with a case. Pure non-sense. The C/S don’t include an undercut on the PC’s program because the PC was running one above his head per HCOB 25 March ’82 , “Objectives Not Bitting”. No, ALL PCs gets to run several undercuts regardless whether they were grinding on any process or not.

    So, I have this friend who had been on that SRD program and had been grossly overrun on many CCHs. Just on CCH 1-4 he did more than 50 hrs!
    On CCH-5 more than 50 as well. On this one, he was so restim that didn’t even wanted to live anymore, very confused, fearing things he had not feared before, an state of severe introversion.

    I managed to took him off it with the help of this incredible friend from the Field who has this great wisdom and insight into things. If there is any God, he put him in my way. God bless him wherever he is.

    I started a full PTS handling on him after having been waked up by this friend at the Field. It had been years since I had worked with anybody after I had left my Org with failed purposes. I was a great auditor and standard Ethics terminal for many people who are now very high up the /bridge. But somehow, I had just abandoned it all and was immersed in a deep apathy. I wasn’t even observing the obvious. Was sort of “dead” as a being, I had lost myself.

    But working with this friend of mine on the PTS handling brought back all my expertise that I had left in a suitcase. I was “on the game” again. This friend doesn’t know that I have won as much as him or even more on this cycle.

    I did a standard, “per the book” PTS handling on him. He was heavily stuck on Doubt due all the suppressive false data he had been subjected to by Org terminals he trusted. I’ve never seen anybody so stuck. He even elected me as target on more than one ocassion, but I knew very well the mechanics of PTS.

    We fully W/Ced the PTS C/S-1 coupling it with theory coaching to handle any glibness. Then we W/Ced every LRH ref that rebutted each and every false datum she was subjected to and cleaned up every false datum. Then using 3 ref as the stable datum, I drilled her intensely on how to handle verbal Tech and hidden data lines. “Hidden Data Lines” , “Out Tech” HCOPL , and “How To Defeat Vernal Tech Checklist” were used in drilling.
    He R/Ced like hell while drilling but at the end got it and did splendid.

    He had bravely decided to not abandon her twin on that non-standard scene and just to continue auditing her using only standard Tech which I had already W/Ced him on. So she singly handled the Sups and the C/S, not letting any of them overrun his PC in any way and to continue “undercuts” on her that were not bitting in any way but that were actually above this twin reality. And all this w/out creating any antago just as she had learned on her PTS educating step as she knows many are just being plain stupid and only acting as robots to unknown SP elements to them. She actually took reponsibility for them by getting some ethics in. Many are his friends anyway. Who would attack and criticize when he can help and rehabilitate ?

    His twin is doing very well and wining. We are talking here about a person, uncleared, not even an Objective completion , untrained, with no track of past life training or auditing. Now, how’s that for confront. This is a testimony of what Standard Tech and courage can accomplish. One person can makes a difference . The power of one individual can be grossly underestimated. If every scientologist in an Org were to do what this friend of mine just did, a complete reversal of the current scene would ensue, I guarantee you that.

    I will soon repair/complete his Objectives myself under a competent C/S. He is winning a lot, no longer under the sad effect and “out of” effect. Not severely introverted and looking forward to a brighter future.

    Ok then, that’s my win.

    ARC
    PETER

    • “But working with this friend of mine on the PTS handling brought back all my expertise that I had left in a suitcase. I was “on the game” again.”

      Good show, excellent data, super post!!!!! 🙂

    • That’s great Peter. The butchering that is occurring in orgs on the Objectives is nasty, all due to arbitraries being placed on the number of hours and the EP’s being gone for.

      LRH states in HCOB 12 April 1962 CCHs Purpose : “Run wrong, the CCHs can actually drive a pc OUT of present time or park him or her in the session”.

      And in HCOB 5 April 1962 CCHs Auditing Attitude, LRH states: “Understand the CCHs and what you’re doing. If it all deteriorates to mere ritual, you’ll take 25 to 50 times the time necessary to produce the same results I would. The auditing is for the pc. The CCHs are for the pc. In auditing you win in the CCHs only when the pc wins.”

