|
|
International Viewpoints - IVy 27 - Issued June. 1996.GPM Clearing |
|
|
|
|
|
Part 1 of a two-part, complete technical manual for running GPMs to full as-is-ness per Scientology axiom 20. Part 2 to follow. By Robert Ducharme, USA
OT abilities THIS PROCESS knocks down the barrier to Advanced Abilities (known in the C of S as OT), the GPM. When combined with A.A. (Advanced Ability) drills, all of the advanced abilities apparently become available. Some take longer than others, everybody runs differently, but they all move in the same direction - toward a higher state of being.
Better bridge This process is given here because I saw an urgent need for it to be delivered on this planet at this time, and it's too important a development to be hoarded. It is the "better bridge" referred to by L. Ron Hubbard in the original "Dianetics" book. It's a power booster that turns Dianetics R3R from a moderately successful process (regardless of past claims to the contrary) to a 100% standard therapy that cleans up the remaining 80% of the charge in any engram (of any flow) after the standard dianetics procedure has been applied to the fullest extent. This process will clear GPMs, dianetics won't. This process cures virtually all the bugs in Dianetics including endless grinding, auditor restimulation, unresolved case problems, failure to address OT case, "unusual" cases, case failures, unresponsive cases, etc.
Hell This article is the first of a two part series on the subject. With this process, the auditor will be dealing with the very basic fundamentals of life. The very jaws of Hell will open up to him and his PC (processee, in my dictionary), as he guides him into it, through it, and out the other side. If the auditor doesn't mean to do it exactly correctly, then I would sternly advise against attempting this process, as it can have severe repercussions on both him and the PC. If PC and auditor walk into Hell, they'll be walking into it together. To leave someone in the middle of it can leave him with a headache, or with suicide on his mind. That's quite a responsibility and it shouldn't be taken lightly. If they are to come out, they must come out together or they're both likely to get "burned". If everything is done correctly, it's about the safest and easiest process there is. It can be learned and delivered by anybody who is trained in Standard Dianetics and follows the rules.
Standard procedure I would caution anyone who would have it applied to them that he get only the original version as written up in this publication, at least in the beginning. The reason being that the EP of the process is always achievable when done the standard way, and that any additions would only amount to "bells and whistles" at best and may be harmful and unpredictable at worst. I'd be very sceptical of anyone who would say they can teach you or deliver to you a better version, or who would offer a different version of the same process. Not because it couldn't be done, but when you can already attain the full EPs with this process, why go to something fancier? Refinements to this tech may occur in the future, but they should be well proven and established before being added to this procedure. One should at least have had this process run on them a few times first so as to have something to compare other similar techniques to. Also, I probably would not submit to a session unless the auditor was using a GSR (A meter comparable to the C of S's E-Meter.) meter. It can be done quite well without it, but the process goes so much more smoothly and professionally with it. I would also not allow anyone to run this on me who is not a certified Standard Dianetics (or NED) auditor. I am not going to bear the responsibility for the improper delivery of this process by any person or group. The reason I'm writing it with Scientologese language is to deter any undesirables from using this process to fool with the mind, such as shrinks, hypnotists, and dilettantes. Anyone, for instance, who would attempt to program the mind of another with suggestions is committing murder on the seventh dynamic. I know, I took a hypnosis course and had to run out that crap that was programmed into me as "practice". Mental programming is an outright black arts practice no matter how nice the perpetrator may seem or how good his intentions.
EPs of the process There are two EPs to this process. 1. The total re-integration of the opposing forces concerning an item. 2. The complete handling of the chain being run. The process will usually handle an entire item in one sitting, but not if more than one chain makes up the item. This assumes that the items are of reasonable gradient. This process, for instance, will not help a person to be able to make more money by eliminating blocks to money flows if he isn't willing to put in the work necessary to make it happen.
