Difference between David Mayo's Happiness Rundown and the current version

[Human Again]

So! What actually IS this phenomena being handled on the Happiness Rundown!

I mean is it BTs that you got from that person. Was it copies you made. What was it that blllllllllew. What was it that gave the impression of 'something' ...now something NOT there. Does the additive of a valence have mass. You could actually feel the Not You-ness disappear.
What gives? Suggestions?

I trained on HRD in the first wave in ANZO and delievered a fair bit of it and both myself and PCs enjoyed it tremendously. Looking back I believe it was because it was quite like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. A chance for the person to look at different important areas of their life and see where they were acting in a way that caused themselves problems and releasing the charge on it and taking on new intentions in that area. The Way to Happiness precepts are quite sound and flexible enough to serve most people IMHO. The basic of "Be able to experience anything and casue only those things other can experience easily" could be seen as the heart of magnamity and compassion. Sitting with someone who cares and listen to you debate this with yourself and find ways to implement it in you behaviour, and patterns where you have not proved to be very valuable. I must admit to some releif when I heard that Mayo had come up with it rather than Hubtoad though. I am still very very biased against and suspicious of and look for what is wrong with anything Hubbard orriginated.

 

[lionheart]

Er...yep, maybe it is contradictory, but maybe not. I don't know today. This thread and another has opened up a nasty can of worms for me, that I didn't know existed, and I'm not up to explaining anything right now. Looking back at all this tech stuff, has kicked in something horrid, that didn't disappear after a full night's sleep, and currently as I type this, I don't know what to think about anything.

I will say though, that I had the HRD in '82 - all was good then. Since that time though, auditing wasn't good for me, it went from bad to worse (admittedly it was mostly sec checks and FPRD though).

The comment was about me, not about auditing. I shouldn't have made it.

I think your comment was fine Carmel. As people have mentioned, the HRD was the one auditing action that managed to "wake some people up" and get them tio realise the crap going on around them in the org. I never ran it on staff, I wish I had.

Saying you enjoyed/got gains from an auditing action, but would never want to do auditinig again isnt such a strange thing. Its similar to how my sister and I think about climbing mountains - we freaking hated it, but there was at least one experience at the time that was extraordinary and got a lot out of. The rest sucked to hell and back, and there is no way I would do it again.

Same with training. I got a lot out of it, but there is no way in hell I would do it again or continue with it. No MUs with that.

Not all auditing is the same, not all experiences are the same, not all sec checks are nasty experiences and not all done-with-ARC auditing is good. Things are never as black and white as it states in the "materials".

It's OK Carmel...I think I told you a while back that it takes some time for the different viewpoints to kick in. If that's what you can call it, I don't know. I do know that it's like suddenly having double vision and very disconcerting. Don't worry though, it's all good as well. The focus sort of adjusts until the world of both the present and the past looks different in a way that's hard to explain. You actually don't have to explain either! It can be an intensely personal experience. Discussing the issues as they arise is good, which is something that wasn't available to me so I had to figure out the can of worms on my own.

Oh no, I'm not now - I feel good today, and have worked out much, thanks.

In relation to the contradictory thing - one can gain so much from something, given that one was in a certain place at that time. It doesn't mean to say that you'd wanna go back there though.

Kind of like an 'affair' or a relationship ya might have. In the beginning all so good, then it can turn, and then even go quite south. After it's gone south, ya don't feel inclined going back to the beginning, even if ya could - it has passed. None of this negates what was or could have been so good or beneficial in the beginning.

Probably the key thing for me in regard to auditing, is that I don't feel that I could ever trust anyone enough, to be 'bare' all and put myself in such a vulnerable position again. It all ended up being too sour. What I think of auditing is a different issue, and doesn't really come into the equation.

Wonderful posts!

Good luck to all on their journey out of the mind-trap!

I finally (no internet to help me - I had to work it all out for myself - took two decades! ) got to the point where I am really glad I did Scn, and even glader I no longer do!

There are paradoxes along the way and I saw one in Carmel's post. But life is actually a paradox. Getting all metaphysical for a moment, I think the purpose of living is to become comfortable with those paradoxes.

We haven't always seen eye to eye, Carmel, but if ever you need a spot of help, I repeat my offer to help you whenever you wish or I can point you to written sources that might be of help. But anyway you will be just fine!

