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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Nick
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.
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! Which was just as well, as they declared me not long afterwards!
It still keeps me uncharged on religion/sprituality/morals even a quarter of a century later!
God bless David Mayo!
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.
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...
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 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! Which was just as well, as they declared me not long afterwards!
God bless David Mayo!
I doubt that Mayo would not have pulled something like that out of his hat.
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.
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...
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.
.
-snip-
..You audit based on "what reads"...
-snip-
Mark A. Baker
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.
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.
Now watch Paul tear my argument to shreds. :wink2:
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.
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