Unlimited reach This process can be conducted entirely by telephone. One can use a meter by holding on to solo electrodes. This method is eerily accurate, but it helps if the auditor is clear so he doesn't read on the pc's case (yes, 1. there is such a state as clear, 2. clears do have a case). Doing it this way eliminates the distance barriers, the legal barriers (if your State prohibits counseling by anyone but certified Psychogeeks, then you should be able to legally audit people outside your State), and the overhead barriers (a phone line and some advertising is all that's needed). Maybe in the future we could create an Internet connection so that we as auditors could communicate on the subject, like about new ideas and developments, shared promotional literature, shared PCs, etc. Any help along those lines would be greatly appreciated. If this all sounds too good to be true, you can take my word for it when I say that I actually understate things just to be on the safe side. I'm not fond of being found wrong.
Churchies I don't know if the Churchies are going to latch onto this process. By policy they're not supposed to mix Book-1 tech with Standard Dianetics, or run Dianetics on clears, or otherwise alter the tech. They may be forced to when they find out that they've been running incomplete Dianetics all the time. But I don't see them auditing over the phone. I don't think they could have that. It involves OT concepts, and they may not be ready for it. That's okay, we independents can dominate that field.
Dianetics on clears I have been auditing clears on this procedure for a long time now. Dianetics used to be run successfully on clears. Banning clears from running Dianetics has been to my mind probably the single most suppressive technical action ever perpetrated. Clears do get case gain by running this process. They speak of their space becoming much bigger, their stability increasing, their control over their environment increasing. These are real gains -they- made, not gains "their BTs" made. Anybody who says "it's not my case, but my BT's case," could be asked the question: "What part of you are these BTs clinging to?" The correct answer to that is "charge" - in the form of GPMs.
Reference In PAB No. 80 dated 17 April 1956 ("Technical Bulletins", Vol. I, page 395.) Ron talks about an "important new discovery" in the field of Dianetics called the moment of shock. It's strange how he never mentioned this discovery afterwards. But without this datum added, standard dianetics is an inferior and incomplete procedure. (The shock moment handling will be taken up fully in part 2.)
Procedure for GPM clearing Completed December 1994, Revised December 1995 by Robert Ducharme, Orlando, Florida, USA - (407) 850-9411 (407) 855-4406 Acknowledgement is made to L. Ron Hubbard to whose works I humbly add another, hopefully important chapter. Minimum prerequisites for applying this procedure: Read "Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health"; study material covering R3R commands and procedure; know R3R commands verbatim; know the Auditor's Code cold; know and do TRs 0 through 4 to a good result, study material concerning folder admin and keeping notes; listen to a tape of a complete and successful session; get some sessions for subjective reality and for case clearing.
Recommended reading material and references R3RA procedure bulletins; "Dianetics Today"; "Tech Dictionary"; "A History of Man"; Whole-Track tapes; Dianetics tapes by LRH; Tape: "The Goals Problem Mass", 6112c31 CHC-4, 31 Dec. 1961.
Why run GPMs? Ron Hubbard once said in the lecture called "Principle Incidents on the Track" that OT was a "totally cleared whole track". That's the only place I've seen that definition used. I agree with it and I believe that this is the process that can get one there, especially when used in conjunction with OT drills, creative processing and other processing. Apparently these GPMs had a devastating effect on the thetan's powers. Dianetics alone cannot be used to clear these incidents. This may turn out to be the first process to produce true, stable OTs. Good luck! Full basic procedure If appropriate, hat PC up on whole track. Get which item is to be run. Run R3R to "erasure" per Standard Professional Dianetic procedure (not the cheesy book-1 seminar style). Always check for an earlier incident on the chain regardless if PC says the incident is erased or not. Sometimes you have to ask more than once with good TR-1. Aim for "thetan era" incidents as this is the area where the most charged GPMs lie and the most case gain is to be gotten from. Many pcs are not yet ready to run actual GPMs and would do better running grades processes along with GPM clearing until they're clear and can run actual GPMs. Never push a PC past a point he can run. When running pre-MEST whole track, check for other flows with: "Is there an earlier incident where you did (item) to another?" If it indicates, handle the incident with R-3R. Run one flow to full completion. Then check for charge on each of the other flows and run them all one by one if they indicate. The moment of shock is run on the very earliest incident available, regardless of which chain that is. An option is to run the moment of shock on the basic of each chain as it is reached and flattened. (The complete shock moment handling along with relevant notes will be provided in full in Pt. 2.)