 

[lionheart]

I trained on HRD in the first wave in ANZO and delievered a fair bit of it and both myself and PCs enjoyed it tremendously. Looking back I believe it was because it was quite like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. A chance for the person to look at different important areas of their life and see where they were acting in a way that caused themselves problems and releasing the charge on it and taking on new intentions in that area. The Way to Happiness precepts are quite sound and flexible enough to serve most people IMHO. The basic of "Be able to experience anything and casue only those things other can experience easily" could be seen as the heart of magnamity and compassion. Sitting with someone who cares and listen to you debate this with yourself and find ways to implement it in you behaviour, and patterns where you have not proved to be very valuable. I must admit to some releif when I heard that Mayo had come up with it rather than Hubtoad though. I am still very very biased against and suspicious of and look for what is wrong with anything Hubbard orriginated.

Wonderful!

You know, over the past two years on ESMB, the one Scn auditing action that gets most praise and least adverse comment is the HRD. And it is the least LRH-influenced of all Scn actions!

Is it a co-incidence that LRH was possibly the single worst transgressor against the precepts for many of us in our lives?

Another wonderful thing about the HRD is at the end, one bore no malace towards false data sources, transgressors and identities adopted. So even after my declare and the terrible mind-spin it put me through, I found I bore no emnity towards the founder of the cult.

Some people interpret criticism of him as "hate" etc. This is so far from the truth. Ron was my greatest guru, my worst enemy and my greatest friend, his evil ways taught me so much, I love him dearly and wish so much he could have allowed himself to have received the HRD!

 

[Carmel]

<snip>
We haven't always seen eye to eye, Carmel, but if ever you need a spot of help, I repeat my offer to help you whenever you wish or I can point you to written sources that might be of help. But anyway you will be just fine!

Thanks Lionheart. That's nice, I appreciate it .

 

[knn]

Wonderful!

You know, over the past two years on ESMB, the one Scn auditing action that gets most praise and least adverse comment is the HRD. And it is the least LRH-influenced of all Scn actions!

I think you cannot draw such conclusion.

1) It's a lower Bridge action. Thus there are more people to have done HRD than there are with upper Bridge actions
2) The bridge-higher you go the less easily you would join anti-Scn forums, I guess, so (additionally to #1) here should be disproportionally more bridge-low PCs than bridge-high PCs
3) HRD has been initiated by LRH, has been approved by LRH, is based on LRH material, is based on LRH tech and IT IS LRH tech (eMeter, Auditor code etc). Even if it WOULD BE the "least LRH-influenced action" it is still at least a 95%+ LRH-influenced action. There would be no HRD if there wouldn't be LRH.

An example of a "least LRH-influenced action" would be "Going to Catholic Church". And I don't hear praises about it here.

 

[Carmel]

I think you cannot draw such conclusion.

1) It's a lower Bridge action. Thus there are more people to have done HRD than there are with upper Bridge actions
2) The bridge-higher you go the less easily you would join anti-Scn forums, I guess, so (additionally to #1) here should be disproportionally more bridge-low PCs than bridge-high PCs
3) HRD has been initiated by LRH, has been approved by LRH, is based on LRH material, is based on LRH tech and IT IS LRH tech (eMeter, Auditor code etc). Even if it WOULD BE the "least LRH-influenced action" it is still at least a 95%+ LRH-influenced action. There would be no HRD if there wouldn't be LRH.

An example of a "least LRH-influenced action" would be "Going to Catholic Church". And I don't hear praises about it here.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't know that you or anyone here actually knows how much of an influence LRH had on this rundown.

Regardless of the actual source of this R/D, from my experience it was one that was pretty good, and one that shouldn't be negated, just because it came under the Scn or LRH banner.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Clewarbird has a full version online. If anyone wants to revisit it, and change around whatever they want, go for it. One of the joys of free choice.

He has it as part of level 4 so click from there (bottom of the middle column):
http://freezoneamerica.com/Clearbird/Clearbird2004/sub1/class0/part1/sitemap.htm#Level4

Paul

 

[knn]

Clewarbird has a full version online. If anyone wants to revisit it, and change around whatever they want, go for it. One of the joys of free choice.

He has it as part of level 4 so click from there (bottom of the middle column):
http://freezoneamerica.com/Clearbird/Clearbird2004/sub1/class0/part1/sitemap.htm#Level4

Paul

I wonder why there isn't a Code Of Honor RD

"Is there any time when you decided that needing praise, approval or sympathy was a good thing?"

"Is there any time when you decided that your body was more important than your integrity to yourself ?"

And then run it on 20+ flows....

 

[Dulloldfart]

I wonder why there isn't a Code Of Honor RD

"Is there any time when you decided that needing praise, approval or sympathy was a good thing?"

