Overview of Tech changes during 1978-82 vs A lost Bridge or
When the Route to Freedom was interfered with and
turned upside down (formation of the ‘David Mayo Bridge’) (2) (The matter of Standard Dianetics vs New Era Dianetics investigated)
- Introduction and brief overview of some basic elements from the early days
- The basic ‘Standard Dianetics’ auditing routine (R3R)
- HCOB 14 May 69 II “F/N and Erasure” vs HCOB 1 Aug 70 “same title” - an oddity
- HSDC and HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”
- Reference conversion evolution: ‘Standard Dianetics’ to ‘New Era Dianetics’
- An overview of a few evaluations being offered
- A closer examination (1): “Drop of principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only)”
- A closer examination (2): “Running with minimum TA” vs The significance of getting Tone Arm Action (TA)
Introduction and brief overview of some basic elements from the early days
Standard Dianetics (St Dn) was a reissue of the 1950 Dianetics technique and as such released in April 1969, “reorganized and made more workable.” LRH (from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “VIII Actions”). Standard Dianetics was noBook One auditing as various individuals appear to have assumed. This was a fullfledged auditing procedure complete with full use of the E-meter and all.
A full list of Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course (HSDC) checksheets and related can be found here (separate window).
The following introductory notice appeared in all the Standard Dianetics course releases from 1969:
“Dianetics was launched in May, 1950 with the publication of the book ‘DIANETICS - THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH’ by L. RON HUBBARD. The Standard Dianetic Course is the culmination of 19 years of further experiences with the subject, and the completion of its research by L. Ron Hubbard.
The HUBBARD STANDARD DIANETIC COURSE is a completely new course.
Dianetic Auditors in 1950 were able to produce 50% results on cases. This was much higher than those achieved by any other practice. Today, with Standard Dianetics, a trained auditor can achieve 100% standard results.
Study this course well, for on its completion you will be able to perform undreamed-of miracles.” Tony Dunleavy, CS2* (from [no issue-type given (printed green on white)] 7 May 69 “Introduction”)
An interesting aspect from all courses from that time is that the course checksheets note that it is done “three times through”. For the Standard Dianetics course it is further explained as follows:
“The following study datum has emerged and been proven beyond any question.
NUMBER OF TIMES OVER THE MATERIAL EQUALS CERTAINTY AND RESULTS.
Thus on the Standard Dianetics Course the student is required to go through the checksheet at least 3 times before auditing. If he still can't apply the data with complete certainty, he should go through the materials again and again until he can.” Tony Dunleavy, CS2-Training Aide (from HCOB 8 May 69 “Repetitive Study”)
Then prior to finishing these course checksheets indicated that one was required to have had “25 hours total session in time as an auditor.”. And that “The 25 hours must contain one or more remarkable cases demonstrating changes in the physical condition or well being of preclear or continued with added hours until it does.”. And for a final examination one had to attest that one had acquired “a total certainty Dianetics works must be demonstrated by the cases the student has handled”.
You see, this Dianetic auditing is just not some silly superficial business as the media nowadays persistently seems to claim. It is all about producing results, and the auditing that presents the most obvious and direct results are without any doubt these Dianetics auditing procedures. That is if they are correctly applied.
There was also no prerequisite for this Standard Dianetics course. In these days you could start on it right away as a newcomer into Scientology. Since then matters have changed. During the early 70's already we see that one was only required to study the course checksheet two times through, and by 1976 even this rule was abolished. Since 1971 it added the Student Hat course as a prerequisite for the Dianetics course, but by 1982 you had to do first the Level 0-IV auditor courses (this is 5 courses). Today you first have to go through some 10 study courses before you can start learning about Dianetic auditing techniques that make use of the E-meter.
Needless to say that professional Dianetics auditing training since had gone out of sight!
The basic ‘Standard Dianetics’ auditing routine (R3R)
The basic Standard Dianetics auditing routine had been in use basically since mid ’63. It is generally referred to as Routine 3-R (R3R), defined as ‘Engram Running by Chains’.
The original reference for this routine is:
HCOB 24 Jun AD13 “Routine 3, Engram Running by Chain, Bulletin 3; Routine 3-R, Engram Running by Chains”
The routine as used particularly with Standard Dianetics was completed with the following addition:
HCOB 27 Apr 69 “R-3-R Restated, Commands on Second Run on an Incident”
The full routine then was issued as:
HCOB 6 May 69 II “Routine 3-R Revised, Engram Running by Chains”
It notes: “This bulletin combines HCOB 27 April 1969 ‘R-3-R Restated’ with those parts of HCOB 24 June 1963 ‘Routine 3-R’ used in the new Standard Dianetic Course and its application. This gives the complete steps of Routine 3-R Revised.”.
A full original copy of this reference is made available for download here (separate window).
Since July 1978 it had been replaced with New Era Dianetics (NED). Changes were implemented in this basic routine which is now referred to as Routine 3-RA (R3RA). See later applicable chapters further down on this page for details.
HCOB 14 May 69 II “F/N and Erasure” vs HCOB 1 Aug 70 “same title” - an oddity
The tale of this unfolds such an oddness and inconsistency that I decided to document and share it.
The following is respectively found in a May 1969 HSDC* pack and a 1973 HSDC pack:
1. HCOB 14 May 69 II “F/N and Erasure” (signed with ‘L. Ron Hubbard’)
2. Replaced with HCOB 1 Aug 70 “same title” (signed by ‘CS-4* Tech’, initials ‘JR’)
The latter is factually a rewrite/reissue of the former. This may or may not have been changes forwarded by L. Ron Hubbard. This ‘JR’ appears to identify a Joan Robertson.
The original version of this HCOB as written by L. Ron Hubbard can be consulted in full in link here below: (pop-up window)
A note of explanation has first to be made here. In these early years like 1970 the ‘R’, ‘RA’ revision system had not been established yet (‘R’= revised, ‘RA’= re-revised, etc.). Revisions of references simply received a new issue date, but were nonetheless noting that it replaced/revised previous reference of date so and so.
Therefore if HCOB 14 May 69 II “F/N and Erasure” had been revised/reissued using this system it would have been issued as HCOB 14 May 69R (Revised 1 Aug 70) II “F/N and Erasure”.
The release history of the latter HCOB shows:
HCOB 1 Aug 70 “F/N and Erasure”
BTB 1 Aug 70R (Revised 18 Feb 74) “F/N and Erasure”
HCOB 1 Aug 70RA (Revised 21 Oct 74) “F/N and Erasure”
It being reissued under the BTB issue-type would basically confirm it was not written by L. Ron Hubbard, although we do already know that the original release actually was written by L. Ron Hubbard. Something that is not actually noted in HCOB 1 Aug 70 “F/N and Erasure” itself.
The BTB release on the contrary notes: “Replaces HCO B of 14 May 1969 of the same title which was revised by order of LRH”. Note that it still says “Replaces” which means that the original HCOB from 1969 remained cancelled.
We see that the BTB release carefully indicated the sections/paragraphs of the text where these were written by L. Ron Hubbard, that were copied from the 1969 HCOB text (each of these sections were placed in between quotation marks and followed by “- - LRH.”). This to separate them from the parts that were written and altered by this ‘CS-4 Tech’.
Then 8 months later we see this reference from 1970 again being reissued under the HCOB issue-type. This time the full text appears attributed to L. Ron Hubbard. We find no mention anywhere here anymore of this ‘JR’. There had been an obvious contribution from this person, and therefore, strictly as per the rules, it should have included mention of the involvement of this person, but we see that it does not.
Various observations can be made here regarding BTB 1 Aug 70R “F/N and Erasure”:
(1) the signature is wrong (incorrectly formulated in the signing area) on BOTH the BTB and the original HCOB version;
(2) it should not have been transferred into a BTB, as the original (1969 HCOB) was WRITTEN by LRH, this here ONLY concerned a REVISION of an LRH original this “by order of LRH”;
(3) why, why, oh why, does ONLY the BTB state that is was revised “by order of LRH” and NOT the 1970 HCOB!!!, that.... was issued 3½ years later!!! We thus had to wait 3½ years for getting that information!!;
(4) now, if it indeed was “by order of LRH”, then where did Andrea Lewis and Molly Harlow (that issued the BTB) get this information from (3½ years later!!!) that this was so as it was NOT noted on the original HCOB release;
A next oddity is that BOTH the 1969 and the 1970 releases appear presented in the ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes that were issued in August 1976. We find:
HCOB 14 May 69 II “F/N and Erasure”
in ‘Volume VI, 1965-1969’, see page 373
HCOB 1 Aug 70 “same title”
in ‘Volume VII, 1970-1971’, see page 117
Apparently the ‘replaced’ HCOB 14 May 69 II “F/N and Erasure” had by then been restored to good standing! In spite of this the HSDC checksheets continued to just list only the latter reference, that is until 1978 when neither of them are listed.
