Difference between David Mayo's Happiness Rundown and the current version
- Thread starter knn
- Start date
Once bitten
Patron Meritorious
As far as I know, it isn't a rundown any longer. It is just a booklet.
When I was sent to do the pilot of this when it was in its early stages, we had to pull withholds etc on each of the premises. Like remember a time when you didn't care for your body. And you'd go earlier and earlier until EP. Then you would have a cog like "OH MY!!! I WILL ALWAYS SHAVE MY LEGS WHEN THEY NEED IT NOW, AND I REALISE HOW BAD IT IS NOT TO SHAVE THEM WHEN THEY NEED IT. I WILL LOOK AFTER MY BODY NOW'
and you then go onto the next premise.
Actually it was quite a cool rundown, but I still don't shave my legs regularly. Maybe I never actually flattened that! lol.
Hope this helps!
When I was sent to do the pilot of this when it was in its early stages, we had to pull withholds etc on each of the premises. Like remember a time when you didn't care for your body. And you'd go earlier and earlier until EP. Then you would have a cog like "OH MY!!! I WILL ALWAYS SHAVE MY LEGS WHEN THEY NEED IT NOW, AND I REALISE HOW BAD IT IS NOT TO SHAVE THEM WHEN THEY NEED IT. I WILL LOOK AFTER MY BODY NOW'
and you then go onto the next premise.Actually it was quite a cool rundown, but I still don't shave my legs regularly. Maybe I never actually flattened that! lol.
Hope this helps!
Lesolee (Sith Lord)
Patron Meritorious
The HRD is certainly a rundown according to the current tech Vols. In subject vol 3 there are 7 HCOBs in the HRD series, covering 76 pages. They are mostly dated 1984.
I can't see anyone objecting to this rundown if it is run per the Auditor's Code (especially with respect to Inval, Eval, running uncharged items.)
Trouble would come if the C/S or auditor were evaluative. "The Ethics Officer thinks you would benefit from this rundown because you need to fit in better with others" … as an R-factor would be a disaster. The very people who might most benefit from it may well not be up to realising they need it!
There are 19 steps per precept, including false data stripping and O/W, but also valence splitting. This seems a lot more than Genny mentioned.
I haven't heard of an earlier "David Mayo" version to compare this one with.
I can't see anyone objecting to this rundown if it is run per the Auditor's Code (especially with respect to Inval, Eval, running uncharged items.)
Trouble would come if the C/S or auditor were evaluative. "The Ethics Officer thinks you would benefit from this rundown because you need to fit in better with others" … as an R-factor would be a disaster. The very people who might most benefit from it may well not be up to realising they need it!
There are 19 steps per precept, including false data stripping and O/W, but also valence splitting. This seems a lot more than Genny mentioned.
I haven't heard of an earlier "David Mayo" version to compare this one with.
Good twin
Floater
It's not only a Rundown, it has been added to the actual grade chart. It used to be one of those off to the side optional special handling steps. Now it is after the Scn DRD and before the Grades. I'm not sure of the changes from the original. I did the training a few years ago. I loved that RD. 
Lesolee (Sith Lord)
Patron Meritorious
Glad you enjoyed it GT. 
I just checked the latest Bridge. It is now "As determined by C/S", but very much in the mainstream.
I can't imagine wanting to pay full auditing rates for the false data stripping though.
Mind you I never liked paying full rates for auditing anyhow.
I liked the intro auditing which was about 10x less per hour. 
I just checked the latest Bridge. It is now "As determined by C/S", but very much in the mainstream.
I can't imagine wanting to pay full auditing rates for the false data stripping though.
Mind you I never liked paying full rates for auditing anyhow.
I liked the intro auditing which was about 10x less per hour. 
Hatshepsut
Crusader
I did not get any 19 steps per precept. I did it in 1981.
I did the original RD and audited many on it. Almost without exception to tremendous gains, mostly resulting in a spilt form the CofS. There were just a couple where it was originated by the PC and accepted by the C/S as an "uneccesary action"
I saw a fairly current HRD pack a while ago and it still looked essentailly the same.
I think the main difference these days is that it is probably combined with sec checks which would be a gross violation of the RD itself. Nevertheless, I understand that these days sec checks are done as a matter of course.
I would expect a sec checked PC to run the HRD very differently to in my day when one was allowed to voice disagreements with CofS , execs and LRH in session without repercussion. Of course the PC always did voice these, because the CofS is one of the worst violators of the precepts in most PC's experience. So the PC would experience a valence shift from the identity of Scientologist.
If sec checked before after and even during(?) the RD the PC would run the RD as some sort of compliance with CofS orders and concepts. Therefore it could be used to coerce someone to tow the line. Sad!
I saw a fairly current HRD pack a while ago and it still looked essentailly the same.