"Is there any time when you decided that your body was more important than your integrity to yourself ?"

And then run it on 20+ flows....

You're probably joking, but I'll tell you what I would do with it if I were asked to do such a list.

Take it line by line and REALLY clear up what a line means, and groove it in thoroughly. The second line is, for example, "Never withdraw allegiance once granted." If you rotely cleared that and assessed it, maybe nothing would happen. But if you spent a few minutes going over examples of how it might apply to that person's life, then that is different.

Then take that as a topic, and run it using one of my Rub & Yawn creative processing procedures. There are various free ones online. If it discharges, great, keep discharging till EP. If no discharge after a minute's rubbing, drop it and go on to the next one.

What makes it a valuable list, or a useless list, is the percentage of "hits" you get. Since it takes a few minutes to "assess" each item, if you get a low hit rate then it's not very viable and you quickly get fed up trying out the items. But at least it doesn't cost you any money.

Paul

 

[lionheart]

You're probably joking, but I'll tell you what I would do with it if I were asked to do such a list.

Take it line by line and REALLY clear up what a line means, and groove it in thoroughly. The second line is, for example, "Never withdraw allegiance once granted." If you rotely cleared that and assessed it, maybe nothing would happen. But if you spent a few minutes going over examples of how it might apply to that person's life, then that is different.

Then take that as a topic, and run it using one of my Rub & Yawn creative processing procedures. There are various free ones online. If it discharges, great, keep discharging till EP. If no discharge after a minute's rubbing, drop it and go on to the next one.

What makes it a valuable list, or a useless list, is the percentage of "hits" you get. Since it takes a few minutes to "assess" each item, if you get a low hit rate then it's not very viable and you quickly get fed up trying out the items. But at least it doesn't cost you any money.

Paul

Cool.

Of course one could conclude in session that "Never withdraw allegiance once granted." is false data! It contains the false data of added infinite time!

Examples of how it is that way and how it isn't would sort out the false data.

A person was once a member of the 88 brigade? (88 is code for Heil Hitler) then one must never withdraw allegance and must be a member of the 88 brigade for ever. Clearly false data.

After the HRD I foolishly believed the steps could be used in a wide variety of applications apart from the WTH booklet. If I remember rightly David put forward this idea in the course pack. You could have used it in cramming. You could have used it in ethics, making most of the ethics and justice policies reduntant.

There were lots of possible applications. One could do it on illogical stuff like the code of honour (which, although it contains some good stiuff, also contains barmy stuff like the above and it is to some extent a PR tool to convince people to remain scientologists) The end result would be someone who followed their own native code of honour and not Ron's PR one.

All good.

 

[Leon]

One needs to understand ckearly where one's allegiance lies in order to get through such a conundrum. This precept was an issue for me when I split from the CofS and decided to go Freezone. A big issue.

And it only resolved when I recognised that my allegiance is not to the management structures of the Cof S nor even the CofS itself, but to the ideal of attaining a better world through a workable spiritual technology. Simirlarly, many people in Germany who were loyal to Germany and her people saw Hilter erely as a means to attain their own goals. Swithchuing away from the 88 violates no allegiance. Or in the present - Americans who opposed Guantanamo Bay torture camps were not being disloyal to the USA,

One needs to get one's Admin Scale in properly and the difficulties reolve.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

After the HRD I foolishly believed the steps could be used in a wide variety of applications apart from the WTH booklet. If I remember rightly David put forward this idea in the course pack. You could have used it in cramming. You could have used it in ethics, making most of the ethics and justice policies reduntant.

Why do you conclude that is "foolish"? A more "general applicability" strikes me as quite reasonable. It is not be the same thing as "universal applicability".

There were lots of possible applications. One could do it on illogical stuff like the code of honour (which, although it contains some good stiuff, also contains barmy stuff like the above and it is to some extent a PR tool to convince people to remain scientologists) The end result would be someone who followed their own native code of honour and not Ron's PR one.

All good.

Mark A. Baker

 

[lionheart]

Why do you conclude that is "foolish"? A more "general applicability" strikes me as quite reasonable. It is not be the same thing as "universal applicability".





Mark A. Baker

It was "foolish" to think that the grossly transgressing of the precepts organisation and founder were ever going to allow a wider use of the RD style to lead people to further notice the org's and founder's transgressions.

It would have produced more self-determinatedly ethical auditors and parishoners which was anathema to Hubbard's slave-creating cult.

