What's new

The Route In.

PirateAndBum

Gold Meritorious Patron
I too did the basic form and had fantastic gains from it. But 2,000 hours! How in the world do they justify doing that bea? And how does one find answers for 2000 hours! OMG - I understand your nightmares
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
As regards the HRD a few observations.

1. It was a Mayo Rundown that pulled together various Scn techniques. But it was not an LRH rundown and I suspect, due to his poor physical and case shape at the time, that LRH probably knew nothing about its release. It is almost like Mayo got it out under the radar, as his tech position at the time was unassailable. Nobody questioned, at that time, his use of LRH tech and his developments of it.

2. The WTH booklet was a PR piece to handle the bad press that LRH and the GO had caused. Mayo, being a loyal LRH man, would have believed in the basic goodness of the man and his output and so decided to adapt it as a case handling piece. Maybe he even saw how much LRH would have benefited from a life lived according to the precepts! :wink2:

3. It is also significant as to why Mayo made the EP confidential, because the EP didn't deal with any LRH confidential upper level matters. The only explanation I can think of is that Mayo had observed the element of suggestion that ran through Scn tech and decided to hold back the EP so as not to suggest specific case gain to the recipients.

4. As well as auditing, the rundown was an educational or "hatting" action so as has been pointed out, Instant Reads are not the criteria that should be used to decide which precepts are run.

5. I don't know about others on here who C/Sed and audited it but I never had anyone bog on it and everyone had fantastic gains.

6. However DartSmohen original point about the HRD imposing a valence should be considered. I believe that one's experience personally and within the confines of the tech viewpoint should always be re-evaluated. Things are not necessarily what they seemed to be while viewing from within LRH's limited point of view that he imposed upon us.

7. I think if the HRD was any ordinary LRH RD then DartSmohen's theory could have validity and he says he saw robotic HRD completions. That was not my observation, I saw independent thinkers who questioned ethics and the morality of the Church afterwards, but I wonder what other people observed?

8. There were about three different categories of precepts and it is interesting to look at them from the point of view of whether they imposed an artificial rondroid valence or brought out a freedom from artificial valences. (remembering one of the key elements on each precept was valence shifting, where the PC let go of "winning" valences he had adopted due to false data, mu's and O/W's.

a. The first category are common-sense ones like looking after your hygene and health. They were always very interesting to run on staff! :melodramatic:
b. The second category were perhaps more debatable or subject to opinion like honoring your parents. Not exactly encouraged by the CofS! :melodramatic:
c. The third category were more spiritual or metaphysical like the Golden Rule and the Virtues. If you applied those in the CofS you were marched straight to ethics as theety weety, PTS or SP! :melodramatic:

The main observations are that although based upon an LRH document, the RD itself was the only non-LRH controlled or developed action on the grade chart in 1981. The other is that even today when it is mentioned on here, it is remarkably free of controversy unlike so many other Scn tech actions. People seem to either have done it and had tremendous gains or were not interested in having it from having read LRH's TWTH booklet or they just never received the RD. There don't seem to be any people who disliked or bogged on it. I think these things mark the HRD out as being significantly different from other grade chart actions.
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
3. It is also significant as to why Mayo made the EP confidential, because the EP didn't deal with any LRH confidential upper level matters. The only explanation I can think of is that Mayo had observed the element of suggestion that ran through Scn tech and decided to hold back the EP so as not to suggest specific case gain to the recipients.

In general, I think EPs should not be bandied about. Making them confidential is, to my mind, wrong - you only create a mystery sandwich and, when it is found out, you and it are naturally the subject of scrutiny. But it is quite possible to be quiet about them, without actively withholding (i.e. if the PC asks - tell them straight - but if they don't ask there is no need to say anything).

With respect to the HRD, the EP was not difficult to guess even before starting the RD.

5. I don't know about others on here who C/Sed and audited it but I never had anyone bog on it and everyone had fantastic gains.

I have heard of one maybe two (on another list) that thought it was rubbish - but these may have been mis-CSed or audited, so do not necessarily form a picture about the merits or otherwise of the rundown when done properly. Even the ones who thought it was rubbish were not 'caved in' about it - unlike some other rundowns that can be badly done.

