ESMB is now closed to new registrations. Please go to www.exscn2.net and register there.

 

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

Discussion in 'Scientology Technology' started by Dulloldfart, Mar 13, 2009.

View Users: View Users
  1. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    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
     
  2. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    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.

    .
     
  3. dchoiceisalwaysrs

    dchoiceisalwaysrs Gold Meritorious Patron

    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.:lol:

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

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    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.
     
  5. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    R3R

    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.:duh: I got off the hook later with the Natural Clear stuff. Thank GOD!! What a relief! Flaoting TA. Rudiments came in.:happydance: 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. :coolwink: 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).:eyeroll:


    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. :whistling: In the 50's he may have overestimated the potential to be three ft back of the head. :unsure: I think somewhere he lost respect and admiration for what a person really is. :confused2: You can see it in his Class VIII course rants. We're all too stupid to get it. :grouch: 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.:angry:
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  6. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    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
     
  7. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  8. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  9. Div6

    Div6 Crusader

    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".
     
  10. Leon

    Leon Gold Meritorious Patron

    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.
     
  11. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    (snipped by Uniquemand)

    Paul, I don't think that's a deficiency either in you, or in the tech. Jumping around in the retelling is perfectly natural. As your attention jumps around, you look at various parts of the incident (or chain, or whatever), and more and more of it discharges, and more and more opens up for inspection. Kind of like playing a movie you like, you might zone in and out, and pick up different parts of it each time through, though you eventually know the whole content. The fact that the content is changing for you, each time through, is simply an indicator to continue running it. When the change stops a few times through, you're done.
     
  12. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  13. Veda

    Veda Sponsor

    Re. Dianetics (R3R), no problems come to mind.

    I'll refrain from any other comments, or from responding to other posts.

    The practice of running an incident from beginning to end is not the only way to "run" an incident.

    While it's tempting to write a lengthy preamble, I'll just provide the link, which describes an alternative, albeit a linear one.

    It may or may not be useful.

    "11. Let the Exempt Adept first train himself to think backwards...

    "16. The Exempt Adept should concentrate his efforts upon obtaining a perfect picture of 5 minutes backwards [rather than moving to the beginning and, then, going forwards]..."

    http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/libers/lib913.html

    http://www.hermetic.com/crowley
     
  14. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader



    Man, I'll be gone for a day digesting this! :D
     
  15. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    Dynamite links Veda. But I find this Thelemic stuff way too deep. (translated, I'm scared of it all). But interesting to train the mind of the Adept to run backwards. Might make darn good experiment.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2009
  16. RolandRB

    RolandRB Rest in Peace

    They ran on their own. I think this is true for most people. If you had problems with this then you might be an alter-is, SP person.
     
  17. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    My Observations on R3R Etcetera

    Paul,

    How clever of you . . . you’ll end up having everyone getting their cases fully handled with tricks like this thread. :clap:

    Reading the thread enabled me to spot something I had not, for fifty-years, seen till now. :yes:

    I actually blew, erased, handled my “Dianetics case” in 1959, but not with Dianetics or engram running, or any form of R3R (which had not been developed till many years later).

    As you will note from a review of the history of the development of tech, from end of 1955 on, we were not running engrams Dianetics style, and not even running “engrams” at all. As Hubbard said in his books 8-80 and 8-8008 and Creation of Human Ability and the PABs of those days that “we don’t do that any more.” (Though the bastard later blamed US for “dropping out Diantetics!! :grouch: )

    During the period mid-1955 till Sept ’63 when R3R was introduced, Dianetics was dropped by Hubbard. Straight Wire Processing was introduced mid-1955, along with the “magic” of “ridge running” etc., per the books, and also various spiritual-type drills like spacation et al. They were the flavor of the month during the late 1950’s.

    In fact, I did not try to run an “engram” either by Dianetics or R3R until about 1972 . . . and it was a disaster!

    This is/was my experience with it all, which is my answer to your cleverly worded question at the title of this thread.

    I’d been using the tech for close to two years by mid-1959 (lots of objectives, training drills, processes from the Scn books).

