Robert Ducharme: GPMs part 2

International Viewpoints - IVy 28 - Issued August 1996.

GPM Clearing (part 2)

by Robert Ducharme, USA

Grateful acknowledgement is made to L. Ron Hubbard for his obvious innumerable contributions, to John Galusha for having given me the basic tools with which to develop GPM Clearing, to Curt Ducker for having introduced me to Scientology in 1970, to Dr. Travis Herring M.D. for his professional assistance in furthering my application of the tech, and to Hank Levin (Editor, "The Free Spirit") and Antony Phillips for their dedication to helping keep the free zone Scientology movement alive.

I believe GPM running is the "missing link" between Dianetics and Scientology and that the shortcomings of Dianetics led to the necessity of incorporating the broader techniques of Scientology. However, neither Dianetics nor Scientology actually addressed issues per Axiom 20 ("Bringing the Static to create a perfect duplicate causes the vanishment of any existence or part thereof. A perfect duplicate is an additional creation of the object, its energy, and space, -in its own space, in its own time, using its own energy-. This violates the condition that two objects must not occupy the same space, and causes vanishment of the object." (Author's emphasis). Then came the research on GPMs in the 1950s and '60s as an effort, I believe, to fill in the gaps that neither Dianetics or Scientology were addressing. Those efforts at running GPMs had been in terms of having the preclear attempt to replicate the patterns GPMs had in common. This approach had some workability, but again it lacked the Axiom 20 factor, and so the results were spotty. GPM Clearing works because it fully incorporates Axiom 20 into every session. The results I have been getting with this process approach 100%.

I see Dianetics auditing as addressing mainly the masses from the track and Scientology style auditing as addressing mainly the "think". Of course there will be some crossover in both cases. GPM Clearing addresses both of these areas and evidently does it more thoroughly than either Dianetics or Scientology style processes. GPM Clearing apparently eliminates the need for procedures such as rudiments handling (I simply run the item the pc is sitting in), service fac handling, entity handling, and a host of other complexities that are nice to know about but need not be used any more except for learning, experimental, demonstration, or nostalgic purposes.

Every item presented by a preclear can be -fully- handled without -ever- having to address such things as "games matrixes" or "subject codes". So beware of complexities that an auditor might want to arbitrarily inject into this GPM Clearing process.

I would like dianetic auditors who use this process to please contact me via e-mail or telephone and let me know how they are doing on applying it and what kinds of results they are getting on their preclears. This will help me to write future articles about the subject.

Correction

In part 1 I said: "it helps if the auditor is clear (so he doesn't read on the pc's case)". It should read "so he doesn't read on his own case".

Full basic procedure

If appropriate, hat pc up on whole track. Get which item is to be run (two-way comm with PC).

1. Run R3R to "erasure" per Standard Professional Dianetics procedure. (not the cheesey book-1 seminar style).

Always check for an earlier incident on the chain even if preclear says the incident is erased. 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. Sometimes preclears are not yet ready to run pre-MEST Universe GPMs and would do better running grades processes along with more shallow GPM Clearing (more recent incidents) until their case is more accessible and can run pre-MEST GPMs. Never push a preclear past a point he can run.

2. Two-way-comm to get the moment of shock (if shock doesn't indicate, other possible terms are jolt, overwhelm, shift of attitude, surge of energy, shutting down, turning point, emotional reaction, transition point).

3. Check for more than one shock moment; if so run each separately, the most significant one first, or run all simultaneously as one shock moment. There is rarely more than one shock moment. For flow 2 it is often a "surge of energy", and for flow 0 it is often a "feeling of overwhelm".

4. Give preclear the exact command: "Move through that moment of shock from beginning to end" several times until flat. If necessary, you could always have him run in slow motion as the moment of shock is very brief. After each run through, ask him how the moment of shock seems now compared to the time before (if you do not have a meter). I use the question "is it reducing?" If there is change, have him continue going through again and again until flat. If you have a meter, simply give the command over and over, and watch for a major needle blowdown and ask what was going on at that moment (never interrupt a blowdown - a good reason to use a meter). He will probably tell you that it went flat. Do the same with each viewpoint. Some preclears will go through several needle blowdowns before it is flat. But there should be at least one.

