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

[Carmel]

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.

Hey Lionheart, I have no argument over much you have said here about the HRD, and what you've said previously about the beauty of the R/D - for the record, it was a life saver for me. I loved receiving it, and I loved giving it - it was definately the most effective auditing I ever had, and was always a favourite of mine.

When the HRD first came out though, the valence step was a mind fuck IMO - as a C/S, as an auditor, and as a pc in some cases.

We were dealing with false data. Often the false data came from the same terminal. The procedure at the time, gave no regard to the fact that a valence problem with that terminal may well have been dealt with on a prior precept, and there was no regard as to whether it was charged or not. That step DID require "cog, F/N, VGI's".

There was the assumption that because one accepted the false data from that terminal, then one needed to run the valence step on that terminal, whether charged or not, and irrespective of whether or not a valence step had been run on that terminal since the false data had been accepted - eeeeek!

I hated that part, it didn't make sense, or align with the principals of auditing, and it caused problems. Yes of course a pc could have a laugh about it and key out, or mock up a previous key out on the same thing, but to now say "Ok, we are going to run the valence steps on xxxxxxx", when it had already been run, and/or when it wasn't necessarily charged in the first place? Yuk! It reminds me of when an HCOB came down (supposedly from David Mayo), stating that we were to run all grades processes on all pc's, without checking for charge first. That was a mind fuck too, but thank goodness that "idea" got canned too. In both scenarios, it was a time waster, but in addition to that, it could and would plough the pc in - not good!

As an auditor, I hated that valence step, but I got away with it, because I was a good auditor, and because I disagreed so I wasn't going to labour that point. I knew it was wrong, I wrote up why I thought it was and sent it up lines (as I'm sure others did too). I was so relieved when it came down that one had to check the terminal for 'charge', before running on the valence step.

I can't say whether or not we had a pilot in ANZO, or the first 'official' version. Regardless though, to run something like the valence step without checking for charge first, chewed up hours and fucked with some pc's 'heads', so I was glad when it was rectified with the change that was made.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I think that HRD belongs way way low on the Bridge. It undercuts the Grades, imo.

Chlng

Did mine immediately after my lower bridge but before my "upper levels". FANTASTIC! Worth the whole price of admission in itself. By then I had already become aware of "entities" and I had a great deal of fun with "false data" and "valence splitting" as a result.

That's where I'd most recommend it. High enough "up the bridge" that the pc runs quickly & thoroughly. Low enough that the HRD would undercut huge amounts of charge.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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.

I consider that one of the advantages of the RD. It seems so unobtrusive at first that it tends to "sneak up" on the heavy "charge", and then WHAMMO!

As stated elsewhere, LOVED mine!


Mark A. Baker

 

[lionheart]

I consider that one of the advantages of the RD. It seems so unobtrusive at first that it tends to "sneak up" on the heavy "charge", and then WHAMMO!

As stated elsewhere, LOVED mine!


Mark A. Baker

Good point!

Carmel, I don't remember having to run a valence split sequence on sources of false data. That doesn't seem the same as the first public release of the HRD that I studied. Each step was separate from the previous. M/U's, then false data , then overts, etc. Each step was asked without reference to earlier steps. So the final valence step was separate from the earlier ones. You simply asked who had transgressed and if the PC had ever wanted to be like them and did the valence splitting process.

So false data sources didn't automatically lead to a valence process on that source. That would be an arbitrary connection.

I agree with Leon, the whole key to the HRD was the auditing style. I loved it and routinely my PCs said it was the best auditing they had ever had.

 

[Hatshepsut]

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?

 

[Carmel]

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?

It'd be different for everyone, but for me it opened my eyes to a whole new world:

-I got rid of ideas, crap, concepts, etc, that I erroneously took on board.

-I realized that I would be a fool if I ever again forfeited my own own counsel on everything and anything that was imposed on me.

- It took me back to ME, it gave me "myself" back, and it gave me a confidence that I hadn't felt or used for a very long time.

I wouldn't touch scn auditing again in a fit, but I am so thankful for what I gained from the HRD.

In a nutshell, I'd say HRD rehabilitates one's ability of "critical thinking", only to the degree though, that one was capable of in the first place.

 

[Hatshepsut]

It'd be different for everyone, but for me it opened my eyes to a whole new world:

-I got rid of ideas, crap, concepts, etc, that I erroneously took on board.

-I realized that I would be a fool if I ever again forfeited my own own counsel on everything and anything that was imposed on me.

- It took me back to ME, it gave me "myself" back, and it gave me a confidence that I hadn't felt or used for a very long time.

I wouldn't touch scn auditing again in a fit, but I am so thankful for what I gained from the HRD.

In a nutshell, I'd say HRD rehabilitates one's ability of "critical thinking", only to the degree though, that one was capable of in the first place.

Thankyou Carmel.

I hear that the closest thing to a thetan is an idea. So maybe the taking on of ideas that are substituted for one's own beingness is at the bottom of it.

 

[lionheart]

It'd be different for everyone, but for me it opened my eyes to a whole new world:

-I got rid of ideas, crap, concepts, etc, that I erroneously took on board.

-I realized that I would be a fool if I ever again forfeited my own own counsel on everything and anything that was imposed on me.

- It took me back to ME, it gave me "myself" back, and it gave me a confidence that I hadn't felt or used for a very long time.

