Given a knowledge of the Composition and Behaviour 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 ever could give. Example: Pc: “I see a house here.” Auditor: “Okay. How big is it?”
That’s not engram running, that’s just a 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 last and you can put aside any complications in between.
The auditor is permitted one question per each new point of track and that is all. Example: Auditor: “Move to the beginning of the 88 plus trillion year incident. (Waits a moment.) What do you see?” Pc: “It’s all murky.” Auditor: “Good. Move through the incident.”
Wrong Example: Auditor: “Move to the beginning of the 88 plus trillion year incident. (Waits a moment.) What do you see?” Pc: “It’s all murky.” Auditor: “Can you see anything in the murk?” Flunk! Flunk! Flunk!
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 yesterday. (Waits a moment.) 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.
Right Example: Auditor (meter dating): “Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen trillion (gets contradictory reads or a DN). (Off meter.) Are you thinking of something?” Pc: “It’s less than 18 trillion.” Auditor: “Thank you. (On meter.) Is it greater than seventeen trillion five hundred billion. Less than…” Pc: “It’s seventeen trillion, nine hundred and eight billion, four hundred and six million, ninety-five thousand, seven hundred and six years ago.” Auditor (having alertly written it all down): “Thank you.” (Ends dating.)
Wrong Example: Auditor: “Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen tr…” Pc: “It’s less than eighteen trillion.” Auditor: “OK. Is it greater than eighteen trillion, less than eighteen…” Flunk Flunk Flunk.
In dating, the pc’s contrary data unspoken and untaken can give you a completely wrong date. Your data comes from the pc and the meter always for anything. And if the pc’s data is invalidated you won’t get a meter’s data. If the pc says he has a PTP and the meter says he doesn’t, you take the pc’s data that he does. In dating, an argument with the pc can group the track.
So take the pc’s data. And if the pc is a dub-in, you should be running the ARC processes not engrams anyway as the case is over-charged for engrams. If the pc isn’t a dubin then the pc’s data is quite reliable.
Also, minimize a pc’s dependency on a meter. Don’t keep confirming a pc’s data by meter read with, “That reads. Yes, that’s there. Yes, there’s a rocket read…” Just let the pc find his own reality in running an engram. “All auditors talk too much.” You can date on a meter but only so long as the pc doesn’t cognite on the date. You can help a pc identify or choose an area of track but only if he specifically asks you to. Example: Pc: “I’ve got two pictures here. Can you find out which one is the earlier? One is of a freight engine, the other is a whole train.” Auditor: (on meter) “Is the freight engine earlier than the whole train? Is the whole train earlier than the freight engine? (To pc) The whole train reads as earlier.”
Now, however, if the pc has two facsimiles, your problem is only that you’ve missed something.
Rule: Whenever charge is missed the time track tends to group.
This does not mean the Auditor has to do something about it unless the pc gets confused and asks for help, at which time the only action is to spot on the meter what charge has been missed and tell the pc.
All Routine 3 ARC Breaks, including R3-N and R3-R, are handled the same way, an exact way. There is no deviation from this.
If the pc becomes critical of anything outside the engram (room, auditor, Scientology, the technology) it is an ARC Break. ARC Breaks are of greater and lesser magnitude ranging throughout the misemotional band of the tone scale.
The handling of ARC Breaks always follows this rule:
Arc Break Rule 1: If the pc ARC Breaks, issue no further auditing commands until both pc and auditor are satisfied that the cause of the ARC Break has been located and indicated.
Do not issue more orders, do not run a process, do not offer to run a process, do not sit idly letting the pc ARC Break. Follow this rule.
ARC Break Rule 2: When a pc ARC Breaks or can’t go on for any reason, do an R3-R ARC Break Assessment and locate and indicate to the pc the By-Passed Charge.
The only harm that can be done in R3-R (or R3-N) is issuing further orders to the pc or trying to run something before the by-passed charge has been located and indicated.
Given this handling of ARC Breaks and an exact adherence to the rote of R3-R, all former problems of engram running vanish!
No auditor who knew earlier than June 1963 engram running should consider he or she knows how to run engrams.
Routine 3-R is itself. It has no dependence on earlier methods of running engrams. Failure to study and learn R3-R “because one knows about engram running” will cause a lot of case failure.
Early engram running was often attempted on cases below Case Level 4. The technology, further, was too varied. Too much was demanded of the pc. Too little effort was put into finding the basic on a chain. Too many forcing techniques were used. Too often the auditor ran just any engram he could get. These and other faults prevented engrams from being run.
R3-R is a rote procedure. That is a victory in itself. But it is a better procedure.
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 R3-R is not old-time engram running but is a Scientology Routine designed to achieve the state of OT and is not designed for any other use than freeing the spirit of man.
