Ref:
The search to unravel the mystery of the human mind was so long and so complex that it had many turnings. Methods were changed so as to be perfected as understanding increased in the research line. Unfortunately this was taken advantage of by some of questionable intent. Because there had been changes and perfecting actions they could introduce unworkable changes that would go relatively undetected.
Probably this is the fate of all subjects and why Man is in a state of high material cultural achievement yet does not have really workable equipment and is in a terrible mess, surrounded on every hand by a failing material culture.
Probably the heaviest hat I’ve worn in recent years is the recovery of lost Dianetic and Scientology tech and eradicating and correcting alterations introduced into the subject by others.
Given a knowledge of the composition and behavior of the time track, engram running by chains is so simple that any auditor begins by overcomplication. You almost can’t get uncomplicated enough in engram running.
In teaching people to run engrams in 1949, my chief despair was summed up in one sentence to the group I was instructing: “All auditors talk too much.” And that’s the first lesson.
The second lesson is: “All auditors acknowledge too little.” Instead of cheerily acking what the pc said and saying “Continue,” auditors are always asking for more data and usually for more data than the pc could ever give. Example: Pc: “I see a house here.” Auditor: “Okay. How big is it?”
That’s not engram running, that’s just lousy “Q and A.”
The proper action is: Pc: “I see a house here.” Auditor: “Okay. Continue.”
The exceptions to this rule are non-existent. This isn’t a special brand of engram running. It is modern engram running. It was the first engram running and is the latest and you can put aside any complications in between.
The rule is acknowledge what the pc says and tell him to continue.
Then there’s the matter of being doubtful of control. Wrong example: Auditor: “Move to yesterday. Are you there? How do you know it’s yesterday? What do you see that makes you think…” Flunk, Flunk, Flunk.
Right example: Auditor: “Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.” (Pc answers.) “What do you see?………. Good.”
Another error is a failure to take the pc’s data. You take the pc’s data. Never take his orders.
No auditor who knew earlier than June 1978 engram running should consider he or she knows how to run engrams.
Routine 3RA is itself. It has no dependence on earlier methods of running engrams. Failure to study and learn R3RA “because one knows about engram running” will cause a lot of case failure.
If you know old-time engram running there is no attempt here to invalidate you or that knowledge or make you wrong in any way. Those are all ways to run engrams and gave you a better grasp on it. I only wish to call to your attention that R3RA is not old-time engram running.
Engram running by chains is designated “Routine 3RA.”
It is a new triumph of simplicity. It does not demand visio, sonic or other perception at once by the pc. It develops them.
The first thing the auditor does is to make sure the room and session are set up. This means, in other words, that the room is as comfortable as possible and free from interruptions and distractions; that the auditor’s meter is fully charged and set up and that the auditor has all the administrative supplies he will need for the session. Prepared correction lists for Dianetics must also be included.
He has the C/S for that session.
The pc is seated in the chair furthest from the door and is asked to pick up the cans.
The auditor checks that the pc has had enough to eat by doing the metabolism test and also checks that the pc has the correct sensitivity setting by having the pc squeeze the cans and adjusting the sensitivity knob so that the needle registers one third of a dial fall when squeezing the cans.
The auditor then starts the session by saying, “This is the session” (Tone 40).
The auditor then puts in the R (reality) factor with the pc by telling the pc briefly what he is going to do in the session.
Establish the type of chain the pc is to run by assessment. Ref: HCOB 18 June 78 New Era Dianetics Series 4, Assessment And How To Get The Item.
STEP ONE:
Locate the first incident by the command “Locate a time when you had_____.”
STEP TWO:
“When was it?” You accept any time or date or approximation the pc gives you. Do not attempt any dating drill.
STEP THREE:
Move the pc to the incident with the exact command, “Move to that incident.” (This step is omitted if the pc keeps telling you he is there already.)
STEP FOUR:
“What is the duration of that incident?” Accept any duration the pc gives you or any statement he makes about it. Do not attempt to meter him a more accurate duration.
STEP FIVE:
Move the pc to the beginning of the incident with the exact command: “Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”
STEP SIX:
Ask pc what he or she is looking at with the exact command: “What do you see?” (If the pc’s eyes are open, tell the pc first, “Close your eyes,” acknowledge him quietly for doing so and then give him the command.)
STEP SEVEN:
“Move through that incident to a point (duration pc said) later.”
STEP EIGHT:
Ask nothing, say nothing, do nothing (except observe the meter or make quiet notes) while pc is going through the incident. If pc comments before reaching the end say “OK, continue.”
STEP NINE:
When the pc reaches the end of the incident say only: “What happened?”