A next observation would thus be:
(5) if these changes incorporated in HCOB 14 May 69 II “F/N and Erasure” and reissued as HCOB 1 Aug 70 “F/N and Erasure” all this and this “by order of LRH”, then why, why, why do we find that former HCOB also included in these Technical Volumes?;
(6) rather obviously the latter is a rewrite/reissue of the former, one does certainly not need BOTHof them!! In particular not because they present conflicting information! Now, where is L. Ron Hubbard here? Could no one have consulted with L. Ron Hubbard about which to include and which not??? I would figure that he would have had an interest here!;
(7) if we would assume that Andrea Lewis and Molly Harlow (that issued the BTB) had consulted with L. Ron Hubbard, then we still are facing the problem that 2 conflicting/similar HCOB's were contained in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes. It thus does not look like that they consulted with him, or at least did not get a response back.
Next these references then would both appear valid at least until 1986. Then we find that the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes excluded them BOTH! The fact that they are not listed in there does simply mean that they were cancelled. Although no cancellation information has been found! You see, per the rules there is always some reference that would need to cancel them, and that would explain why they were being cancelled. But no such information is found. It does seem here that both of these references very silently disappeared from the face of the earth!!
It is further noted that the HSDC course checksheet for December 1976 still listed HCOB 1 Aug 70RA “F/N and Erasure” as a *-rated item. We also find it still listed on the checksheet for March 1977 although it is not anymore *-rated. By 1978 Standard Dianetics had been replaced with New Era Dianetics an we see that its course checksheet for July 1978 had removed it from inclusion!
Besides all the above publication information and observed incongruities one would inquire (from a technical perspective) if the 1970 HCOB would be an improvement over the 1969 HCOB? And if there are any possible technical errors found in the 1970 HCOB? Considering that an LRH original had been revised reissued by some other person AND the highly inconsequent publication history. Now, is there a preference?
We find that changes were implemented that affected 2 areas. They are both addressed here below. the remainder of the reference remain pretty much identical.
We can see right away that the latter reference had dropped the first 2 paragraphs. They read:
“It will be found that when an auditor obtains a floating needle (F/N) on locks without erasing the basic on the chain that the manifestation or somatics may recur in minutes, days or years. For they have only keyed out.
It is sometimes risky to audit past an F/N on the same chain. A Scientology auditor never would audit past an F/N. A Dianetic auditor has to recognize that the pc has only run a lock and ask for an early incident.” LRH
This information should not be considered insignificant. If an auditor would not be alerted to this, things could go wrong in session right there. Just understand what it says.
A second observation reveals a sequence change and thus conflicting information.
“Cognitions usually occur immediately after an erasure. They sometimes occur while running the chain. But when they occur with very good indicators the chain is almost always gone.
You can expect the rapid end sequence of 1) Erasure 2) F/N 3) Cognition in a well run Standard Dianetic session.
That's all you really need to know about it in Dianetics.” LRH
“Erasure is almost always preceded with a COGNITION. Cognitions can also occur while running the chain. But when they occur with a real floating needle and very good indicators, you know erasure is occurring. When you see this happening, let the pc cognite. Don't chop his cognition. Let all the bits and pieces blow, or erasure of the picture will not be complete.
In a well run standard Dianetic Session the End Phenomena is the more or less rapid sequence of:
Very Good Indicators
Let the pc have all four.” ‘CS-4 Tech’
A sort of trivial matter actually, because this sequence is of a minor importance as they interchange very rapidly indeed. I received the following response to this:
“Seems to me that someone A=A=Aed in that 1970 version as if the mnemonic ‘F/N, cog, VGIs, Erasure (for Dn) and F/N, cog, VGIs, Release (for Scn)’ of HCOB 20 Feb 70, to the effect that this mnemonic should necessarily also be ‘a sequence of events’. My eye it is. If that was so, then, we actually have someone here proposing that effect precedes cause. (It can happen in planning by product instances but not in Dianetics running.) The only causative element in relation to the rest of the Dn EPs is Erasure!
It is the charge that blows-off the case that allows for the rest of the EPs to appear. To the degree charge is not erased first: None of the rest of the EPs is possible, as these are the results of an erasure.”
An interesting annotation. Although when the erasure is occurring it will switch rapidly with cognitions, insight, moving of the needle and the further erasure till complete erasure. In any case the erasing aspect would get there FIRST and causes the further phenomena, and it is thus not more than logical that it be noted FIRST.
Let it be obvious here that we don't need both of these references, and it does seem that the revision of the original 1969 reference does not really serve a purpose. As it appears, rather a disservice. It also has become clear that the publication history of these references are seriously suspect.
It is interesting to see and have it confirmed that matters this easily could go astray. It had not been caught immediately, and for this reason we see the confusing (and rather strange) treatment of the 1969 HCOB. Why and exactly when had it been restored??? Why do we find BOTH the 1969 AND the 1970 HCOB presented in these Technical Volumes issued in the 70's? And most puzzling may be even the silent unexplained removal of both of these reference by just excluding them from the 1991 release of ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’ volumes!
HSDC and HCOB 24 Jan 77 “Tech Correction Round-up”
Part of the history of Standard Dianetics is discussed in this HCOB. It tells about various Dianetic drills that had fallen into disuse and were reinstated. Further it claims to reinstate the original Standard Dianetics course only to have it replaced just 1½ years later in July 1978 by New Era Dianetics.
Various inconsistencies are being found here. An analysis about this can be consulted at link here below: (separate window)
At the time of its release it was given sufficient attention in the various Scientology periodicals. The below notice is as it is found in ‘The Auditor 150 (US Edition)’, Aug 78, (also ‘The Auditor 146 (UK Edition)’, Aug 78):
——————————————–––– “Good News! Good News! Good News! ——————————————––––
NEW ERA DIANETICS
80% more gain is possible
for all cases!
With NEW ERA DIANETICS cases progress faster, and audit better thereafter in Scientology. It produces better, faster and more lasting results from the beginning right on up the Bridge. It makes all gains attained in Dianetics and Scientology even more pronounced. ...
NEW ERA DIANETICS really terminatedly handles all difficulties.
Incomplete Dianetics cases are a thing of the past.
NEW ERA DIANETICS is really miracle stuff with really miracle results for every case. ...”
‘LRH ED 298 Int’, 19 Sept 78 “A.D. 28, The Year of Technical Breakthroughs” also makes mention of this 80%: “New Era Dianetics has already been released and is internationally reported to be working fabulously well producing 80% more gain.”.
I am not sure how realistic 80% would be, I would say that it is a rather high percentage. One may/would expect some major changes in its procedures. And this we get actually pretty much confirmed by ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech” that notes: “Due to the extensive changes and improvements in Dianetics, ...”. (more quotations from this LRH ED in next section)
This LRH ED also lists in brief “twelve brand new developments” that are “included in NED”. Consult here in below link: (pop-up window).
‘New Era Dianetics’ (NED) knocking out ‘Standard Dianetics’ (St Dn) - A few comments
“Inevitably, when any new approach or process is released, some will instantly assume that all ‘older’ (actually more basic) data has been cancelled. There is no statement to that effect. It is not guessed that this will be assumed and so we could lose an entire subject. ...
This idea that the ‘old’ is always cancelled by anything ‘new’ has its root in the idea that a later order cancels earlier orders, which is true. But orders are one thing and Tech basics another.” LRH
(from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “VIII Actions”)
As a direct consequence of the installment of this New Era Dianetics the thus far in use Standard Dianetics (which is 1950 Dianetics tech, and was reissued as Standard Dianetics in 1969, and had thus been in use during a considerable time), this got knocked out. However never any proper explanation had been given for this! Please realize here that Standard Dianetics got simply WIPED OUT OF EXISTENCE! The question may be asked why it was discontinued? Was it suddenly obsolete?
