TO ALL OT’s: A stimulus-response individual is much easier to handle.




They would be surprised of the results.


__________ by LRH __________


“Emotions are installed. All emotions are installed.




You got that? Emotion is installed.

There are implants on the whole track where emotion is installed in the theta body.

A person is hit with motion of certain character and it gives him emotional responses.

It makes him a stimulus-response individual and therefore easy to handle.

He’s also capable of producing these motions and emotions, but they’re installed and he’s held up on them.

So there’s where you get people so fixed on this Tone Scale.




They hit those emotion levels. You’ll find these incidents.

You can feel skeptical right now, wait till you get the one that plants anger.”


Attention Unit Running – 24 June 1952 – Technique 88 – Incidents on the Track Before Earth.





I’m a Class VI auditor, 2 Flag Internships  and an OT7+

and I’m auditing daily on the solo’s upper levels on the OT band.




My team and I are available to travel in USA and Europe.

We deliver in English, Spanish and Italian.

Center for Spiritual Research and its applications





ITALY: Silvia Kusada/Maurice Pascal


Silvia Kusada


Class VI (SHSBC), Class IV C/S and OT 8.


  1. ‘beautiful (emotion) of sadness of loosing freedom because of responsibility’ (early aesthetic trick)

    • You made me smile!! Implants are so cleverly done in getting the agreements of people on why it is OK to suffer or have misemotions.

      • We’re (with Melinda) cross-checking what was behind that early trick and it appears to be:

        ”being makes others asleep – but then sees the results of them loosing their freedom because of that – tries to wake them up (because feels responsible for it) by limiting his own freedom and going asleep himself to their level to wake-them up – instead of waking them up by the use of force’ and that story suggests you of how beautifull is the sadness of responsibility of limiting other’s freedom (and being responsible for it)

        ‘beautifull sadness of loosing your freedom because of responsibility having done it onto others’

        Pilot would call it ‘semi-abberation’ – willingly chosen to experience, rather that enforced

      • “Pilot would call it ‘semi-abberation’ – willingly chosen to experience, rather that enforced”
        That is the point where implant content bring you to your agreement to be aberrated…. and so anyone expert in psychological violence.

      • I have it in doc – so can post it (Pilots stuff on abberations)
        However, it would be a long post – but worth of reading


        I have occasionally said something about one type of abberation
        leading to another. I think that all the mechanisms can be laid
        out in a sequence with each one developing in response to the
        previous one.

        Once a mechanism is in place, all the more basic abberations
        lock up on it further, so that it is hard to see which one is
        more basic in present time. To sort this out, you need to consider
        an early track period where the later mechanisms were not operative.

        For example, problems are more basic than overts. Many types
        of non-confront could lead to a persistance which results in
        a problem. Eventually, one begins to commit overts to solve
        problems. Once that occurs, more problems will build up on
        the non-confronts engendered by the overts. To see the logic
        of this, you have to consider if one would commit overts in
        the absense of problems or if, on the other hand, one could
        have problems in the absense of overts.

        And in a similar manner, one could have non-confronts for
        many reasons which do not involve problems, but one would
        not have a problem unless one was already non-confronting
        something. Hence, non-confronts are more basic. But once
        the being does have problems, that will cause him to non-confront
        more things.

        Therefore it should be possible to lay out the various
        abberative mechanics in a sequence. One begins from a
        godlike being that has no considerations or limitations and
        cannot be hurt or hit with force and carries it down through
        more and more complex and overwhelming abberative mechanics
        until one reaches the late complex ones.

        I’ve taken a stab at this many times, but I always feel a
        bit unsatisfied.

        Rather than sit on this any longer, I felt that I should put
        out what I do have and ask for suggestions as to things that
        are missing or errors in sequence or mixing in things that
        are not of comparable magnitude.

        So here it is for comments and suggestions.


        Section A: The Beginning

        This first section is not really abberative.

        1. First there is Static. Neither one nor many.

        2. Then there is the concept and creation of separation
        which could be thought of as imposing space or space/time
        (time is a different style of separating things). And
        since nothing else exists, it is the static itself which

        3. Next we have Concieve / Create / Communicate. Here one
        is adding to the richness of creation and since there are
        other beings (other separations from static) and since they
        are separate from each other, communication naturally comes
        into play.

        Until the above are in place, ARC as we know it would be
        undefined. Static is a singularity (by which I mean a
        hole in the equation rather than saying that it is one –
        it is neither one nor many in the normal sense) and
        therefore could not have ARC because there is nothing
        there to have ARC with. At the same time, it could not
        have no-ARC either because there is also nothing to have
        no-ARC with.