      Seems they don’t apply this in the C of S anymore.

    • Good on ya Peter, for getting this person sorted out.

      Typical of the “Church” these days that they are “correcting” everything before the fact in total violation of the PLs Organization the Flaw and Fast Flow Management.

      From what I understand these under cuts are only run if the person isn’t making any case gain on the regular objectives per the HCOB Objectives Not Biting.

      Again this is what you expect from the robotic application of the “one size fits all” ritual (more precise since you can’t really call it a technology since you actually have to have the ability to *think* when applying a technology of any kind) and the public who are left clamoring to be spoon fed “Scientology” instead of actually understand and apply it.

      Of course I saw this as the direction the Church was going when the big push was to change the “C” in C of S into “Clinic” of Scientology and the word “Standard” was equated to something like a “Big Mac” or as they say in Paris a “Mac Royale”.

      Anyway back to the Clinic meme. Seems the Sea Borg has not only wrested control of all Sea Org orgs which at one time included non SO staff but no longer arbitrarily can any more probably because most Non SO didn’t consider compliance senior to correct application of Policy and Tech and is now taking over Class V Orgs like some kind of virus and will probably take over the Mission Network if there is any left by then.

      Word is is that they totally replaced the staff of LA Org with Sea Org personnel.

      From what I see is that they are currently creating a priesthood of some kind led by a crazy pope.

      • Thanks for the validation Robin ,

        Yes, I know what you mean. It is a very sad state of affairs , indeed. The virus is spreading exponentially. Soon I’ll be ready for launch. Things will get very interesting for me in the coming 2015. I have a few surprises coming up. I am back on the game and with a full engine.

        ARC PETER

    • Hi Peter,

      Glad to hear your friend is doing well after your help. I definitely wasn’t there and so am not privy to what went down, but I do want to make a point here about your comments:

      “My friend had been on the squirrel GAT 2 , “Survival Rundown” program. For those of you who doesn’t know about it, it is basically a battery of Objectives with many, many “undercuts” arbitrarily added to it and all processes run per the “purpose” section of each one as an “EP” instead of your regular “Cog, F/N, VGIs and Release” per many HCOBs including “Floating Needle And End Phenomena”

      So if your PC has a bright cog , VGIs, with an obvious release point, he is kept on the process till he originate “verbating” ALL the points listed on the “purpose” section for that process.”

      There is nothing wrong with using HCOB 11 June 1957 “Training And CCH Processes” as a guide to the EPs for the various CCH and Objective Processes. LRH states very clearly what one should expect to occur on that process, just as he does in many other references and processes. And in fact, there are a number of processes/rundowns where one goes for an exact EP, such as CTP on KTL and Pro TRs; FPRD; the Ls; etc., not just “cog, VGIs, FN, Release. And one would expect that when one’s pc does have a cog, that it is on the subject matter being audited, not just anything (see definition of “cognition”).

      Now, I haven’t reviewed the entire new SRD (although I did run it in its original form back in 1980), but I so think it’s a bit misleading to infer that objectives shouldn’t be run using this reference. One wouldn’t want a pc to be denied the full gains available at all parts of the Bridge. This is why auditing and C/Sing the person (or the folder) in front of you is vital and why GAT (and any GAT programs, rundowns, tech, etc.) doesn’t work – it doesn’t do it on an individual basis.

      C/S Series 17 and 77 and the KSW Series cover this. So bottom line is that that 1957 reference is quite valid and should be used when auditing CCHs and Objective Processes on a pc to ensure full gains are achieved.

      ARC,
      Chris

      • Dear Chris,

        Thanks for your comm. I think that the stable data to handle any confusion on this matter is the statement , “If it isn’t written , it isn’t true”. Using that as the only stable datum, should clear up any confusions on the subject.I willprovide my refs on the matter that back my post comments and what is my understanding on them. Then if you have any specific refs that makes my points invalid, you should provide them for the benefit of all readers. That way they will have only standard Tech on the matter. Fair enough ?