I have to say that the main reason I liked the HRD so much was not the actual HRD itself (which was good but not mind bogglingly good) - but one of the precepts restimulated something else and we ran that HRD style - changed my life completely - and is still doing so to this day.

One can run HRD style against virtually any moral or ethical code - both sane sounding ones and others that are not so sane! And do it with both current codes, others from the PCs recent past and old whole track stuff. In a properly run session the PC is free to accept or reject the code - that is really the point of it :thumbsup:

Nick
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
You know the HCOB re overts are a limited path.

Please tell why you submitted to so much FPRD.

Add to our education please. :)

Our darling Bea.

That is really an unfair question Terril - you know what pressure people are under - sometimes quite unmerciful and relentless pressure - and also the degree to which tech can be perverted and made to look like "source".

Nick
 

Bea Kiddo

Crusader
I did the basic first form of FPRD. Was elected by myself,
and gave me wins of the magnitude of OT 3 at least.

But tools can be misused. Grossly misused.

You know the HCOB re overts are a limited path.

Please tell why you submitted to so much FPRD.

Add to our education please. :)

Our darling Bea.


Because if I didnt, I would never get out of the RPF. And I was a Scientologist, a SEA ORG MEMBER, with a FIXED, Dedicated GLARE!!!!! (And that FPRD beat it out of me for sure. Mocking up overts and rerunning the same stuff over and over from different angles. It was ludicrious)
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
In general, I think EPs should not be bandied about. Making them confidential is, to my mind, wrong - you only create a mystery sandwich and, when it is found out, you and it are naturally the subject of scrutiny. But it is quite possible to be quiet about them, without actively withholding (i.e. if the PC asks - tell them straight - but if they don't ask there is no need to say anything).

With respect to the HRD, the EP was not difficult to guess even before starting the RD.



I have heard of one maybe two (on another list) that thought it was rubbish - but these may have been mis-CSed or audited, so do not necessarily form a picture about the merits or otherwise of the rundown when done properly. Even the ones who thought it was rubbish were not 'caved in' about it - unlike some other rundowns that can be badly done.

I have to say that the main reason I liked the HRD so much was not the actual HRD itself (which was good but not mind bogglingly good) - but one of the precepts restimulated something else and we ran that HRD style - changed my life completely - and is still doing so to this day.

One can run HRD style against virtually any moral or ethical code - both sane sounding ones and others that are not so sane! And do it with both current codes, others from the PCs recent past and old whole track stuff. In a properly run session the PC is free to accept or reject the code - that is really the point of it :thumbsup:

Nick

:thumbsup:

It was interesting how whatever the person ran, whether it was this lifetime "light" stuff, CofS transgressions or W/track , the person seemed to make huge gains and with regard to what DartSmohen said at the start of the thread, it should be emphasised, like you said, that the person is free to accept or reject the code. That's how it was done in the Mayo version anyway. The idea was that once the false data, mu's, O/W's and valences were blown, the person was free to make his or her own decisions about the precept!

I used to think you could run anything HRD style, from auditor debugging to PTS handling.

I can identify with what you say about changing your life, my HRD did too. I triggered the whole area of religion and blew all charge I had from earlier practices. I no longer even needed Scientology! :thumbsup: Which was just as well, as they declared me not long afterwards! :hysterical: :roflmao:

It still keeps me uncharged on religion/sprituality/morals even a quarter of a century later!

God bless David Mayo! :D :roflmao:
 

Veda

Sponsor
I did the basic first form of FPRD. Was elected by myself,
and gave me wins of the magnitude of OT 3 at least.

But tools can be misused. Grossly misused.

You know the HCOB re overts are a limited path.

Please tell why you submitted to so much FPRD.

Add to our education please. :)

Our darling Bea.

You're spending way too much time staring at that picture of the grinning Commodore that you present on every one of your posts.

L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology is, per his design, built on the "Overt" (visible), "Covert" pattern.

While luring people in with what is sometimes called "White Scientology," it uses, per design, what is sometimes called "Black Scientology" on its own members.

By LRH design.