        For affinity, one needs to concieve of likeing some things
        more than others. And reality would involve sharing
        creations. Hence these begin to come into play after
        the 3 Cs above. At first one would exchange and copy
        everything and then gradually one would become selective.

        And so the ARC begins from a completeness which is the
        singularity and then has to diminish slightly from an
        absolute as part of separating from static.

        At this level, there would not be Be/Do/Have as we know
        it. There is no need for havingness when one creates what
        one wishes without restriction because there is no need to
        keep anything around. In a similar manner there is no
        fixed Be or Do. Instead there is just continuous create,
        with transient be/do/have as a side effect.

        Note that communication processes are not generally
        distructive of havingness even though they should be
        in theory because they can dissolve mass. This implies
        that communication is more basic than havingness.

        The KRC triangle also has no need for existance except
        as transients in the continuous create. There is no
        question of control when one just creates what one wants,
        and there is no question of responsibility in an atmosphere
        where it is not yet possible to commit an overt.

        Many of our basics are not yet operative in this “time”.
        But affinity does become a factor. Note that it starts from
        an absolute and then slips slightly as a side effect of the
        introduction of distance between beings who are individually
        concieving and creating and exchanging things.

        But a slight slip in affinity or communication is not really
        abberative as long as it is not fixed on any line but continues
        to shift so that all lines flow at one time or another.

        If you process in the direction of out-ARC or out-comm or
        out-affinity, the PC gets worse. However, if you process
        in the direction of disagreement (out-agree), the PC
        improves (this is a keynote of the doctorate course).

        This would imply that at basic, ARC is not locked into a
        triangle. You can have high communication and affinity
        without haveing to be in agreement. In fact the mocking
        up of different realities instead of a single agreed upon
        reality would bring about more interest and more communication
        between beings.

        But note that there is a sort of R in ARC even at the
        start, however it is an R involving duplicating other’s
        realities without at the same time having any need to agree
        with them, nor any need to get agreement from others on
        one’s own realities.

        At this level there is also the assignment of location
        (orientation in space) and sequence (orientation in time).
        But note that these are willfull rather than fixed. The
        being generates spaces and timestreams rather than being
        trapped within them. But since there is a space/time
        orientation implied in the original separation, there is
        always a higher space above space and a higher time above
        time. At the top, the time-like separation is the before
        and after separating and the space-like separation is
        the separation itself.



        I’m uncertain of the order of events here and suspect that
        I’m missing some factors.

        4. Willfull assignment of external cause

        To allow communication between the separated semi-statics, one
        must permit others to create in one’s space.

        5. Willfull choices to not communciate

        The being has to cut back from absolute comm and duplication
        to keep from being everybody at once. This is fine as long
        as all lines are allowed to flow eventually, but leaves the
        door opened for trouble in areas that are not flowing at the

        6. Willful choices to dislike (out-affinity)

        This is most likely to happen on lines that have not flowed
        in some time (temporary willful out-communication).

        Note that willful choices to disagree are non-abberative
        as long as communication is present per the earlier discussion
        on disagree running as a positive rather than a reverse

        7. Not-know

        To avoid duplicating everything and to add surprise and
        variety, one makes decisions to not-know some things.
        Again, this is fine as long as it is transient and not
        fixed as a permanent not-know.

        8. Not-Remember

        This is really a variation on not-know. It is really just
        not knowing the past. Again, one does it for surprise and

        9. Not-Confront

        This is another area where one can make willfull choices for
        fun and only risks abberation if it becomes fixed rather than

        All of the above are in this section because they will
        process successfully by simply getting the person to
        do it (communicate or confront or recall or whatever)
        without worrying about why he isn’t confronting or why
        he doesn’t want to talk. In other words, he can push
        these through on postulate alone. Therefore they are more
        basic than any persistant abberations.



        When willful abberations are present in a transient
        state, it is possible to fall into this next series. One
        could avoid that by intentionally reversing the willfull
        abberations when these next factors show up, but this
        next set encourages one to do the opposite and make things

        10. Protest

        In the presence of out-comm etc., it is possible for one
        to recieve a creation which one does not want and that opens
        the door to protesting something. If one is protesting, one
        can’t as-is. The correct solution is to reopen create and
        communicate in the area, but if one mocks up the protest
        strongly instead, it reduces the ability to create and

        Protest results in there being things one is unwilling to

        11. Invalidation

        Eventually one wants to invalidate beings whose creations
        one is protesting. And once they also have things that
        they are protesting, they have blocks in creativity which
        they can be invalidated for.

