The Dianetic Procedure

Vinaire

Sponsor
I have never been a Tech person. I have just been an evaluator. Therefore in this thread I would like to examine the Dianetic Procedure and how it expanded to become the whole Bridge of Scientology. At the moment that is a mystery to me.

The original discovery of engrams was made through the use of hypnosis. LRH could access the engram after putting a person under hypnosis, but at the same time the hypnotized person had no awareness of that engram. Without that awareness the person could not release his engrams.

So the original focus was on making a person contact his engrams outside of any hypnotic trance. A canceller was installed as a precaution against inadvertent hypnotic trance in a Dianetic session. A person was simply told to close his eyes and access incidents containing pain and unconsciousness (engrams). This was not found to be easy.

According to my understanding, the auditor made present time observation of preclear’s behavior and, assuming that to be a dramatization, prompted the preclear to recall incidents containing behavior of similar nature. Stress was put on words used by the preclear in describing his unwanted condition, or recalled from incidents. The preclear was then asked to repeat those words as “syllabic sounds without meaning” and contact an engram containing those words/sounds.

From LRH demos, it can be seen that the above approach led to only spotty success if at all. The auditing demonstrations given by Hubbard sound very complex as they required continuous, close observation of preclear's behavior, and instructions to the preclear based on that observation.

However, there must have been enough results from the auditing procedure of that time to keep public interest alive in Dianetics. But the number of Dianetic enthusiast's diminished rapidly from the initial experimenters and settled to a small number of Dianetics students.

Thus, the first book DMSMH sounded very promising, but it didn’t right away deliver what it promised.

.
 

Headend

Patron with Honors
I have never been a Tech person. I have just been an evaluator. Therefore in this thread I would like to examine the Dianetic Procedure and how it expanded to become the whole Bridge of Scientology. At the moment that is a mystery to me.

The original discovery of engrams was made through the use of hypnosis. LRH could access the engram after putting a person under hypnosis, but at the same time the hypnotized person had no awareness of that engram. Without that awareness the person could not release his engrams.

So the original focus was on making a person contact his engrams outside of any hypnotic trance. A canceller was installed as a precaution against inadvertent hypnotic trance in a Dianetic session. A person was simply told to close his eyes and access incidents containing pain and unconsciousness (engrams). This was not found to be easy.

According to my understanding, the auditor made present time observation of preclear’s behavior and, assuming that to be a dramatization, prompted the preclear to recall incidents containing behavior of similar nature. Stress was put on words used by the preclear in describing his unwanted condition, or recalled from incidents. The preclear was then asked to repeat those words as “syllabic sounds without meaning” and contact an engram containing those words/sounds.

From LRH demos, it can be seen that the above approach led to only spotty success if at all. The auditing demonstrations given by Hubbard sound very complex as they required continuous, close observation of preclear's behavior, and instructions to the preclear based on that observation.

However, there must have been enough results from the auditing procedure of that time to keep public interest alive in Dianetics. But the number of Dianetic enthusiast's diminished rapidly from the initial experimenters and settled to a small number of Dianetics students.

Thus, the first book DMSMH sounded very promising, but it didn’t right away deliver what it promised.

.

I guess this is why after 16 years of inactivety, John Galusha was convinced to become involed again in promoting book one auditing.

What is Dianetic reverie if not hypnosis?

Vin I know this will sound harsh and you will undoubted take this personally but honestly I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't some similarity between your posts and someone sitting on a parkbench completely lost in thought muttering to themselves.

Please just pause and become still for a moment before you press Submit Reply.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
A gradient approach to getting rid of engrams was developed as follows;

1. The preclear was simply told to close his eyes, the canceller was installed and the preclear was in reverie.

2. Auditor then checked if the preclear could move on the time track. To do so, the auditor ran easily recallable pleasure incidents as if they were engrams. This required running the pleasure incident over and over, each time coaxing the preclear to pick up more content in the incident until at last he was re-experiencing it with several perceptics.

3. The auditor then asked the preclear to run incidents containing painful emotions (grief). These incidents were again run as if they were engrams until grief was discharged. The auditor also asked what the preclear was thinking, and ran the words of the articulate thoughts, if any, with all the perceptics.

4. The auditor then asked the preclear to run incidents containing pain and unconsciousness (engrams) and kept right on erasing or reducing engrams in the basic area (pre-birth) on the time track.

5. If the engrams stopped presenting themselves, then the auditor ran grief in the post-birth life and if discharged there, returned to basic area to find and erase/reduce more engrams.

6. This procedure was continued until the preclear was free of all somatics and irrationality. He was now a CLEAR.

I shall now be looking to what degree this approach worked, or if it ever worked.