5. Have preclear do the move through the moment of shock, from any other viewpoint he has charge on (other persons, beings in the incident) just as he did with his own viewpoint. It is important that when running viewpoints from this point on (except for the "Being" viewpoint) you first have the preclear take the viewpoint, and only then move him through the moment of shock. Some viewpoints may be taken as a group, especially if it is basically the same feeling involved, such as sympathy or anger. If no other viewpoints in the incident have any charge or relevance to the shock, proceed to step 6. The command for step 5 is a) "Take (or assume) the viewpoint of ... "; and b) "From the viewpoint of .. , move through that moment of shock from beginning to end". This done to same EP. (EP = End Phenomena or End Point. Ed.) as above. Always acknowledge after each command is carried out.

6. Ask preclear how he felt after the shock and note it down. Then ask him how he felt before the shock by comparison and note it down - all done in that order. If the preclear mentions a negative feeling before the shock, such as "anxious about what was about to happen," then ask him how he felt before that until he says "normal" or "good" or "pleasant" or something like that. That will be considered his identity before the shock.

7. Have preclear move through the shock moment from the "after" viewpoint. It should sound like a) "Take the viewpoint you had after the shock"; and b) "From the viewpoint you had after the shock, confused person (or whatever preclear felt at the time), move through that moment of shock from beginning to end" to same EP.

8. Have preclear move through the shock moment the same way from the "before" viewpoint to same EP.

9. Have preclear do the same from a pan-determined (all viewpoints at once) viewpoint, emphasizing the textbook definition of pan-determined as controling all viewpoints, not simply being exterior to them. Use term "observe" rather than "move" for pan-determined and beingness viewpoints. You can use the command a) "Take all viewpoints at once"; and b) "From all viewpoints at once, observe that moment of shock from beginning to end" to same EP.

10. Give preclear the command, "Observe that moment of shock from beginning to end by just being," to same EP. Preface the command with something like "Whatever this command means to you" if you feel the preclear might become puzzled by it. No need to do part a) on this command.

11. Ask: "In or around that moment of shock is there a feeling of loss of self or some aspect of self?"

>From here on (and including feeling of loss) all feelings are put into a statement (postulate) form by the preclear and then repeated until flat. The preclear can, and should, change the wording if it changes for him to something more appropriate while repeating. (Always preface the questions with "in or around that moment of shock...)

For example, "fear" can become "I can't confront anything," or "This is more than I can bear," or "I have to avoid this situation at all costs". If possible, have preclear avoid using the name of the feeling in the statement, like "I am afraid". The preclear needs to break down the feeling into its component parts. But the preclear should not be forced into an unreality either.

If possible, try to get the preclear to repeat the postulate as though he were making it in present time: "I can't confront" rather than "I lost my ability to confront". But this a judgement call.

Also, qualifiers should be eliminated such as "I feel like" or "I guess". The idea is to get the preclear as close to duplicating the original postulate as possible.

After they have been repeated a few times, I will ask the preclear "How does the feeling of ... seem to you now?"

If it is flat, I will go on to the next feeling. If it is not flat I will have the preclear look at the feeling as it is now (I ask "What does the feeling seem like now?") and have him turn that feeling into a statement form and repeat that until flat. Postulates often contain a pronoun such as "I" or "me" or "you".

If preclear can not find wording for the feeling, then he can be started out by having him use the phrase "I have to ..." or "I have to avoid ..." along with the appropriate ending, and have him repeat that. Another way is to lightly suggest some possible phrases to him. The stable datum here is that all feelings are basically postulates.

If it is a feeling of pain or physical sensation, there may be no words for that yet. Just have the preclear feel that feeling in the sense of accepting it and letting it follow its cycle to completion. After you ask, "How does it seem now?" it may be in a form which can be run as a postulate by repeater technique.

12. Ask for any remaining feelings beginning with those the preclear has already mentioned and which should be circled; handle same as above.

13. Ask for any emotions; handle same as above.

14. Ask for efforts or compulsions; handle same as above.

15. Ask for postulates, questions, intentions, attitudes, considerations, beliefs, agreements, aesthetics (like for instance the beautiful sadness of degradation, or the glorious feeling of being a martyr, or the entertainment value of being beheaded.) Only repeating of the phrases is needed here, unless they are feelings.

