From: Edgar Gaumond
[gaumond3@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003
17:00
To: fzaoelma@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [fzaoelma]
Re: Exteriorization( Geraldine)
Pat, your observations are spot on!!
But I'd like to add that LRH said that an Int RD should be done only by
experienced Auditors. They are easy to botch up and can be very difficult
to repair. Superb TRs and excellent metering are required of all Auditors,
but even more so when repair actions such as an Int RD are involved.
However, there is a VERY VERY important factor that I feel is too often
overlooked, and that is the one of Auditor "altitude". And that is that
the PC/Pre-OT MUST have the concept that the Auditor is high enough above
him/her to be able to help. You don't go down to skid row and ask a bum
for money or other help, do you? A rather extreme example I know, but it
gets my point across. High enough in terms of training, ethics presence,
and case level or whatever else the PC/Pre-OT deems sets the Auditor apart from
him/her. I know from experience early on that this is so. Now here's
where I slip in a shameless plug for Pierre Ethier. This guy KNOWS what
auditing is all about. He understands it like a fish knows how to swim or
an eagle knows how to fly.
And one shouldn't
"try" to be exterior as it does key a person in and you might get a failed
purpose on it. Basically, auditing is supposed to remove the barriers that
we use to keep ourselves in check. Remember what Ron said in DMSMH about
the shadows in the lake trapping fish just like a net? When enough of
these barriers are removed, we are then able to just move past them. So it
is with going exterior. When we change our viewpoint enough, we regain
abilities. And I would say that how confident we are in our abilities
determines how stable we are.
Randy
Hi,
Geraldine:
Haven't heard anything bad about the Int Rundown. It is
a corrective
(repair) action. Not everyone who goes exterior in
auditing needs
it. Some do.
Many Int Rundowns were not
run properly when they first came out, and
also they were often run in the
non-interference area before it was
known that that wasn't such a good idea,
back in the 70's, doing
engram running.
I notice that you said
"according to the COS" you went exterior,
rather than saying "I went
exterior while doing the Purif." You said
that "I can't say it took"
so you might look up the HCOBs on Int/Ext
and look for the purpose, just in
case there a mis-understood there.
Might just be my mis-understood on what
you mean by "I can't say it
took."
Rey probably is right, and you
shouldn't "try" to be exterior.
There are many, many, many reasons that a
person considers he is not
exterior and each has to be handled. That
is what the bridge is
about. You don't do the bridge in one gargantuan
step.:)
Good to know that your Int was done all in one session.
That is how
it is supposed to be done, with a follow up session a bit
later. You
might enjoy reading the HCOBs on Int/Ext.
Pat
--- In fzaoelma@yahoogroups.com, "CraigR"
<Craigrobart@s...> wrote:
> Wow, Pat
>
> I was just
discussing with Craig about how exteriorization was the
goal for a
thetan. Fundamentals of Thought talks about the most
optimum position
for a thetan being near to and controlling the body,
I totally
agree.
>
> I did demos of the thetan inside the body and outside
controlling
the body; yes, that's the secret to being at cause over MEST,
you
can't be in the body!
>
> According to the Cof S I went
exterior on the Purif and I did an
Int Rundown at the Ann Arbor Org in
1998. I can't say it took, I
mean I not comfortable with being " three
feet in back of my head",
but since I read The Parts of Man in Fund. of
Thought, I am aware of
where I am, mostly just in my head.
>
>
Oh also, I mentioned that I was trying to be exterior (ext.) to Rey
Robles
on the phone the two nights ago, and he said it wasn't a good
idea, it keys
in certain mechanisms: I'm paraphrasing there but I
think I have the
intention right. I told him I had done the Int
Rundown, and that maybe that
would handle the ramifications. What do
y'all think? My Int was
done by Debbie Bredwey, a Class 5 auditor,
all in one session.
>
> So is Rey right, shoul Inot try to be exterior, and has anybody
heard anyting bad about the Int Rundown?
>
> More
Later,
>
> Geraldine
> ----- Original Message
-----
> From: p_krenik
> To:
fzaoelma@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003
8:45 PM
> Subject: [fzaoelma] Exteriorization
>
>
> Sometimes I do a session and then feel like talking about a
subject.
>
> Exteriorization is a subject I haven't
mentioned for a long, long
> time. In the early days of
Scientology, the aim was
exteriorization.
>
> Years
later came the Interiorization Rundown, a corrective action
for
> those who had gone exterior and had had problems
afterwards, like
> head pressures. Somewhere in the
tech with auditors focusing on
the
> Int. Rundown and
repair of Int. Rundown the subject of getting a
> person
exterior was dropped as a discussed aim.
>
> Of
course, on the upper levels, when you are dealing with not
just
> the pc but his OT case, it is important if you do have to
run/correct
> an Int. Rundown, that the auditor check to
make sure it is the
> pc/OT's case that it is reading on, not
some other entity. This
> follows basic rule of
handling any charge--if it reads, you need
to
> know what
type of charge is causing the read. A read on an ARCx
can
> be false. It doesn't necessarily mean when he reads
on "Do you
have
> an arcx" that he has one.
>
> On all levels though, exteriorization is what we
are doing.
Period.
> We are exteriorizing from an
engram, a bank of some kind, or some
> place where the pcs
attention is stuck. Even when you run
havingness
> you do
it to balance out exteriorization vs. havingness. A
person
> with a havingness problem isn't likely to exteriorize
easily.
>
> So no matter where you are on the bridge,
the ultimate gain is
> exteriorization. That is where
freedom from and freedom to start.
> With all the
auditing/training I have had, I don't know how I
managed
> to miss the simplicity of this. Probably because of
so much
hype, do
> your next step, next level, get across
the bridge, etc. etc. so
much
> attention on the details
of standard tech, or what is standard
tech,
> or anything
and everything except what we are here for which is
the
>
freeing of the spirit from those connections into which he is
> interiorized, or which can cause him to be interiorized
without
his
> express choice in the matter.
>
> So if someone thinks I'm giving verbal tech here, well,
maybe I
am.
> But I would like anyone to come up
with an HCOB that refutes what
I
> am saying.
>
> I have said for a long time we are in the subject of
Scientology
> because we want to free beings. I just
didn't have it spot on.
We
> are here to
exteriorize beings. Period.
>
> It is an exterior
being who can be cause over mental matter,
energy
>
space, time, thought, form, etc. subjective and objective--so the
> answer is really really simple. Just keep doing the
steps we
have to
> do to gradiently exteriorize the pc,
and free him from the
various
> items he is stuck
into. Of course, that is the bridge, but with
a
>
new simple look at what we are doing by having someone travel the
> bridge.
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
>
>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
fzaoelma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:
fzaoelma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
| Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor |
ADVERTISEMENT
 | |
 |
To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
fzaoelma-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of
Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.