Therefore, study and use R3-R and don’t mix it with any earlier data on engram running. Anything you know about engram running will help you understand R3-R. But it won’t help your pc if mixed in with R3-R. I couldn’t put this too strongly. You’ll trace any failure in the auditor with R3-R to:
1. Inability to execute the auditing cycle;
2. Inability to run a session;
3. Failure to study and understand the Time Track;
4. Failure to follow R3-R exactly without deviation;
5. Failure to handle ARC Breaks as above;
6. Using R3-R on lower level cases not prepared by pre-engram running processes.
Engram Running by Chains is designated “Routine 3-R” to fit in with other modern processes.
It is a triumph of simplicity. It does not demand visio, sonic or other perception at once by the pc. It develops them.
The ordinary programming of the lowest level case would be Reach and Withdraw Processes, CCHs, Repetitive Processes, R3-R, R3-N, R3-R.
Routine 3-R is the process that leads to Case Level 2. Only some additional exercises are needed, then, to attain the next level, OT.
So R3-R is the fundamental bridge step to OT. And we’re going only for OT now for various reasons including political. We have by-passed clear which remains only as a courtesy title denoting one or more GPMs run.
Many cases, even the Black V, can begin at once on R3-R.
R3-R is run in the 3N model session.
Establish the type of chain the pc is to run by assessment.
Locate the first incident by dating.
Move pc to the incident with the exact command, “Move to (date).”
Establish duration (length of time) of incident.
(An incident may be anything from a split second long to 15 trillion trillion years or more long.)
Move pc to beginning of incident with the exact command, “Move to the beginning of the incident at (date).” Wait until meter flicks.
Ask pc what he or she is looking at with the exact command, “What do you see?” (If pc’s eyes are open, tell pc first, “Close your eyes.”)
Acknowledge whatever pc says.
Do not ask a second question, ever.
Send the pc through the incident with the exact command, “Move through the incident to a point (duration — ) later.”
Ask nothing, say nothing, do nothing (except observe meter or make quiet notes) while pc is going through the incident. If the pc says anything at all, just acknowledge and let him continue, using this exact command softly, “Okay, Continue. “
Do not coax, distract, or question pc during this period.
Exception: only if the pc ARC Breaks, take action and then only do the R3-R ARC Break Assessment.
If the pc gets stuck, bounces, gets into another incident or if the somatic strip sticks or refuses to obey the auditor, only do an ARC Break Assessment. Do not force the pc onward by any command or question.
When the pc reaches the end of the incident (usually pc moves or looks up) 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 a final acknowledgement.
Repeat exactly and only Steps Two to Eight.
Continue to do so until pc either
(a) Spots an earlier incident or
(b) Gets no change on a run through the incident from the run just before.
In event of either (a) or (b) do Steps One to Eight exactly and only on the new incident.
At the end of any session of R3-R leave the pc where he is on the time track. Do not attempt to bring the pc to present time or take the pc to a rest point, as these actions may very well by-pass charge. End any R3-R session with very careful goals, gains (as the pc is usually rather anaten) and any needed havingness, but keep the havingness very brief, only enough to restore can squeeze. Do not end a session on a boil-off or ARC Break.
At the beginning of any new R3-R session, if you finished the last engram you were working on, begin precisely and anew with Step One. If you are still working on an engram already found, begin precisely with Step Four and carry on.
If the pc gets into trouble in the session do not use Mid Ruds or ask for missed withholds. Mid Ruds will mush an engram. Missed withholds, unless found as part of the ARC Break Assessment, may move the pc violently about through recently found engrams.
Do only the ARC Break Assessment, and locate and indicate charge accordingly if the session goes wrong.
(Since the last time I audited you Mid Ruds and missed withholds are permissible at session start before any R3-R action is taken in that session.)
When encountering a goals engram such as the Helatrobus Implants lay aside R3-R and use R3-N.
When encountering a goals engram prior to the Helatrobus Implants or subsequent to them use R3-M2 but only when such an engram has RIs.
When Basic on any chain is found flatten it fully and permit it to be stripped of any lock engrams or earlier incidents that appear. (In finding basics remember that the Time Track by my most recent measurements considerably exceeds a trillion, trillion, trillion years.
Basics may occur as early as they occur but seldom nearer PT than 200 trillion years ago, and quite ordinarily at 15 trillion, trillion years ago.)
There is no variation of these steps for any reason. This is the most exact procedure known. And there you have it, rote engram running, superior to any engram running ever done and giving superior and faster results.
Future HCO Bulletins will expand the reasons for these steps, give exact methods of dating, give the ARC Break Assessment for R3-R, the assessment for types of chains, and the administration.