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

[Alan]

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.

Beautifully said!

Alan

 

[knn]

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.

L.Kin writes about what's wrong with the Sea Org:

"Hubbard purposefully had chosen dark-blue uniforms when he started the "Sea Project" in 1966 - because similar uniforms and the Sea Org emblem (a five-pointed star embraced by two laurel branches) had been worn by loyal officers during Incident 2. Hubbard's purpose was to evoke memories of Inc.2 and awaken some of his staff to their old goals. The Sea Org motto "We Come Back" speaks for itself. Not only was the Sea Org started on a calculated restimulation the public was addressed in the same way. On the dust covers of any scientology book you can see R6 motives: spacemen loading boxes into a space craft, an image of the R6 god, angels, an exploding volcano, a railway train, and so on. Hubbard expected to get people going again - and the ruse worked. In fact it worked for both sides! Both parties involved in the old battle were magically attracted by the Sea Org and its uniforms, and the recreated tensions between former loyal officers and former Xenu renegades nearly tore the Church of Scientology apart more than once. Battling is all they had in mind, on either side. Their confrontation was made complicated, because during Inc.2 (as you may remember from chapter 3.1) many loyal officers had been captured, taken to Coltus and given an implant turning them against their own cause - therefore, seeing Sea Organization uniforms would evoke the reverse vector in them. They would join the Sea Org and do the exact opposite of what they were supposed to. Perfectly incomprehensible! A lot of the super-security and paranoia of the Church of Scientology can be put to this explosive mixture of fanatic obedience, mission-obsessedness and treachery. It would as well explain the vast amount of mistakes that were made, the hairraising incompetence and the harsh humiliations Sea Org staff were prepared to suffer from the hand of Hubbard."

L.Kin - The pied pipers of heaven, pg. 203
​

 

[Ralph Hilton]

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

Any interesting EP?

Not a lot on it beyond what I posted. I'd already done 25 hours or so audited on the HRD and quite a bit of time on the HRD style FDSing.

As far as L. Kin goes I see him presenting as facts some rather unsupported and dubious data. LRH did intend, as stated in the SO member hat and the tape "Symbols" (I don't have copies), to restimulate R6 with the Sea Org image. I'd say that there a lot of such incidents on the track and the backlash can be explained with a less specific attribution of the incidents involved. I was told by 2 people involved in the auditing of CMO execs around 1980 that many of the CMO came up with past lifetimes in Nazi Germany.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

L.Kin writes about what's wrong with the Sea Org:

"Hubbard purposefully had chosen dark-blue uniforms when he started the "Sea Project" in 1966 - because similar uniforms and the Sea Org emblem (a five-pointed star embraced by two laurel branches) had been worn by loyal officers during Incident 2. ... ​

Personally, I take the simpler view that the Sea Org paraphenalia arose from Hubbard's desire to create a personal navy loyal to him yet reminiscent of his own experience with the U.S. Navy. The uniforms were characteristic of 20th century Navy uniforms. In this way I also see him mimicking the Society of Jesuits in their original "Soldiers of Christ" conceptualization. Indeed, much about the Co$ seems "borrowed" from Catholicism.

Of course, others will claim it is all part of the "history" of the OT III myth. They are certainly free to see it like that. I just see it as expressive of some of Hubbard's personal history & unresolved considerations.


Mark A. Baker​

 

[Zinjifar]

Personally, I take the simpler view that the Sea Org paraphenalia arose from Hubbard's desire to create a personal navy loyal to him yet reminiscent of his own experience with the U.S. Navy. The uniforms were characteristic of 20th century Navy uniforms. In this way I also see him mimicking the Society of Jesuits in their original "Soldiers of Christ" conceptualization. Indeed, much about the Co$ seems "borrowed" from Catholicism.

Of course, others will claim it is all part of the "history" of the OT III myth. They are certainly free to see it like that. I just see it as expressive of some of Hubbard's personal history & unresolved considerations.


Mark A. Baker

Agreed. I think Ron was 'restimulating' His *own* failed US Navy experience in an attempt to rehabilitate Himself. Personally, one of the more offensive elements of Scientology to me.

Zinj

 

[Alan]

Personally, I take the simpler view that the Sea Org paraphenalia arose from Hubbard's desire to create a personal navy loyal to him yet reminiscent of his own experience with the U.S. Navy. The uniforms were characteristic of 20th century Navy uniforms. In this way I also see him mimicking the Society of Jesuits in their original "Soldiers of Christ" conceptualization. Indeed, much about the Co$ seems "borrowed" from Catholicism.