        I very much appreciate any corrections, if theyapply, and evenmore so coming froma competent class VIII like you. Let’s just stick to refs to stay on the correct path. If Jim Logan wants to step in , I welcome him very much, as with his great experience as a Qual and cramming terminal, his wisdom is very much appreciated. I just want that the final statements of all us in this subject be exactly the same as it must be with standard Tech.

        So I will go over each one of my points so you or Jim can either validate it as true, or provide your specific refs against it. Here are my points :

        1. The “purpose” of a process is not the same as the EP for such process. LRH was always very clear as to stating any specific EPs if they were different than your regular Grade processes’s EP of cog, F/N , VGIs and release per HCOB 20 Feb 1970 , “Floating Needles And End Phenomena”.

        HCOB 11 Jan ’57 , “Training And CCH Processes” , basically describes each CCH and gives inf regarding the “purpose” of each one which is different than the “EP” if each one.

        See HCOB 3 July 1959 , “General Information” , where LRH describes each process type in Scn and its characteristic, purpose and stable datum. In that ref he is specifically describing what is each process for, what is can accomplish. Their purposes are not their EPs.

        For example , per HCOB 10 April 1981R , Revised 7 Aug 1983 , “Reach And Withdraw” LRH says and I quote :

        “Reach and Withdraw is a very simple but extemately powerful method of getting a person familiarized and in communication with things so that he can be more at cause over and in control of them” .

        Now, LRH is stating the “purpose” of the process here, what it is used for. This is not necesarily its EP. Its EP is per that ref :

        “THE end phenomena of Reach and Withdraw is a win or cognition accompanied by good indicators on the whole area being addressed”LRH

        “In auditing, Reach and Withdraw is run to a cognition accompanied by an F/N and very good indicators. ” LRH

        See ? , one can’t expect a PC to originate a “verbating statement” of its purpose (as described above) in order to call it an “Ep”. The PC doesn’t has to say :

        “I feel familiarized with this area and more cause over in control of it”.

        Whatever cog on the area being addressed with GIs will do. I can say, for example : “I feel with more affinity for my tools , I frequently had a back-off handling them beacuse of so many ARCxs I had here at my shop” (with GIs present)”. And that will be it, I am done with it.

        That’s what I meant about requiring SRD PCs to originate “verbatin purposes”. It is nonsense.

        Now, the HCOB 11 Aug ’57 , “Training and CCH Processes” , in no way go over the EP of each process but merely discuss how it is done and why it is done. One can’t use a ref from the ’57 and interpret it to have more precedence than an HCOB on the same subject from periods after it. On HCOB 14 Nov 1987 , Issue III, “Expanded Grade I Process Checklist” it says and I quote :

        “Each process is run to F/N , cog, VGIs and release per HCOB 20 Feb ’70 , “Floating Needles And End Phenomena”.

        Now, Grade I includes Objectives as its first step if the PC has not had them.

        Then you have HCOB 20 Feb 1970, “Floating Needles and End Phenomena” that specifically says and quote :

        “ALL Scientology processes below power has the same End Phenomena.”LRH

        Others HCOBS exist on the subject of EPs, F/Ns and O/R , such as :

        1. HCOB 19 FEB ’66 Issue II, “Tech Recovery”. 2. HCOB 21 Oct ’68 , “Floating Needles” 3. HCOB 24 Jan ’77 , “Tech Correction Round-Up”

        On this #3 , on section , H: F/N and TA Position, he says and I quote :

        “Missing an F/N on a PC is very cruel because it invalidates his having released the charge on the subject on which he is being audited and tends to tell him that he is not better even though he fells better.” LRH

        4. HCOB 11 AUG ’78 Issue II , “Model Session”.

        On item 4) “Major Actions Of The Session” of the above ref LRH says and I quote :

        “In Scientology processes, the end phenomena is : f/n , cog, VGIs. The Power processes have their own EPs.” LRH

        Now, he didn’t say “The Objectives processes have their own EPs” in this ref. If LRH didn’t write it, then it isn’t true. Now, that’s a ref from the ’78s.