It had been presented as and was believed to be not much more than a “further refinement of the technology of Dianetics which resulted in New Era Dianetics” (from HCOB 24 Sept 78RA (Re-Revised 31 Mar 81) III “Dianetics Clear”). It should be clearly understood however that it was actually different technology.
In ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech” it was presented as follows:
“NED. (New Era Dianetics). A refinement of all
previous Dianetic techniques from 1950 up to present time
as well as the development of new technique giving much
faster results and far higher gain per hour of auditing and
speedy resolution of Dianetic cases.
Included in NED are twelve brand new developments. They are
all contained in far more detail in the NED HCOBs and
packs. Due to the extensive changes and improvements in
Dianetics, old Dianetic auditors are also training on the
NED Course as it only takes 3 weeks for the able student.”
(Note: A brief summary list of twelve brand new developments are found in the LRH ED, consult here)
This should actually clarify that matter if it was different technology or at least confirming to it having been subjected to “extensive changes”. It should not actually have kicked out Standard Dianetics, but this was accepted because of how it was further presented amongst other in the introduction notices of this LRH ED. We read:
“When I look back and
remember the hundreds and even thousands of hours some
people spent on Book One Dianetics, it's like an old story
half remembered. If one of those 1950 auditors had the
tools of NED they would have been bug-eyed at its fast
results. Even the 1968 Dianetic auditor would have been
incredulous if his preclears had responded with the speed
that NED pcs are achieving. It's probably about 100 to 1. ...
NED is cleaning up anything and everything Book One ever
mentioned with lightning speed.”
These propagandistical presentations in favour of NED, and there were many of them at the time of its release, were more than sufficient to have Standard Dianetics labeled as exactly that... obsolete. Matters were thus assumed, accepted, and finally adopted as such. Authority has thus spoken.
I may however wonder if these people are familiar with what it says for example in HCO PL 17 Jun 70 “Technical Degrades”. It makes for interesting reading.
(a) ‘Standard Dianetics’ (1969) vs ‘New Era Dianetics’ (1978) - A comparison and study
Reference conversion evolution: ‘Standard Dianetics’ to ‘New Era Dianetics’
To make this conversion work you then have to take the original Standard Dianetics references and where necessary you have to rework them to adapt them to the New Era Dianetics auditing technique and routine. Interesting is that the original references were simply cancelled and reworked/revised reissued under a new reference date. To make some sense out of it HCOB 2 Aug 78 “Cancellation of Issues” was issued. This HCOB listed which the original references were being replaced with.
We see that it even lists amongst other 6 BTB's that were either cancelled/replaced with various issues in the NED Series. The reference that laid out the main auditing routine HCOB 26 Jun 78RA (Revised 15 Sept 78) II “Routine 3RA, Engram Running by Chains” canceled and replaced BTB 6 May 69RA II “Routine 3R Revised, Engram Running by Chains”. We see that it was given a new date.
But not enough with that as this reference also lists another 10 now cancelled HCOB's written by L. Ron Hubbard during 1969-70. This HCOB 2 Aug 78 itself is presented in ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology: Volume XI, 1976-1978’ (1979 release), but it is not found anymore in the 1991 release of these same volumes. Then considering that the Qual Libraries these days do not maintain or service any old materials, it has also become a sheer impossibility for people, that do not have the old materials at home or some place, to check upon, compare or verify anything. (more about Qual Libraries, what it is for, and its signficance can be found here, separate window)
A full list of the references that were cancelled and which reference(s) replaced them as per this aforementioned HCOB can be consulted in the link here below: (pop-up window)
It rounds up the modifications in the following 3 points:
Redefinition of erasure i.e. postulate off=erasure
Redefinition of somatics
Drop of principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only) running with minimum TA
The data found at this link may further suggest that there is this possibility that NED is just (more or less) a repackaged reissue of Standard Dianetics (without any major changes), which is then presented as something new solely for the sake of having something to merchandize (create a selling argument). Keeping in mind that minor technical changes may (or may not) cause grave differences in auditing results.
Further is known to me is a query to the various points made in this previous evaluation:
I present these overviews as-is. They discuss some technical matters, which you may or may not be familiar with. It be noted that this second author does address the 3 points, although he fails to adequately account for the consequence of “running with minimum TA”.
This same site (found at last link) also gives elsewhere a brief historical introductory note with reference to NED. The particular noteworthy part is: “[In] 1978 Standard Dianetics was superseded by New Era Dianetics (NED). It is quite questionable how much of this is ‘original LRH’ if you take into account that the content of several of the so-called HCOBs had been in BTBs before.” (source, external link). If this author asks this question then we should remember: “But it remains that if in its formative stages it was not discovered by a group, then group efforts, one can only assume, will not add to it or successfully alter it in the future.” LRH (from HCO PL 7 Feb 65 “Keeping Scientology Working”), which urges us to be careful! On the other hand BTB's have been in use for quite a while. What we should be watchful for is new creations of tech that were not there or in use before, and in particular violation of earlier established basics.
Then there exists a third evaluation which is offered by Andreas Gross. If favours Standard Dianetics and places various flaws at the address of New Era Dianetics. It has been written by an independent Scientologist and is almost entirely written in the German language. Recently, in early 2015, this has been updated and translated into English. I also did receive permission from the author to host this evaluation. Consult at link here below: (pdf-file)
It would thus appear that at least some persons have occupied themselves with battling how to interpret all these things, or ... are trying to fit the incidence of this New Era Dianetics into their already formed frame of mind, and that thus will justify it. One should think this one over carefully though. To date (Aug 2015) these evaluations (including mine) are still the only more serious overviews regarding Standard Dianetics versus New Era Dianetics that are about! It really thus does appear that most people don't bother (or don't understand the significance) of having actual correct technology or not, as they have continued to accept New Era Dianetics and that Bridge that came about during 1978-82 without much critique or consideration.
Now, while going over the available data and the forwarded evaluations it seems rather obvious that the most significant point is “3. Drop of principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only) running with minimum TA”. Therefore one should examine this very closely. I break this down in 2 parts:
A closer examination (1): “Drop of principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only)”
A closer examination (2): “Running with minimum TA” vs The significance of getting Tone Arm Action (TA)
A closer examination (1): “Drop of principle of unburdening (going through incidents once only)”
It is basically an interference with one of the steps (Step Nine) of something that is known as Routine 3-R (R3R), Engram Running by Chain procedure (it became R when it was Revised, adjusted “to fit in with other modern processes”, ref. HCOB 24 Jun 63). It is a standard routine that is used when processing a person with the Standard Dianetics technique. An issue release list can be consulted here below: (pop-up window)
From this we can track its history and source. Also we see that the main procedure reference changed date various times.
Prior to this Step Nine being interfered with we had this reference from April 1969 in use. It went like this:
“If you run a lock, secondary or engram through TWICE and it does not erase, you ask for an earlier similar incident related to the somatic being handled.
If a mental image picture goes more solid on the second pass through, an earlier similar incident must be found.
Eventually you will find a basic incident that will erase. It will be the earliest on the chain. ...
The rule is invariable—IF IT ISN'T ERASING OR IS GOING MORE SOLID AFTER TWICE THROUGH GET AN EARLIER INCIDENT RELATING TO THE ASSESSED SOMATIC AND RUN IT.” LRH (from HCOB 23 Apr 69 II “Dianetics, Erasure, How to Attain”)
This is all rather clear and straightforward. Take heed that this HCOB itself also makes the notice: “This was a very essential part of R-3-R but was somehow omitted from some
descriptions of the procedure.” LRH. This notice should not be overlooked or forgotten.
A modification into this step of the routine appears first implemented in HCOB 26 Jun 78RA (Revised 15 Sept 78) “Routine 3RA, Engram Running by Chains”, and by this time the previous in use procedure from HCOB 23 Apr 69 II “Dianetics, Erasure, How to Attain” was taken out of use and physically canceled by HCOB 2 Aug 78 “Cancellation of Issues”. Whereas HCOB 26 Jun 78RA just referenced to a: HCOB 23 Apr 69R II “Dianetics, Erasure, How to Attain”. Meaning a revision of the original L. Ron Hubbard reference. This should be interesting reading, however a copy of this very reference I have been unable to locate. As a side note, today there is no such R reference in use anywhere, and subsequently reference to it had been removed in the 8 April 1988 reissue of HCOB 26 Jun 78RA “Routine 3RA, Engram Running by Chains”.
Please contact me if you have a copy of either HCOB 23 Apr 69R II “Dianetics, Erasure, How to Attain” and/or HCOB 2 Dec 69R “Rising TA”.
