DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Trom (The Resolution of Mind)
HTML https://theresolutionofmind.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 948--------------------------------------------------
A Non-Scientology Version of TROM
DIR By: mjh
Date: May 4, 2022, 9:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The use of Scientology terms and references is not required to
understand or use TROM - the sections where these are used could
be re-written to a more natural and modern model.
Any knowledge or dogma of Scientology is not required to
understand or use TROM.
Removing all references to the subject of Scientology from TROM
could open the door to a more public acceptance of TROM and
people using it.
The above goes against the Addendum by DHS in that he states do
not change the material. I concur with his message, yet if the
material is modernised and a copy of the original is given as
reference material then maybe this work could be further
disseminated.
#Post#: 953--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Non-Scientology Version of TROM
DIR By: mjh
Date: May 4, 2022, 6:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A wise man once said "Hubbard was still playing games when he
died and could not see the futility of them. So please stop the
other crap and just do TROM."
10/10
#Post#: 998--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Non-Scientology Version of TROM
DIR By: TromFan
Date: November 20, 2022, 5:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Khepri,
Without Scientology there would be no TROM. Period.
Instead of removing the references to Scn from the TROM
materials, it's better just to explain them to laymen. I have
done this in my posts on Trom for Non-Scientologists, and also
included a glossary in "Read TROM here".
Currently I am producing youtube videos to bridge the gap of
understanding. Here is my first:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31rkPoFQzts
I go to a LOT of work to make TROM palatable to the layman. I
will not omit Scn terms from the materials. It's not necessary
to do so. And there is NOTHING wrong with gaining an
understanding of Scientology. It's the Church that spins its
wheels and generates bad press. The vast majority of
red-on-white in Scientology is worth knowing, and no matter how
much the Church has pissed me off in the past, my conviction
regarding the tech itself remains unchanged.
#Post#: 1001--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Non-Scientology Version of TROM
DIR By: mjh
Date: November 21, 2022, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi TromFan,
This was always going to be a controversial post - and was
posted with this in mind, though with some tongue in cheek. It
was stimulated in my own being, to make sure that this material
does not fall by the wayside and become lost to the passage of
time, I believe that you also hold a similar view. TROM is too
important for this to happen, for all of us - that is only my
belief.
May I present a little more of my position here? I posted this
on the basis of only looking at Dennis' writings not any of the
taped material, which I have an in depth understanding and
connection with. In this regard, I looked at what was actually
in this booklet + addendums that referenced Scientology? The
word is mentioned five times - once in his Acknowledgement and
twice on the 'Terms Used' page, where five words are presented
and defined, and twice in the Level One section referencing
CCH's.
My focus here was specifically, could these five words be
presented in normal language, without a Scientology reference? I
think they could with zero degradation to the original material.
Could the Level One section do anything different...? In this
moment in time I cannot say, I have no answer - I may say a
little more later on this.
This comes to a second reference point for myself - I'm not a
Scientologist, I have been interested in Scientology/Dianetics,
I have read much of it - But since discovering TROM and using
TROM, I find my interest waning yearly to the Hubbard model. To
be clear I think that the requirement to hold any of the belief
systems of Scientology are most definitely not important in
experiencing and benefiting from TROM. For the later 'taped'
materials and gaining a deeper understanding of these - then I
am in complete agreement with you, having a knowledge of some
Scientology concepts aids in this understanding - (I would have
to leave it up to a more dedicated user of Scio to determine
exactly what is to be presented and what to be removed - for
there is a significant amount of material there). And, as you
pointed out - the CCHs are most likely the simplest and most
efficient way of getting one through Level 1 - I do not know of
anything else outside of the realms of Scientology that has
something even close to what these processes achieve.
So, to roll back a little - and hopefully, this short
explanation provides a better insight into my original post - I
consider that a small inside translation of those 'FIVE' words
to non-Scio language -vs- the general public's position on
Scientology (due to the constant demonisation of Hubbard and the
materials from PR/Media and now the Church itself being a
purveyor of who knows what!) - why fight this monster created by
the Media etc. so that those who are looking for some salvation
may do so without this barrier? Once they have experienced the
benefits and are attuned to the materials, then reading of
Dennis' story and the history of TROM puts everything in
perspective.
And to go contra to my own position - because one is always open
to changing ones ideas and thoughts - Maybe a concise and clear
representation of Dennis' story prior to getting the tech is all
that is needed? I suppose unconsciously I have attempted this
with my own foreword in the Full-Text version.