GPM clearing additional notes Using the file clerk: The file clerk, per Book 1 Dianetics, is a very useful tool (as are the other tools mentioned in the book). When you ask a question, like for an earlier similar incident, and the pc doesn't have an answer, you can ask a question like, "Did a thought cross your mind right after I asked the question?" You can also use the suppress and inval buttons if needed. To find the correct item you can sometimes ask, "What is it that's stopping you from being able to .. (ability wanted)?" Asking for actual GPMs: When I know the pc is capable of running an actual GPM I might ask something like, "Is there an earlier incident on this chain, possibly one that occurred before time began?" or "... in the Theta universe?" One has to weigh this against having the pc go back too soon to an overwhelming mass that he is not yet prepared to handle because of later incidents needing to be destimulated first. I'll use this question when there is no apparent earlier incident and the incident being run is "flat". Pre-mest time and duration: When asking for duration I just ask if the pc can get the concept of duration as time doesn't really exist in our terms pre-MEST. The pc has to translate the pre-MEST concepts into linear time form in order to run them. Similarly, when asking when it occurred, the answer "before time" or something like that is sufficient. When an earlier pre-MEST incident is asked for, it is not necessary to ask "when". Time is rather meaningless in that period. Stuck picture: If pc complains of a "stuck picture", give him the commands, "Spot a moment before the picture", (ack); "Spot a moment after the picture" , (ack) repetitively, done 1, 2; 1, 2; 1, 2; etc. until the picture frees up. Erasing/solid command: Instead of using the "erasing/solid" command I often use "lighter/heavier" or "charge lighter/heavier". It communicates better to some people. Other terms include: more/less clear; more/less intense; increasing/reducing; harder/easier. Repeater technique, overuse of: The auditor must sternly resist the temptation to use the repeater technique on every phrase that sounds aberrative. The repeater should only be used while running the moments of shock, and elsewhere only on rare occasions such as to unstick the pc on the time track, or to key him into an incident. Aberrative type phrases should be circled, then checked again at the end of session for charge, and handled accordingly. Circling phrases: Any command type phrases like implant commands found anywhere throughout the R3R procedure should be noted down and circled. Then when the pc has reached basic on the chain and is running the shock moment, pass these phrases by him again one by one and handle if they still have any charge to them. Such phrases can be handled as they come up when handling the shock moment. Blackness : To clear up an incident that is too vague or black, the repetitive command "What part of that incident can you confront?" can be helpful. This should be used only on rare occasions. Body problems: If the pc is running into troublesome somatics getting in the way of the session, he can always be run exterior. This is rarely necessary when running actual GPMs. Doing this can make it easier on the health of the body as GPMs can sometimes impinge very strongly on it. To do this the pc is asked to "Be three feet back of your head", or whatever exteriorization process works on him. Grinding: To key out an incident that is hopelessly grinding with no earlier similar or earlier beginning in sight, one can simply get the feelings and postulates in the incident and run it out, along with the shock moment if available. One should try running imaginary track first. That usually works. This occasionally happens with occluded cases. Such cases should thereafter be programmed to take occlusion into consideration. Mixing processes: Never mix this process with any other process. It's often tempting to diverge to creative processing, entity handling, rudiments, correction lists, "Book One Dianetics (DMSMH)", prepchecking, listing and nulling, etc., not to mention the non-scientology processes. This process properly run is completely self sufficient and will always take one to the EP. Very rarely it may be necessary to dispose of entities interfering with the session in present time by the use of entity-handling tech. Entity interference with session: If the presence of an entity is found to be interrupting the session, find out if it's in present time or in the incident. If the entity is in the incident, ignore the entity and follow standard procedure. If the entity is in the present, use entity handling tech and return the pc to the standard session as soon as possible. Entity handling is not a priority and so should not be done unless the standard session becomes stalled as a result. Multiple