        The most basic invalidations are invalidations of the being’s
        cretions and his ability to create.

        12. Withholds

        The most basic withholds are to avoid invalidation.

        True overts as we know them now do not yet exist because
        nothing can be hurt. But one withholds the action of
        creating something that would be invalidated or one
        withholds the fact that one has created it so as to avoid

        Also, comm is further cut by withholds, leading to more
        non-confronts, protest, and invalidation.

        13. Restrained Create

        To avoid having withholds, the being now reduces his ability
        to create so that he will not mock up things which he then
        has to withhold.

        14. Knowing without Creating

        To handle inval and protest, one now wants to be able to
        know things in the areas affected without at the same time
        being willing to create those areas. This introduces
        alter-is and launches one onto the K to M scale.



        15. Failed Create

        The accumulation of invalidations, the continual reduced
        willingness due to protest, the alter-is introduced by
        approximate instead of creative knowingness, and the
        attendant increase in willful out-comm etc. eventually
        leads to a failure to create something.

        This is the first point where he is really in trouble
        rather than just playing.

        16. Need for Agreement

        The solution to a failure to create is to get others to
        help create it and for that one needs their agreement.

        One tries to use communication and other’s affinity
        to gain agreement and the ARC triangle eventually locks
        into place.

        One is now in the trap of having to have agreement.

        17. The Need To Be

        To get agreement, one must to some degree fix one’s
        beingness instead of shifting around and being anything
        from moment to moment.

        18. The Need for Havingness

        Because one can’t create everything, those things which
        one cannot create at will need to be kept around.
        This is a solution to failed create. It is also a
        solution to failed beingness, if one fails to be something
        by postulate, then one trys to have the things that go
        with that beingness so that others will agree to the

        19. The Need for Doingness

        High on the scale, instead of doing something to produce
        something, one just creates it the way one wants, and
        when one wants it a different way, then one creates that.

        But as the ability to create gets blocked, one engages in
        doingness as a solution to how to gain havingness.

        It is as this point that the Be-Do-Have triangle becomes

        Be-Do-Have leads to games, but at this point these are
        still light games rather than fixated ones.

        The above section might develope during what I refer to
        as the reality wars in the cosmic history section of
        Super Scio.

        Note that the KRC triangle is still not fully operative. There
        is no serious concept of responsibility at this level because
        there is no concept of irresponsibility. One still creates
        what one creates.



        20. Problems

        Early problems are attempts to handle be/do/have in
        the presence of out-comm, non-confront, and failures
        to create.

        21. Overts

        Early overts are comitted to solve problems.

        22. Out-Responsibility

        This might better be termed the assignment of other causation.
        Having regretted the fact of an overt, one shifts the
        reponsibility over to others. It is at this point that
        the KRC triangle becomes solid.

        23. Enforce/Inhibit

        One begins to enforce and inhibit in an attempt to handle

        24. ARC Breaks

        Because of enforce, inhibit and overts, one begins to
        have ARC breaks. The basic ones are probably on enforced
        agreement (reality) since communciation and affinity are
        close to theta and tend to have a dissolving effect on

        25. Justifications

        One starts to justify to handle the ARC Breaks which come
        about because of overts one has comitted.

        26. Right/Wrong

        When one fails to justify oneself to others, one then
        justifies the matter to oneself by insisting that one
        is right and the others are wrong, hence the development
        of early service facs (not GPM derrived ones).

        27. Help

        Once one has failed even in justifying one’s overts to
        oneself, one begins to help in an effort to make amends.
        Note that true help in the sense of contributing to others
        creations exists earlier. This is abberated help, done
        in the face of irresponsibility.



        Here I am a bit uncertain of the sequence.

        28. Sources

        To avoid responsibility, one begins to assign other sources.

        29. Codes

        To solve out-responsibility, one begins to mockup codes
        to live by.

        30. Not-Isness

        Because one violates ones codes, one begins to not-is.

        31. Randomity and Complexity

        Because one is not-ising, one now has difficulty with
        too much randomity and complexity. One begins to be
        overwhelmed by quantity.

        32.Reality Frames

        To cut down randomity, one focuses things down into
        reality frames which are more ordered and limited in
        their interactions.

        33. Machinery and Automaticity

        Also to cut down randomity and to work around the fact of
        not-isness and to handle the complexities of keeping frames
        mocked up without having to confront the complexity, one
        begins to use machinery and automaticities.