We find a large section (2 whole pages) of text newly implemented at Step Nine in this new reference from September 1978 (this replaced the previous procedure from HCOB 23 Apr 69 II). The 1978 reference explains:
“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.” (from HCOB 26 Jun 78RA (Revised 15 Sept 78) “Routine 3RA, Engram Running by Chains”)
We can see from this that these routines are essentially different techniques. We can also understand that one can not be a trained Standard Dianetics Auditor and a trained New Era Dianetics Auditor at the same time. Because one will mix up these 2 routines sooner or later!
Now look closely for a moment, this modified Step Nine of the R3RA procedure ( New Era Dianetics auditing routine) introduced a conditional, which is “if the TA has risen”. A direct consequence of this is that one is “running with minimum TA”. A result of this is that one is risking not discharging incidents, before going on to the next, because of too little TA. (I address this in section “c)”, next section)
An argument had been forwarded in favour of New Era Dianetics, and that proposes that this “new NED rule is not so new after all” and that “going through incidents once only” would be “in accordance with earlier tech”. In support for this reference is made to a lecture from L. Ron Hubbard that he gave in June 1963. The applicable paragraph reads:
“But to finish this incident off, just move them through it again. They'll pick up some more stuff. That's the time they're going to tell you there's something earlier. And it doesn't much matter how many times you run them through an incident. Less than twice is suspect. That's maybe a little careless. But might very well—if the thing appeared to be awful gummy, and so forth, and messed up—once would be plenty. There's where judgment comes in. More than twice? Well, you're getting into questionable ground—very questionable ground. Trying to chug them into it and make them have more view of it or more picture or get more event out of it or do something else with it than they can do at that particular time? Nah! Verboten. It'll turn up in an earlier incident or you got no business running engrams. That's all there is to that.” LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #272, renumbered 1991: #300 “Engram Running Chain”, given on 11 Jun 63)
Alright, we should have some perspective here. What we are facing here is that L. Ron Hubbard did not turn it into a standard procedure. As such it never materialized in directing such through a release in an HCOB. We don't find it in the main references concerning the Standard Dianetics auditing routine (R3R) issued shortly after that lecture was given, which are HCOB 24 Jun 63 (AD13) “Routine 3, Engram Running by Chain, Bulletin 3; Routine 3-R, Engram Running by Chains” and HCOB 1 Jul 63 (AD13) “Routine 3R, Bulletin 4, Preliminary Step”.
You see, a lecture is just a lecture, it is a telling. They are not on the same level as HCOB's. Rather applicable here is also Seniority of Orders: “HCO Bulletins are senior to all other orders in tech” LRH (from HCO PL 9 Aug 72). Obviously HCOB's then are senior to tape recordings. HCOB's have precedence! And it was still not made part of standard procedure in 1969 for which we have the release of HCOB 23 Apr 69 II “Dianetics, Erasure, How to Attain”. We find that it was not implemented into the standard procedure as released in HCOB's from 1963, and not either 6 years later in 1969, but it was suddenly implemented in 1978 as part of the new NED technique that focuses entirely on it (thus 15 years later). Now, it this a turning away from basics?
“The basics and fundamentals are stated early in the period of development and have not changed.” LRH (from HCOB 12 Jun 70 “Programming of Cases”)
Please mind again that HCOB 23 Apr 69 II “Dianetics, Erasure, How to Attain” also had commented: “This was a very essential part of R-3-R but was somehow omitted from some
descriptions of the procedure.” LRH. Today (since 1978) it is omitted once again and this with permission, hence the cancellation of this reference.
It could be perceived here that this change in Step Nine of the Standard Dianetics auditing routing (R3R) actually added a complexity, which is subjected to interpretation by the auditor (“There's where judgment comes in.”, quote from that 1963 lecture). This may not have judged being a favourable situation by L. Ron Hubbard, as an inexperienced auditor was actually risking to not actually discharge an incident and instead just go on to the next. For which reason he did not turn it into a standard routine of action. And this is fully confirmed by the published record of references until 1978.
A further argument would urge us to establish how often this “—if the thing appeared to be awful gummy, and so forth, and messed up—”, how often this would occur in session? As I am confided by various persons this is rather seldom. This is therefore another reason to not have it implemented as part of a standard procedure. And it wasn't, at least not until 1978, a whole 15 years later.
A little additional notice:
“The 1969 Dianetics Reorganization refined the 1962-63 discoveries of R-3-R. A better communication was made to the user and the preclear.” LRH
(from HCOB 30 Jun 70R (Revised 6 Mar 73) “VIII Actions”)
Finally leading up to:
“So technical progress has been:
COMPLETE DIANETICS - 1969.
COMPLETE SCIENTOLOGY - 1970.” LRH
(from ‘LRH ED 117 Int’, 26 Aug 70 “Current Cases”)
Now to sum this one up. Does it justify the reverting back of the NED technique to this little line from a lecture from 1963? As much as some people want this to be so, this just does not appear to be the case. But we are not actually ready here yet, as the modification to “going through incidents once only” had another consequence, which is that it lead to “running with minimum TA”, and this may very well have been the ruling contributing factor why L. Ron Hubbard did not actually made it part of a standard procedure.
(see further section “c)”)
A notice about the publication ‘Science of Survival’ (1951) regarding this matter
Now, concerning actual “judgment” it would be applicable to point out here the significance of the book publication ‘Science of Survival: Simplified, Faster, Dianetic Techniques’ (August 1951, first issued as a limited manuscript 2 months earlier). The subtitle later changed to ‘Prediction of Human Behaviour’, and this actually is a rather accurate circumscription of the purpose of the book. You see, the book came with a chart (‘Hubbard Chart of Human Evaluation and Dianetic Processing’). If the information as forwarded in the book was well understood and applied it allowed you to pinpoint a person on that chart, you determined that person's tone (as in the Tone Scale).
We find for example in the book “No engrams must be run on individuals who are below 2.0 on the tone scale whether they are accessible or inaccessible save in those rare instances when the file clerk insists on presenting an engram, and they must be run then only with the gravest caution, and they must not be run even then if the auditor considers himself inexperienced.” LRH (see Book Two; Chapter 13 “Column AI, Engrams”; page 190 in Nov 67 edition). Which specifies if one should be too careful or less careful, or not run at all.
The chart accompanying the book lists 43 columns. If you go to the section indicated as columns ‘AE’ to ‘AJ’ you will find they have the heading title ‘Types of Entheta* Which Can Be Run’. They list:
(consult this section of the chart in detail here, pop-up window)
From this follows that being careful actually can be interpreted as first locating the person on that scale, and from that you know which action can safely be run on that person. From this information on this table you will then know when you have to be careful, or when you can just use an unvaried and standard procedure. Which was accounted for and ordained by HCOB 23 Apr 69 II “Dianetics, Erasure, How to Attain” as follows:
“The rule is invariable—IF IT ISN'T ERASING OR IS GOING MORE SOLID AFTER TWICE THROUGH GET AN EARLIER INCIDENT RELATING TO THE ASSESSED SOMATIC AND RUN IT.” LRH
It would seem then that the New Era Dianetics technique in its Routine 3 (R3RA), Step Nine does not appear to make use of the information as forwarded in the book ‘Science of Survival’. As this new technique directs you to every single time to check for “if the TA has risen”.
A closer examination (2): “Running with minimum TA” vs The significance of getting Tone Arm Action (TA)
Thus HCOB 26 Jun 78RA (Revised 15 Sept 78) “Routine 3RA, Engram Running by Chains” had forwarded this modified Step Nine of the original R3R procedure as follows: “Checking for an earlier incident after the first run through (if the TA has risen) is the solution to this.”.
Which is introducing the conditional “if the TA has risen” with the consequence that one is “running with minimum TA”, and thus may not discharge incidents before going on to the next. There are some particular references from L. Ron Hubbard that address this matter of the significance of actually getting TA and it being related to getting results.
To properly understand the significance of getting TA requires that one has a good understanding of what TA (Tone Arm Action) actually is and stands for. For this reason I offer here below a selection of quotations. This will give some idea of its boundaries.
Tone Arm Action (TA) quotations:
“This tone arm—this thing over here on the upper—upper-left side of the meter. ... And its read is monitored for the body. It reads the body.