incidents: If a specific incident cannot be found at the beginning (like it's a daily occurrence), then you can switch to straightwire recall processing and ask "Recall a time when ..." until the pc gets an incident that seems significant to him, or after a few incidents, have him choose the most significant one to run. It's also possible to run several this-lifetime incidents on the same chain at once as is done in lock scanning, and then run the most significant shock moment. Doing this tends to bring more incidents into view each time thus allowing the pc to locate the worst incidents on the chain. The commands for this are "Move to the beginning of the first incident" and "Move through to the end of the last incident". Or else "Move to the beginning of this series of incidents" and "Move through to the end of this series of incidents". The latter technique is the one I favor. Jumping chains: Watch for jumping chains. If you ask for an earlier incident and you get a later one or it's on a different subject, then you just query the pc about it and get it clarified and straightened out. End of session key-in: If at the end the pc is released but further questions key in something unexpected, ask pc if another item or chain has keyed in. If it has, it's no big deal. Just note it down and take it up at the next session. It was simply the next available item or chain on his case showing up. If you decide to run it now, then there should be at least two moments of shock to run before the session ends. Incident too painful: If running through an incident is too painful for the pc, you can lower the gradient by asking him to scan rapidly through the incident until he can do it the normal way. This should take more passes through, but will be more tolerable. Chronic conditions: The first address to any chronic conditions such as cancer or heart disease, etc., is to find out the first time the pc started having the problem and then ask him if there was some kind of trauma in his life just prior to that. That can then be run as a narrative, using the "earlier similar" command. These kinds of narratives can be run whole track with minimal problems. However, I recommend running them to a this-lifetime key-out (no shock handling) and then running each somatic therein separately to full EP. Running narrative items can thus be used to find new items to run on the pc. Zero attitude: The secret to great auditing as opposed to good or average auditing lies in zero attitude - no attitude, full TR-0 - during the session. The auditor must be completely without emotional reaction for the period of the session lest his case get entwined with the pc's, even if only on a telepathic level. This means that the auditor must be totally non-judgmental in words and thoughts. Positive emotions, however, are evidently harmless or even possibly beneficial. Auditor's ego: For maximum results, the auditor must be completely egoless during the session which means full attention on the pc, and muzzled auditing with minimal communication, and no flippant remarks, jokes, or questions that are not pertinent to the sessions, i.e. communications that take the pc's attention away from his case. The auditor's curiosity is not important, his understanding is. Questions aimed at clarifying possible misunderstoods by the auditor are permissible in order to avert a break in reality in the session and to keep the auditor tracking with the pc. But the less of this the better. Present time feelings: Sometimes, like at the end of the session, the pc will come up with feelings that don't seem to make sense since the chain is already blown. In those questionable cases, the pc should be asked if the feeling (or postulate) is in the incident or in present time. If it's not part of the incident, it should not be run or repeated but left alone. It may also be the next available item on his case. Use of GSR meter: I have found that the meter can be used telepathically, for phone auditing, if the auditor holds onto the electrodes. It's not necessary for this process, but may enhance the auditor's ability to track with his pcs, especially the rougher ones. I wouldn't overtly steer the pc with it, as it might cause missed withholds, false indications, and random restimulations, not to mention inval and eval (but I wouldn't rule out doing it covertly). I might not even let on that I'm even using a meter when I do. This procedure was developed entirely without a meter and can function quite well without one. If the auditor does use it, however, he should be very wary of fostering any meter dependence in the pc. Bouncers: If a pc is bouncing out of an incident it can be handled by asking for a bouncer phrase and having the pc repeat it. However a better (surer) way, which might be tried first, is to get the pc to run the later incident on the chain again until flat