And, to finish - I never said this SHOULD be done, I only put
forward a thought and a question - so I thank you TromFan for
responding so eloquently and kindly - that is much appreciated.
So after all of that - let's get this show on the road!
Khepri
#Post#: 1002--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Non-Scientology Version of TROM
DIR By: TromFan
Date: November 22, 2022, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You wrote:
"why fight this monster created by the Media etc. so that those
who are looking for some salvation may do so without this
barrier?"
I don't think anyone who truly seeks salvation gives two bloody
()*&s about what the media says. You'll find plenty of such
people over at the local Scientology training center.
Unfortunately, if one publicly practices TROM, one may find
himself fighting on two fronts--- the media who may confuse it
with Scientology, and the authoritarian Church that will fight
you for practicing anything other than Ron's tech.
I have an extensive Scientology background. Plenty of people
tried to talk me out of doing Scientology and I pursued it
anyway. The only people that made me want to stop going were
Scientology public and staff members themselves. I just could
not be associated with any of them anymore.
Dennis originally intended his works to reach Hubbard's hands so
they could be incorporated into Scientology. Now, if Scientology
is garbage, then Dennis was painting on a dirty canvas indeed.
Hubbard deserves some credit for what he discovered, despite
whatever anyone else thinks of him.
I have read every last page of TROM available that I could
find,and listened to every last second of the lectures. I
assure you, Dennis' attitude towards Scientology technology as
well as Mr. Hubbard is much better than you may think. He has at
least once said, no one has done more for the advancement of
mental science than L Ron Hubbard.
And I agree with him.
Anyway, THANK YOU so much for taking the time to respond! Email
TROMGuides.gmail.com if you'd like to chat some more. And please
please please spread the word about my YouTube channel.
#Post#: 1021--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Non-Scientology Version of TROM
DIR By: Ransom Stark
Date: December 8, 2022, 6:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Putting aside the reasons why some one may want to make TROM
known to others I am of the following opinions:
1. Don't downgrade the TROM material to the WOG (ordinary
humanoid) level but instead let WOG (only if he's interested to)
upgrade his understanding to understand TROM.
2. The way to achieve number one is already well known: give
public interesting technology application examples, the curious
facts discovered by the use of tech, draw the true picture of
possibilities becoming available to the ones using the
technology, and the true purpose and condition the tech is made
for to achieve. Then let those who are interested study and
apply the tech. Also let those who are not interested go and
live their lives.
3. Stripping TROM from scientology is the direct and immediate
way to lose the sourse since it's actually altering the tech.
One can just imagine scaling up this scenario with everyone
modyfing the original tech to his current needs and
understandings And soon the original working source can't be
found nowhere. TROM stands on the shoulders of Scientology by
LRH - hiding this fact has to do with ethic states.
4. Whenever someone finds an "error" in TROM and publishes the
"fixed" version of it he both hides the working source tech
among its "fixed and promised to be working" versions and also
creates another trap for the ones looking for the true working
source tech. It's squirelling and has to do with ethic states.
5. Back to basics. If you want to make an apple known to others
just do it, "put it on a counter" so to speak to make it visible
to the others and call it the way it is "apple". That's simple.
Don't paint it to make it look like a cherry, don't spray it
with the taste of bacon. Don't do any alterations. Keep making
known the original effect. Then let those who are interested in
it learn/find out the original apple taste. And also let the
others who are not interested go their ways, don't "catch" them
by catching their attention.
#Post#: 1022--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Non-Scientology Version of TROM
DIR By: mjh
Date: December 9, 2022, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
JayDee, nice to have you posting again.
You bring up some interesting points, clearly you have an
importance on Scio which I do not hold, as a WOG (I get the
feeling that this is a derogatory term?) I didn't have to
upgrade anything to understand TROM, in fact I would state that
the mystery and unknowing bound up in the mass of Scio materials
was a block for many years, but I am a WOG so what do I know.
On point 2, 100% in agreement - this site and those who help out
(such as Cory, TromFan, Karalee, David, Pete and others) have
been wonderful in helping and providing their own experiences to
bring my own development using TROM to where it is today.
On point 3, I go back to DHS on this and his message in the
addendum "When you duplicate the data, you duplicate it exactly.
