Dianetics R3R(A) Theory - What's Right and What's Wrong and Why?

[Dulloldfart]

My two cents on "running through incidents": In exactly the same way as a person's attention can already be on some aspect of things and that is what should be addressed first, I find that some part of an incident (or series of incidents if handling several similar ones at once) has the most "suck" to it and that is what should be addressed first, not necessarily the earliest moment in time. Moving through it linearly from start to finish seems like a complete arbitrary to me - I think it should be discharged in the order it is stacked up, as it naturally appears to the pc. If he can holographically perceive it all in one glorious moment, well, good for him, but if he has to bite it off and discharge it chunk by chunk then he should be allowed to do it in the sequence and at the time the different parts are revealed to him and not have the arbitrtary linear time constraint enforced.

Paul

This quote is from a different thread. I first came up with the above idea because in my own Dianetic auditing, starting in 1973 with Standard Dianetics, and continuing with hundreds of hours of that for the next year or so - and even with squirrel R3X in 2004 - I could NEVER with ease run through an incident from the start to the end. I would always want to jump about in an incident, with some parts demanding my attention more than other parts, definitely not in linear beginning-to-end fashion. At the time I assumed it was some deficiency of mine (that famous Scientology error!) rather than a deficiency in the tech. So I just did the best I could and then lied about it to the auditor, saying I had executed the command. It seemed to work out OK.

There are other parts of Dn theory that seem wrong that could be discussed, like the charge of an incident being mainly contained in the basic on the chain and when you blow that the whole chain pretty much releases. And other bits too, but right now I'm mainly interested in that first bit on running an incident from the beginning to the end.

This thread is NOT about the multitude of errors in DMSMH. Discussing DMSMH except in passing would be off-topic for this thread!

So, ladies and gentlemen, how was it for you? Did you run your Dianetic incidents with ease from start to finish, or was it a struggle?

Paul

[Vinaire]

This quote is from a different thread. I first came up with the above idea because in my own Dianetic auditing, starting in 1973 with Standard Dianetics, and continuing with hundreds of hours of that for the next year or so - and even with squirrel R3X in 2004 - I could NEVER with ease run through an incident from the start to the end. I would always want to jump about in an incident, with some parts demanding my attention more than other parts, definitely not in linear beginning-to-end fashion. At the time I assumed it was some deficiency of mine (that famous Scientology error!) rather than a deficiency in the tech. So I just did the best I could and then lied about it to the auditor, saying I had executed the command. It seemed to work out OK.

There are other parts of Dn theory that seem wrong that could be discussed, like the charge of an incident being mainly contained in the basic on the chain and when you blow that the whole chain pretty much releases. And other bits too, but right now I'm mainly interested in that first bit on running an incident from the beginning to the end.

This thread is NOT about the multitude of errors in DMSMH. Discussing DMSMH except in passing would be off-topic for this thread!

So, ladies and gentlemen, how was it for you? Did you run your Dianetic incidents with ease from start to finish, or was it a struggle?

Paul

In my Dianetic auditing, I simply looked at whatever came up. Of course, there would be gaps, which could be anywhere - in the beginning, or in the middle, or at the end.

I now believe that I viewed the incident holograhically, relating to the auditor whatever came up when it came up - neither forcing or resisting anything. Details used to get filled in subsequent recountings.

.

[dchoiceisalwaysrs]

That is pretty hard to answer Paul, as it was in the distant past.

Incidents were not always easy to run, but with steering, I looked really hard and often went E/S till very blown out. Were the incidents of whole track real? I gave that a brief thought, but didn't care to much as I was perhaps always F/ning and often bigger, more glowing. (exterior). The content would often change, and different parts would come to view. Even the sequence within the incident would change. So what, before I knew it, nothing on the bridge below clear seemed applicable in my personal universe, and I then could only run, by putting up previous data to be a 'GOOD PC" . That ended shortly when an OTV, stand in auditor, caught that game at the beginning of my first session with him. This all transpired over about 8 months from late 73 till early 74.

Need any more detail? hmmm I would have recreate it.

I am interested to see what your viewpoint is on Dn's procedure.

[Panda Termint]

Good topic, Paul.