When a person is Clear you're not reading him; the E-Meter ceases to read.” LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #1 “E-Meter Talk and Demo”, given on 7 May 61)
“The Tone Arm registers Density of Mass (ridges, pictures. machines, circuits) in the mind of the preclear. This is actual mass, not imaginary, and can be weighed, measured by resistance, etc. Therefore the Tone Arm registers State of Case at any given time in processing. The Tone Arm also registers advance of case during processing by moving. An unmoving case has an unmoving Tone Arm. A moving case has a moving Tone Arm.” LRH (from ‘E-Meter Essentials’ (1961), page 9)
“The TA is indicating the blowing off of force. That is a measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case—the amount of encysted force leaving the case. You've got a measure of it right there. It goes up and down, and it measures the amount of force which is going.” LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #291, renumbered 1991: #320 “Auditing Comm Cycle”, given on 6 Aug 63)
“Now, this tone arm is the instrument which measures the adequacy of restimulation. That shows you that an adequate amount of charge is being restimulated in the session and that it is being adequately dispelled on the itsa* line. And this shows you that the cycle of whatsit-itsa is in progress, and the amount of restimulation is adequate to get auditing done.” LRH
(from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #295, renumbered 1991: #324 “The Tone Arm”, given on 15 Aug 63)
“Tone Arm Action denotes a change and, therefore, that case gain for the preclear is occurring.”
(from ‘Scientology Abridged Dictionary’ (1965))
“Do you see that your tone arm, the tone arm, is, in actual fact, the measure of accumulation of charge? The needle surges are just gradients of the tone arm. You can get a tone arm actually behaving like a needle. And a tone arm over a long period of time, does behave like a needle. A tone arm measures the amount of charge-up on the case at that particular time.” LRH
(from Class VIII Course lecture #6 “Mechanics of Techniques and Subject Matter”, given on 29 Sept 68)
“A technical term for the quantitative measurement of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time.”
(from Introduction to Scientology Ethics: Glossary (70's edition), page 38)
This should make things clear that one needs to get sufficient with TA on a person if you are going to be able to run out any incidents. Therefore running with minimum TA will complicate matters. It is thus vital to get adequate Tone Arm Action on a person. A guide for this can be found in HCOB 25 Sept 63 “Adequate Tone Arm Action”. L. Ron Hubbard states “Now that it has been established fully that a pc’s gain is directly and only proportional to Tone Arm Action, the question of how much Tone Arm Action is adequate must be answered.”. And he directs: “Tone Arm action is measured by DIVISIONS DOWN PER 2½ hour session or per hour of auditing.”. A table is presented in this HCOB that looks as follows:
“Amount Per Session
L. Ron Hubbard then directs: “Anything from 10 Divs to 0 Divs of Down Tone Arm for a 2½ hour session is something to do something about. One gets very industrious in this range.”.
Reflect now on the following which has been proposed to me:
“The most important difference between St Dn and NED is the amount of Tone Arm Action you get off with each: it is very high with St Dn (usually above 25 TA (divs) per 2.5 Hrs auditing) and very low with NED: often only 5 TA or less, which Ron calls harmful auditing, as it restimulates more than it erases.
I would not object to going E/S (earlier similar) when the TA rises by 1.0 or more, but this happens very seldom. NED violates the original auditors code: per this code one repeats a process so long as it releases TA and one changes the action when TA diminishes. This was applied especially on St Dn and got lost with NED.
So with St Dn you really dig out the pcs out of their case and with NED you put them in! One phenomenon proves this easily: NED pcs tend to run the same half dozens incidents again and again independent of the auditing command or item you assessed. This is an indicator of incidents not fully erased. And thus the mind protects itself and does not present many new incidents. - This can easily be observed by NED-auditors, but they usually don't pull the string.
On St Dn you usually run different incidents with every new session. Only rarely happens, that incidents are run again and again: and in these cases there is something wrong: wrong flow, wrong date or such and when you find that, also these incidents diminish.”
As these are technical matters, require a certain expertise and experience with handling an E-meter this you have to verify for yourself.
“The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to get Tone Arm Action. Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action. Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA NOW.
Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action.
1. Get good Tone Arm Action.
2. Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action.” LRH
(from HCOB 1 Oct 63 “How to Get Tone Arm Action”)
(b) ‘Originating a postulate’ (1969) as opposed to ‘Digging for a postulate’ (1978)
This could be said to be a rather essential difference between Standard Dianetics and New Era Dianetics. The significance of postulates has been pounded upon since at least as early as November 1951. We find lectures with titles like for example “Basic Postulates” and “Prime Thought” (both given on 12 Nov 51).
These fundamentals we find published in ‘Advanced Procedure and Axioms’ (Nov 51) in chapter “Postulates”: (only a selection is reproduced here from this chapter)
“A postulate is that self-determined thought which starts, stops or changes past, present or future efforts.
Postulates alone aberrate the individual. ...
Old people are generally considered to be set in their ways. It would be more accurate to say that they were set in their own postulates.
It is necessary to make postulates. To make postulates and handle them, it is necessary to handle past postulates. A postulate may spring from past effort or prime thought. A prime postulate is the decision to change from a state of not beingness to a state of beingness. ...
Postulates, whenever made, are responsible for the condition of the pre-clear, bad or good. ...
Postulates made by a pre-clear are a pattern. It is necessary to reach the earliest postulates by touching the later ones and running them back with straight-wire.
Postulates surrender just like any other lock, or, in engrams, just like any other perception in an engram.” LRH
And directing in 1963:
“..., it became apparent that three types of charge existed in a GPM.
1. Charge as an engram.
2. Charge as Reliable Items.
3. Charge as postulates.
All three must be removed from a GPM.
Any incident, wherever it is on the track, contains postulates (comments, considerations, directions) made by the pc at that time.
Thus in all incidents the pc's postulates must be called for and removed.” LRH
(from HCOB 20 Aug 63 “R3R – R3N, The Preclears Postulates”)
The basic mechanism in regards to auditing out postulates then was outlined as follows: (underlining is mine)
“Behind most postulates, however, is an enormous amount of effort and emotion which may have to be run before the postulate can be contacted; or on occasion the effort may be run simultaneously with the postulates. Often, merely contacting the postulate collapses the emotion and effort tied into it.
If a postulate does not de-sensitize on first recall, … . Help the preclear to recall a decision again and again, or try to get an earlier one on the same subject. If he does not experience relief, there is an even earlier one on the same subject. Later postulates are lying as a sort of burden on the earlier ones.” LRH
(from ‘The Dianetic Auditor's Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 6’, Dec 51)
“Thus if you run out the force the words drop into insignificance. This is often how the pc gets cognitions: the words and meaning concealed in the engram are changing value and devaluating. The pc can then think clearly again on a subject previously pinned down by the force. Get the force out and the words take care of themselves and need no special handling.” LRH
(from HCOB 16 Jun 70, C/S Series 6 “What the C/S Is Doing”)
“Goals” and the “mechanics of an engram”
“... the goal is the prime postulate. It is the prime intention. It is a basic purpose ...” LRH
Sound snippet (0:10)
“A guy has an engram. He was in an automobile accident. ‘What was your—what was your postulate? What were your—what was your goal, idea …’ and so forth. Immediately at the beginning of that accident, that will be the goal for that period of time. And any way the goal is not executed will be an alter-isness which creates a solidity, and that is the mechanics of an engram. That is how an engram suspends in space. It is the alter-ised prime postulate. And any alter-isness of that goal, you could call it, brings about a suspension of mass. The only way you get mass is by alter-isness.
Now, there it applies to an engram. I don't—I don't invite you to take engrams apart that way, because you're going to miss here and there. You'd have to do a little Goals Assessment at the beginning of the engram, don't you see, and work it out. Possibly you'd get away with it, but it might be so far—he might have been so far out of valence at the time the thing occurred, and it might have been such an automaticity of circuitry, that you might have a goal which, if it were the wrong goal... See, you might not be able to reach his actual postulate, and if you listed for that little engram—the wrong goal—if you listed the wrong one, you would get a further solidification of the engram.” LRH
Sound snippet (1:32)
Considering and pounded upon:
“And getting a wrong goal is so appalling, listing a wrong goal is such a wrongness, that you'll wish to God you'd never begun it by the time you wind up on it because you're going to throw the pc into fits.” LRH
Sound snippet (0:17)
“You list a wrong goal and you've had it. That is to say, the pc isn't going to die or go insane, but—on your hands—but he's liable to get awful sick. And he's liable to get dizzy. He's liable to feel quite spinny. Listing a wrong goal is not just agin the doctrine of Scientology, but it's agin the mechanics of the pc's bank.” LRH
Sound snippet (0:30)
(all above snippets from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #160, renumbered 1991: #170 “How to Do a Goals Assessment”, given on 12 Jun 62)
This particular lecture is about auditors that are running off prepared lists of goals on their preclears, which process is referred to as Routine 3GA. But it doesn't really matter who originated the goal or the postulate. If the wrong one is taken we will see the same phenomena as this is about the mechanics of that bank (reactive mind). Mind also that these various Routine 3 processes are actually about finding goals. The Standard Dianetics routine is referred to as a Routine 3R process (R3R).