        34. Games

        In keeping with the above, one mocks up more formalized
        game patterns with roles (terminals) and goals that
        are held more ridgidly.

        The above all develope prior to the fall of home universe.



        35. Abberated Control (Implanting)

        Due to the abberative factors above, one now sees others as
        responsible for the condition that one is in, and therefore
        seeks to control others to enforce agreement.

        Implants come into use in the form of high asthetics combined
        with trickery, note that it is not yet possible to use force
        against a being but only against his mockups.

        36. Loss

        With formalized games comes the idea of a winner and a
        looser. And with the evolving complexity and an increasing
        inability to create comes the possibility of having things
        that one feels one could never create again.

        This makes it possible to suffer losses.

        The overwhelming loss is the fall of home universe.

        At this point the emotional tone scale also comes into
        play (as opposed to random uses of emotion).

        37. The Rock

        As a solution to loss, one mocks up solidities which are
        supposed to be the being (instead of just projecting things)
        but which are actually substitutes for oneself. Note that
        the fall of home universe is the zero point for a being,
        after this he operates as matter and energy instead of as
        a pure creative force.

        38. No Change

        To prevent further losses, decay, and destruction, he begins
        to resist change.

        39. Protect

        Failing to resist change, he begins to protect.

        Eventually he begins to protect the rock and hides it
        behind a mask. He attempts to protect his creations in
        general and fails. He also begins to protect others.

        40. Symbols

        Once he has failed to protect and help, he solves loss
        by substituting things, and especially he begins to
        subsitute symbols for things.

        41. Pain

        He creates pain to warn himself of loss.

        42. Engrams

        He begins collecting pictures of painful incidents to prevent
        them from happening again.



        43. Force

        Carrying engrams, the being becomes the effect of force.

        44. Implanting by force

        Being affected by force and being capable of affecting others
        by force, the being now uses implanting by force (instead of
        by asthetics) to enforce agreement and so decays further.

        45. Unconscious divisions

        The being could always occupy many viewpoints or divide his
        attention and operational points, being both one and many.

        But if one of his operating points is overwhelmed and forced
        into agreement, he does not want the others to recieve the
        implant or the enforcement in parallel, and so he now creates
        heavy partitions and divides in a manner that leaves the
        parts unconsious of each other so that all will not fall if
        one is implanted.

        46. Use of BTs

        The being now pushes fragments of himself onto others to
        control them and is in turn abberated by fragments of others.
        Eventually this also becomes as subject for implanting.

        44. Valences

        Being affected by force and entities, the being now flinches
        from occupying the effect point and substitutes identities
        for himself.

        45. Goals

        Being isolated in individual identities/viewpoints/valences,
        and having those smashed, he now solves the problem of how
        to achieve something by postulating goals that span across
        multiple identities.

        46. GPMs

        Seeing that his goals still fail, he postulates the identities
        as solutions to the opposition which he believes to be
        external to himself and out of his control.

        Up until this point, the abberations and implants are still
        simple decay scales. But here we finally get the double
        sided terminal – opterm pattern. And of course the actual
        use of it as a solution is followed by implanting false

        This probably begins about 3 universes back.



        47. Unconsciousness of self

        With GPMs, one progresses through beingnesses that one later
        detests and opposes. And because of fragmentation, one
        has fragments or theta lines which are in different GPMs
        and hence oneself in one viewpoint can find oneself in another
        viewpoint that one detests.

        This is enough to knock out any last vestiges of awareness
        in any higher viewpoints from which one is creating lesser
        viewpoints or identities.

        48. Compulsive Create

        Since one is still creating to balance the nothingness,
        but one is no longer conscious of creating, the creations
        become unknowing and compulsive.

        49. Trapped in Reality

        Since one is no longer controlling what is mocked up, one
        becomes trapped within it. The compulsive create brings
        about a chaos of creations which one solves by freezing
        everything down to one reality.

        50. Solidification

        With the compulsive create of reality, all of the above solidify
        and invert.

        Now one has, for example, the fact of painful impingement
        even when one is confronting a present time force that is
        impinging on one rather than simply having the engramic
        somatics that derrive from cumulative non-confront.

        There is much more here. Things which were “would be nice”
        or “sometimes interesting” became compulsions and then
        passed beyond that into physical laws.

        This has been the anatomy of this universe and the one
        before it (the magic unvierse) as well.

        Think of a liquid with particles and solidities but which
        was none the less in motion and capable of being stirred
        and manipulated. And then it solidifies, as in making


        The above is a beginning sketch. I can wrestle with
        the exact sequence and with which factors should or shouldn’t
        be included.