.
.
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
A gradient approach to getting rid of engrams was developed as follows;

1. The preclear was simply told to close his eyes, the canceller was installed and the preclear was in reverie.

2. Auditor then checked if the preclear could move on the time track. To do so, the auditor ran easily recallable pleasure incidents as if they were engrams. This required running the pleasure incident over and over, each time coaxing the preclear to pick up more content in the incident until at last he was re-experiencing it with several perceptics.

3. The auditor then asked the preclear to run incidents containing painful emotions (grief). These incidents were again run as if they were engrams until grief was discharged. The auditor also asked what the preclear was thinking, and ran the words of the articulate thoughts, if any, with all the perceptics.

4. The auditor then asked the preclear to run incidents containing pain and unconsciousness (engrams) and kept right on erasing or reducing engrams in the basic area (pre-birth) on the time track.

5. If the engrams stopped presenting themselves, then the auditor ran grief in the post-birth life and if discharged there, returned to basic area to find and erase/reduce more engrams.

6. This procedure was continued until the preclear was free of all somatics and irrationality. He was now a CLEAR.

I shall now be looking to what degree this approach worked, or if it ever worked.

Just run dianetics on someone Vin - the figure-figure your going through will become self explanatory.

This is an utterly insane thread! :grouch:
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
I guess this is why after 16 years of inactivety, John Galusha was convinced to become involed again in promoting book one auditing.

What is Dianetic reverie if not hypnosis?

Vin I know this will sound harsh and you will undoubted take this personally but honestly I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't some similarity between your posts and someone sitting on a parkbench completely lost in thought muttering to themselves.

Please just pause and become still for a moment before you press Submit Reply.

Dianetic reverie is not hypnosis. I can produce Dianetic reverie by simply asking people to close their eyes and concentrate on recalling an incident, but I cannot hypnotize people.

Well, you are right. I am doing this examination by "thinking out loud" on ESMB, and inviting comments on that thinking. I hope this does not violate any ESMB rules. If Emma thinks I should not do so publicly, then I would simply continue doing this privately.

Thanks for your comments.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Just run dianetics on someone Vin - the figure-figure your going through will become self explanatory.

This is an utterly insane thread! :grouch:

Well I have run Dianetics on others but not extensively.

If you don't like this thread then you can ignore it. That's ok.

.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
Vin,

It seems to me that you are assuming that engrams exist to begin with.

I think that if a person is truly "knocked-out cold" then nothing is being recorded in memory.
However, most humans do have vivid imaginations from time-to-time.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Vin,

It seems to me that you are assuming that engrams exist to begin with.

I think that if a person is truly "knocked-out cold" then nothing is being recorded in memory.
However, most humans do have vivid imaginations from time-to-time.

No. I am not assuming that.

I have experienced engrams in my personal auditing as I recorded in

VINAIRE'S STORY

So, I am going by my personal experience with engrams.

.
 
Last edited:

lionheart

Gold Meritorious Patron
No. I am not assuming that.

I have experienced engrams in my personal auditing as I recorded in

VINAIRE'S STORY

So, I am going by my personal experience with engrams.

.

Remember, that we don't actually know how much research LRH did into Dianetics.

Your origianl post said "The original discovery of engrams was made through the use of hypnosis. LRH could access the engram after putting a person under hypnosis, but at the same time the hypnotized person had no awareness of that engram. Without that awareness the person could not release his engrams."

But that is only what LRH said that he did. Do we know that he actually did it or to what depth of research?

I studied DMSMH thoroughly and then did the HSDC and Internship. Standard Dianetics was very different from Book One. That may give you an insight into your original question as to how it developed into the "Bridge".

Personally I preferred SDn To Book One. It required less inspiriation on the part of the auditor and was more "scientific". But I have to say it ran very differently to LRH's description of Book One sessions.

Then the Grades were totally different from HSDC. Dn 55 is the best source for this change in emphasis and seems to have developed from the research done by LRH and others into the communication formula.

It seems to me that the "lower bridge" developed from the actual action of auditing itself.

Later, before the RTC duffing over of the CofS, I supervised Book One Co-audits as developed by John Galusha for Diana. We got tremendous results and people seemed to run as per 1950 theory and practice. Well, at least tremendous results in terms of people moving onto staff or standard grade chart. I'm not sure how good the results were in terms of case-gain.
 

beyond_horizons

Patron Meritorious
5. If the engrams stopped presenting themselves, then the auditor ran grief in the post-birth life and if discharged there, returned to basic area to find and erase/reduce more engrams.

6. This procedure was continued until the preclear was free of all somatics and irrationality. He was now a CLEAR.

I shall now be looking to what degree this approach worked, or if it ever worked.

.
.
When I first walked in the door of an org, after reading DMSMH, I was told that “we don’t do ‘book one’ any more. We do the ‘Dianetics 55’ course". When I finished that I was told, You have to do the ‘Dianteics Today’ course. When I finished that it was; do the ‘NED’ course.