The clear advice thus given in this lecture is:
“So you're not fooling with something with Routine 3—any of the Routine 3 processes.” LRH
Sound snippet (0:06)
All this in essence deems the technique of New Era Dianetics, which primary and pretty much only concern is to find postulates (ref. HCOB 16 Sept 78 “Postulate Off Equals Erasure”), into a possibly very risky routine indeed. Not only because engrams have charge as well. More seriously is that only when the engram has been pulled and the force has been lead out of it, the correct postulate would then reveal itself. In this sense the technique of New Era Dianetics could be seen as reverse tech. All will go well if you pull the right items, but according to SHSBC lecture: “How to Do a Goals Assessment” (12 Jun 62) you have no way of knowing that for sure if you don't go about it the correct way by means of a straight-wire.
And thus the Standard Dianetics technique is thorough, stable and certain, whereas with New Era Dianetics you seem to be fishing. One understands here why New Era Dianetics would be faster as it doesn't follow the routine as Standard Dianetics does. But then again, if you don't pull the right postulate and all that, you then will be further away from home and the preclear won't get anywhere. This largely is also pending the actual skill of the auditor. If a lesser experienced and/or somewhat unskilled NED auditor makes a miss, it may be troublesome to spot or correct. Whereas this is rather easily caught, picked up and corrected or can even be avoided altogether with Standard Dianetics. Although a very skilled and experienced auditor could get away with even New Era Dianetics, but it would be because of applying basic auditing skills down cold (the auditor routine) and not because of the New Era Dianetics routine.
Now, if you teach the preclear (and the auditor), that this postulate is one of the indicators of the end of chain and the end phenomena of the session, then you will be putting a lot of attention on this. Then when the preclear has a hard time to face some early incident, he would be lured into looking for a postulate to escape the charge of that incident.
To which the auditor thus is prone to succor. And when the preclear then grabs something to escape and it is the wrong item, this could do him in very heavily. It would be advised here that one runs Standard Dianetics without any attention on the postulate or cognitions, as they would simply appear when the charge of the incident/engram comes off.
HCOB 16 Sept 78 “Postulate Off Equals Erasure” notes in its final sentence: “It's the POSTULATE we are going for in New Era Dianetics.”. Well, this is old news. It has ALWAYS been about the postulate, in 1951 Dianetics, in Standard Dianetics, but ... you have to arrive at in the correct way, and pull all other charge that you come across as well! This sentence in this HCOB seems to suggest as if this would be something new! As if Standard Dianetics doesn't pull postulates! Well, that just ISN'T true! Nonetheless various persons have approached me about exactly that, making that very suggestion, and they were trained NED auditors. Ah, well ...
Now, considering the data forwarded in this (b) section. Well, how the hell could NED happen and be accepted? Just like that? Was everyone asleep? Or were they all sheep? Ah, that rhymes too ...
(c) Final observations for the defence of the ‘Standard Dianetics’ technique
There are a few more things to say about the actual differences between Standard Dianetics and New Era Dianetics. I originally got onto this research track while having discussed the matter with Scientology old-timers (various were Class VI or VIII auditors). People that first had learned and used the technique of Standard Dianetics and that only later were taught (if at all) the technique of New Era Dianetics.
A valid objection that can be made against New Era Dianetics is that it is not very flexible. The basic layout of NED is that it is running a variety of rundowns and for all makes use of an array of standardized lists (listing). Standard Dianetics here is rather different because it is much more broad. The auditing procedures can be measured and adjusted to the needs of that person you are auditing. From this follows that the auditor requires to have observation skills and intelligence. Standardized lists like the ones used in NED will not work equally well on all. Then considering that no person's case is the same to another person's case. These then could work as actual limitations. Running lists can thus miss the case by a mile, but it can also overrun it.
An old-timer Class VIII auditor confided to me that narrative chains could not effectively be run with NED because of its inflexibility. She went even that far as to say that some chains can only be run out with St Dn.
A general response of lesser trained auditors is that it would be easier to run with NED. Experienced (high trained) auditors usually tell me that it is instead much easier to run with St Dn. In reality however the take from the inexperienced beginning auditor would be rather misleading. The principle of St Dn is more simple, and in comparison it is more probable that you go wrong with NED as you tend to run on an automatic (using lists).
Until 1982 you were first taught Dianetics. After that you first did the Auditor Classes (Levels), and it was not until Level III that you learned the technique of auditing by lists and assessments.
NED auditors use lots of assessments, pre-assessments etc., and lists. So NED requires the higher techniques taught on Level III and new auditors would be overwhelmed by that, but since 1982 you are first taught the Levels (0-IV) and only after completing that start on the NED auditing course.
We are facing an altered sequence here, St Dn was prior to 1982 your starting auditing course. Then since 1982 Level 0 would basically be your starting auditing course (followed by Level I to IV). At such time (since 1982) when you would enroll on your Dianetics (NED) course you already had received a portion auditor training.
‘New Era Dianetics’ can not be run on Clears, but it can with ‘Standard Dianetics’
There is however an additional and indeed a very interesting consequence of this New Era Dianetics. It was in ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78) that we find the date 30 July 1978 for the official release of New Era Dianetics. And then only 6 weeks after that official release we are suddenly being informed about:
“New Era Dianetics or any Dianetics is NOT to be run on Clears or above or on Dianetic Clears. ...
Anyone who has purchased NED auditing who is Clear or above must be routed to an AO or Flag to receive the special NED Rundown for OTs. They are NOT to be run on regular New Era Dianetics.” LRH (from HCOB 12 Sept 78 “Dianetics Forbidden on Clears and OTs”)
Which is explained with:
“An attempt to run NED on an OT resulted in a phenomenon which caught my attention, and on further investigation brought to light the fact that you cannot run NED, or any Dianetics for that matter, on a Clear (Dianetic or Scientology Clear) or above.” (from ‘LRH ED 298 Int’, 19 Sept 78 “A.D. 28, The Year of Technical Breakthroughs”)
“New Era Dianetics cannot be run on Clears or above without serious consequences to the body particularly when New Era Dianetics is run wrong and upside down. Below that grade New Era Dianetics can be run safely and beneficially.” David Mayo, Flag Senior C/S
(from ‘Source 18’, Nov-Dec 78, page 11)
“In 1978 I discovered that it was deadly to go on running Dianetics on a Dianetic Clear.” (from ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”)
Now if it was “deadly to go on running Dianetics on a Dianetic Clear”, then we may safely assume this would have been found out about at a much earlier date. For this reason we may presuppose that here is referred to running New Era Dianetics. Either way this generalizing guideline of not being allowed to run “any”Dianetics on Clears (or OT's for that matter) would however clash considerably with HCOB 24 May 69 “The Difficult Case” and HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams”. These references direct and confirm that there would be no particular problem with running Dianetics on Clears. Physical pain or discomforts are associated with and are considered stemming from the reactive mind. A Clear would not have this reactive mind anymore. If however such a person was found to have such physical discomforts (somatics), it was then directed by these references to run Dianetics to have it resolved. In these, to this day fully valid HCOB's, it is explained and regarded as a skipped gradient, and therefore it is adjudicated: → back to Dianetics → run the somatic flat → back to Scientology processing.
“The ‘out grade’ is in fact Dianetics, failure to use it before going on to Scientology.” LRH (from HCOB 1 May 69 “Grinding Out Engrams”)
Further quotations from these 2 here above mentioned references, additional related information and more references can be consulted at the link here below:
So, we can positively conclude here that what was being run was New Era Dianetics and notStandard Dianetics. It says this also specifically in the various available documentation. Nonetheless it concludes that “NED, or any Dianetics” can not be run. Standard Dianetics had never given any particular difficulties, please identify that these started when NED was being run! Or are we may be to presuppose that NED processing did something to the preclear, and that thereafter one can not run Standard Dianetics either anymore? The correctness of this presupposition is however rather unlikely. Either way this observation alone that NED was being run would thus indicate or point a finger at that something would be considerably different from Standard Dianetics that had given no cause for particular problems in the past. And consequently also would point a finger at a probable ineffectiveness of NED, as somatics remain. Hence the creation of New Era Dianetics for OT's (NOT's).