16. If appropriate, ask: "In or around that moment of shock is there any viewpoint that you are not totally comfortable with?" Handle all originations as above.

17. This step is at this writing still in a somewhat experimental stage.
>From what I have been able to gather there are two important points to be noted here. At the bottom of the flow zero chain is the high probability that the preclear created the whole basic incident and that it was for a simple reason such as to have a game, or to experience something. The auditor does not tell this to the preclearwho should cognize for himself about his part in the creation of the game. The second point is that the preclear also created the shock moment by his reaction to the circumstances and denial of self.

The first question about this should be "Is there any part of this moment of shock that you're responsible for?" The answer should be "All of it" (regardless of which flow), because of course it was the preclear's own reaction that occurred. Two way comm may be necessary on this step. Afterwards the auditor should ask if there was a postulate connected with that decision to react. If necessary the auditor can ask, "What did you hope to accomplish by creating that shock moment?" and ask for the postulate again afterwards. In any case there should be a postulate like "I'd better agree to be effect so I'll be acceptable to others" or whatever. Whatever postulate is arrived at should be repeated to a blowdown and VGIs.

The second question should be done when the basic on flow zero is reached: "Is there any part of this incident [as a whole] that you created?" If the answer is "None of it", then you have the option of using the process "What part of this incident could you be responsible for?" repetitively until the preclear cognizes about his part in it. On flow zero, usually the preclear simply created the whole scene. After that your next question is "What were you trying to accomplish (or what goal or purpose did you have in mind) when you created that incident?" The answer should be something simple like "To have a game," or "For entertainment" or something like that. The preclear should feel good about having recognized that. That should be all that is needed on this question.

Any problem on this section should be two-way commed until clean. Asking "why" for anything is not recommended as it implies a wrongdoing.

18. If the basic incident on the chain was not pre-MEST, have preclear go back to the later incidents on the chain after the chain is blown, and run out the shock with the feelings and postulates in those incidents if the shock moment is still there. It sometimes is. If the pre-MEST (actual) GPM is contacted and run out to EP, there should be no need to run the shock moments of the later incidents, but they should be checked anyway. Sometimes a little residue of charge is left, which can be blown upon inspection.

19. Check back for the circled feelings and postulate phrases in the later incidents on the chain and see if there is still charge on them, if so run out the charge in them with the repeater.

20. Refer preclear to original item to be run by asking if he sees a connection or similarity between the last incident run and the item in present time.

On flows 2,3 and 4, individually, check for charge run chain if need be.

21. Ask preclear "How does ...(item) seem to you now?"

22. Run havingness on preclear. If he balks, explain that it is for mainly the body and not necessarily for him as a Being. I usually run (a) "Create a mockup" (or "a pleasant scene") "and collapse it into the body," an alternative being "Put out 8 anchor points into space (in the form of a cube), collapse them into the body", (I prefer the latter) and (b) locational ("Spot an object"). Each run until preclear feels good about about it. If shoving the object into the body makes preclear feel worse, have him mock up objects and throw them away until he feels better, and next time use an alternative command.

The first command is mainly to remedy havingness and the second is mainly to reorient the preclear to present time.

23. End session.

24. Arrange next appointment.

An alternate way of doing this is to run R3R until flat on all four flows and then run the moment of shock on flow four first, and then any other flow with a shock moment still charged. Usually flow four is the only shock moment that needs to be run as it is usually the basic flow that occurred before the others. But sometimes all four flows have to be run.

Trouble shooting the moment of shock

In regards to running the moment of shock: There may sometimes be a buildup of mass when running the flow with the command "Move through that moment of shock..." If after repeated attempts the mass keeps building up rather than erasing, the auditor should ask the preclear for the feeling connected with the moment of shock and run it out by repeater technique, then go back to complete running the flow. If the phrase handling grinds too, then return to moving preclear through the moment of shock. That should complete it. Make sure the feeling and the running through the shock moment are both flat. Always make sure everything is flattened before moving on to something else.

The phenomenon that occurs here is that running the flow is very general while running the postulate is very specific. Running the flow is usually necessary to get the major masses out of the way so that the postulate can be viewed clearly enough to be run out. Sometimes the postulate needs to be run out to lighten up the load that is to be run as a flow.