I think the main difference these days is that it is probably combined with sec checks which would be a gross violation of the RD itself. Nevertheless, I understand that these days sec checks are done as a matter of course.
I would expect a sec checked PC to run the HRD very differently to in my day when one was allowed to voice disagreements with CofS , execs and LRH in session without repercussion. Of course the PC always did voice these, because the CofS is one of the worst violators of the precepts in most PC's experience. So the PC would experience a valence shift from the identity of Scientologist.
If sec checked before after and even during(?) the RD the PC would run the RD as some sort of compliance with CofS orders and concepts. Therefore it could be used to coerce someone to tow the line. Sad!
Hatshepsut
Crusader
Man, I hope its not like that lionheart. I would hope the overts question now would just be the usual "did you ever do anything bad to that person"? Not a real sec check.
The big change they made early on was that with mayo you ran False Datums that didn't read. In the newer version they had to read on the meter before running them.
A big foofaraw was made about this saying how out tech it was to read "uncharged" items. In my view at the time and still today, the objection fails to recognise that charge is not really "stored" in the bank but is generated in PT between the person and the bank item. So if he is in agreement with the item - for e.g. with a real corker of a false datum that he believes to be true and inalignment with his survival - then no charge will be evident.
By insisting on "reaging items only" one limits the RD to shallow running only. The deeper issues are bypassed. It was observable that the huge gains we got on the original Mayo version of the RD were never attained on the later version.
It is precisely those unreading items that are the most deadly. Properly done there is no eval or inval in getting the preclear into these areas of his case.
A big foofaraw was made about this saying how out tech it was to read "uncharged" items. In my view at the time and still today, the objection fails to recognise that charge is not really "stored" in the bank but is generated in PT between the person and the bank item. So if he is in agreement with the item - for e.g. with a real corker of a false datum that he believes to be true and inalignment with his survival - then no charge will be evident.
By insisting on "reaging items only" one limits the RD to shallow running only. The deeper issues are bypassed. It was observable that the huge gains we got on the original Mayo version of the RD were never attained on the later version.
It is precisely those unreading items that are the most deadly. Properly done there is no eval or inval in getting the preclear into these areas of his case.
Good twin
Floater
No. There wasn't Sec checking added or introduced with the HRD. I remember thinking "If I had this RD, I could've skipped about 100 to 200 hours of Sec checks, FPRD and LX lists!"
uniquemand
Unbeliever
That would be bad for business. Think! They milked another 200 hours out of you, just by giving you substandard tech!
Good twin
Floater
uniquemand
Unbeliever
My favorite LRH lie was the "search for the one-shot Clear". That would have ruined his money machine.
Challenge
Silver Meritorious Patron
I trained on HRD as soon as the pilot hit ASHO. At that time, it was 'confidential', and was offered to staff tech personnel only.
I was,then, the tech sec for the Old Timers' Club so they let me train on it in exchange for delivering 100 hours of it.
I co-audited it with a Frenchwoman. She loved it. I hated it. I thought it the worst r/d that I had ever done. I thought that anyone calling themself an 'OT' would be embarrassed to run these lower, even below, Bridge stuff.
I delivered maybe 20/30 HRD r/ds and each person that I delivered to loved the r/d. I think that HRD belongs way way low on the Bridge. It undercuts the Grades, imo.
Chlng
I was,then, the tech sec for the Old Timers' Club so they let me train on it in exchange for delivering 100 hours of it.
I co-audited it with a Frenchwoman. She loved it. I hated it. I thought it the worst r/d that I had ever done. I thought that anyone calling themself an 'OT' would be embarrassed to run these lower, even below, Bridge stuff.
I delivered maybe 20/30 HRD r/ds and each person that I delivered to loved the r/d. I think that HRD belongs way way low on the Bridge. It undercuts the Grades, imo.
Chlng
Good twin
Floater
I don't know what they do in practice, I just meant in the sec check environment that people describe as the current CofS then that must affect how a person runs the RD. It must impose a false non-self, Scio-determined concept of right/wrong that would inhibit what a PC volunteers on the HRD. But I also wouldn't put it past the CofS to run a sec check in the middle of the HRD, especially if the PC was coming up with CofS terminals as false data sources and transgressers against the precepts.
I'm not sure it would be possible to blow the overwhelming scio valences and become more oneself than one has ever been, if one is still proscribed as to what one can think and do, by an overwhelmng sec check culture.
I suspect scio valences and overts would simply never be addressed on the HRD, in such a culture.
I agree, and more generally, I never understood how or why false data would read on the meter, simply because, according to the theory, false data has been accepted as true, therefore it would, by definition, be uncharged and unreading.
If I remember correctly, one didn't check for reads on other steps either. Am I correct or is my memory foggy? I seem to remember simply asking "how have others transgressed against..." and simply letting the PC look and answer and 2WC to FN. Then "How have you transgressed against..." and 2WC to FN. A beautiful and simple way of running overts. Same with valences. I don't remember being concerned about meter reads at all. After all either the PC has something on it and will answer or willl have nothing and FN.