I ran many hours (probably hundreds) of R3R on the old HSDC Co-Audit. We audited 7 days a week on a turnaround basis with Student Auditor correction actions as the only break between sessions. We both audited each other to what was then called Dianetic Clear.

It ran thick and fast, with high excitement levels, at times and slow and grindy, with both PC and Auditor doping off, at other times. From what I recall, it always seemed to turn out well in the end.

Elsewhere on the Board I wrote about some of the more interesting aspects of this auditing, a tale that provoked cries of "Delusion! You're nuts! You wuzz hypnotised!" etc, so I won't go into details.

The C/S at the time insisted on continuing with R3R after I'd had and voiced the Clear Cog (who knows what my Co-Audit buddy wrote on the worksheet). I realised that my only option was to employ a self-invented mechanism; I would only run Flow Zero ie: me causing myself an attitude (emotion/sensation/pain) in the _____ .

This was imminently successful and kept me progressing nicely until the release of the Clear Bulletins, whence I attested to Clear.

All in all, I still consider the R3R Co-Audit to have been a worthwhile and interesting experience.

[Hatshepsut]

I definitely did not like running standard R3R the way it was run in 1973. I did a co-audit of the drug rundown and whatever from the White form etc. I got to basic really quick. No longer identified with the body after a couple of sessions. From there on it wasn't my incidents anyway and no mass relieved for me.. Mass just packed up having to do the slow go of "move to the beginning of the incident and tell me when you are there." yeah, yeah, I lied to the auditor too. I suffered through this though. I got off the hook later with the Natural Clear stuff. Thank GOD!! What a relief! Flaoting TA. Rudiments came in. New enthusiasm for doing the Bridge after leaving it. All because there is some mistake on this. I never did like the book DMSMH even though I'd sold 52 copies of it. I did like what I saw on some Book One auditing videos. It separates the being from the initial misidentifications with the body's viewpt. It gets those insidious collusions where the shared incidents make the person feel as one. These are the points of misidentification. You get to cull those points and free them up. (but you can straighten it all out now on new OT VIII).


Hubbard's big mistake was to treat the being like a file clerk. I think he way underestimated the pure potential of the pc after the late 60's. In the 50's he may have overestimated the potential to be three ft back of the head. I think somewhere he lost respect and admiration for what a person really is. You can see it in his Class VIII course rants. We're all too stupid to get it. We need to be policed or we'll alter what he really said to do. It is because we are all meat and do what meat secretly intends to do to theta. blah blah ba blah.

[lkwdblds]

I ran R3R when it was HSDC, then NED and I also had a large dose of expanded dianetics (XDN). I was always asked to "Return to the beginning of the incident and tell me when you are there." It always went well for me. Don't forget, the auditor is present and is watching his/her meter and if you bog down a good auditor will always get you through even if he has to whip out a prepared correction list, he will do so.

I recently heard some LRH Congress Tapes from the "Life Continuum Series"
given in Wichita in Decmber 1951 when it was still Dianetics only. Scientology started very shortly after this series. LRH specifically brings up this point, it is somewhere on CD #6,7 or 8. Apparently, the R3R commands did not exist yet and people were not always starting at the beginning of incidents and were getting into trouble. In this lecture he tells what can go wrong if one does not start at the beginning and he tells the congress that from now on, auditors must start every incident at the beginning.

As far as past lives are concerned, LRH states his proof that they are real in another early 1950's Dianetics CD. He says that if an auditor runs only incidents from the current life, the life he is sure of, the gains are minimal and the pc will not have ailments vanishing or make big gains or go clear. He says further that when the auditor goes earlier similar and something comes up and the pc is not sure if it is a past life or it is a dub in or delusion, if the auditor goes ahead and runs it, the pc will release huge amounts of charge and often his illness will cease, he will have major case changes and go clear. To him, that was a proof, an iron clad proof, that past lives were real and were being contacted. He didn't need real big sample size to make his assertion either, probably just a handful of people plus he would try it on himself and if it worked then it became policy and part of the tech. There were no double blind studies or peer review and all that stuff. It made sense to me and I bought it without questioning it. It could be possible that the incident was not really from a past life but was dub in or a delusion and yet the pc blew down a couple of dials and had a persistent F/N and regained some abilities whereas when he stuck to only this life incidents he made only tiny gains. In such a case, you would always take and run the dub in because it made big gains time after time for the pc.
lkwdblds