In any case, this area cannot be run rote and must be handled in a manner the auditor decides is most appropriate for the situation.

Sometimes, if the preclear is having trouble running the moment of shock, or he still feels bad despite running everything, there may be an additional viewpoint in the incident that may be at first hidden from view. It needs to be located and then run like the others.

Running too shallowly:

If a preclear tends to be quick about moving through the incident, then he is probably running too shallow. He needs to be hatted on interiorizing into the incident and really feeling it. This takes confront and involvement. Just spotting and "blowing" the incident by inspection, or "knowingness" is not enough. Sometimes it takes the preclear two to three minutes to properly run through an incident no matter how advanced he is. it is been my experience that those who run deepest make the greatest gains. Erring on the side ofspeed is erring on the side of "quickying" the process.

As I see it, the preclear in running fast is only running out the "think" in the incidents, while the preclear who is running more deliberate is also erazsing the mass. So the preclear has to strive to feel all the sensations in the incidents running it interior and not exterior.'

Optional Shortcut Procedure

An alternative shortcut method is to do the following. When the basic pre-MEST incident in flow 1 is located and reduced and there is none found earlier, ask, "Is there an earlier incident where you caused yourself to have the feeling of (item)?" What you are trying to do here is get the preclear to contact flow 0 and run that and any earlier incidents in the flow chain, until you find the basic. Then you run the shock moment on that basic. Afterwards you check back again with the last incident on flow 1. That shock moment should be flat and of no consequence as flow 0 is usually the basic flow and often takes the charge off other flows. Flows 2 and 3 should still be checked for charge before session end or prior to the next session, and if charged should be taken up at the next scheduled session. I would only do this step on pre-MEST incidents.

Copyright 1996 (c) No part of this article may be reproduced except if done in its entirety with none of the original text excluded.

You can contact Robert Ducharme, (407) 850-9411 or (407) 855-4406; E-Mail address: VoltR@ctinet.net. Actual complete session tapes available.

***************

For more infomation See the home page at: http://www.sn.no/~trone/IVy.html

or write to:
ant@jacome.ping.dk
USA: angel@vais.net
GB: 100340.1063@compuserve.com
rayman@adelaide.DIALix.oz.au

	International Viewpoints - IVy 28 - Issued August 1996. GPM Clearing (part 2)