    This particular night in late August, 1959, in co-processing, I was being run on this question: “From where could you communicate to a victim?” (It was run repetitive)

    The R/D required one assess for the item to run . . . I was not on the meter side of the show, so did not see what else was there, but “Victim” was given to me as my item. Also, I forget the question used to elicit the item (I could hunt for it in the Vols, but I’m feeling lazy today, though “Formula 10” in HCOB 5 June 1959, uses this process to “locate and run engrams” :yes: )

    So, running this question, on about the third answer, WOW! Suddenly my entire perception and awareness is filled with this holographic, experiential scene and event of me floating out up through the rigging of a bunch of 19th century men-o’-wars, up through the smoke of the cannonades, and then me spiritually, without a body, floating there above the battle scene lamenting on the victims I’d created (the dead and dying in the battle) and of my own painful death.

    This, in fact, was my very first contact with a past life in processing and is the event that demonstrated conclusively to me that I am indeed a spiritual Being who has lived earlier, other lives.:D

    The “image” or hologram of the event was as real to me when it “turned on” as the present time physical universe . . . though it was perceived slightly differently. That record (of mine) of the aftermath of the battle when it turned on was as though it was all throughout me spiritually and I spiritually throughout it . . . it was not as a “picture,” a 2 dimensional picture that was somehow separate and at “there” . . . this thing was throughout me and me throughout it. I could taste it, smell it, feel it, etc. Even the movement of the sails in the wind, I could feel. And the hologram of the incident had the feel of vibrant energy to it . . . not dull or dead like the PT physical Universe can feel.

    Up till that time, I’d heard about engrams, but never run one; and I think I had not even read DMSMH. Remember, the other books and PABs were the flavor of the month.

    Obviously, this sudden happening in session was both a “shocker” and highly interesting. And my instant instinct was to look at what else was there to know that I could benefit from and also needed to know or do to erase and/or handle this thing.

    What I spotted, and also permeated, was that I’d been below decks when I died. I’d been shot into the chest, and slowly, painfully drowned in my own blood that filled my lungs. There’s a lot more I could relate about the event, but it’s not germane to the tech points of this ditty.

    The point is, I holographically perceived, 3DH, and permeated the event of that incident that had occurred in 1805 as though it was real, now! But I knew I was spiritually doing so, and I was removing the spiritually recorded impression of the event from impinging into my “mind” or universe. I was recovering my sovereign or causative relationship to the “energy” of the incident where originally, in 1805, I had been somewhat overwhelmed by it.

    And it is interesting to note, that from the moment I completed handling that incident, my breathing and lungs etc., became “unimpaired” where before I did have some degrees of difficulty and impairment on breathing . . . a thing that was much noticed by me as a trained athlete.:yes:

    The event I had run had suddenly manifested into the now present time the instant it was contacted or accessed as a result of carrying out the command to “locate” or find out “From where I could communicate to . . . “

    The process we were using, of course, is a variation on a basic theme of “Straight Wire.” Straight Wire was devised by Hubbard to overcome certain difficulties he’d encountered vis vis folks being able to contact and/or access engrams and/or other areas of case to be addressed.

    I’ve used this basic process for years to handle various case or areas of charge, pain, etc that come up from time to time. You don’t even need to use the word or verb “communicate to.” You can use “relate to,” “love” (bit high toned that one) “perceive,” “experience,” “cause,” "create,” “conceive of,” “duplicate,” “be responsible for,” “confront,” etc. The magic of that question: “From where could you . . . “ causes you to assume a position, and view doing the action. It puts you at cause over assuming that position. It blows all kinds of stuff to view that is worthwhile recovering sovereignty over.

    The outcome of this wondrous session back there in 1959 was that I was no longer the effect of “mental image pictures.” I could handle such with ease. I could simply contact as appropriate and holographically permeate and perceive/experience, and all the hang-ups would vanish. I could contact areas of experience recorded in my “mind” or spiritual time-trail, allow them to come live and manifest into present time and to then fully, holographically perceive or knowingly experience them, recover my old locked-up life force, and let the “incident” fall away as discharged. Things "blew on inspection."