At one point during a NED style allergy rundown, I ran a so-called birth engram only latter to realize the so-called incident I ran was verbatim to something Hubbard wrote in the original DMSMH.

After spinning my wheels on that for the better part of two and a half years, I still wasn’t clear of allergies nor was I clear as to WTF happened during an earlier NDE that lead me to an org in the first place.

So , are you planning a book ‘Dianetics for Dummies’? :) I think DM already beat you to it with a new book and a new course. But in your rendition, be sure to include an addendum listing the 21 + morphing definitions of ‘CLEAR'. That should make things clear. :thumbsup:
 

Alan

Gold Meritorious Patron
When I first walked in the door of an org, after reading DMSMH, I was told that “we don’t do ‘book one’ any more. We do the ‘Dianetics 55’ course". When I finished that I was told, You have to do the ‘Dianteics Today’ course. When I finished that it was; do the ‘NED’ course.

At one point during a NED style allergy rundown, I ran a so-called birth engram only latter to realize the so-called incident I ran was verbatim to something Hubbard wrote in the original DMSMH.

After spinning my wheels on that for the better part of two and a half years, I still wasn’t clear of allergies nor was I clear as to WTF happened during an earlier NDE that lead me to pick up a Dianetics book in the first place.

So , are you planning a book ‘Dianetics for Dummies’? :) I think DM already beat you to it with a new book and a new course. But in your rendition, be sure to include an addendum listing the 21 + morphing definitions of ‘CLEAR'. That should make things clear. :thumbsup:

:lol:

I don't know why Boeing do not use what the Wright brothers use - after all the Wright brothers invented the first plane to fly!

The Wright brother should have issued KABW policy - and made it mandatory that all plane builders adhere without any deviation to that KABW policy! :grouch:

*KABW = Keeping Aircraft Building Working!

:D
 

beyond_horizons

Patron Meritorious
:lol:

I don't know why Boeing do not use what the Wright brothers use - after all the Wright brothers invented the first plane to fly!

The Wright brother should have issued KABW policy - and made it mandatory that all plane builders adhere without any deviation to that KABW policy! :grouch:

*KABW = Keeping Aircraft Building Working!

:D
Same seems true on the software side of the house. Apparently this thread was posted in 'DOS 3.1' while the rest of the world is running 'Windows XP'.

:D
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Remember, that we don't actually know how much research LRH did into Dianetics.

Your origianl post said "The original discovery of engrams was made through the use of hypnosis. LRH could access the engram after putting a person under hypnosis, but at the same time the hypnotized person had no awareness of that engram. Without that awareness the person could not release his engrams."

But that is only what LRH said that he did. Do we know that he actually did it or to what depth of research?

I studied DMSMH thoroughly and then did the HSDC and Internship. Standard Dianetics was very different from Book One. That may give you an insight into your original question as to how it developed into the "Bridge".

Personally I preferred SDn To Book One. It required less inspiriation on the part of the auditor and was more "scientific". But I have to say it ran very differently to LRH's description of Book One sessions.

Then the Grades were totally different from HSDC. Dn 55 is the best source for this change in emphasis and seems to have developed from the research done by LRH and others into the communication formula.

It seems to me that the "lower bridge" developed from the actual action of auditing itself.

Later, before the RTC duffing over of the CofS, I supervised Book One Co-audits as developed by John Galusha for Diana. We got tremendous results and people seemed to run as per 1950 theory and practice. Well, at least tremendous results in terms of people moving onto staff or standard grade chart. I'm not sure how good the results were in terms of case-gain.

To me, LRH’s explanation is consistent in itself and it is consistent with my experience with engrams. The engram of Standard Dianetics is the same as the engram of Book One, even when the two procedures of getting to the engram are different.

An outpoint is visible only through inconsistencies. How does it matter how much research LRH did into Dianetics, if that research can be repeated by anybody? I have experienced an engram for myself and that is what matters to me.

If you have not experienced an engram then your experience is different from mine. That is ok with me. I don’t intend to force my experience on you. I am simply talking about my experience. I am evaluating Dianetics based on my experience.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
When I first walked in the door of an org, after reading DMSMH, I was told that “we don’t do ‘book one’ any more. We do the ‘Dianetics 55’ course". When I finished that I was told, You have to do the ‘Dianteics Today’ course. When I finished that it was; do the ‘NED’ course.

At one point during a NED style allergy rundown, I ran a so-called birth engram only latter to realize the so-called incident I ran was verbatim to something Hubbard wrote in the original DMSMH.

After spinning my wheels on that for the better part of two and a half years, I still wasn’t clear of allergies nor was I clear as to WTF happened during an earlier NDE that lead me to an org in the first place.