	by Robert Ducharme, USA Grateful acknowledgement is made to L. Ron Hubbard for his obvious innumerable contributions, to John Galusha for having given me the basic tools with which to develop GPM Clearing, to Curt Ducker for having introduced me to Scientology in 1970, to Dr. Travis Herring M.D. for his professional assistance in furthering my application of the tech, and to Hank Levin (Editor, "The Free Spirit") and Antony Phillips for their dedication to helping keep the free zone Scientology movement alive. I believe GPM running is the "missing link" between Dianetics and Scientology and that the shortcomings of Dianetics led to the necessity of incorporating the broader techniques of Scientology. However, neither Dianetics nor Scientology actually addressed issues per Axiom 20 ("Bringing the Static to create a perfect duplicate causes the vanishment of any existence or part thereof. A perfect duplicate is an additional creation of the object, its energy, and space, -in its own space, in its own time, using its own energy-. This violates the condition that two objects must not occupy the same space, and causes vanishment of the object." (Author's emphasis). Then came the research on GPMs in the 1950s and '60s as an effort, I believe, to fill in the gaps that neither Dianetics or Scientology were addressing. Those efforts at running GPMs had been in terms of having the preclear attempt to replicate the patterns GPMs had in common. This approach had some workability, but again it lacked the Axiom 20 factor, and so the results were spotty. GPM Clearing works because it fully incorporates Axiom 20 into every session. The results I have been getting with this process approach 100%. I see Dianetics auditing as addressing mainly the masses from the track and Scientology style auditing as addressing mainly the "think". Of course there will be some crossover in both cases. GPM Clearing addresses both of these areas and evidently does it more thoroughly than either Dianetics or Scientology style processes. GPM Clearing apparently eliminates the need for procedures such as rudiments handling (I simply run the item the pc is sitting in), service fac handling, entity handling, and a host of other complexities that are nice to know about but need not be used any more except for learning, experimental, demonstration, or nostalgic purposes. Every item presented by a preclear can be -fully- handled without -ever- having to address such things as "games matrixes" or "subject codes". So beware of complexities that an auditor might want to arbitrarily inject into this GPM Clearing process. I would like dianetic auditors who use this process to please contact me via e-mail or telephone and let me know how they are doing on applying it and what kinds of results they are getting on their preclears. This will help me to write future articles about the subject. Correction In part 1 I said: "it helps if the auditor is clear (so he doesn't read on the pc's case)". It should read "so he doesn't read on his own case". Full basic procedure If appropriate, hat pc up on whole track. Get which item is to be run (two-way comm with PC). 1. Run R3R to "erasure" per Standard Professional Dianetics procedure. (not the cheesey book-1 seminar style). Always check for an earlier incident on the chain even if preclear says the incident is erased. 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. Sometimes preclears are not yet ready to run pre-MEST Universe GPMs and would do better running grades processes along with more shallow GPM Clearing (more recent incidents) until their case is more accessible and can run pre-MEST GPMs. Never push a preclear past a point he can run. 2. Two-way-comm to get the moment of shock (if shock doesn't indicate, other possible terms are jolt, overwhelm, shift of attitude, surge of energy, shutting down, turning point, emotional reaction, transition point). 3. Check for more than one shock moment; if so run each separately, the most significant one first, or run all simultaneously as one shock moment. There is rarely more than one shock moment. For flow 2 it is often a "surge of energy", and for flow 0 it is often a "feeling of overwhelm". 4. Give preclear the exact command: "Move through that moment of shock from beginning to end" several times until flat. If necessary, you could always have him run in slow motion as the moment of shock is very brief. After each run through, ask him how the moment of shock seems now compared to the time before (if you do not have a meter). I use the question "is it reducing?" If there is change, have him continue going through again and again until flat. If you have a meter, simply give the command over and over, and watch for a major needle blowdown and ask what was going on at that moment (never interrupt a blowdown - a good reason to use a meter). He will probably tell you that it went flat. Do the same with each viewpoint. Some preclears will go through several needle blowdowns before it is flat. But there should be at least one. 5. Have preclear do the move through the moment of shock, from any other viewpoint he has charge on (other persons, beings in the incident) just as he did with his own viewpoint. It is important that when running viewpoints from this point on (except for the "Being" viewpoint) you first have the preclear take the viewpoint, and only then move him through the moment of shock. Some viewpoints may be taken as a group, especially if it is basically the same feeling involved, such as sympathy or anger. If no other viewpoints in the incident have any charge or relevance to the shock, proceed to step 6. The command for step 5 is a) "Take (or assume) the viewpoint of ... "; and b) "From the viewpoint of .. , move through that moment of shock from beginning to end". This done to same EP. (EP = End Phenomena or End Point. Ed.) as above. Always acknowledge after each command is carried out. 6. Ask preclear how he felt after the shock and note it down. Then ask him how he felt before the shock by comparison and note it down - all done in that order. If the preclear mentions a negative feeling before the shock, such as "anxious about what was about to happen," then ask him how he felt before that until he says "normal" or "good" or "pleasant" or something like that. That will be considered his identity before the shock. 