[Hatshepsut]

No doubt things would've made more sense if back then one was in the know about getting the postulate off. One could look more readily each session for why one was connected to any of this drama no matter who's veiwpt was being contacted. Also the datums THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY THROUGH and WHAT TURNS IT ON TURNS IT OFF, are no longer truths once a person starts to separate out and break up those clusters in his early Dianetics. It is an out point that was skimmed over with NO solutions. Notice that on OTIII and NOTS preps you handle any misidentifications with old Dianetic incidents you ran. There's a big series of problems and solutions here.

I pose the question. Can this liablility to running incidents be fixed? Would it be such a crime to check for shifts of viewpt in running aspects of an incident as certain portions pop up more prominent to the pc. I mean in a session, the parts of incidents that are flashed prominently before him are significant to him. Not the auditor's control of attention to robotically do beginnning to end. Those portions being flashed vividly at the pc are a gift. They are the significance that you are actually looking for as an auditor. The R3R commands actually direct the persons attention off the inspection of that. It is where the BT maybe is making the connection with him in the drama of life. But that's my 2 cents.

[Hatshepsut]

http://www.lauralee.com/index.cgi?pid=8031

Metering anything living. I think this person is a Scilon. A little off topic though interesting. Quantum llife force unit handling and projection of ones own thought on the cellular open canvas. If interested, just click listen to a show , browse library above and scroll to this topic shown. FREE
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________
I'm editing this cause I just went through archives from one year ago and what did I find...ref to Cleve Baxter!! from Dulloldfart.

Cleve Backster, a famous CIA polygraph examiner, wrote an interesting book--Primary Perception--about some experiments he did over 35 years re electronic "reads" he got from plants and bacteria. Like reactions from yoghurt culture when some yoghurt nearby was tortured or killed. I bought the book when I was in LA but don't have it now.

Paul

[Div6]

I tend to think that one of the "problems" LRH was trying to solve was "making auditors". He chose an assembly line solution to that problem, with rote commands on the HSDC and NED courses, and then the different "Styles" of Scn auditing culminating in "all style".

This point was much belabored in the 60's re training: How do you get 2 people, each with ser facs that limit their ability to observe, and cause them to assert "rightness", to square off and grant enough beingness to allow another to itsa, unburden, etc?

But what ultimately happened was that training and co-audit packages were sold, but never fully delivered, the runway became too long, the Academy was used to feed the HGC, and very few actual polished auditors were made.

This is one reason I enjoyed auditing Book One so much (before it became mucked up with 'past life clear checks' and other such 'inpection before the fact' nonsense.....you could audit the guy in front of you, get what his attention was on, address it and end the session when his indicators were "in".

[Leon]

Dianetics always worked very well for me. Still does. I never had any trouble with it, only gains.

Normally on a first pass my attention would go to the "significant" portion I suppose, but getting the sequence of it all was important to me too so I'd go over it again and agian till it was cool.

The "basic" referred to in HSDC materials I think was more the basic to the present resim of the somatic the pc had, rather than the first incident of that type ever received. One needs to align Dianetics with the data on Serv Facs - it is via the ServFac that the being deliberately keeps certain portions of the bank in restim in order to dramatise being effect. So quite likely only those portions of a chain which are so "needed" would be kept in restim, with a basic on it that is relevant to the dramatisation.

I don't agree that "the datums THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY THROUGH and WHAT TURNS IT ON TURNS IT OFF, are no longer truths once a person starts to separate out and break up those clusters in his early Dianetics. These datums remain valid all through auditing, in my opinion

The change from Standard Dianetics to NED had little or nothing to do with any improved tech - the idea of postulate off equals erasure is from early Dianetics - but came from the fact that the book Dianetics Today oput Standard Dianetics into the public domain and so in order to get some sort of copyright control back it all had to be dressed up as something new. An unusual solution by LRH (as usual) that had few positive benefits.