So , are you planning a book ‘Dianetics for Dummies’? :) I think DM already beat you to it with a new book and a new course. But in your rendition, be sure to include an addendum listing the 21 + morphing definitions of ‘CLEAR'. That should make things clear. :thumbsup:

No, I am not planning to write any such book.

As I stated in my first post, I intend to examine the Dianetic procedure for myself.

Your comments are certainly interesting. It appears that people delivering Dianetics had no clue themselves as to what Dianetics was. They were part of a machinery. They simply recommended the latest rendition without understanding the evolution of Dianetics. The student had no chance of understanding the evolution either.

I think that delivering Dianetic auditing as a cure to certain ailments is at best hit or miss. It is impossible to have one to one correspondence between an engram and a particular somatic.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
:lol:

I don't know why Boeing do not use what the Wright brothers use - after all the Wright brothers invented the first plane to fly!

The Wright brother should have issued KABW policy - and made it mandatory that all plane builders adhere without any deviation to that KABW policy! :grouch:

*KABW = Keeping Aircraft Building Working!

:D

KSW policy came about in 1965. I am not up to that point in my evaluation yet. I am still at 1950.

Don't rush me please!

.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Dianetic reverie is not hypnosis. I can produce Dianetic reverie by simply asking people to close their eyes and concentrate on recalling an incident, but I cannot hypnotize people.

.

Maybe your definition of hypnosis is wrong.

Maybe it is the definition of hypnosis you are using that makes you able to produce "dianetc reverie" but not "hypnosis".

Because anyone who has ever hypnotized people, like real hypno-therapists who do it every day, see "dianetic reverie" as the same as a hypnotic state.

So again, maybe your definition of what is hypnosis is wrong and, using that wrong definition, you are unable to see hypnosis when it is right in front of you.

Have you spoken to anyone or read any information on hypnosis that is not from L Ron Hubbard yet? I would think that would be an important thing for you to do, especially since Hubbard talks so much about hypnosis in the early 50's.

If you have read about hypnosis from sources other than LRH, what did you find out?
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Maybe your definition of hypnosis is wrong.

Maybe it is the definition of hypnosis you are using that makes you able to produce "dianetc reverie" but not "hypnosis".

Because anyone who has ever hypnotized people, like real hypno-therapists who do it every day, see "dianetic reverie" as the same as a hypnotic state.

So again, maybe your definition of what is hypnosis is wrong and, using that wrong definition, you are unable to see hypnosis when it is right in front of you.

Have you spoken to anyone or read any information on hypnosis that is not from L Ron Hubbard yet?

What did you find there?

You sound quite absolute about being right yourself in making me wrong. That is ok with me.

Looks like there are different gradient of hypnosis even if we classify Dianetic reverie as hypnosis.

It is not just black and white as you are trying to push.

One simply concentrating on a problem to solve it would also by hypnosis by the same token, eh!.

.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
You sound quite absolute about being right yourself in making me wrong. That is ok with me.

Looks like there are different gradient of hypnosis even if we classify Dianetic reverie as hypnosis.

It is not just black and white as you are trying to push.

.

What have you found out about hypnosis from sources other than LRH?

I can't see how you think you are going to have a valuable analysis if you have no information from which to evaluate LRH's statements.

All throught the early 1950's, LRH rails against "hypnotism". Well, what is it, exactly that he was railing against?

Who were those other guys who were practicing "hypnotism" and what did they say about it?

Won't you please devote at least one post to hypnosis from sources not LRH?

Please, Vinaire?

For me?
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Remember, that we don't actually know how much research LRH did into Dianetics.

Your origianl post said "The original discovery of engrams was made through the use of hypnosis. LRH could access the engram after putting a person under hypnosis, but at the same time the hypnotized person had no awareness of that engram. Without that awareness the person could not release his engrams."

But that is only what LRH said that he did. Do we know that he actually did it or to what depth of research?

I studied DMSMH thoroughly and then did the HSDC and Internship. Standard Dianetics was very different from Book One. That may give you an insight into your original question as to how it developed into the "Bridge".

Personally I preferred SDn To Book One. It required less inspiriation on the part of the auditor and was more "scientific". But I have to say it ran very differently to LRH's description of Book One sessions.

Then the Grades were totally different from HSDC. Dn 55 is the best source for this change in emphasis and seems to have developed from the research done by LRH and others into the communication formula.

It seems to me that the "lower bridge" developed from the actual action of auditing itself.

Later, before the RTC duffing over of the CofS, I supervised Book One Co-audits as developed by John Galusha for Diana. We got tremendous results and people seemed to run as per 1950 theory and practice. Well, at least tremendous results in terms of people moving onto staff or standard grade chart. I'm not sure how good the results were in terms of case-gain.

Do you still have a checksheet for Jihn Galusha's course?
 
Top