This generalization exercised of placing New Era Dianetics on the same level as Standard Dianetics is rather noteworthy considering my here above account of the happenings that led to this very decision of kicking Standard Dianetics.
As an interesting side note I will quote here an additional section from ‘LRH ED 301 Int’, 17 Dec 78 “Ron's Journal 30, 1978—The Year of Lightning Fast New Tech”. It says:
“Of course, when somebody
goes Dianetic Clear, he can't be run on more engrams,
right? Right! So it's forbidden now to run NED on
Now, this would be quite a reason to knock off running NED on Clears. I find this line being a bit nonsensical. It may be assumed here that, because of the supposed effectiveness of the NED procedure, that no engrams could be located anymore? Still this would be no reason to forbid running NED on Clears. In addition NED for OT's (NOT's) was developed for handling somatics on Clears and OT's. Thus I fail to make any sense of that quotation from that LRH ED.
You see, engrams can always be run, i.e. if they appear. Dianetic Clear means only that a person has handled all engrams that were affecting that person in present time. Later however when the person goes through life engrams with a different content may start affecting the person. At which time these engrams are now in reach of the person and they can now as well be run out. That line in that LRH ED thus doesn't make any sense at all!
Finally we may also suggest to ask David Mayo about this, as after all he was a first witness of the matter. In a series of lectures in where he reminisces his encounters with L. Ron Hubbard. He said the following about the birth of NOT's on 11 November 1984:
“I was taken into the house, which was the house where LRH was living. And, I was told that LRH had gotten quite ill and that they were concerned about whether he was going to live or not. And, that was why I was there. And he'd been being audited at that time by s.., part of that, just part of that time being audited by another Sea Org member.
And this was in 1978, and if you recall NED or New Era Dianetics had been released in 1978 in about the middle of the year. And what had been going on was that after the release of NED, he'd be getting NED auditing. And he'd had several months of NED auditing and had become quite physically incapacitated during the course of this NED auditing. And then I had been called in to, you know, find out what was wrong, and solve it and so on. And it was from that, basically from that, that the rule came out that Clears shouldn't be audited on engrams. Because that was the main reason why he had gotten ill.” David Mayo
Sound snippet (1:15)
It should be fairly clear now. This L. Ron Hubbard did not receive any Standard Dianetics, he received NED! Strictly taken this however should not have resulted in the guiding rule “that Clears shouldn't be audited on engrams”! After all, New Era Dianetics (NED) auditing had caused it, and not Standard Dianetics.
Another that has to be forwarded here is that one may seriously wonder why this L. Ron Hubbard (1) would have been audited “several months” on Dianetics (in this case New Era Dianetics), because was he not Clear already?; and (2) when you are Clear this basically would mean that you from there on out would be Solo auditing. This all urges us to consider if the person receiving this NED auditing actually was Clear, and if in fact this was L. Ron Hubbard and not some other person. You see, David Mayo is not asking these questions that I am asking here! So, (1) why didn't he ask this L. Ron Hubbard why he was running NED?; and (2) he fails to investigate or determine exactly what had caused this person to “become quite physically incapacitated”, and it couldn't have been Standard Dianetics simply because that was not being run!
A further minor but not insignificant observation can be found in the link here below: (separate window)
Indication that New Era Dianetics (and not Standard Dianetics) would have caused the guideline that Dianetics is not run on Clears, and thus called into being New Era Dianetics for OT's (NOT's).
New Era Dianetics caused that Standard Dianetics got knocked out of existence.
..R, ..RA, ..RB (etc) or #R, #RA (etc):
For example: ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70R’ & ‘HCO PL 24 Sept 70RA’, etc. The given date denotes the first time it has been published in issue-form. The R, RA indication may also follow after an issue-number. The R stands for ‘Revision’ and would refer to that it has been revised since it was first published.
If it is revised a 2nd time it is indicated as RA, a 3rd time RB, then RC, and so on. AD..:
‘After Dianetics ..’. The main book ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ was first published in 1950. Therefore for example AD8, AD12, and AD29 would respectively give the years 1958, 1962 and 1979. Advanced Org(anization) (AO):
The denominates a Scientology organization which delivers higher level auditing and training. The first Advanced Organization was located in Saint Hill, England. The initials AO will appear somewhere in the name for the various AO's. For example: AOLA, ASHO, AOSH EU, etc.. This may also be referred to as a Saint-Hill organization. alter-is: 1. A composite word meaning the action of altering or changing the reality of something. Is-ness means the way it is. When something sees it differently he is doing an alter-is; in other words, is altering the way it is. (LRH Def. Notes) 2. To introduce a change and therefore time and persistence in an as-is-ness to obtain persistency. An introduction of an alter-is is therefore the addition of a lie to the real which causes it to persist and not to blow or as-is. (HCOB 11 May 65) AO:
Short for ‘Advanced Organization’. See at that entry in vocabulary. audit, auditing, auditor:
The application of Scientology processes and procedures to someone by a trained auditor (listener). The goal of the auditor is to make the receiver of the auditing look at incidents and reduce the mental charge which may lay upon them. The auditor may not evaluate and has to adhere to the Auditor's code. bank:
The mental image picture collection collection of a person. It comes from computer technology where all data is in a “bank”. (HCOB 30 Apr 69) See also at ‘reactive mind’ in vocabulary. Book One (or Book I):
Refers to ‘Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health’ that functions as ‘A Handbook of Dianetic Therapy’. It was first published in 1950. BTB:
‘Board Technical Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on cream paper. These are the issues of the Boards of Directors of the Churches of Scientology and are separate and distinct from HCO Bulletins written by LRH. Only LRH issues may be printed green on white for Technical Bulletins and only LRH issues may have the prefix HCO. These Board issues are valid as tech. (BPL 14 Jan 74R I, New Issues).