Not because I am enamoured with my prose style, but because
altered it could very easily become just another trap in a
universe already abundantly endowed with them." As I have
reiterated above - this was a 'tongue-in-cheek' post to discuss
an important subject and was always going to be controversial,
NEVER have I said this SHOULD be done. On reflection now, maybe
it was because I did find that having to learn the Scio
definitions diverted me from just doing TROM; so to understand
what was been presented in those sections was a distraction, so
when writing the original post above, I was simply 'thinking out
loud' wondering "What if I didn't have to do that?"
On 4, I have no idea what you are referring to, what errors have
been fixed and by who? Where is this stated and published?
On 5, yes agreed. Make it visible.
Now I've covered responding to your message, and on reading the
thread again it is clear now that I have a strong 'TROM MBK'
that is significantly greater than my 'SCIO MBK', in fact for me
SCIO may or may not be known I don't care either way - it
exists, it's a thing. Thankfully because of Dennis, TROM exists
so I don't have to go down that dark path.
Besides all of this, because it is a distraction to what we're
all really doing here - how are you getting on with TROM?
I find that my usage of it comes in waves, I may spend 3-4
months fully engaged doing sessions daily then I have a huge win
and then step back and enjoy it for a while, the time spent
enjoying it is getting longer every time, so the last time I had
a solid bunch of sessions was over six months ago, I'm still
buzzing! At some point in the future I'll dig in again and
deconstruct some more of my universes and see what happens next.
What I love about this work is it is self-contained it doesn't
require me to have any outside influence on my structure of
reality, it is self-affirming, when I can see I have been
imposed upon by another (esp. valence shifts) that dissipates
and I am left with more of my essence available. This also
allows me to recognise in the here and now when impositions are
present and I can choose to play with them or not.
Wishing you well.
Khepri
#Post#: 1023--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Non-Scientology Version of TROM
DIR By: TromFan
Date: December 9, 2022, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I kind of laugh that Pete, of all people, would cite how Dennis
said not to alter the material, considering in the book he
published on Amazon he adds to it an unnecessary introduction
that will fill the reader with misunderstoods immediately. Then
there is a huge mistake in duplicating some level five data
which I have pointed out and posted in the level 5 section of
this forum-- check it out-- it is entitled "IMPORTANT Re level
5c error in Amazon TROM manual". The glossary he put in was just
a copy and paste from the tech dictionary of a few terms,
incomplete, adding some terms that weren't even in the book, and
the glossary is exactly the same in every single one of his
published works on TROM.
Also on his old 'tromhelp.com' website he said using the Sedona
Method was a way to help through level 2 of TROM. He also linked
to and referred to books and materials that weren't even Scn
materials like James Carse's Finite and Infinite Games-- a great
book-- I read it years before finding out about TROM, but it
does not belong on a site such as he put up.
I brought up to him that the book he put out on Amazon needed to
be re-done and he told me he did not have the time. It's been
several years since then, and the errors are still there.
Umm, the tongue-in-cheek does not communicate at all in the
original posting you made, Khepri. Sounds like you really mean
what you are saying.
To understand TROM, you really need to know what context it fits
in. Dennis made it with the intent for being used by the Church.
And I think there are more Scientology terms and subtle
references to Scientology in the original book than you are
aware of.
As a former course supervisor in the Church, I can tell you this
on and off might have to do with you still having some
misunderstoods on the book. Because having misunderstood words
will interfere with application. This is a vital Scientology
datum and applies to everything, not just TROM or Scientology, I
mean everything you study. Any Scientologist worth his salt
studying TROM will study it with a regular dictionary and a
Scientology technical dictionary to hand.
Here's an example of a term you may have missed-- do you
remember how Dennis said leve four is a type of lock-scanning to
prepare you for level five? Well, if you don't know what lock
scanning means, best find out. Now you could just read a
definition either from the tech dictionary or even one that I
wrote in one of my postings, but if you, like me, had actually
done lock scanning at one time, a subject extensively covered in
Handbook for Preclears, you will have an even deeper
understanding of what Dennis means.
When you listen to the audio lectures, the advanced materials of
trom you run into a lot of Scientology terms and concepts. If
you don't know those, you are going to miss out on a lot of
comprehension. If you never seen an e-meter or never had any
training on an e-meter you are going to miss out on the full
flavor of what Dennis means when he talks about needle reads. I
thank God I have had auditor training so these things don't go
over my head.
I intend to do more for TROM than just put an apple on the
counter. When I am finished, I am not only going to have an
apple on the counter, but I am going to explain exactly what
apples are, that they grow on trees, and right next to that
apple put a recipe book on all the delicious dishes you can
prepare using apples, so at least the person being offerred the
apple has context for it.