and then return the pc to the earlier incident again. Bouncing into present time: If the pc is experiencing a feeling such as anger and it is in present time rather than in the shock moment, look for a bouncer phrase in the shock moment and have pc do repeater on it until flat. Running too many consecutive sessions: If the pc is in relatively keyed out condition, he may need a rest period in order for life to stir up a decent item to run. Sometimes a week or more is needed between sessions before an item that is charged enough to run well will surface. In any case, a rest period is recommended between sessions. Some pcs do best once a week, others a bit more or less. The incident that must not be unmocked: When the pc says that the as-isness of a particular incident will result in the destruction of the universe (or God, or oneself, or the auditor, etc.), you may rest assured that that's nothing but a postulate put into the incident to keep the pc from looking, thereby as-ising it, and that the universe will in fact not blow up or vanish. At least we've been lucky so far. Pc trying to solve his problem: Once in a while the pc will attempt to offer a solution or try to justify the situation, as by looking at it philosophically rather than run through the incident or shock moment one more time. This should be viewed as an effort to alter-is rather than as-is and should not be countenanced. If this gets in the way of the session, the pc might well be given an R-factor on what is expected of him, and then the standard procedure continued. Blowing items by inspection: This is a quickie technique that is mainly useful for those who don't want to take the time for a full handling. It's a valuable ability for staying keyed out, but it will produce minimal if any case gain. If a pc can contact a somatic, he should ideally hold onto it so that it can be run to a full EP in session. If the pc is heavily trained in blowing by inspection, it may take some time for him to confront his bank again. Clear or not, he does have a bank. Clear is merely a state where he no longer has to be creating it in present time. A clear is like a computer with an empty display screen and a hard drive packed solid with data from the depths of Hell. He has command of the display screen, but can't touch the hard drive. Sometimes some info from the hard drive comes onto the screen and he can delete that by inspecting it. But in doing so he's depriving himself of the opportunity of locating whole files of nonsense data and clearing them forever. Of course, if he can also key things in at will, then he has no problem. Through the past life barrier: If the pc has never run past lives but is willing to, you can get him started when he has an earlier similar (e.s.) incident key in. You ask him if a picture, thought, or feeling flashed in his mind when you asked the e.s. question. Then ask him to use his imagination and tell you what sort of scenario would explain or accompany that picture, thought or feeling. Session problems/correction lists: In all the time I've been auditing this process I've never needed a correction list for a session problem. At the first sign of trouble I simply ask the pc what's going on, and I find that the pc knows and will arrive at the answer if asked for it properly. The rule here is, "If you know the tech, you'll know which questions to ask". Prices charged for service: Auditing is a valuable service and should be remunerated in kind, but there are a number of factors that should be taken into consideration when setting prices. 1. Charging various prices for the same service is risky. What if you charge a wealthy customer $200 per hour, how much will you charge those of lesser means he refers to you? 2. Charging a higher price may get a larger short term income, but a more moderate price will encourage clients to return for indefinite services. I would rather have a weekly client for $30/hr. indefinitely than have a 3 or 4 session client at $100/hr. 3. One approach is to charge the price the market will bear and to raise the price if the number of clientele rises too high, assigning the lower paying clients to less experienced auditors. C/S-ing and what to audit: I have found the best approach is to simply audit what's presently bothering the pc, i.e. the thing he is sitting in, including ARC breaks. This makes C/S-ing by a third party virtually unnecessary for this process. This is the natural way of auditing where case is lifted off the pc layer after layer as it presents itself. Rudiments: I don't run rudiments, I simply run the item the pc is sitting in. If it happens to be an ARC break, I run that with this procedure. Checking other flows at session end: At the end of the session it wouldn't hurt to ask if the pc has charge on each of the other flows, and running them if they indicate, before going on to the next item. One way or the other, all four flows have to be clean of charge. Calling pc's attention to incident parts: The auditor should never restimulate an incident on the chain other than getting the pc to run it. Therefore the pc's attention should not be drawn to parts of the incident as other somatic chains could be restimulated. The GSR meter, value of: l. The meter can be used for steering the pc when he's having trouble seeing the blank spots in a traumatic incident such as a car accident. 