This issue-type was established in January 1974. In December 1974 a project was started to cancel HCO PL's not written by L. Ron Hubbard and if still found being of value having them reissued as BTB's. By 1980 all BTB's had been revoked. C/S:
‘Case/Supervisor’. 1. That person in a Scientology Church who gives instructions regarding, and supervises the auditing of preclears. The abbreviation C/S can refer to the Case Supervisor or to the written instructions of a case supervisor depending on context. (BTB 12 Apr 72R) 2. The C/S is the case supervisor. He has to be an accomplished and properly certified auditor and a person trained additionally to supervise cases. The C/S is the auditor's “handler.” He tells the auditor what to do, corrects his tech, keeps the lines straight and keeps the auditor calm and willing and winning. The C/S is the pc's case director. His actions are done for the pc. (Dianetics Today, Bk. 3, p. 545) CS-4:
‘Commodore Staff-Division 4’. Mainly concerned with external Sea Org actions like handling Scientology Orgs, missions to be send for correction and Sea Org matters. Division 4 is the Technical division of a Scientology organization. CS-4 is also referred to as ‘Training and Services Aide’. Clear: 1. What we mean by Clear is an erasure of the mental mass which inhibits their thinking, postulating, and so on. (SH Spec 75, 6608C16) 2. An unaberrated person. He is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. He obtains the maximum pleasure for the organism, present and future, as well as for the subjects along the other dynamics. The Clear has no engrams which can be restimulated to throw out the correctness of computation by entering hidden and false data in it. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 111) Dn:
Short for ‘Dianetics’. engram: 1. Simply moments of physical pain strong enough to throw part or all the analytical machinery out of circuit; they are antagonism to the survival of the organism or pretended sympathy to the organism's survival. That is the entire definition. Great or little unconsciousness, physical pain, perceptic content, and contra-survival or pro-survival data. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 68) 2. A moment when the analytical mind is shut down by physical pain, drugs or other means, and the reactive bank is open to the receipt of a recording. (Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, p. 153) 3. The word engram is an old one borrowed from biology. It means simply, “a lasting memory trace on a cell.” It may be engraved on more than the cell, but up against Dianetic processing, it is not very lasting. (Science of Survival, p. 10) 4. A recording which has the sole purpose of steering the individual through supposed but usually nonexistent dangers. (Science of Survival, p. 10) 5. A mental image picture which is a recording of a time of physical pain and unconsciousness. It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content. (HCOB 23 Apr 69) 6. A complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of partial or full unconsciousness. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11) entheta:
Means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) file clerk:
Dianetic auditors’ slang for the mechanism of the mind which acts as a data monitor. Auditors could get instant or “flash” answers direct from the file clerk to aid in contacting incidents. (The Phoenix Lectures, pp 207-208) GPM:
‘Goals Problem Mass’. 1. A GPM is composed of mental masses and significances which have an exact pattern, unvarying from person to person, whose significances dictate a certain type of behaviour and whose masses, when pulled in on the individual, cause psychosomatic effects, such as illnesses, pains or feelings of heaviness and tiredness. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary). 2. The problem created by two or more opposing ideas which being opposed, balanced, and unresolved, make a mass. It's a mental energy mass. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06). 3. The basis of the reactive mind is the actual Goals Problem Masses (GPMs). (HCOB 17 Oct 64 III) HCOB:
‘Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin’. Color flash–red ink on white paper. Written by LRH only , but only so starting from January 1974. These are the technical issue line. All data for auditing and courses is contained in HCOBs. For more information go here (separate window). HCO PL:
‘Hubbard Communication Office Policy Letter’. Color flash–green ink on white paper. Written by LRH only, but only so starting from January 1974. These are the organizational and administrative issue line. For more information go here (separate window). HSDC:
Short for ‘Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course’. itsa: 1. The action of the pc saying “It's a this or it's a that.” (HCOB 6 Nov 64) 2. A pc who is itsaing is simply looking at and identifying some thing. (SH Spec 320, 6310C31) 3. TA comes from saying “It is...” Itsa isn't even a comm line. It's what travels on a comm line from pc to auditor, if that which travels is saying with certainty “It is.” (HCOB 1 Oct 63) itsa line:
The pc's line to the auditor. (HCOB 23 May 71 III) lock: 1. An analytical moment in which the perceptics of the engram are approximated, thus restimulating the engram or bringing it into action, the present time perceptics being erroneously interpreted by the reactive mind to mean that the same condition which produced physical pain once before is now again at hand. Locks contain mainly perceptics; no physical pain and very little misemotion. (Science of Survival, p. 112) 2. A situation of mental anguish. It depends for its force on the engram to which it is appended. The lock is more or less known to the analyzer. It's a moment of severe restimulation of an engram. (Dianetics: Evolution of a Science, p. 84). LRH:
An usual abbreviation for ‘L. Ron Hubbard’. LRH ED:
‘L. Ron Hubbard Executive Directive’. Earlier called SEC ED's (Secretarial ED's). These are issued by LRH to various areas. They are not valid longer than one year if fully complied with when they are automatically retired. They otherwise remain valid until fully complied with or until amended or cancelled by another LRH ED. They carry current line, projects, programs, immediate orders and directions. They are numbered for area and sequence for the area and are sent to staffs or specific posts in orgs. They are blue ink on white paper with a special heading. (HCO PL 24 Sept 70R) NED:
‘New Era Dianetics’. Offcially released to the public on 30 July 1978 (ref.: ‘The Auditor 151 (US edition)’, Sept 78). It replaced and abolished the previous in use Standard Dianetics (St Dn). Operating Thetan (OT): 1. Willing and knowing cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time. And that would of course be mind and that would of course be universe. (SH Spec 80, 6609C08) 2. An individual who could operate totally independently of his body whether he had one or didn't have one. He's now himself, he's not dependent on the universe around him. (SH Spec 66, 6509C09) 3. A being at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life. Operating comes from “able to operate without dependency on things” and thetan is the Greek letter theta (θ), which the Greeks used to represent “thought” or perhaps “spirit” to which an “n” is added to make a new noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. (Book of Case Remedies, p. 10) OT:
Short for ‘Operating Thetan’. See at that entry in vocabulary. pc(s):
Short for ‘preclear(s)’. See at that entry in vocabulary. preclear (pc): 1. A person who, through Scientology processing, is finding out more about himself and life. (The Phoenix Lectures, p. 20) 2. A spiritual being who is now on the road to becoming Clear, hence preclear. (HCOB 5 Apr 69) 3. One who is discovering things about himself and who is becoming clearer. (HCO PL 21 Aug 62) R3R: ‘Routine 3 Revised’. R3R is the basic Standard Dianetics (St Dn) auditing routine. R3RA: ‘Routine 3 Re-revised’. R3RA is the basic New Era Dianetics (NED) auditing routine. reactive mind: 1. That portion of a person's mind which works on a stimulus-response basis (given a certain stimulus, it gives a certain response) which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and actions. It consists of GPMs, Engrams, Secondaries and Locks. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) 2. Stored in the reactive mind are engrams, and here we find the single source of aberrations and psychosomatic ills. (Scientology 0-8, p. 11) 3. ‘bank’: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. This is what the procedures of Scientology are devoted to disposing of, for it is only a burden to an individual and he is much better off without it. (Scientology Abridged Dictionary) 4. The reactive mind acts below the level of consciousness. It is the literal stimulus-response mind. Given a certain stimulus it gives a certain response. (The Fundamentals of Thought, p. 58) Rundown:
A series of steps which are auditing actions and processes designed to handle a specific aspect of a case and which have a known end phenomena. Example: Introspection Rundown. (LRH Def. Notes) As a rule this mostly works as a corrective action and not as a mandatory part of the Bridge. Saint Hill Special Briefing Course (SHSBC):
This was a course delivered by L. Ron Hubbard at Saint Hill, England during 1961-66 and comprises of 447 lectures. Its result is a very adept auditor and thorough know-how of Scientology itself. The materials are studied in chronological sequence so as to fully understand the development of the technology. This will make you a Class VI Auditor. Scn:
Short for ‘Scientology’. secondary:
A mental image picture of a moment of severe and shocking loss or threat of loss which contains misemotion such as anger, fear , grief, apathy or “deathfulness.” It is a mental image recording of a time with severe mental stress. It may contain unconsciousness. Called a secondary because it itself depends upon an earlier engram with similar data but real pain, etc. (HCOB 23 Apr 69) SHSBC:
‘Saint Hill Special Briefing Course’. See at that entry in vocabulary. St Dn:
‘Standard Dianetics’. Reissue of 1950-Tech, as such established and released in April 1969 (ref.: HCOB 24 Apr 69 “Dianetic Use”). It was finalized in December of that year. Abolished and replaced by New Era Dianetics (NED) since 30 July 1978. TA:
‘tone arm (action)’. See at that entry in vocabulary. ‘The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology’:
This is a series of books that contain the HCOB's, and any references that are primarily dealing with technical matters. The HCOB's are printed in red ink on white paper, and the volumes themselves come in red bindings. The references are arranged in chronological release order (per issue date). These books may also be referred to as the ‘red volumes’. The ‘old red volumes’ then would refer to the 1976-80 release, the ‘new red volumes’ instead to the 1991 release. See a listing of published volumes here (pop-up window). tone arm (TA): 1.Tone arm refers to the tone arm or its motion. (HCOB 13 Apr 64) 2.Tone arm action. A technical term for a quantitative measure of case gain in the Scientology processing of a preclear for a given unit of time. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics, p. 38) 3. The measure of accumulation of charge. (Class VIII No. 6) 4. A measure of the amount of encysted force which is leaving the case. (SH Spec 291, 6308C06) tone scale: 1. Essentially an assignation of numerical value by which individuals can be numerically classified. It is not arbitrary but will be found to approximate some actual governing law in nature. (Dianetics: The Original Thesis, p. 59) 2. A person in apathy rises through various tones. These tones are quite uniform; one follows the next and people always come up through these tones, one after the other. These are the tones of affinity, and the tone scale of Dn and Scn is probably the best possible way of predicting what is going to happen next or what a person actually will do. The tone scale starts well below apathy. In other words, a person is feeling no emotion about a subject at all. On many subjects and problems people are actually well below apathy. There the tone scale starts, on utter, dead null far below death itself. Going up into improved tones one encounters the level of body death, apathy, grief, fear, anger, antagonism, boredom, enthusiasm and serenity, in that order. There are many stops between these tones. A person in grief, when his tone improves feels fear. A person in fear, when his tone improves feels anger. (Problems of Work, pp. 77-78)