"New" OT Levels vs. "Old" OT Levels

From Scientolipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
"New" OT Levels vs. "Old" OT Levels
Pat, Mother's Day 2012.jepg.JPG
Topic "New" OT Levels vs. "Old" OT Levels
Author Patricia Krenik
Type of Article Category:Property "Is type of article" (as page type) with input value "Category:" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.
Website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fzelma
Social Media http://www.facebook.com
Email p_krenik@hotmail.com

NEW OT LEVELS VS OLD OT LEVELS By Patricia Krenik, June 1, 2012

I would like to start out with a “fair use” quote from Pierre Ethier’s, Class XII, upperlevelbridge.com because he says it so well:

“There is no such thing as OLD and NEW OT Levels, except within RTC's feverish mind (and therefore those of its followers). Except for "old OT I" (originally developed in 1966 and found in 1967 by LRH to be a dead-end), there has not been, since 1967 any "OLD OT Levels".

Its core issues written up in 1969, LRH found OT VIII to be "only for a High level Thetan", and the gradient simply too steep for most people, even a Full OT 7 completion. It took nearly a decade for tech to be developed to address those points.

Finally in 1978, LRH triumphantly announced that NOTS was the answer and the prerequisite for OT VIII. NOTS was found to be a far longer rundown than originally expected. Unfortunately over the next few years, RTC and the CSI (Church of Scientology International) re-wrote the bridge solely for "Marketing" and "Income Making Purposes" and not for "technical Reasons". NOTS, became "New OT V". The Solo NOTS Course (NOT an OT level, by any standard), became "New OT VI", and Solo NOTS (essentially the continuation of NOTS auditing, but done Solo, became "New OT VII". This was done, disregarding the obvious fact that by making "New Levels", the previous ones of the same name automatically became "OLD", in complete contrast to the Issues on technical Degrades. The issues on technical degrades are deemed so important by LRH, that he has ordered them to be at the beginning of every single course in Scientology. There is also no issue whatsoever or even order from LRH advising to market NOTS and Solo NOTS as "New OT V-VII" and to drop the previous line-up. This was a "bright idea" entirely dreamed up by the "New Management".”

Here in Elma WA we refer to NOTS as “audited NOTs” and “solo NOTs” rather than to call it the “new OT V” or “new OT VII”. Ray (my husband) and I both consider this important, because the use of “new OT V” for example rather implies that the original OT V is “old and not used anymore”. Indeed, the original OT IV, V, VI, and VII were removed from the Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart by the RTC, and is not on the RTC bridge. Totally removed from that bridge, yet those are vital steps for any being to increase his ability.

Unfortunately, we do not have a bridge written up that actually reflects what a c/s does or can do regarding the upper sections. No C/S trained properly would actually toss out the original OT Grades (often called “levels” even though the word “level” was primarily used for the training side of the bridge) and not use them simply because NOTs has arrived. The question becomes, when is the best time to introduce the original OT grades?

At our Revitalizing Ministry in Elma WA we follow the 1981 bridge, but with reservations. It really is important to get a pc, who has finished OT III onto NOTs as soon as possible. Yet the OT III Drug Rundown has not been canceled. The original OT VII which improved the pre-OT’s ability to project intention was at one time placed after OT III, to increase the person’s skill as a solo auditor among other things. (See C/S Series 39R). It would seem to me that that very same skill would be useful in solo auditing NOTs.

Then there is the matter of Dianetic Clears. Of course, currently they are just called “Clears” but the truth is they went clear without ever seeing the content of the Clearing Course. The original OT IV proofs up a being so he will never become the effect of any possible future CC course implant, so we certainly don’t want to drop out this technology.

In C/S Series 34R LRH recommends the L’s to be done after OT III. This HCOB was, of course written before the NOTs materials entered the standard tech scene. The L’s aren’t part of the bridge; they are considered “boosters”. Perhaps the ideal scene would be to consider the original OT grades as “boosters” and find an ideal place for them to be inserted on the bridge lineup. If the L’s are recommended after OT III, then certainly OT IV and possibly OT V (original) would find a home there for many people at the option of the C/S (Which puts them where they were on the original 1980 chart.)

I know one well trained NOTs C/S who is adamant on having the pre-OT going directly to audited NOTs, and if any sign of drugs reading do the NOTs Drug Rundown as soon as feasible. Yet in actual practice in the COS they ran the OT III Drug Rd. as soon as the person routed onto “New NOTs IV”.

In my practice I determine whether to do the OT III Drug Rd or not is based entirely on the person't drug history. Heavy history means "yes" on the OT III Dr Rd. and "yes" on the Nots Dr Rundown the moment NOTs ceases to produce gains.

LRH once mentioned that he wanted us to get busy and build a better bridge. Someone (I don’t remember who) once countered and said since then we have built a better bridge. That is partially true…the fact is there have been several “bridges” built since that comment of LRH, including the RTC bridge that overtly wiped out the OT levels and replaced them with NOTs without stating where these dropped out levels would be applied.

So I propose:




OT III, Drug Rundown if Necessary audited by another.

Optional…L’s, Super Power, (if not already run) (C/S discretion,

Original OT VII to improve ability to project intention (c/s discretion)

Audited NOTS

Solo NOTs Study

Solo NOTs to completion

Original OT levels not yet run


I believe this would be a better bridge than the RTC bridge. I would love input from other C/Ses on an Ideal Bridge.