Take whatever pc says, acknowledge only as needful. Say nothing else, ask nothing else. When pc has told little or much and has finished talking, give him a final acknowledgement.
If the TA has risen (from its position at Step 1) the auditor immediately checks for an earlier incident (Step G). If no earlier incident, he asks for an earlier beginning to the incident (Step H).
If the TA is the same or lower, he runs the incident through again (Step A).
In going through an incident the second or successive times one does not ask for date and duration or any description.
A. (When the pc has told what happened and the auditor has acknowledged) “Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”
B. “Move through to the end of that incident.”
C. (When the pc has done so) “Tell me what happened.”
Ca. “Is that incident erasing or going more solid?” (TA rising means the incident has gone more solid so the question is unnecessary if TA is higher.)
If the incident is erasing, go through it again (Step D).
If it has gone more solid, ask for an earlier incident (Step G) and if no earlier incident, ask for an earlier beginning (Step H).
D. “Return to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”
E. “Move through to the end of that incident.”
F. “Tell me what happened.”
Fa. “Is that incident erasing or going more solid?” (TA rising means the incident has gone more solid so the question is unnecessary if TA is higher.)
If the incident is erasing, go through it again (Step D).
If it has gone more solid, ask for an earlier incident (Step G) and if no earlier incident, ask for an earlier beginning (Step H).
G. “Is there an earlier incident when you had a (exact same somatic)?”
Continue on down the chain of the SAME somatic using Steps 2-9, A, B. C, D, E, F. G. H. and EYE.
H. “Is there an earlier beginning to this incident?” or “Does the one we are running start earlier?” or “Does there seem to be an earlier starting point to this incident?”
(If not, give command D and put the pc through the incident again. If there is an earlier beginning, give command EYE.)
EYE. “Go to the new beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.” (Followed by B. C.)
When it appears that you have reached the basic incident of the chain and that it is erasing, after each pass through, ask:
“Has it erased?”
The pc sometimes thinks the incident is erasing but it’s not erasing, so you have to go back to your G. H. EYE followed by 2-9, A-EYE. In some cases this can happen several times in one chain.
The postulate coming off is the EP of the chain and means that you have obtained an erasure. This will be accompanied by F/N and VGIs.
Getting the postulate is the important thing. Even if you get an F/N you don’t call the F/N UNTIL you’ve gotten the postulate, at which time you have reached the EP and end off on that chain.
If the pc says the chain has erased, but the postulate made during the time of the incident has not been volunteered by the pc ask:
“Did you make a postulate at the time of that incident?”
Only when the postulate has come off to F/N and VGIs can one consider that the full EP of a Dianetic incident or chain has been reached.
You must recognize what the postulate is when it comes up. If you overrun past the postulate you can really mess a pc up and he may need extensive repair. All you’re trying to get off the line is the postulate. That is what is keeping the chain there.
If the pc has given the postulate to F/N and VGIs, that is it. You have the EP of that chain.
Ordinarily one runs an incident through twice, (Steps 1-9 then A-C), to unburden it and allow the pc to locate earlier incidents on the chain.
However, the TA rising on Step 9 is an indication that there is something earlier. If the auditor observes the TA rising, he should ask the pc if there is an earlier incident, using in the command the exact same somatic or feeling used in Step One. If there is no earlier incident he asks if there is an earlier beginning.
An auditor should never solidify a pc’s bank by putting him through an incident twice, when by observation of the TA it is clear that the incident has gone more solid by the end of the first run through.
Checking for an earlier incident after the first run through (if the TA has risen) is the solution to this.
If, after the second pass through, when you have asked the pc “Is the incident erasing or going more solid?” and the pc doesn’t know or isn’t sure, ask for an earlier incident.
Never ask erasing/solid in the middle of an incident.
If the pc is out of the session, out of the incident, bounces from the incident, etc., you would have to have him or her return to the beginning of the incident and move through the incident, returning the pc to the incident as necessary.
The pc who bounces out of an incident on a “bouncer” has to be put back into the incident and continue running it.
The commands to do this are: As soon as you have seen that the pc has bounced give him command D (“Return to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there.”), followed with E, F. Fa.
Step One and Step G (going earlier) commands for Flows 2, 3 and 0 are:
STEP ONE:
“Locate an incident of your causing another_____ (the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1).”
STEP G:
“Is there an earlier incident of your causing another_____ (the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?”
STEP ONE:
“Locate an incident of others causing others_____ (plural of the somatic or feeling used in Flow 1). “
STEP G:
“Is there an earlier incident of others causing others_____(plural of the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?”
STEP ONE:
“Locate an incident of you causing yourself_____(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1).”