        I know some will quote “Quickie Objectives” , so I will include that ref as well. It is HCOB 19 March 1978, 5 whole months BEFORE the “Model Session” HCOB. Now on “Model Session” LRH didn’t say : “Objectives and Power processes have their own EPs”. What he did say was : “Power Processes have their own EPs”.

        “Quickie Objectives” HCOB has been twisted around by many C/Ses. In such HCOB LRH says :

        “Recent investigations into the effectiveness of Drug RDs including their rates of repair and re-repair revealed a marked tendency to quickie Objectives.”

        “Failure to run Objectives fully and completely, especially on a case with an extensive drug history can set up the PC for less than optimum gains on Dianetics. A Drug RD without full and complete Objectives is not a Drug RDs”

        “The easiest and very out-Tech way to Quickie Objectives is to run some commands and then to put the PC on the meter and 2WC to F/N or do some fast “rehab”. But did the Objective process ever ger run? What actually F/Ned, the Objective or the 2WC ? Any Objectives run this way are invalid. ”

        “The Tech of Objectives is extensive and still very much in force. They have their own EPs and with these they are fully run to actual change for the PC. Only this is valid handling of Objectives.”. LRH.

        Now, there are many Objectives where LRH specify their EP, not its purpose please. This is different. For example, “Opening Procedure By Duplication” has an specific EP per its HCOB. “Opening Procedure Of 8-C” has its own different “EPs” for its different parts and LRH is clear on that by saying something like : “Thisis run till…..”orsuch expressions. “Objective ARC” has its own HCOB and EP. “Please Pass theObject” also has diffrent parts and each is run per the ref by LRH saying : “This is run till….”. And so a few others more. This is what it is meant by the Objectives has their “Own EPs”. Not that we run them per the “purpose” section.

        Realize please, that in “Quickie Objectives” HCOB , LRH is talking about how Objectives can be quickied by “2WC them to F/N”. Or by doing a “Quick ‘rehab’ “.

        Now, to get this one single HCOB and interpret it as meaning you use the “Purpose” section of each one as its “EP” is a gross misunderstanding of the HCOB. ALL refs that I have listed so far emphasize, in all of them, about “cog, F/N, VGIs and released on process and about NOT O/Ring the release state.

        Just another ref to back me up is :

        5. HCOB 19 Dec 1980 , “Rehab Tech”. In it LRH says, and I quote :

        “In auditing, an overrun means that the preclear came out of the bank and then went back into it again. For instance, the PC released on the process ‘From where could you communicate to your dog? ‘ but the auditor continued the process after he should have indicated the F/N and gone on to something else. By continuing, the auditor throws the PC back into the bank again and wrecks the release state.” LRH.

        The above HCOB further explains the release phenomena as it relates to O/Rs and Rehab Tech.

        Then you have your very late HCOB 25 March 1982 , “Objectives Not Biting”. He says in it :

        “After you have listened to such a case for a while and he has not developed a communication lag and has not gotten a cognition on the process of any kind whatsoever, realize you were processing him too high”. LRH.

        Observe on this ref LRH doesn’t mention about ANY specific cog or EP whatsoever.

        All refs that I have listed so far, say what they say. They are not open to interpretation.

        That KTL and TRs Clay Table Processing has specific EPs, I FULLY grant you that. But LRH specify about them and it is WRITTEN. One is not left in the dark, as “If it isn’t written it isn’t true”. That the operational rule- always.

        He specify in writting that Power has their own EPs, I know each and every one of the Power processes, its theory and their EPs.

        Now, I have studied each LRH C/Ses from the original class VIII course. Each LRH C/S from Expanded Dianetics (where the battery of Objectives and doing them to full EP is stressed) , and I have never, ever stumbled on any LRH C/S where he advices about any specific way of running Objectives and about their EPs besides the refs that I already listed.

        Auditing if for the PC, very true. But it is not to overrun him and wreck his release states either. When he is released on the process being run, you’ll have your indicators on him (cog , VGIs and release) and on your e-meter With an F/N. And with all those points in, one should then, “let the PC has his win” and gently end off.