I wouldn't touch scn auditing again in a fit, but I am so thankful for what I gained from the HRD.

In a nutshell, I'd say HRD rehabilitates one's ability of "critical thinking", only to the degree though, that one was capable of in the first place.

I echo all that except not quite the last sentence.

For me, I found me, the me I had always been through ages of false additions of do's and don'ts. That me was brighter and more wonderful than anything I could recall. Now I recognised the me that was always there, but it was clearer and brighter than ever could have been imagined. Like a fog had impaired my vision, but the vision had always been there despite the fog.

Natural me-ness needed no rules or role-models or external, arbitrary opinions and facts. Life was hilarious!

 

[Leon]

The reason the S.O. was so anti the HRD is that so many of their guys who received it blew soon afterwards. The started spotting the wild false data in the SO itself and just left. The entire schism in Scio of the early 80's, what we then called the independent movement, was date coincident with the HRD and this point was not missed on management.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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

The considerations a person has on morality and ethics.

I was listening to a BC tape some months back. I don't recall the title but it was one of the ones which dealt with "missed withholds" and "missed missed withholds". During the course of it LRH makes the point of all the moral codes that an individual may have "gone into agreement with" at some point and specifically how any action, no matter how seemingly appropriate, can result in violating one or more of these prior agreements about "morality". As a result violations, overts, withholds, and "missed withholds" can stack up like cord wood. Nor is an individual necessarily aware of the associated "charge", especially where the "group" is not one with which he is currently affiliated. At the end of the tape a suggestion is made along the lines of "audit the agreements which have been made with groups".

HRD helps to undercut a large chunk of that. To my mind it is addressing the confusion associated with conflicting moral codes and a person's own ethical sensibility. I find auditing on such to be the most powerful form I have experienced.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I wouldn't touch scn auditing again in a fit, but I am so thankful for what I gained from the HRD.

To say this is self-contradictory is a mild understatement, Carmel. That which you have found to be extraordinarily useful is not something you wish to continue?

Pardon the evaluation, Carmel, but this seems to indicate an "m/u" on what "scientology auditing" is.

Auditing done with arc, in keeping with the fundamentals of scientology auditing, and consonant with the Auditor's Code, auditing such as Mayo's HRD, is "scientology auditing". Says so in the basic materials.

"Auditing" which is mandated, coerced, done over protest, violates fundamentals, fails to address pc's charge, etc., is not "scientology auditing". Such "auditing" is expressly in violation of the Auditor's Code and the fundamentals of auditing.

The latter appears to qualify as "Co$ auditing" but that is not the same thing as "scientology auditing" even if they do hold the copyrights.


Mark A. Baker

 

[MarkWI]

David Mayo on the Happiness Rundown

AAC tape #10 - Church allegations

At 04:20" David start his talk, about Co$ fabrications about him.
At 10:10" David start talking about HRD and how it come about.


It would be nice if an English speaking volunteer could transcribe and post the relevant part of this talk to make it available for search engines.

 

[lionheart]

The reason the S.O. was so anti the HRD is that so many of their guys who received it blew soon afterwards. The started spotting the wild false data in the SO itself and just left. The entire schism in Scio of the early 80's, what we then called the independent movement, was date coincident with the HRD and this point was not missed on management.

This matches my experience of the HRD and the schism of the 80's. Not just false data, but transgressions encouraged or forced by the CofS and Scn valances were blown. So of course HRD completions tended to leave or be thrown out as they were no longer compliant.

I still remember when PC's originated LRH or senior execs as false data sources or trangressors and the freedom you would see come over the PC when the influence was blown.

The dial wide FNs and ease of it all!

 

[Lesolee (Sith Lord)]

AAC tape #10 - Church allegations

At 04:20" David start his talk, about Co$ fabrications about him.
At 10:10" David start talking about HRD and how it come about.

Excellent link. Thanks.

The first 4 minutes ...
talk about déjà vu.
Protests through East Grinstead re disconnection
A rigged Phone-in with loyal scientologists phoning up with phoney questions, but being swamped by real people.

And that is just the first 4 minutes.

 

[knn]

At 04:20" David start his talk, about Co$ fabrications about him.
At 10:10" David start talking about HRD and how it come about.

Top link. Sums up everything Churchies aren't supposed to know.

 

[Carmel]

To say this is self-contradictory is a mild understatement, Carmel. That which you have found to be extraordinarily useful is not something you wish to continue?

Pardon the evaluation, Carmel, but this seems to indicate an "m/u" on what "scientology auditing" is.

Auditing done with arc, in keeping with the fundamentals of scientology auditing, and consonant with the Auditor's Code, auditing such as Mayo's HRD, is "scientology auditing". Says so in the basic materials.

"Auditing" which is mandated, coerced, done over protest, violates fundamentals, fails to address pc's charge, etc., is not "scientology auditing". Such "auditing" is expressly in violation of the Auditor's Code and the fundamentals of auditing.

The latter appears to qualify as "Co$ auditing" but that is not the same thing as "scientology auditing" even if they do hold the copyrights.


Mark A. Baker

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.

 

[cantsay]

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".

 

[Free to shine]

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.

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.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

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.

Sorry you're feeling uncomfortable. I hope you manage to work out whatever you've spotted that results in the discomfort.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Carmel]

Sorry your feeling uncomfortable. I hope you manage to work out whatever you've spotted that results in the discomfort.


Mark A. Baker

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.