It is irresponsible to offer TROM to someone without context.
Period. I know someone who downloaded that Amazon version and
got only a few pages in and gave up. They saw my videos and are
reading again. That's my sister. Another viewer wrote me to say
much the same thing.
Even lightly saying that Scientology terms and references to
Scientology should be removed from TROM is just showing the rest
of us just how much you don't know that you don't know. I am not
saying this to berate you, I am saying this because I think it's
a clue as to why you are on and off with TROM.
I'll help you with any question you have, but honestly, I wish
you were in a courseroom with me so I could sit down with you
and clear all your words.
#Post#: 1024--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Non-Scientology Version of TROM
DIR By: TromFan
Date: December 9, 2022, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I need to add something more. Scientology is not a 'dark path'.
If you think Scientology TECHNOLOGY, I am talking strictly the
technology of Scientology, not how the Church acts, is a dark
path, it is not. Dennis praises Scientology technology and L
Ron Hubbard many times in his works. He also says later on he
does not like how the Church acts and he says this after
Hubbard's death. He had some disagreements while Hubbard was
still alive, but these were with policies and actions the church
had, NOT with the Scientology technology. See what I mean?
You need to sort out what Scientology technology really is and
start differentiating it between the actual technology and the
bad press the Church gets whether real or imagined. Your
prejudices against Scientology technology will 100 per cent keep
you from getting the full flavor and context of TROM.
So yeah, theoretically if one published TROM and removed the
Scientology references, and the public had no idea that TROM was
some sort of evolution of Scientology technology, you might get
more public 'acceptance' of it, but so what? What good is all
this 'acceptance' if no one can understand what the hell they
are reading, and don't have a place to turn to in order to help
them understand it (studying some Scientology).
Teaching TROM without also letting also educating them at least
minimally in Scientology tech as it applies to trom would be
like trying to teach someone algebra but denying mathematics,
the previous subject, even existed.
#Post#: 1025--------------------------------------------------
Re: A Non-Scientology Version of TROM
DIR By: mjh
Date: December 9, 2022, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I cannot berate Pete, without his work and his dedication we
would be missing so much of what Dennis created - I have no
doubt that his small error (ref: level 5c) in duplicating the
original materials was an oversight not an intention. My work in
double checking all the transcripts brought many issues out,
this is to be expected that task was a huge task to take onboard
so thank you Pete! And thank you to everyone here so that we may
spot where things have gone awry and make amends, none of this
is Squirrelling or Out-Tech, in fact it's quite the opposite, it
is making sure that what Dennis presented in audio is clearly
presented in the written form. One major outpoint for me was the
use of the term "Cliff Stick", this really snarled me up as it
never sat right with me. On repeated listening to the tapes it
became apparent that this was not what Dennis was saying at all,
he says "Cleft Stick" which has a real and concrete meaning.
I have studied hard and given a significant amount of time and
energy to get to a deeper understanding of TROM. And for the
record, I do know what 'lock-scanning' is. Though in TROM itself
it is not mentioned, Dennis does bring this up in the Creation
of TROM lecture.
With respect to the audio tapes - as I have stated above a
knowledge of Scientology terminology is a full requirement.
Which is one reason I really appreciated your glossary, I am
total agreement with you, hence my slightly curt response -
again there is no SHOULD.
I have taken a look over the history of this forum, what a
wonderful capture of learning it is - and I am reminded of my
time in 2018 where I was stuck trying to get a sense on the
Overt/Motivator definitions. This was a tough time for me, and
looking back now was totally unnecessary - the concept of a
Motivator blurs in the understanding of the being Overwhelmed,
it created a confusion for me. Yes, the concept of Overt fits,
but not Motivator. One being overwhelmed is sufficient. The
second part of that (motivator) may occur after a valence shift.
This concept is an imposition for me, it is not extant in all
overwhelm situations. You hit me, I walk away and hope you deal
with it, I am not compulsively urged to hit you back. You rob my
house, I do not go and rob the house next door. Every child that
has suffered sexual abuse does not go out and commit sexual
abuse acts on others - yes some do but not all. Some people hit
back, some people do go and rob another. So for me the concept
of Motivator is a 'sometimes happens' scenario.
In fact was it not the old man himself who said "What is true
for you is what you have observed yourself. And when you lose
that, you have lost everything."...?
I love these conversations!
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page