        When I wrote this, the thing that struck me most was
        locking down the ARC triangle.

        Affinity and communication are basics, highly desirable
        to all beings. Compulsive agreement, on the other hand,
        leads to the solidification of reality and complete entrappment.

        It seems like the first trap was to make people think that
        they were supposed to agree just because they liked someone
        or something and were in communication with it.

        This suggests the following process:

        “Spot something or somebody which you could like while disagreeing
        with it or them”.

        Also –

        “Spot somebody who you could have likeing you without requiring
        their agreement”.

        “Spot something that another could like without having to
        agree with it”.


        This immediately makes me think of watching an enjoyable
        horror movie without having any need or desire to agree
        with the reality presented.

        It also makes me think of talking with the critics on ARS
        where there are some whom I enjoy talking with and have
        affinity for but certainly don’t agree with on various things
        related to the tech.

        The compulsion to agree is probably rooted in trying to compel
        others to agree.

        Go to a crowded place, spot individual people and get the
        idea of their disagreeing with you but liking you anyway.

        Hope this helps,

        The Pilot

      • That is Ok… I think is worth it.. Thank you!!

      • And that ‘beautifull sadness of loosing … etc’ goes straight to the section of:


      • origins of emotion-loss in jewel of dimensions (just found this by researching dimensional views)

        Description of jewel’s 1st chamber (by Ken):

        ‘1st line – need to split attention to perceive-know

        You enter the first facet and see a line You feel that there is more out of sight You keep shifting around and seeing different lines You realize that there is something of vaster scope present but you can only perceive a single line of it at a time

        You realize, that if you could view two different lines of it concurrently, you would know something So you hold line fixed in view and try to look at another line simultaneously In viewing the second line, you pull apart from yourself (‘es)

        Now you look through two different viewpoints simultaneously and by holding them both you find that you are able to perceive a surface ( a plane) Usually it is a square, but you can see it as other things such as a triangle, depending on how you shift the 2 viewpoints around (like seeing the intersection of a plane with cube at various angles)

        You still feel that there is more to know, so you hold the plane steady and try to pull out and see more You pull apart from yourself again and become 3 and see a 3D object It is usually a cube, but again, it shifts various ways and you can tell that you are looking at different cubes etc that are part of the larger whole

        Again you pull apart another viewpoint and see 4D, and again for 5D This time it is very real and doesn’t shift around You are quite pleased at this and feel good

        Then you try splitting further into 6 to see if there is any more But the object is only 5 dimensional and all you see is the little thickness in the 6th dimension But in doing this,, the object has become ghostly and unreal This makes you sad (not really an emotion, but a bit of a feeling of loss and disappointment)

        So you choose to forget the 6th viewpoint and pretend, that the object is real It becomes solid and you admire it for the while , but you know there is nothing more

      • Note that ‘not really an emotion, but a bit of a feeling of a feeling of loss and disappointment’ – wouldn’t it be one of the first (on whole track, but that due to use of dimensions as per jewel) emotions or one of the first (but suggested) combinations ’emotion as loss’ (i.e., loss of ‘good feeling while synchronized view-points to perceive’? If it’s so, we have found the very basis of ’emotion, feeling – loss’

        If it’s so – we can easy help to uncover it:

        ‘spot additional (out of synchronization) dimensional view-points there, where you feel loss or emotion’
        ‘acknowledge forgotten by pretending attitional view-points there, where is a feeling of loss or emotion”

    • @ Decodeq. Pilot stuff is good. There are few nice references about how emotions are used in implanting in Super Scio book, but i wont flood this blog, sinde you flooded it already with copy/paste. 😀 No hard feelings.

      @ Silvia, I would recommend you to take a good look at Pilots’ book Super Scio. I think you can have many cognitions there. It is even better than LRH books and tapes. Tell me what you think. 🙂

  2. Sivia great recal, well done. Elizabth

  3. Silvia, I got that…you don’t have to have emotions…particularly the ones that are not desirable…you can…create your emotions! Thanks for sharing my friend!

    • It is the mass, the coarse wavelenght that makes Joy and even enthusiasm a misemotions… on the top of course of the lower emotions. The freer from energy and masses the sane emotions are… we going into upper harmonics.
      You, with your incredible auditor skills,are helping very day people to walk toward freedom. PRICELESS! 😀

  4. “Emotions are implanted…” A fascinating thought! And, yes, you figure that if you were a being that wanted to subjugate and control others, you’d install things that they would PREDICTABLY REACT to. Hmmmm. All kinds of cognitions!.. Thanks for posting, Miss Kusada!