The earliest "Source" writings on this go back to 1955, when methods, later incorporated into the Hidden (not publicized) part of Scientology, were described by Hubbard in what he called his 'Brainwashing Manual':

"We must have command of their values. The first loyalty (to himself) is destroyed by demonstrating errors in him.

"Degradation and conquest are companions... degradation can be accomplished by consistent and continual defamation (of the person to the person). Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics on the broad field."

Hubbard defined Psychopolitics as "The art and science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus... through 'mental healing'."

Related links:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=37634&postcount=2

http://www.xenu-directory.net/writings/brainwashing-corydon.html
 

Curiosity

Patron with Honors
:thumbsup:

It was interesting how whatever the person ran, whether it was this lifetime "light" stuff, CofS transgressions or W/track , the person seemed to make huge gains and with regard to what DartSmohen said at the start of the thread, it should be emphasised, like you said, that the person is free to accept or reject the code. That's how it was done in the Mayo version anyway. The idea was that once the false data, mu's, O/W's and valences were blown, the person was free to make his or her own decisions about the precept!

I used to think you could run anything HRD style, from auditor debugging to PTS handling.

I can identify with what you say about changing your life, my HRD did too. I triggered the whole area of religion and blew all charge I had from earlier practices. I no longer even needed Scientology! :thumbsup: Which was just as well, as they declared me not long afterwards! :hysterical: :roflmao:

It still keeps me uncharged on religion/sprituality/morals even a quarter of a century later!

God bless David Mayo! :D :roflmao:

By differentiating between "this lifetime "light" stuff," and whole track, do you mean to assert that it can be run without going whole track? I am not a Scientologist, and I do not believe (or wish to begin believing) in past lives, yet I am a little curious about some of the tech. This HRD seems to be praised across the board, so I'm wondering if this is something a total noob like me could run using something like the robot auditor (once I'm more comfortable with rub and yawn) without causing some kind of grievous psychic disaster. :unsure:

Also, I meditate, sometimes including bathing myself in white light, and I saw some posts on this board about that specifically, both indicating that those practices can be mixed with tech applications and that they could not. I would appreciate some safety guidelines and recommendations, but I don't want to take the thread off-topic...:unsure:
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
By differentiating between "this lifetime "light" stuff," and whole track, do you mean to assert that it can be run without going whole track? I am not a Scientologist, and I do not believe (or wish to begin believing) in past lives, yet I am a little curious about some of the tech. This HRD seems to be praised across the board, so I'm wondering if this is something a total noob like me could run using something like the robot auditor (once I'm more comfortable with rub and yawn) without causing some kind of grievous psychic disaster. :unsure:

Also, I meditate, sometimes including bathing myself in white light, and I saw some posts on this board about that specifically, both indicating that those practices can be mixed with tech applications and that they could not. I would appreciate some safety guidelines and recommendations, but I don't want to take the thread off-topic...:unsure:

Paul will have to answer whether he thinks his robot auditor could cope with something like the HRD. Personally I tend to doubt it, but - well - wait for Paul to comment.

As regards past lives, the HRD tends to run very light and, probably, you wouldn't get past lives coming up. But, even there, who knows - some seem to "go whole track" easily, others not. It matters not.

Nick
 

nowout

Patron with Honors
As regards the HRD a few observations.

1. It was a Mayo Rundown that pulled together various Scn techniques. But it was not an LRH rundown and I suspect, due to his poor physical and case shape at the time, that LRH probably knew nothing about its release. It is almost like Mayo got it out under the radar, as his tech position at the time was unassailable. Nobody questioned, at that time, his use of LRH tech and his developments of it.


I doubt that Mayo would not have pulled something like that out of his hat. I remember a film trailer made for marketing the rundown. He was being directed by LRH to develop and put stuff together. He had been doing that after being appointed to the Snr C/S post in the late '70s and putting NOTs & solo NOTs together.
 
I can identify with what you say about changing your life, my HRD did too. I triggered the whole area of religion and blew all charge I had from earlier practices. I no longer even needed Scientology! :thumbsup: Which was just as well, as they declared me not long afterwards! :hysterical: :roflmao:

The "true EP" of the rundown. :coolwink:


God bless David Mayo! :D :roflmao:

Amen!