        I have audited hundreds of hrs of Objectives and dozens ofPCs togreat life changing wins by sticking to all the refs listed.

        By the way, I have all issues on the “Survival Rundown”. They were compiled by Melanie Murrai back in the early ’80s and later on cancelled as they were never authorized by LRH according to Church officials. How true this is I, I just don’t know. I wasn’t there. But I know its full contents and it is just the same battery than the “old” Objectives with a few 3D drills added to it (ESTO type of drills. R&W , “Admin TRs” , “Order vs Disorder” PL).

        No invalidation was meant for the Objectives themseves. They are incredible, powerful processes. But they are run per standard HCOBs on EPs and NOT, NOT by using their “purpose” section. Anyone has any specific ref that invalidate my statements, please present them.

        ARC PETER

        • Sorry for all my typos on my previous post, I was writing it very late at night.

          I just wanted to add and basically gives a very rapid summary of my points :

          1. Many CCHs has specific ways to running them per SPECIFIC HCOBs on it, like “Opening Procedure of 8-C” , “Opening Procedure By Duplication” , “Objective ARC” , “Please pass the Object” , etc, etc. LRH clearly states its EP by calling it its EP or by saying something in the line of : “This is run until ……. “.

          He is always VERY specific on it and never leaves it open to interpretation.

          2. The information on the “purpose” section of each CCH can’t be interpreted necesarily as its EP. LRH is never ambiguous in calling things. EPs are EPs and always are called like that by LRH or by saying, “This is run until ….. , or expressions such like that. See the HCOBs above describing each CCH process.

          3. You got dozens of references (the ones I listed in my previous post and several others) where LRH explains the relationship within EPs and cogs, VGIs, F/Ns and being released on process. Such refs also explain what happens with the PC case when he is pushed for “another EP” , by continuing beyond that point and even created 3 different approaches to Rehabing such releases states : “65 Style” , “Rehab by counting” , and “Date and Locate”. See HCOB 19 NOV 1980R , “Rehab Tech”.

          4. On the above ref LRH defines release as :

          “In auditing, when the PC spot something in bank he disconnects from the bank to a greater or lesser degree. That is a release. Or when the PC becomes free of a difficulty or personal ‘block’ or inability stemming from the mind, that is a release”. LRH.

          Now, the PC gets released when any of the above happens. He can be running, for example, CCH-2 and while running it suddently realize that the room looks very bright and that he sort of felt like a mass moved off , being VGIs about it and extroverted with all signs that he released on process.

          Now, per HCOB 11 AUG 57 , “Training and CCH Processes” , under the “purpose” section for CCH-2 it says and I quote :

          “To demostrate to the preclear that his body can be directly controlled and thus inviting him to control it. Finding present time. Havingness. Others effects not fully explained” LRH

          So, is anybody to tell me that with the hypothetical cog and other EP manifestations that I described above, that the auditor is going to continue with the process in order to obtain a “verbatim” origination from the PC of exactly what is mentioned on the “purpose” section ?

          That will be nonsense and not understanding the mechanics of release and how to relate it to e-meter phenomena .

          Well on the current SRD, at my Org, this CCH would be run until the PC origin :

          A. That his body can be controlled by another and that he can control it.

          B. That he feels in PT.

          C. That he feels his havingness has increased.

          Only with those 3 originations would he be considered “EPed” on CCH-2. This is something I know for a fact, not a mere story somebody told me. Go by the SRD course pack and see it for yourself. I have access to all GAT 2 programs. How ? Well, I can’t tell all I know, can’t I ?

          That is what I meant by using the “purpose” section data for each CCH and using it as their specific EPs. YOU DON’T !!!

          It is only a guide about what that type of process can accomplish.

          I think that anybody with confusions on this should Clay demo all EPs manifestations as they relate to an F/N and the mechanics of release.

          5. It is true that there are others Scn processes and procedures where LRH states an specific EP that can have additional points besides the F/N , cog, VGIs and released. Like Clay table de-PTSing , CTP on TRs , FPRD, Power processes, etc. But LRH ALWAYS state in written the specific EP by always calling it an EP or by saying (in the case of some CCHs) , “this is run
          until …… “.