2. It's useful when running the shock moment. The auditor can watch the meter for a needle blowdown and so knows when the EP of each process is achieved. But the pc, and not the meter, should determine the EP when a conflict arises 3. Shows the auditor when progress is being made on the pc's case, even if the pc is not aware of it at the moment. 4. Shows the times when the auditor should remain completely silent as the needle or tone arm is dropping. Auditor faith: The auditor should have faith in himself and in the process, and persist through any problems that might arise. Above all, the auditor should never panic, but always remain in control. Auditor's negative reaction can be sensed by the pc. If the auditor is truly stumped - which should rarely - if ever, happen, he should end session, reassess the situation, and resume when ready, preferably within 24 hours. Erasing/solid command, substitutes: Sometimes erasing/solid doesn't indicate, so substitute terms include lighter/heavier; charge reducing/charge increasing; better/worse; easier/harder Grinding and E.B.: If an incident seems to be grinding, check for an earlier beginning (it can't hurt, and often helps). Incident getting worse: When the pc says that the incident got worse or stronger after the last pass through, you can ask him if he means that it got clearer. If so that should count as erasing, not more solid. An incident usually needs to be confronted before it's left for an earlier one. The auditor needs to make the judgement as to whether the charge in the later incident needs to be reduced before going on to an earlier one. Going too fast can cause the pc to be overwhelmed, going too slow can cause the pc needless pain as well as grinding. I'd err toward the latter. Repeating truthful statements: The repeater technique for the shock moment is done on statements with charge on them. If they're compulsive or lies, such as "I have to avoid pain" or "I'll never be the same again", then it can be repeated. If they're truths and uncharged like "I'm not a victim", they should not be repeated as they will not as-is (unless of course there's a compulsive element to it). Incomplete sessions: Incomplete sessions can be emotionally troubling for the pc and should be handled as soon as possible, preferably within 24 hours. Auditor restimulation after session: This is an almost sure sign of an incomplete session for the pc. The auditor in this case can ask himself, while on the meter, what went wrong with the session, and he should be able to get an accurate answer. Of course this answer should not be imposed on the pc, but it does give the auditor something to go on. PC exhaustion: If, after hours of auditing a chain, the pc becomes exhausted to where his ability to function is lowered, it may be best to call off the session and resume at a later time when the pc can function more optimumly. But this should not be done if it can be avoided. Havingness at session end: At the end of the session I'll give two havingness processes, each until the pc feels good about it. 1. "Mock up a pleasant scene... shove (or pull) it into the body", or "Put out eight anchor points; collapse them into the body". The anchor points can also be objects or significances. 2. "Locate an object" or "Locate an object in the room". These will remedy the loss of energy discharged during the session as well as orient him to present time. Discussing the item with PC: This is usually done only before session. At any other time it may throw the item into restimulation (which may be of benefit when dealing with potential clients). Differences in PCs: Each pc is unique and has a unique case. It is unrealistic to expect two pcs to run case alike. Each case runs as it runs and should be accepted as such as long as the objectives of the session are achieved. Before and after shock order-of-sequence: My preference has been to ask for the pc to run the viewpoint after the shock before the one before the shock. The reasoning is that the aberrated viewpoint is more realistic and easy to confront first. But they can be run in either sequence. When in doubt ask the pc. Copyright (c) Robert Ducharme 1996 (may be copied if not changed in any way). Internet: VoltR@grizzly.ctinet.net *************** For more infomation See the home page at: http://www.sn.no/~trone/IVy.html or write to: |
|
|
|