7. Have preclear move through the shock moment from the "after" viewpoint. It should sound like a) "Take the viewpoint you had after the shock"; and b) "From the viewpoint you had after the shock, confused person (or whatever preclear felt at the time), move through that moment of shock from beginning to end" to same EP. 8. Have preclear move through the shock moment the same way from the "before" viewpoint to same EP. 9. Have preclear do the same from a pan-determined (all viewpoints at once) viewpoint, emphasizing the textbook definition of pan-determined as controling all viewpoints, not simply being exterior to them. Use term "observe" rather than "move" for pan-determined and beingness viewpoints. You can use the command a) "Take all viewpoints at once"; and b) "From all viewpoints at once, observe that moment of shock from beginning to end" to same EP. 10. Give preclear the command, "Observe that moment of shock from beginning to end by just being," to same EP. Preface the command with something like "Whatever this command means to you" if you feel the preclear might become puzzled by it. No need to do part a) on this command. 11. Ask: "In or around that moment of shock is there a feeling of loss of self or some aspect of self?" >From here on (and including feeling of loss) all feelings are put into a statement (postulate) form by the preclear and then repeated until flat. The preclear can, and should, change the wording if it changes for him to something more appropriate while repeating. (Always preface the questions with "in or around that moment of shock...) For example, "fear" can become "I can't confront anything," or "This is more than I can bear," or "I have to avoid this situation at all costs". If possible, have preclear avoid using the name of the feeling in the statement, like "I am afraid". The preclear needs to break down the feeling into its component parts. But the preclear should not be forced into an unreality either. If possible, try to get the preclear to repeat the postulate as though he were making it in present time: "I can't confront" rather than "I lost my ability to confront". But this a judgement call. Also, qualifiers should be eliminated such as "I feel like" or "I guess". The idea is to get the preclear as close to duplicating the original postulate as possible. After they have been repeated a few times, I will ask the preclear "How does the feeling of ... seem to you now?" If it is flat, I will go on to the next feeling. If it is not flat I will have the preclear look at the feeling as it is now (I ask "What does the feeling seem like now?") and have him turn that feeling into a statement form and repeat that until flat. Postulates often contain a pronoun such as "I" or "me" or "you". If preclear can not find wording for the feeling, then he can be started out by having him use the phrase "I have to ..." or "I have to avoid ..." along with the appropriate ending, and have him repeat that. Another way is to lightly suggest some possible phrases to him. The stable datum here is that all feelings are basically postulates. If it is a feeling of pain or physical sensation, there may be no words for that yet. Just have the preclear feel that feeling in the sense of accepting it and letting it follow its cycle to completion. After you ask, "How does it seem now?" it may be in a form which can be run as a postulate by repeater technique. 12. Ask for any remaining feelings beginning with those the preclear has already mentioned and which should be circled; handle same as above. 13. Ask for any emotions; handle same as above. 14. Ask for efforts or compulsions; handle same as above. 15. Ask for postulates, questions, intentions, attitudes, considerations, beliefs, agreements, aesthetics (like for instance the beautiful sadness of degradation, or the glorious feeling of being a martyr, or the entertainment value of being beheaded.) Only repeating of the phrases is needed here, unless they are feelings. 16. If appropriate, ask: "In or around that moment of shock is there any viewpoint that you are not totally comfortable with?" Handle all originations as above. 17. This step is at this writing still in a somewhat experimental stage. >From what I have been able to gather there are two important points to be noted here. At the bottom of the flow zero chain is the high probability that the preclear created the whole basic incident and that it was for a simple reason such as to have a game, or to experience something. The auditor does not tell this to the preclearwho should cognize for himself about his part in the creation of the game. The second point is that the preclear also created the shock moment by his reaction to the circumstances and denial of self. The first question about this should be "Is there any part of this moment of shock that you're responsible for?" The answer should be "All of it" (regardless of which flow), because of course it was the preclear's own reaction that occurred. Two way comm may be necessary on this step. Afterwards the auditor should ask if there was a postulate connected with that decision to react. If necessary the auditor can ask, "What did you hope to accomplish by creating that shock moment?" and ask for the postulate again afterwards. In any case there should be a postulate like "I'd better agree to be effect so I'll be acceptable to others" or whatever. Whatever postulate is arrived at should be repeated to a blowdown and VGIs. The second question should be done when the basic on flow zero is reached: "Is there any part of this incident [as a whole] that you created?" If the answer is "None of it", then you have the option of using the process "What part of this incident could you be responsible for?" repetitively until the preclear cognizes about his part in it. On flow zero, usually the preclear simply created the whole scene. After that your next question is "What were you trying to accomplish (or what goal or purpose did you have in mind) when you created that incident?" The answer should be something simple like "To have a game," or "For entertainment" or something like that. The preclear should feel good about having recognized that. That should be all that is needed on this question. Any problem on this section should be two-way commed until clean. Asking "why" for anything is not recommended as it implies a wrongdoing. 