          But you definitively don’t take the “purpose” section of each CCH and run them expecting the PC to originate “verbatim” each and every single point of the “purpose” section before calling it an EP.

          Some weeks ago a PC on the SRD, was running a process and suddently felt very huge as a thetan with the entire room looking incredible bright. VVGIs , crying of happiness for the wonderful feeling she was experiencing. And the sup instructed the co-auditor to continue with process because the PC still had not originated on 3 more points on the ‘EP’ for that CCH as listed on the “purpose section” !!!

          In what exact ways are this origins of mine misleading, cause I simply don’t get it ?

          So, anyway, those are my points. Again, anybody has specific refs that makes any of my statements invalid, please present them.

          ARC
          PETER

          • Hi Peter,

            I never said one should expect a “verbatim” cognition; I simply corrected your opinion and false datum that one should not use that reference when C/Sing CCHs and Objective Processes. One also uses the other references you mentioned as well as the entirety of the C/S Series and every other datum in regards to EP, no just a couple of select references. If you are confused about how this works, the reference to apply is HCOB “Confused Ideas”.

            ARC,
            Chris

            • P.S. Defining “purpose” may also help to clear this up. But essentially, IMO, it’s understanding what one is doing in any auditing that defines and guides what one is to achieve.

            • Dear Chris,

              I was not ever confused in the first place , my products are there to tell the tale. If you read my post reply you’ll be able to see that I mentioned multiple refs. So no disagreement on that. About using HCOB “Training and CCH Processes” as a guidance on how to run CCHs neither. Now , about confusing the “purpose secion” for actual EPs for each, now THAT would be a huge confusion indeed.

              ARC PETER

              • P.S.

                I never said in my original post that using HCOB “Training and CCH Processes” was wrong in C/Sing. I was very specific about it. I merely said that pretending to use the “purpose section” of each CCHs, as delineated on such HCOB , as the EP per se of each one, and requiring PC to originate each and every point of it to consider them EPed on it , is Out-Tech. That was the simplicity of it in the first place.

                Hopes this clarifies ,

                ARC
                PETER

                • Actually Peter, it doesn’t, as your long posts tend to confuse the issue. As I said, bottom line, HCOB 11 June 57 is a valid reference in determining EPs of the various CCH and Objective Processes. So are a host of other issues, especially the C/S Series. And the “purpose” and the “EP” do go hand-in-hand; not verbatim, no, but complementary, yes.

                  Chris

                  • ” And the “purpose” and the “EP” do go hand-in-hand; not verbatim, no, but complementary, yes ”

                    Again Chris , I am not in disagreement with that. That the “purpose” of a process can help in determining EPs , yes. To require a PC to originate a win or cogs on a process that fully covers each and every point that its “purpose section” describes before calling an EP, no , that’s not Standard Tech. And if anybody thinks you must, then, as the saying goes , ” show it in written”.

                    ARC PETER

              • Hi Peter,

                We’re not talking about your products here, but about the inference that using HCOB 11 June 57 in adjudicating EPs of CCHs and Objective Processes was squirrel or without validity. The references you provided are only a part of the tech of that subject and help form basic axioms in the subject, but are not a complete perspective by any means. And in clearing the definition of purpose, one can see how it aligns with what an end phenomena is, thus clearing any confusion.

                C.

                • “We’re not talking about your products here, but about the inference that using HCOB 11 June 57 in adjudicating EPs of CCHs and Objective Processes was squirrel or without validity.”

                  Hi Chris,

                  Again , I wasn’t inferring that using “Training and CCHs Process” to help adjudicate EPs isn’t valid, Chris. It seems we have not duplicated each other yet.

                  This is my entire statement on this matter :

                  1. If the “purpose section” has ,for example, 4 different items of things a PC can gain from doing that particular process , and a C/S requires a PC to originate wins/cogs in such a way that each and every point of those 4 items be covered/described by such wins/cogs before considering that the process EPed , that’s not Standard Tech. An EP can occur at any point per HCOBs on it.