STEP G:
“Is there an earlier incident of you causing yourself_____(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?”
Each of these Step One and Step G commands are run on the full verbatim 1-9, A-EYE steps as given herein.
A narrative item is often run to run out the physical experiences the person has just undergone. This could be for example an accident, illness, an operation or emotional shock.
However, a condition or circumstance without an incident is not narrative. It’s just an incorrect item. An example of this would be trying to run the item, “Obstruction of justice.” It would not run as there is no exact incident there.
Narratives are too often just run through once or twice and abandoned. This, unfortunately, leaves the incident still charged and affecting the pc. A narrative needs to be run and run and run on that one incident. What you are doing is running the incident narrative to erasure and only going earlier similar if it starts to grind very badly.
Most narratives will run out by themselves without going earlier even though it takes a very long time but if you want to change somebody’s life, that’s how you can do it.
When you are running a narrative you always add the known incident to the command.
Using the earlier beginning command in running narratives is essential. For example: If the pc is running out a death of somebody closely related to him you will find that the incident actually started when he heard the phone ring, then, going back earlier to when somebody looked at him peculiarly, etc.
So using the earlier beginning command in narrative running is vital.
The commands for Narrative are:
STEP ONE:
“Return to the time you______(specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”
Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time…”).
Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.
If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use steps D, E, F making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”
STEP ONE:
“Return to the time you caused another to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”
Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time…”).
Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.
If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use Steps D, E, F. making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”
STEP ONE:
“Return to the time others caused others to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”
Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time…”).
Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.
If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use steps D, E, F. making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”
STEP ONE:
“Return to the time you caused yourself to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there.”
Steps 2-9 are followed (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, “Return to the time…”).
Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.
If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C, again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and subsequent runs through the incident use steps D, E, F. making certain to check for earlier beginning after each pass through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, “Is there an earlier similar incident?”
Secondaries are run with the same commands as R3RA. If they are narrative secondaries they are run with the same commands as Narrative R3RA engrams.
The earlier similar command is “Is there an earlier similar incident?”
Always run narrative incidents triple or quad flow as above.
These commands and procedures as given above must be thoroughly drilled with TR 101, 102, 103 and 104 before any Dianetic auditing may be done on a pc.
Pcs can be messed up by incorrect and sloppy commands.
Some pcs run fast and some run slow. An auditor must never rush a pc or hold him up when he is ready to go on with the next command. The auditor must never keep a pc waiting for him while he handles his admin or comm lags before giving the next command.
Timing and speed are especially crucial when the auditor gives the command to move through the incident after having told the pc to move to the beginning of the incident. With a slow command, the pc would wind up halfway through the incident before he receives the command to move through it.
The better an auditor knows his TRs, his process commands, his meter and admin the faster and more accurately he can operate. Speed is very important, especially when auditing fast pcs.
In doing R3RA it is necessary that (a) one chooses things the pc is interested in and (b) one does not force a pc to run things he is protesting being run on.
If you ask if there is an earlier beginning and you have already checked for an earlier incident and the pc says there is no earlier beginning, you do not just walk off from the one he was just running. You send the pc through it again and it will erase with full end phenomena or the pc will then be able to see an earlier incident and continue with the chain.
If you do sloppy R3RA and do one thing after another without getting the full EP of:
1) the actual postulate which will be the erasure,
2) F/N,
3) VGIs,
you will get the pc stuck up on the track. You complete each chain to full EP as above, remembering that when the postulate comes off, THAT is your EP. The chain will have blown.
In running Dianetics you do not stop at the first sign of an F/N, you do not call F/Ns during the running. Dianetics runs only by asking the pc if it is erasing. You ignore F/Ns until the postulate has come off to F/N and VGIs. THEN you call the F/N and that’s it for that chain.
An auditor may occasionally encounter a pc who erases chains before he can even tell about them. Along about Step 3 of R3RA, the TA blows down, the needle F/Ns, the pc says, “It’s gone,” and VGIs come in. This is called blowing by inspection and occurs once in a while with a fast running pc on a light chain.
If it was basic for that chain and the auditor fails to recognize and handle it, the pc will go into another chain or a heavy protest.
An R3RA session can be safely ended on a completed chain that ended with the full Dianetic EP as above stated…
This doesn’t mean the end of all Dianetic auditing. In the next session another assessment will turn up more unwanted feelings, etc.
Dianetics is ended off only when a pc has become well and happy and remains that way.
And there you have it, engram running superior to any engram running ever done and giving superior and faster results.
New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears.
Clears and OTs are to be audited on the Special New Era Dianetics Rundown for OTs, which is available at Advanced Orgs and Flag. (Ref: HCOB 12 Sep 78 Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs.)