Mark A. Baker
 

nw2394

Silver Meritorious Patron
I doubt that Mayo would not have pulled something like that out of his hat.

Why would you say that? He pulled NOTs out of his hat - Hubbard was half dead at that time. At the trial about who had the copyright of NOTs the CoS did not contest Mayo's assertion that he wrote it. (Which doesn't mean to say that it was all Mayo - I find it hard to imagine the old man keeping his nose out even on his death bed). Never the less Mayo certainly had a large hand in it all the same. And if he did that I don't see why it would be surprising if he had something to do with the two major post NOTs releases i.e. HRD and FPRD.

Nick
 
By differentiating between "this lifetime "light" stuff," and whole track, do you mean to assert that it can be run without going whole track? I am not a Scientologist, and I do not believe (or wish to begin believing) in past lives, yet I am a little curious about some of the tech.

Nothing in scientology requires "belief" in a whole track. You audit based on "what reads" or where the "charge" is.

"Whole track" commonly comes up and is a "useful" way of thinking about what does come up, but it is not a "belief" of scientology.

"If it's not true for you, it's not true."

However, before you are too quick to dismiss the possibility, recognize that "whole track" is NOT a scientology invention. Much research has been done in the scientific community which supports the concept of reincarnation as a possibility.

Many "mainstream" psychotherapists & psychiatrists have come to use treatment methods which address the sort of phenomena which scientologists call "whole track" and that they adopt these methods because the WORK. :)


This HRD seems to be praised across the board, so I'm wondering if this is something a total noob like me could run using something like the robot auditor (once I'm more comfortable with rub and yawn) without causing some kind of grievous psychic disaster. :unsure:

Paul's a great guy and I admire his willingness to push the envelope with exploratory tech, BUT, putting it simply, a "robot auditor" is at BEST a poor substitute for actually being "in session" with a live auditor.

I don't know whether Paul's view about the "robot auditor" has altered but as he originally expressed his intent it was to provide a basic level of simulated auditing of highly repetitive processes to people who did not have easy access to more skilled auditing assistance.

It's not a replacement for auditing but a supplement for processes with a high measure of "automaticity". Frankly, though the "automatic" nature of the processes have a certain measure of "risk" involved.

Some simple repetitive processes in scientology may lend themselves to a degree of automation. This has at least been argued, but very few consider that a complex rundown, like the HRD, should be in that fashion.

There is NO REAL SUBSTITUTE for a well-trained auditor and the supervision of a good C/S. :thumbsup:

Now watch Paul tear my argument to shreds. :wink2:


Also, I meditate, sometimes including bathing myself in white light, and I saw some posts on this board about that specifically, both indicating that those practices can be mixed with tech applications and that they could not. I would appreciate some safety guidelines and recommendations, but I don't want to take the thread off-topic...:unsure:

The "problem" with such "other practices" while auditing has to do with sorting out effects due to auditing from effects due to the "other practice". The two together may well produce "unintended side effects". It depends.

C/Ses vary in terms of their personal degree of tolerance of such outside practices. Some are wholly intolerant. Some have no difficulty with such things.

Whether you choose to continue some such activity is of course up to you but a "good compromise" is to discontinue such activities while you are actively engaged in some audited action or program.

Whether you resume the activity in between programs is for you to decide, but DON'T try to hide it from your C/S. Such things can impact on auditing. The C/S isn't your "nanny" but she does need to know anything which might effect the course of your progress.

This way there are apt to be fewer disruptions to the progress of the auditing program.


Mark A. Baker
 

pomfritz

Patron with Honors
During my SO times I got to know Leslie Woodcraft, yes she is the ex-wife of Laurence, he of the famous and well-done videos. She also had a role in the Lisa McPherson case, BTW.

She was C/Sing the Purif for LA Org as one of her duties. I asked her about the need to redo the Purif later on due to re-toxification just from living. She said that redoing it is out-tech as it is shown where it is done on the grade chart and that's it. Nowhere does it state that the person should do it again later on. I saw her point and wondered about the everyday crap people injest, inhale, etc even after EPing the Purif.