18. If the basic incident on the chain was not pre-MEST, have preclear go back to the later incidents on the chain after the chain is blown, and run out the shock with the feelings and postulates in those incidents if the shock moment is still there. It sometimes is. If the pre-MEST (actual) GPM is contacted and run out to EP, there should be no need to run the shock moments of the later incidents, but they should be checked anyway. Sometimes a little residue of charge is left, which can be blown upon inspection. 19. Check back for the circled feelings and postulate phrases in the later incidents on the chain and see if there is still charge on them, if so run out the charge in them with the repeater. 20. Refer preclear to original item to be run by asking if he sees a connection or similarity between the last incident run and the item in present time. On flows 2,3 and 4, individually, check for charge run chain if need be. 21. Ask preclear "How does ...(item) seem to you now?" 22. Run havingness on preclear. If he balks, explain that it is for mainly the body and not necessarily for him as a Being. I usually run (a) "Create a mockup" (or "a pleasant scene") "and collapse it into the body," an alternative being "Put out 8 anchor points into space (in the form of a cube), collapse them into the body", (I prefer the latter) and (b) locational ("Spot an object"). Each run until preclear feels good about about it. If shoving the object into the body makes preclear feel worse, have him mock up objects and throw them away until he feels better, and next time use an alternative command. The first command is mainly to remedy havingness and the second is mainly to reorient the preclear to present time. 23. End session. 24. Arrange next appointment. An alternate way of doing this is to run R3R until flat on all four flows and then run the moment of shock on flow four first, and then any other flow with a shock moment still charged. Usually flow four is the only shock moment that needs to be run as it is usually the basic flow that occurred before the others. But sometimes all four flows have to be run. Trouble shooting the moment of shock In regards to running the moment of shock: There may sometimes be a buildup of mass when running the flow with the command "Move through that moment of shock..." If after repeated attempts the mass keeps building up rather than erasing, the auditor should ask the preclear for the feeling connected with the moment of shock and run it out by repeater technique, then go back to complete running the flow. If the phrase handling grinds too, then return to moving preclear through the moment of shock. That should complete it. Make sure the feeling and the running through the shock moment are both flat. Always make sure everything is flattened before moving on to something else. The phenomenon that occurs here is that running the flow is very general while running the postulate is very specific. Running the flow is usually necessary to get the major masses out of the way so that the postulate can be viewed clearly enough to be run out. Sometimes the postulate needs to be run out to lighten up the load that is to be run as a flow. In any case, this area cannot be run rote and must be handled in a manner the auditor decides is most appropriate for the situation. Sometimes, if the preclear is having trouble running the moment of shock, or he still feels bad despite running everything, there may be an additional viewpoint in the incident that may be at first hidden from view. It needs to be located and then run like the others. Running too shallowly: If a preclear tends to be quick about moving through the incident, then he is probably running too shallow. He needs to be hatted on interiorizing into the incident and really feeling it. This takes confront and involvement. Just spotting and "blowing" the incident by inspection, or "knowingness" is not enough. Sometimes it takes the preclear two to three minutes to properly run through an incident no matter how advanced he is. it is been my experience that those who run deepest make the greatest gains. Erring on the side ofspeed is erring on the side of "quickying" the process. As I see it, the preclear in running fast is only running out the "think" in the incidents, while the preclear who is running more deliberate is also erazsing the mass. So the preclear has to strive to feel all the sensations in the incidents running it interior and not exterior.' Optional Shortcut Procedure An alternative shortcut method is to do the following. When the basic pre-MEST incident in flow 1 is located and reduced and there is none found earlier, ask, "Is there an earlier incident where you caused yourself to have the feeling of (item)?" What you are trying to do here is get the preclear to contact flow 0 and run that and any earlier incidents in the flow chain, until you find the basic. Then you run the shock moment on that basic. Afterwards you check back again with the last incident on flow 1. That shock moment should be flat and of no consequence as flow 0 is usually the basic flow and often takes the charge off other flows. Flows 2 and 3 should still be checked for charge before session end or prior to the next session, and if charged should be taken up at the next scheduled session. I would only do this step on pre-MEST incidents. Copyright 1996 (c) No part of this article may be reproduced except if done in its entirety with none of the original text excluded. You can contact Robert Ducharme, (407) 850-9411 or (407) 855-4406; E-Mail address: VoltR@ctinet.net. Actual complete session tapes available. *************** For more infomation See the home page at: http://www.sn.no/~trone/IVy.html or write to: ant@jacome.ping.dk USA: angel@vais.net GB: 100340.1063@compuserve.com rayman@adelaide.DIALix.oz.au