Of course, others will claim it is all part of the "history" of the OT III myth. They are certainly free to see it like that. I just see it as expressive of some of Hubbard's personal history & unresolved considerations.


Mark A. Baker

LRH personally told me what Ralph relayed!

The R6 restim was deliberately done!

Alan

 

[Mark A. Baker]

LRH personally told me what Ralph relayed!

The R6 restim was deliberately done!

Alan

Yes but I COULD argue he wasn't in his "right mind" when he said it.

However, since it's you telling me Alan, I will henceforth accept it as a given that: LRH was intentionally trying to restimulate in others what he believed was common case through his adoption of SO ensignia.

Not quite willing to go so far as accepting LRH's take on R6 as inherently true though. But then I don't take your comments as necessarily supporting that view either.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Dulloldfart]

However, since it's you telling me Alan, I will henceforth accept it as a given that: LRH was intentionally trying to restimulate in others what he believed was common case through his adoption of SO ensignia.

I heard that "Symbols" tape too. But the obvious evidence is the volcano cover for DMSMH for the past 30 years.

Paul

 

[Ted]

The HRD, in its original form, was a great liberator. I think Leon explained well why the later version was not.

I trained on the HRD when it first came out. Was audited shortly thereafter. We didn't check for reads on the questions in those days, just asked the question and addressed what came up for the pc, sometimes something, sometimes nothing. No pressure from the auditor.

I will likely have a continuing disagreement with others who feel that every question on every type of process being addressed by the auditor needs to read. Bullshit!

So the auditor checks SA Lists questions for read before asking? Bullshit!

The auditor checks objective processes for read before running? Bullshit!

The auditor can't 2WC something unless it's reading? Bullshit! The auditor and pc can talk about anything until pressured to end on an F/N. That's the thing, no pressure = no liability. Lots of 2wc under the auditor's code = great asset.

Auditor checking for reads on Book I processing? Bullshit!

And Book I is a dynamite process for some people.

Way back when, I ran two pc's on Grades processes checking the questions for read first. Boy was I ever disappointed with the results. I reverted to explaining the purpose of the process and asking for pc interest in running the processes. Yep, pc was interested 98% of the time. With that I was back delivering the kinds of Grades results I expected.

The problem with the meter is it doesn't read on overcharged areas or items. It doesn't read so well if the surface charge is gone. It might not read if pc is itching to get on with the process.

It often reads if the pc says he's interested. Pc indicators and interests are always more important than the e-meter. Maybe L&N questions are an exception. Sometimes they just F/N.

Back to HRD...

I was surprised over some of the charge that came up.

I love the precept, Seek to Live With the Truth. I saw that to mean, to me, seek to live with yourself. Oops, end of rundown! It doesn't get any better than that. I told the auditor and C/S I had just got the EP of OT-8 as I was certain that was it. Good stuff, maybe too good in the oppressive minds of others.


--
Ted

 

[Ted]

Agreed. I think Ron was 'restimulating' His *own* failed US Navy experience in an attempt to rehabilitate Himself. Personally, one of the more offensive elements of Scientology to me.

Zinj

I am not so generous in my evaluation: There was no intended rehab. Hubbard was dramatizing his unconfrontable Navy experience.


--
Ted

 

[knn]

Not quite willing to go so far as accepting LRH's take on R6 as inherently true though. But then I don't take your comments as necessarily supporting that view either.

Let's not forget that "Revolt in the Stars" had exactly this purpose, too.

And let's not forget that the Scientology symbol is a Snake with the broken apart pieces of the Jewish Star.

 

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

I will likely have a continuing disagreement with others who feel that every question on every type of process being addressed by the auditor needs to read.

Well interestingly I was (for one session) checking the Self Analysis questions for a read before running them (because obviously you don't run an unreading anything for any reason, ever, per the reference.) The C/S said it wasn't necessary, although don't think I was explicitly shown a reference. The only reference I have found on this is in the Book of Case remedies (the copy I have is the 1991 edition). It is very clear that you don't check SA lists, the White Form or Group Auditing questions for a read before asking the questions.

Grades questions (if "unreading") would of course be checked for interest as part of the standard "checking questions on grades processes" method.

Two-way comm questions have to read before being run, but that is not the same thing as keeping in two way comm with the pc. That's a whole different Tech, even if the name is the same.

D of P interviews are metered, but you would never check the questions for a read before asking them! You would, however, indicate BPC and F/Ns.

If the Grade is charged it is unlikely that the questions wouldn't read. Something else must be out (sessionability is the main suspect, followed by small ARC breaks with the auditor.)