It made me wonder just how effective the Purif was and really what the purpose of it was. It didn't seem like it was supposed to actually DO anything like it stated, but more to indoctrinate the person into BELIEVING they had done something so wonderous for their body, and praise be to Hubbard. Just as the original post in this thread states.

I also loved seeing the Purifers on their breaks lighting up their smokes. No one I knew quit from doing the Purif. How the hell do you attest with a fresh batch of tar clogging your tubes?

And another thing why if the LSD crystals are now flushed from your FAT, are you still not allowed to join the SO? Actually this is a good rule as it keeps more culties from further ruin of their lives. But it is another one of those unexplained contradictions that makes up Scientology.

Squeeze the cans please.
 

Veda

Sponsor
I doubt that Mayo would not have pulled something like that out of his hat. I remember a film trailer made for marketing the rundown. He was being directed by LRH to develop and put stuff together. He had been doing that after being appointed to the Snr C/S post in the late '70s and putting NOTs & solo NOTs together.

It was Mayo's Rundown alright. Hubbard wrote (plagiarized mostly) the 'Way to Happiness' booklet to serve as "PR cover" after the details of his elaborate Fair Game tech became known in late 1979. Although he wanted the 'wogs' to believe that he was now the "expert of morality," he himself couldn't care less about "morality."

Hubbard was very much preoccupied with avoiding subpoena servers, collecting the money that was flowing "up lines" from his recent "discoveries" about "Clear" and, later, looting the Mission Network (which began in 1978, but wasn't assigned - by Hubbard - to Miscavige until 1982), so as to obtain "his money" with which to build monuments to himself, fulfilling his 1938 statement of purpose, to "smash his name into history... in hard granite."

By the way, Mayo also wrote something called 'The Harmonics of Clear' in an attempt to reduce confusion about Hubbard's self-serving discoveries re. "Clear," and had been expected to make sense out of Hubbard's rambling notes in assembling the "upper OT levels," levels that Mayo later described as - in so many words - gobbledygook.
 

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
It was Mayo's Rundown alright. Hubbard wrote (plagiarized mostly) the 'Way to Happiness' booklet to serve as "PR cover" after the details of his elaborate Fair Game tech became known in late 1979. Although he wanted the 'wogs' to believe that he was now the "expert of morality," he himself couldn't care less about "morality."

Hubbard was very much preoccupied with avoiding subpoena servers, collecting the money that was flowing "up lines" from his recent "discoveries" about "Clear" and, later, looting the Mission Network (which began in 1978, but wasn't assigned - by Hubbard - to Miscavige until 1982), so as to obtain "his money" with which to build monuments to himself, fulfilling his 1938 statement of purpose, to "smash his name into history... in hard granite."

By the way, Mayo also wrote something called 'The Harmonics of Clear' in an attempt to reduce confusion about Hubbard's self-serving discoveries re. "Clear," and had been expected to make sense out of Hubbard's rambling notes in assembling the "upper OT levels," levels that Mayo later described as - in so many words - gobbledygook.

You are correct as far as I know.

From what I remember, Dianetic Clear, then Natural Clear and last life Clear came out, causing a rush of people ready for the high income producing OT levels. NOT's came out as the solution for not being able to run Dianetics on clears. At that time LRH was ill and Mayo was auditing him. Presumably Mayo couldn't run dianetics on Ron's physical problems and I reckon Ron came up with some self C/Sing assigning cause to "entities".

It should be remembered that although Mayo was the top tech person with an unassailable status at the time, he was very loyal to Ron and I think he allowed his tech knowledge to be dominated by Ron's assertions about his own case. So it could be argued that NOT's was Mayo's best synthesis of Ron's case figure-figure and Mayo's understanding of the tech.

So as NOTs was developed from the running of Ron's case, even though it was a Mayo development, it was still essentially a Ron self-audit, self-C/S in a similar way to OTIII.

The HRD came out after NOTs and although it brings together Ron-techs like False Data stripping, mu's and O/Ws the course definitely did not have the stamp of LRH upon it. This is why I think it is a rundown that Mayo got under the radar.