  5. Thanks Silvia , i knew it but it’s good you remind me . I guess it’s time for me to put my attention on theese things . I’m anyway into business of removing masses .

  6. Wasnt technique 88 abandoned, like many other processes has anyone run this ?

    its one thing to state something , another to be a prototype process that went nowhere.irresponsible to advocate in the absence of safety

  7. This is qute an example of ‘beautifull sadness of loosing (loved one)’

    ‘ it makes you cry in a way – beautifull sadness and regret of loosing him and hoping that love will lead him back again – setting him free makes ‘a price’ of loosing him – and makes sad song of hope for return’

    • ‘find additional view-points/planes which were placed during your synchronization of the number of view-point you created to perceive and experience that what you love (or loved)’


      ‘acknowledge (‘as-is’) your pretending of ‘not knowing’ those additional view-points about loved one, which you found were not needed (or additional) to your full perception-experience of that love and the object’s of love’


      ‘acknowledge those additional view-points/planes which are still there around your love object even so you are no longer synchronizing your view-points on and around him, her, etc


      ‘resolve beautiful feeling of loss of your love (or loved one) by recognizing and acknowledging that you don’t need or require to synchronize yourself around, towards and with the loved one in any way whatsoever to love (or to be loved, etc)’

      and with this creation and persistence of ‘beautiful sadness of the loss of love (or loved one)’ will resolve

  8. This may be taken as a discredit, but anyway, I was just reading another account of a person who did drugs with LRH back 1950-1954 directly saw LRH in his drug fuelled stage days (Phoenix), taking cocaine and heroin to get the speed up and output in affluence, Nibs accounts of his fathers drug taking are well documented i know, but there are others who are validating what Nibs said all along.
    Tim Leary? took LSD and did these yoga style techniques with astonishing effect.

    Huxleys -doors of perception about a psychologist on LSD-LRH says “a good read”.

    Ironic how LSD takers are illegal pcs when Hubbard himself took it. Would incite fear in an SO member the thought of taking LSD, as a side note a study was carried on Indians using peyote hallucinogen for ritual exteriorization, and if any flash backs, out of 1000 no flash backs.

    Some of these techniques are just occult magick, bring into creation techniques from Yoga and Crowley. Read Tibetan-Yoga-and-Secret-Doctrines for a glimpse at TR0 and creation of Human ability grand tour, plus other occult style processes.

    not saying that technique 88 dont work, but the test group wasnt many.

    Whats unforgivable is LRHs deceptive safeguard of his reputation and alter-ising his history to pretend to be the greatest when he was at best only mediocre or adequate in many fields,and claiming many others ideas as his own, i wouldnt have looked up to him as a god he deceived himself to be , it was only ever an illusion and deception and DM maintains this illusion which continues to intimidate vunerable and naive souls today still wandering around in glee clapping at graduation.

  9. Have checked today so called ‘CC’ as locker of being with GE
    There is an auditing description in it as ‘ ‎’When the light went on, the Thetan went anaten (or unconscious)’

    The Light in CC:

    Light = white void of nothingness = white light = 2nd chamber of jewel of dimensions = need for agreement to perceive
    Light = Agreement
    White light = Agreement
    Light = (need for) Agreement

    And ‘light = agreement’ as fixed (or fixation of these both)
    Thus, in CC ‘light’ represents ‘the agreement’ and thus an ‘agreement’ with the CC

    Light = Sound (sound is the first agreement)

    These things were worth of sharing about, althou this blog isn’t exactly about the materials of auditing

    Thus, in CC:

    Light = Sound of (items presented)
    and that makes up the CC as whole

    It’s an ‘light = sound (as first agreement’

    We are checking ‘light = sound’ agreement (as split to make energy) in Arcturus (5D), but there may be some more indications about it later

    However, it appear to be (commonly) accepted agreement ‘to see’ and by that to keep physical universe in place due to agreement to create the photon (of light)

    • or due to what’s mentioned above:

      if ‘to see’ light by creation of photon of light
      sound is ‘to agree’
      ‘light (‘to see’ by creation of photon of light) = sound of agreement’

  10. adelaide pest control…

    […]TO ALL OT’s: A stimulus-response individual is much easier to handle. « SILVIA KUSADA's Blog[…]…

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

  • July 2011
    M T W T F S S
    « Jun   Aug »
  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 102 other followers