    In 1972 when I was being forced to do R3R as part of “getting all of my Bridge completed” I had a hell of a time trying to deal with “incidents” by whatever flavor of R3R and engram running was in vogue at that time.:grouch:

    This is where I found trying to “go back to” and “move through the incident” were the killers. In essence I was really cleaning a clean . . . but in terms of mechanics, to try and relocate myself back "there", and to then be small enough to fit into the event of the incident and “move through it” . . . that was an exercise in craziness for me.

    There were lots of ways of handling “incidents” developed between 1955 up to about 1961. You could even locate these areas and run processes like: “What part of that incident can you confront?” (per page 410 Vol 3.)

    Bottom line, they get you to perceive the “things” in the incident you couldn’t/wouldn’t originally (hence its hang-up).

    It is to be noted that perception is one of a Being’s two basic abilities. It is a key to unlocking old stuck areas of experience. Actively, knowingly engaging that ability is a better way of handling incidents (in which one typically negated or “disengaged” the ability) than passively using it by “moving through the incident,” The command to “holographically perceive” actively, knowingly engages the ability and reverses the turn-off of awareness that is typically going on in engrams.

    The advantage of R3R as a rote procedure is that it does get all the key aspects of the event being run addressed. It gets any decision or postulate made during the incident, though it does not address a key aspect of what can happen in incidents in the most optimum manner.

    It misses the point I’m about to make because it has not been articulated correctly enough.

    As an example, an engramic incident that occurs in 1980 can have or contain as part of it the triggering into replication (restim) of a similar or similar content incident of lifetimes or even universes ago. What is to be noted is that that triggered replication of the past incident is actually a part of the 1980 incident. That is what typically gets missed. Though it does not if the PC/client is fully educated on these things, then he/she will spot the phenomenon and can run straight on through the 1980 inc to the earlier triggered and replicating inc and blow the whole package then and there.

    Missing that triggered involuntary replication while running the 1980 incident is what makes it gooey.

    But, the other side of the coin is that R3R and Book One Dianetics as currently used/practiced in the church is an arbitrary, and may even be a stupid marketing tool only.

    Fact is, you don’t need to address all this old past incident shit unless it comes up and gets in your way. Then you can address what comes up and handle. Otherwise, you are better of processing and empowering your positive abilities, and getting on with applying those abilities to win at and enjoy life!:happydance:

    Now, that’s a bright idea whose time has come, no?:yes:

    RogerB
     
  18. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor


    Beautifully put, Roger! You just described clearly something I've "known" from my own past auditing. I use to "run" like this, but I failed to clearly distinguish as you have the pattern of running. It's the sort of "obvious" thing with significant impact that can be readily overlooked and which may not occur to another.


    Mark A. Baker
     
  19. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Does it normally get missed? I am certainly no great fan of regular R3R or R3RA, but if the earlier incident is significant won't it hang up running the later incident, even on R3R or R3RA? Then get picked up on the E/S question?

    Using a later tech like R3X or my simple Rub & Yawn procedure the pc will be manipulating and discharging that later incident per the commands and if tied into it sufficiently the earlier incident will come to view unbidden and get discharged at that point, when it's good and ready to.

    Neither of these require exquisite pc hatting. With R3R(A) it requires the auditor to simply follow the regular procedure, and with R3X or Rub & Yawn it requires the pc to do the usual procedure, a basic part of which is to be aware the focus of the topic will change while it continues to discharge in the session. Sorry, needs auditor understanding too on R3X - I get so used to thinking of auditing using my R3X Robot I forget people audit it too!

    Paul
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2009
  20. Hatshepsut

    Hatshepsut Crusader

    I see by the terminology that someone has been familiarized with Knowlegism.

    Its nice to run from a presemt time point of view. Empowering. I liked what you said about not being able to make yourself small enough to fit into the engram as asked in R3R.

    It was hard to swallow that we felt mental image pictures were carried around like suitcases...and not the holographic replication that they are. How many ways can you insidiously steal a person's power by soliciting their agreement into ideas that demean their natural abilities. Go Alan. Thanks Roger B.

    These days the C of $ could never grant the individual the beingness to experience his own Sovereignty so early on . It gives too much control away. And Control equals public kept paying and on a treadmill. Besides the more transgressions and deceits purpetrated on public the more one mechanically without thinking de-personalizes them.