So it was inevitable that the Commodore's Messengers would move in (re-incarnated as the WDC & RTC) and stop the slaves being freed.

I realise you are trying to steer me and others to realising that the FZ is a realisation of these noble ideals. I am starting to think you are genuine in your motives, but maybe not representative of the FreeZone, which I intuitively feel must be more Hubbard-loyal than you are.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

It was "foolish" to think that the grossly transgressing of the precepts organisation and founder were ever going to allow a wider use of the RD style to lead people to further notice the org's and founder's transgressions.

It would have produced more self-determinatedly ethical auditors and parishoners which was anathema to Hubbard's slave-creating cult.

So it was inevitable that the Commodore's Messengers would move in (re-incarnated as the WDC & RTC) and stop the slaves being freed.

I realise you are trying to steer me and others to realising that the FZ is a realisation of these noble ideals. I am starting to think you are genuine in your motives, but maybe not representative of the FreeZone, which I intuitively feel must be more Hubbard-loyal than you are.

FZ is not a "realization of these noble ideals". It's a commons for people who still have some interest in scientology tech. The degree of interest or nature of any specific "noble ideals" varies with the individuals.

Simply put the organizations are secondary. Spiritual technologies are for individuals to use to assist themselves and others. To the degree an organization facilitates that process it is useful. When an organization becomes obstructive to that effort it must be reformed or eliminated.

By my experience of speaking with others who are active freezoners, the number who put having established organizations as important is very small. Most freezoners have a similar attitude to the "centrality of groups" as I. More explicitly, groups exist solely to serve the individual and not the other way around.

You are correct that some freezoners are very loyal to Hubbard and the idea of the church. They are among the most conservative. They are also very much in the minority.

Personal loyalty to Hubbard varies greatly among freezoners. There are many who consider themselves very loyal to Hubbard, often stemming from a personal relationship with Ron. They are often among the strongest critics of the idea of recreating the church or some similar institution.

In short, prospects for a Unified Freezone Reform Church of Scientology are DOA. Some groups are trying, but it won't happen.

The question of "loyalty to Hubbard" is quite distinct from the "need for a central organization". Your assumptions don't match with my observations among actual freezoners.


Mark A. Baker

 

[lionheart]

FZ is not a "realization of these noble ideals". It's a commons for people who still have some interest in scientology tech. The degree of interest or nature of any specific "noble ideals" varies with the individuals.

Simply put the organizations are secondary. Spiritual technologies are for individuals to use to assist themselves and others. To the degree an organization facilitates that process it is useful. When an organization becomes obstructive to that effort it must be reformed or eliminated.

By my experience of speaking with others who are active freezoners, the number who put having established organizations as important is very small. Most freezoners have a similar attitude to the "centrality of groups" as I. More explicitly, groups exist solely to serve the individual and not the other way around.

You are correct that some freezoners are very loyal to Hubbard and the idea of the church. They are among the most conservative. They are also very much in the minority.

Personal loyalty to Hubbard varies greatly among freezoners. There are many who consider themselves very loyal to Hubbard, often stemming from a personal relationship with Ron. They are often among the strongest critics of the idea of recreating the church or some similar institution.

In short, prospects for a Unified Freezone Reform Church of Scientology are DOA. Some groups are trying, but it won't happen.

The question of "loyalty to Hubbard" is quite distinct from the "need for a central organization". Your assumptions don't match with my observations among actual freezoners.


Mark A. Baker

You are just playing with pedantic meanings of words - which scientologists tend to do. Per my above post, amend the paragraph from:

"I realise you are trying to steer me and others to realising that the FZ is a realisation of these noble ideals. I am starting to think you are genuine in your motives, but maybe not representative of the FreeZone, which I intuitively feel must be more Hubbard-loyal than you are."

To:
"I realise you are trying to steer me and others to realising that FZ individuals hold a realisation of these noble ideals. I am starting to think you are genuine in your motives, but maybe not representative of many or most FreeZone people, which I intuitively feel must be more Hubbard-loyal than you are."

I think the second altered paragraph would be implicitly obvious as being meant by the original paragraph, but in a usual scientological, dancing on a pinhead pedantic fashion, you extrapolated one slice of meaning out of it to debunk the overall general meaning.

Of course I realise that the FZ are a bunch of loosly joined individuals. That some hope for an organised whole, while many don't. You keep implying I don't realise that as a method of showing how I don't understand the FZ.

I actually know three still-practicing FZoners personally and also watched it develop in the 80's. I understand it better than you imply.