It was a wonderfully co-operative and non-intrusive style of auditing. Praise be to David Mayo!
Carmel
Crusader
When we first had the rundown in ANZO, it was a bit of a worry.
The valence steps were often run on the same terminal, several times. If and when a 'terminal' was named as one having an 'affect' (in the past, not present time), on the next precept being dealt with, you'd have to run the valence steps on that terminal, irrespective of whether they had already been 'run' during the handling on a previous precept.
Eventually, this got sorted, and once you ran a terminal on a the valence 'handling', you wouldn't run them again.
I loved the HRD that I did, and after this problem with it got sorted out, so did many of our pc's, but just like some consider the same of bridge actions, it certainly wasn't for everyone.
The valence steps were often run on the same terminal, several times. If and when a 'terminal' was named as one having an 'affect' (in the past, not present time), on the next precept being dealt with, you'd have to run the valence steps on that terminal, irrespective of whether they had already been 'run' during the handling on a previous precept.
Eventually, this got sorted, and once you ran a terminal on a the valence 'handling', you wouldn't run them again.
I loved the HRD that I did, and after this problem with it got sorted out, so did many of our pc's, but just like some consider the same of bridge actions, it certainly wasn't for everyone.
I don't remember having that problem with Valences, Carmel. I do remember the same transgressor (terminal) coming up on more than one precept, but usually it F/Ned if previously shifted. A sort of laugh "yes fred violated that precept too!" F/N
The secret was the style of auditing and staying in great comm with the PC. I only remember using the repair list a handful of times in many many HRDs.
I'm not sure prohibiting the same terminal being run again would be the correct handling. Listening to what the PC is saying would be a much better solution than an arbitary like that.
It was a valence not a terminal that one was handling, so the same person could come up on more than one precept, but the valence, ie the characteristic adopted from the same person could be different.
From what I remember these things usually sorted themselves out naturally with occasional resort to the repair list. If there was something there to run it ran, if not it F/Ned, the repair list was hardly ever needed.
I remember two people being C/Sed as "HRD unecessary" after they ran a bit of it, but both were rather inhibited personalities who were rather repressed on the subject of moral codes. It was C/Sed that way as the whole style of the HRD was not to inval or eval for the PC. But in both cases they were far from naturally demonstrating the EP of the HRD, rather almost the inverse. It seemed a shame that they asserted that they didn't need it.
I think one problem with the RD was that some of the earlier precepts in the Way to Happiness booklet were rather banal. So if a PC got hung up on the miniscule emphasis on washing, etc, it tended to make the odd person think the RD was lightweight. Whereas the later precepts like the Virtues and Golden Rule were dynamite auditing actions.
If I were doing it these days I would consider missing out some of the earlier precepts.
The secret was the style of auditing and staying in great comm with the PC. I only remember using the repair list a handful of times in many many HRDs.
I'm not sure prohibiting the same terminal being run again would be the correct handling. Listening to what the PC is saying would be a much better solution than an arbitary like that.
It was a valence not a terminal that one was handling, so the same person could come up on more than one precept, but the valence, ie the characteristic adopted from the same person could be different.
From what I remember these things usually sorted themselves out naturally with occasional resort to the repair list. If there was something there to run it ran, if not it F/Ned, the repair list was hardly ever needed.
I remember two people being C/Sed as "HRD unecessary" after they ran a bit of it, but both were rather inhibited personalities who were rather repressed on the subject of moral codes. It was C/Sed that way as the whole style of the HRD was not to inval or eval for the PC. But in both cases they were far from naturally demonstrating the EP of the HRD, rather almost the inverse. It seemed a shame that they asserted that they didn't need it.
I think one problem with the RD was that some of the earlier precepts in the Way to Happiness booklet were rather banal. So if a PC got hung up on the miniscule emphasis on washing, etc, it tended to make the odd person think the RD was lightweight. Whereas the later precepts like the Virtues and Golden Rule were dynamite auditing actions.
If I were doing it these days I would consider missing out some of the earlier precepts.
The style of the auditing was the heart and soul of the entire rundown. This is why all the tapes had to do with just this one aspect - getting basic auditing up to a very high level.
There is actually an LRH reference to items the preclear is in agreement with not reading, even though they are aberrated. Charge comes about when the person protests something and his protest proves ineffective because the something happens anyway. When there is no protest there is no charge. But no charge on it does not mean it it not aberrated.
There is actually an LRH reference to items the preclear is in agreement with not reading, even though they are aberrated. Charge comes about when the person protests something and his protest proves ineffective because the something happens anyway. When there is no protest there is no charge. But no charge on it does not mean it it not aberrated.