It used a style of auditing, previously long since abandoned in the fifties, I think, from what I remember. The FDS and word clearing were quite gentle compared to courseroom and qual styles of using those techs and the method used for running O/Ws was a million miles away from confessionals and sec checks. The valence shifting/splitting method - I don't remember that being on any LRH techs currenlty in use at the time, but I could be mistaken. It reminded me more of the original theory of valences published in Fundamentals of Thought in '55.

Many of the key bulletins on the course were from early tech issues that I hadn't studied on the Class 0 to 4 courses.

Overall, the gentleness and style of delivery, with emphasis on recognition of the righness of the being was very non-LRH. PCs usually remarked on how different the audtiing was from other auditing they had had.

Yes, I'm sure David Mayo got it out without Ron noticing! :thumbsup:

Yes, Mark, the real EP was no longer needing Scientology! :roflmao: David Mayo was certainly an SP for developing such a rundown! :hysterical:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Paul's a great guy and I admire his willingness to push the envelope with exploratory tech, BUT, putting it simply, a "robot auditor" is at BEST a poor substitute for actually being "in session" with a live auditor.

I don't know whether Paul's view about the "robot auditor" has altered but as he originally expressed his intent it was to provide a basic level of simulated auditing of highly repetitive processes to people who did not have easy access to more skilled auditing assistance.

It's not a replacement for auditing but a supplement for processes with a high measure of "automaticity". Frankly, though the "automatic" nature of the processes have a certain measure of "risk" involved.

Some simple repetitive processes in scientology may lend themselves to a degree of automation. This has at least been argued, but very few consider that a complex rundown, like the HRD, should be in that fashion.

There is NO REAL SUBSTITUTE for a well-trained auditor and the supervision of a good C/S. :thumbsup:

Now watch Paul tear my argument to shreds. :wink2:

My original explanation on a FZ Yahoo list was roughly true, but was definitely tailored to the specific audience. It is true that there is no substitute for a well-trained auditor and C/S readily available now to run workable tech on the pc, and for the maybe ten thousand people in that position good for them. I see my work as applying to the other 6,649,990,000 people on the planet. :).

Although I'll settle for a billion of them as for many clean water and food and so forth would be a much higher priority.

There are many things that cannot be run with my Robot, Grades being one of them. Listing and Nulling is out, of course. Although an arbitrary list of items could be addressed one by one, I wouldn't recommend it as it takes a couple of minutes to determine if an item is "charged" or not, and after a few non-charged items in a row, one gets a little weary of the session. Best, especially for a new person, is to address what is sitting there pressed up against your nose, begging to be run.

I haven't examined the HRD with a view to adding it to my Robot repertoire. I'll take a look and then comment on it.

Paul
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
I haven't examined the HRD with a view to adding it to my Robot repertoire. I'll take a look and then comment on it.

I took a look at Clearbird's online version of the HRD. I assume that bears some similarity to what is being discussed. I received the HRD in 1982/3 but didn't audit it and don't remember all the steps of it.

I wouldn't attempt to add this to my Robot. I could probably do it so that a well-trained auditor could use it to get a reasonably good result on him/herself, but there is too much fine decision-making to leave it in the hands of an untrained person.

Plus there would be copyright issues. :)

Paul
 

Colleen K. Peltomaa

Silver Meritorious Patron
My original explanation on a FZ Yahoo list was roughly true, but was definitely tailored to the specific audience. It is true that there is no substitute for a well-trained auditor and C/S readily available now to run workable tech on the pc, and for the maybe ten thousand people in that position good for them. I see my work as applying to the other 6,649,990,000 people on the planet. :).

Although I'll settle for a billion of them as for many clean water and food and so forth would be a much higher priority.

There are many things that cannot be run with my Robot, Grades being one of them. Listing and Nulling is out, of course. Although an arbitrary list of items could be addressed one by one, I wouldn't recommend it as it takes a couple of minutes to determine if an item is "charged" or not, and after a few non-charged items in a row, one gets a little weary of the session. Best, especially for a new person, is to address what is sitting there pressed up against your nose, begging to be run.

I haven't examined the HRD with a view to adding it to my Robot repertoire. I'll take a look and then comment on it.

Paul

I'm all for anything that runs out the need for any religion. Self-determined of course.
 
Top