03-04-2016, 03:46 AM
Hey,
I find it quite interesting to read the journals, the obstacles and the successes. Some journals are more than 5 years old, some are quite new with the newest technologies.
I am not sure why - that is what I'd like to discuss - some have lots of success and some haven't. I mean, some people had success with SM1, some not. Then came SM2, some had more success, some nothing. Then came SM3 to remove everything that is hindering success, but still many didn't succeed.
There are suggestions to use EPRHA, OGSF or OF for 6 months, then something else again, maybe even 3 runs of AM with EPRHA in between. Then maybe run SM3 for a few more times until SM4 comes out.
How did these programs develop from version to version?
Is the focus off and too much new stuff came into newer programs?
Are the programs aiming at too many small beliefs and instead it might be better to change big core beliefs and only a few at a time?
I find it quite interesting to read the journals, the obstacles and the successes. Some journals are more than 5 years old, some are quite new with the newest technologies.
I am not sure why - that is what I'd like to discuss - some have lots of success and some haven't. I mean, some people had success with SM1, some not. Then came SM2, some had more success, some nothing. Then came SM3 to remove everything that is hindering success, but still many didn't succeed.
There are suggestions to use EPRHA, OGSF or OF for 6 months, then something else again, maybe even 3 runs of AM with EPRHA in between. Then maybe run SM3 for a few more times until SM4 comes out.
How did these programs develop from version to version?
Is the focus off and too much new stuff came into newer programs?
Are the programs aiming at too many small beliefs and instead it might be better to change big core beliefs and only a few at a time?