A direct comparison of state-of-the-art liberation techniques with the documentation of the original teachings of Gotamo Siddharto, known as 'the Buddha', is revealing an astonishing match of concepts and exercises.

Even the much-touted 'invention' of dialogue techniques, by some called 'auditing', a term which literally means 'listening', must have been practiced by Gotamo in some form, as described by Georg Grimm in his book 'The Teachings of the Buddho', written in
the 1920's, thus predating the 'arising' of these techniques by decades.

However, there is one major gaping hole in what is known of Gotamo's teachings, and, fortunately, this is the area where recent liberation techniques excel even though they are zooming into the problem from quite a different angle.

The gap in question is the description of just _how_ an attachment of a Being to parts of this Universe is coming about.

What is the basic glue of these attachments that enslave an (originally) free and serene Being?

This is not to say that Gotamo didn't know about this 'how'. He stated reportedly that he knew much more than would be helpful or understandable in finding the way out of the self-made prisons in this Universe. In other words, one could conclude that the exact 'how' was just not important enough for him.

Also, the documentation of his teachings, recorded a couple of  decades after his departure against his expressed intention and now known as the 'Pali Canon', had been compiled by his disciples according to their memory of what was said and happened. It may have been that Gotamo _did_ teach about the subject at hand, the 'how' of attachment, but nobody may have deemed it necessary to include those discourses in the Pali Canon.

Perhaps this part was already 'lost technology' by the time of the 'First Council'.

Lastly, maybe it is just buried somewhere in 35 Million characters of the Pali Canon and its meaning went unnoticed because the words used for its description have found a different interpretation.

In any case, the processes he used and taught are addressing the 'how' very effectively and from a practical view that's all that counts.

Since there are many tidbits about the 'how' of attachment in modern 'liberation technologies', taken all together, a theory can be formed.

But first a quick look at the situation itself:

- The Being, in its innate state was/is/will-be 'whole'.

- After entering the Universe it finds itself progressively
   more 'fractioned', with 'parts' of it scattered all over the
   place. This is the state of 'unwholesomeness' or 'dukkha'.

   In a sense this state is necessary to experience excitement
   of any kind, both wanted and unwanted, and _both_ kinds are
   _necessary_ to  be able to make a distinction between 'pleasant'
   or 'unpleasant' (or 'neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant', of course).

- However, the Being cannot easily nor at-raw-will re-integrate its
   broken-off pieces since it became confused of what's its own
   and what's the pieces of others and over time it became attached
   to trillions of said pieces.

   'Healing' is the process of making something 'whole' again.

   (For the etymological relationships betweens these words, cp.
   '319. Becoming Whole Again And The Concept of 'Dukkha').

   Before an integration, a healing in its true sense, can take
   place, the glue that binds a Being's attention onto particles
   (or, better, the ideas it has formed about them), has to
   be dissolved.

This was a simplified snapshot of the situation.

Here now is an equally simplified snapshot of how the process of attachment could be understood:

   - a Being, immersing itself into the hologram of life in
     whatever form, must decide what it wants to experience
     next in this hologram.

   - it can 'mark' phenomena and/or events that it encountered
     as 'positive' or 'negative' - be it for its own 'track memory'
     describing its path through the hologram or be it as a means
     to indicate its preferences to _other_ players who roam the
     same part of the hologram.

   - using the 'wave model' of creation, this 'marking' is done
     by creating an energy of a very high frequency. This
     phenomenon is frequently referred to as 'aesthetics'.

   - The higher the frequency (or aesthetic sensation resulting
     from it), the closer the frequency appears to be to the
     (infinite!) frequency of the Being itself.

   - If the Being now elects to limit its range of perceptions
     to a window of frequencies (or aesthetics) that does not
     include the 'marked terminal', it would perceive this
     terminal as itself since the frequency of the terminal
     appears to be greater than the upper limit of the
     perception window.

     The Being then equals this frequency to an 'infinite'
     frequency, a property it knows to have itself. Because one
     cannot act self-reflexively, an unresolvable constellation has
     occured.
 
In the last step an 'identification' process has taken place, an attachment has been created. And, the glue was 'aesthetics'.

It does not matter if the terminal had been a creation of the Being itself to begin with. The addition of 'aesthetics' altered the state of the terminal. The terminal cannot seen as-it-is before the added aesthetics is resolved.

The 'aesthetics' model, as every model, is only as good as it can provide insights into other pieces of the puzzle.

Out of the myriad of phenomena, three applications are presented here:

- the 'layered' structure of case, sometimes referred to
   as the 'Onion Model', or the 'Nested Self', can be seen
   as grown over time as the result of a sliding window
   of limited perceptions. With every major shift of the
   range of perceived frequencies, there will be terminals
   with a frequency higher than the upper margin of the
   window (perceived as the 'Self') and terminals with a
   lower frequency ('matter or stuff of others').

   As with the 'Self', terminals that the Being perceives
   as 'matter' and as independent from itself may very
   well have been its own creation before the _lower_ window
   margin was _raised_.

- implants are high-level, enforced conflicts of decisions.
   They are held in place by the associated 'aesthetics'
   of each side of the conflict.  The classic and probably
   most famous implant of all times 'To Be Or Not To Be',
   has an aesthetic attribute in both goal and anti-goal.
   The aesthetic must be recognized (lingo: 'spotted') before
   the impact of the implant can dissolve without traces.

- how can an almighty Being with limitless potential degrade
   to a completely other-determined entity? The only way, it
   seems, was the voluntary attribution of an aesthetic to a
   'lower' state of sensation. To achieve the sensation of
   'beautiful sadness', for example, the Being must deliberately
   bring about the event of a loss of a terminal (which itself
   must be primed with aesthetics for best results).

Processing aesthetics by recognizing their creation during a contemplation is quite simple. Raising the curtain (or widening the margin of perceived frequencies), however, is the prerequisite and requires the lion's share of work.

Similar to the basic holders of the body organization (cp. 'Surviving One's Own Survival Instincts'), and similar to spotting agreements (cp. 'Agreeing To Agree Or To Disagree'),
the process does not aim to cancel out all aesthetics as such but to realize and thus resolve forgotten, unrecognized creations of aesthetic attributes.

In a practical application, the processor checks conceptually (non-verbal) if there is 'a component in this implant, postulate, perception, etc. that has an aesthetic (high-frequency) energy'.

While the 'survival issues' of the body org may have been taken up by the Being as well (and therefore both body org and all other layer's of the Being must be processed), 'aesthetics' and its resolution happen on very high layers of the Being.

The Being is 'bootstrapping' itself out of the layers of limited perceptions that are fixed by assigned and forgotten aesthetics.

A very frequent consideration is reflected in the statement:

"I want to be free but 'nirvana' must be totally boring and I would never want that."

Using the 'aesthetics' model, it seems that a person with such a consideration is fixed to aesthetics with the limited potential of limited games within a limited Universe. The person
seemingly does not want an unlimited potential and thus evaluates that this must be a negative state. All this because the person cannot resolve its existing aesthetic considerations.

The experience of an unlimited potential cannot be described with the tools of language.

There is no other way to realize it than by peeling 'oneself' out of the layers of false identifications.

A hallmark of successful processing is therefore the increase of the ability to perceive higher and higher aesthetics.