                  That’s the entirety of my statement , Chris. It is no other one at all. It has never been.

                  Now, if you think, that my statement as stated above isn’t valid, then you should provide with the written ref that makes it invalid. You can’t attempt to “cramm” me on Tech questionable points. “If it isn’t written, it isn’t true” should be our ONLY stable datum.

                  Show me any LRH refs where he specifically says that, as an auditor, I must ensure that my PC originate cogs that covers each and every single point of the “purpose section” for the process I am running, before considering that such a process has EPed , and that would be the end of this discussion.

                  That a “purpose” help the auditor understand why he is doing the process and how exactly it might help the PC and what we can expect from it , YES. But in adjudicating EPs, ALL and every HCOB on EPs, O/R and the C/S series of course, should be used.

                  When in Scientology processes and procedures, you have any modification of the most common EP of cog, F/N , VGIs and release ; LRH specifically indicates so in writing , being very clear about it , and never being ambiguous about it.

                  You have that in running Ruds, in R&W , in Clay Table de-PTSing, in CTP for TRs, in FPRD, in “Conditions & Exchange By Dynamics” , in Power, etc, etc. LRH always call them EPs very specifically or clearly says, “It is run until …. ”

                  That’s has always been so w/out exception.

                  The whole reason why I posted my win in the first place, before all this come and go started, was to alert others that the way the SRD is being done in the Church now IS squirrel. That was my whole point. By continuing going back and forth on this, that purpose is being placed in a second or lower place or even can be “not noticed” at all.

                  So, please, either present clear refs, that clearly states your points, leaving aside any questionable Tech points, or let’s just drop this matter.

                  ARC PETER

                  • I’m all for dropping it Peter, but if you re-read your original post, it certainly seems like it infers that that HCOB shouldn’t be used:

                    :all processes run per the “purpose” section of each one as an “EP” instead of your regular “Cog, F/N, VGIs and Release” per many HCOBs including “Floating Needle And End Phenomena”” etc.

                    And you are putting words and ideas into my comments that I never intended, as I said it need not be verbatim, nor did I say one had to voice “each and every point” in the purpose.

                    I’ve also provided enough references should you care to follow this up, so what questionable tech points did I give you?

                    The problem is – and please correct me if I’m wrong – you seem to be operating from only “some” references, and not all references for C/Sing a pre-clear. I’m just saying, that ALL references need to be looked at and consulted when C/Sing and auditing pcs, no just a smattering.

                    I’m sure the pcs you audit and C/S do quite fine, Peter. I’m just ensuring there are no arbitraries in the tech.

                    Cheers

                    • Dear Chris,

                      It seems we are in total agreement here , in the way you expressed it now, I can’t find any point at all where we differ. Perhaps my original remark was too general to begin with. My mistake.

                      Thanks for the validation and for being alert.

                      ARC PETER

                    • P.S.

                      Hi Chris,

                      Just so you know, in the current SRD course pack at the Church , each and every “purpose section” of each CCH was turned into “EPs”. Now, you have the CCH, the commands, the purpose, the EP which is exactly the same as the “purpose section” (added in by RTC) , and the “training stress” .

                      A PC is required to originate each and every point of this “EP” , basically each and every point of the “purpose” section, in a “verbatim” or almost “verbatim” way to be considered EPed on the process. This regardless of any other indicators, Cogs, wins, or whatever. Students co-auditors are many times kept on processes for 40-60 hours each one , grinding on them. At least this is the way being done here at my country’s Org.

                      The folder goes to the C/S , and the PC might have voiced a huge cog on process, being VVGIs (with a dial wide F/N if put on the meter) ; but can be C/Sed to just continue with the process (and right there , not even letting the PC “has his win” ) if he is “missing” any one point on this new “EP” section.

                      That’s what I meant by my statement concerning the current SRD being a very squirrel scene.

                      So, that was the whole idea I was trying to comm originally.

                      ARC PETER

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s