So pedantically you picked up my use of "FZ" and "FreeZone" to imply an organised whole, when of course I was using the collective noun to describe the individuals. People in the FZ itself use this collective noun, but when I do so you imply this shows I don't understand it!

Even a flock of sheep is composed of individual sheep, even if they are all drifting more or less in the same direction!

 

[Mark A. Baker]

So pedantically you picked up my use of "FZ" and "FreeZone" to imply an organised whole, when of course I was using the collective noun to describe the individuals. People in the FZ itself use this collective noun, but when I do so you imply this shows I don't understand it!

Even a flock of sheep is composed of individual sheep, even if they are all drifting more or less in the same direction!

Well we do seem to be talking past each other a bit. The difference I think is whether the focus is on the group or the individuals. I hold that the "freezone" is so unfocused that it can only be used legitimately as a very loose collective noun. You seem to want to "tighten" that interpretation up a bit into some sort of more coherent group.

In contrast to your analogy of the flock of sheep, there is also the analogy of an organic body. Bodies are collective wholes made up of countless individual cells. The body has a "coherent" identity in itself beyond that of the individual cells. Such "coherence" is lacking with the flock of sheep as its "identity" fluctuates as animals enter & depart the group.

With these two contrasting analogs as models, I hold the freezone corresponds to a collection of flocks. That is, it is composed of groups of small fluctuating groups. This is in contrast to a body, or even a collection of bodies, where there can be seen some measure of tight cohesion at some level. I find cohesion to be lacking in the freezone. Cohesion is more representative of the Co$. There it is created through coercion.

As to "playing with pedantic meanings of words". From the viewpoint of others, I do. I come from a family where semantics were emphasized as important. Its a trait that has served me much throughout the years, especially in my studies. I don't share your view about scientologists generally sharing the ability though. In my experience they are often quite sloppy in their use of semantics.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Ralph Hilton]

I was one of those who did the HRD auditors course when it first came out at the FLB and left the Sea Org soon afterwards.
The original version was run without checking for reads. If would usually run for around 25 hours with an EP of becoming oneself again - i.e. a major valence shift. The later version added checking for reads resulting a much shorter rundown that didn't seem to go as deep into the case. The original also included an application of the HRD approach to other areas. I did run it solo after leaving the CofS using the Code of Honor. "Never withdraw allegiance once given" for me only made sense after looking at what allegiance was given. My own allegiance was never to the Sea Org nor even to the man, LRH. It was an allegiance to a cause - the Aims of Scientology.
Maintaining a position of power, for a corrupt group or individual, requires a usurpation of the communications and allegiances of the group. Cleaning up the false allegiances one has been manipulated or tricked into can be quite a therapeutic experience.
For me, as it seems to have been for a number of others, the HRD contributed greatly to my gaining the personal freedom to leave the Sea Org.
It seemed that the cognitions I had led to the inevitable conclusion that the Sea Org was becoming a suppressive group.
David Mayo, at that time, was a strong driving force toward a mellowing of Ethics. The Ethics Specialist Course he created shifted the emphasis of Ethics toward the application of forgotten basics such as 2 way communication and ARC. However some rather obnoxious characters had other ideas and reacted with the other extreme. They won.
The Sea Org was created somewhat in the valence of the oppressive forces of the distant past. Whether or not one considers the story of OT3 to be truth or not it is an observable fact that oppressive military regimes have existed.
Some of the most powerful and "successful" identities that people have held in the past have been positions of military power. It would follow that the Sea Org attracted to its higher ranks those in military valences. My realization on the HRD was that I had myself gone somewhat into a military valence and had lost what I originally became involved in Scientology for.
At that point leaving the Sea Org was inevitable after the oppressors took power.
The HRD, in its original form, was a great liberator. I think Leon explained well why the later version was not.

 

[Dulloldfart]

Thanks, Ralph. Good to see you here again.

Paul

 

[Challenge]

Wow! Have I ever learned a lot from this thread. I realize why I hated HRD. It messed up my stable data. Instead of blowing Scn, I blew from ASHO over to the AO. To audit OTs was my thinking. I hung in, re-doing the Cl8 Course, and auditing the AOs HGC until the event that made it clear that I could no longer support COS. I 'got it' on the HRD, but wouldn't 'have it' until their shite hit my fan. Like many of you, I thought that I could influence the mgmt of COS from within, but that was not to be.

ch

 

[knn]

Ralph ist back. After months... to post in my thread first! Hey!

I did run it solo after leaving the CofS using the Code of Honor.

Any interesting EP?