If (in general) I was C/Sing for an auditor who had difficulty getting reads on things that should be reading, then I might just get them to assess by Tone Arm for a while to get them some wins with the pc.

You obviously don't check for reads when running unmetered processes such as Objectives and Book 1.

Having said all that, several people have mentioned that the HRD runs deeper if not checked for reads. I have never tried that, but would certainly be willing to give it a go, even if it does apparently violate standard tech. It might be that it fits better into the Self Analysis type of grouping.

 

[Carmel]

I trained on the HRD when it first came out. Was audited shortly thereafter. We didn't check for reads on the questions in those days, just asked the question and addressed what came up for the pc, sometimes something, sometimes nothing. No pressure from the auditor.

I will likely have a continuing disagreement with others who feel that every question on every type of process being addressed by the auditor needs to read. Bullshit!

So the auditor checks SA Lists questions for read before asking? Bullshit!

The auditor checks objective processes for read before running? Bullshit!

The auditor can't 2WC something unless it's reading? Bullshit! The auditor and pc can talk about anything until pressured to end on an F/N. That's the thing, no pressure = no liability. Lots of 2wc under the auditor's code = great asset.

Auditor checking for reads on Book I processing? Bullshit!

And Book I is a dynamite process for some people.

Way back when, I ran two pc's on Grades processes checking the questions for read first. Boy was I ever disappointed with the results. I reverted to explaining the purpose of the process and asking for pc interest in running the processes. Yep, pc was interested 98% of the time. With that I was back delivering the kinds of Grades results I expected.

The problem with the meter is it doesn't read on overcharged areas or items. It doesn't read so well if the surface charge is gone. It might not read if pc is itching to get on with the process.

It often reads if the pc says he's interested. Pc indicators and interests are always more important than the e-meter. Maybe L&N questions are an exception. Sometimes they just F/N.

Back to HRD...

I was surprised over some of the charge that came up.

I love the precept, Seek to Live With the Truth. I saw that to mean, to me, seek to live with yourself. Oops, end of rundown! It doesn't get any better than that. I told the auditor and C/S I had just got the EP of OT-8 as I was certain that was it. Good stuff, maybe too good in the oppressive minds of others.


--
Ted

Well, you've got a few "bullshits" in there, and I don't know that many would disagree with ya.

By the same token though, to run exactly the same process, using the same terminal, and despite pc protest/no interest, despite no charge, is ALSO bullshit - that was done on the valence step when the HRD first came to ANZO, but that got changed within a few months.

After reading what some of you are saying here, I'm wondering how much of the procedure got changed. Besides the valence step, what ended up requiring reads before running?

It seems here that some are talking about the false data questions, but a read on them never became a requirement before running, or did it?

 

[Leon]

Good one, Ted

 

[Ralph Hilton]

Hi Ted,
I'm in full agreement. On grades I run every question. I don't however expect an unreading question to necessarily run to EP. I watch for TA motion. If the TA doesn't move at all on the question then I drop it after a few commands. What I see is that an unreading question will often start to give TA once the PC has thought about it a bit. It seems to function similarly to the groove-in on confessionals.

 

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

On grades I run every question. I don't however expect an unreading question to necessarily run to EP. I watch for TA motion. If the TA doesn't move at all on the question then I drop it after a few commands. What I see is that an unreading question will often start to give TA once the PC has thought about it a bit. It seems to function similarly to the groove-in on confessionals.

Well that is pretty much using Assessment by tone arm, EM drill #23, like I said. The only reason one wouldn't do it is because the unreading questions, at say 5 minutes per question, are costing valuable auditing time. However, if the counter side is that the pc otherwise won't read on the grade questions and quicky his way through, then by all means - go ahead.

We're all trying to get maximum gain for the pc per unit of auditing time.

 

[Ted]

Hi Ted,
I'm in full agreement. On grades I run every question. I don't however expect an unreading question to necessarily run to EP. I watch for TA motion. If the TA doesn't move at all on the question then I drop it after a few commands. What I see is that an unreading question will often start to give TA once the PC has thought about it a bit. It seems to function similarly to the groove-in on confessionals.

Hello Ralph,

I just check specific terminals for read.

Good point about the "groove in." I have determined that there is no liability in dropping a process that isn't producing a change. It could be dropped completely or taken up later to F/N. As long as the pc isn't being forced, it comes out okay. With some pc's a TR-3 is enough pressure to put them into delusion. Easy does it with new or overcharged pc's.


--
Ted