Home Page

Updates printed in red. The write-up has been restructured to a more consolidated and easy-to-read format. Last updated 22 May 2000.

The following is a raw submission, subject to change by consensus of proper tech terminals and not meant to be the final draft. I will be making updates and additions as needed. They will be printed in red each time. I will try to keep the updated data at the end accompanied with a date tag. The "GPM Clearing" procedure (found elsewhere on the FreeZoneEarth site) can be checked for additional data not included here, and background data. It has been superceded by the R3XD procedure. Where conflicts exist, this write-up takes precedence. The opinions stated on the "GPM Clearing" procedure represented my viewpoint at that time and may no longer do so. This procedure here works perfectly exactly as originally written. Additional steps may be added by Revenius or others to amplify the results. This procedure as originally written has been tested and evolved over a period of ten years. It is hoped that it will be tried as it is first so as to form a basis from which to proceed. The additions by Revenius are printed in blue. I cannot vouch for or against their workability, but will report on results as they are tested.

Robert Ducharme, 28 April 2000

Thanks to Robert for writing it up. It looks pretty thorough.
I'd like to go into a bit of theory and then add comments.

The bridge up to Clear is a gradient of handling locks, secondaries
and engrams. There were earlier attempts to get a Clear on 8 dynamics
that just didn't get there. The gradient was too steep and the tech
at that time was too rough on the NOTs case. Quite a few of the
basics were missing - enough to give us a fairly high casualty list
in the early sixties.

After Clear we're looking at 2 phenomena - the entity case and the
upper banks. The route through the entity case has proven long.

The approach of Super Power and R3XD is to pull off enough locks from
the basic GPM matrices to give a much smoother ride to OT.

The intent is to pull off charge and concurrently up the reach and
causativeness of the Pre-OT.



Minimum prerequisites: Book-1 auditor course plus NED or HSDC (including the TRs course and student hat course) The auditor ideally should be a clear and class 4 or above. He should know the auditor's code cold and apply it.

Recommended reading material and references: R3RA procedure bulletins; "Dianetics Today"; "Tech Dictionary"; "A History of Man"; Whole-Track tapes; Dianetics tape series by LRH; Tape: "The Goals Problem Mass", 6112c31 CHC-4, 31 Dec. 1961; "Engram Running by Chains", bulletins 1 and 2.


You might be hitting higher dynamics here so the wording might need
shifting for that.

Here's the point where you want to shift the person's space out to
include others and other dynamics involved in the incident - this
gets an aspect of their beingness in the session.

- Revenius

[Note: I haven't decided yet on the approach for incorporating this suggested step. In the meantime, I leave it up to the reader to decide for himself what to do here. The standard procedure will still work as originally written. - R.D.]

The purpose of this is to make sure the person doesn't miss the original shock of the incident. This should be at a point where he was still feeling relatively normal or "like himself".

You can add "What do others see?" - Revenius

[Note: See note in brackets above]

I will often omit this step when I know the processee is doing well and the duration is only a few minutes. The problem with a short duration comes when he tells you all about the incident before you run him through it, so you're not sure whether to give the "move through..." command or not. But it's no big deal either way.

This question can be phrased in several ways, like "what occurred", "what did you get", "what did you notice as you went through", etc. I use whatever happens to seem most appropriate at the moment.

This is more of a two-way-comm question than a rote one. You might need to add something like "Is it lighter or flat?". Other terms besides "lighter" include: less charged, erasing; less serious, better, etc.

Asking "Is it erasing or going more solid?" is geared toward moving the Pc on to another incident after a couple of passes through. The theory that command operates on is that the incident will not erase if the charge comes from an earlier incident.

It could also be missing viewpoints that need to be included in the
session space. - Revenius

In fact, each incident can be discharged and should be. To not do so can cause the Pc's attention to remain fixed on that incident when handling earlier incidents thus leading to shallow running and/or a blocked earlier track. So each incident along the way should be run to its own E.P as though it were a narrative incident as in the R-3R tech.

If the Pc's attention goes to another incident, then that one should be taken up if the Pc feels ready to move on to it. Usually that's the case.

One should never run an earlier incident unless the later incident is either flat or the Pc's attention is drawn to an earlier one. Even in the latter case, the earlier incident may act as an earlier beginning, so when in doubt it is prudent to ask if the later incident is okay to leave behind or if it should be run as a later ending to the earlier incident.

Normally I use "another" for MEST universe lifetimes and "an earlier" for pre-MEST.

That seems the wrong way round. You could actually circumvent the
time aspect by asking for a more basic incident or an incident
restimulated in the current one. - Revenius

I have no fixed rule on this though. It's a judgment call. I get the best results by just letting the Pc handle whatever pictures or incidents that the commands trigger. Sometimes an earlier incident will be more prominent and get the Pc's first attention, then a later one may come to mind after the earlier has been handled. The Pc finds the incidents in the order that is real to his case. A Pc may find dozens and dozens of incidents from this lifetime before even going back to earlier lives. It's not time badly spent, and it's on the correct gradient for the Pc.

If the Pc gets a group of incidents together, I will ask him for the time period that covers, and fashion the commands around that factor. For instance: "Move to the beginning of that series of incidents (or "...that period of time"); "Move through to the end of that series of incidents (or "...that period of time") instead of the usual commands. Good TRs and auditor presence keeps the Pc from wandering from the area being addressed. That is not to say that lock scanning this lifetime prematurely is advisable. It's better to take the incidents as the Pc hands them. If the Pc hands a group of them at once, I'll run it that way.

The way pre-MEST incidents are run is with the commands as follows:

(The "When was it" command is ommitted after entry is made into the pre-MEST area, i.e. when looking for earlier similar pre-MEST incidents)

Pre-MEST incidents may have duration and time as there are a few
universes before this one. - Revenius

[Note: If the auditor chooses to ask for duration and the Pc appears bewildered by the question, then it would be best to let that step go as time in that case would have little meaning to the him.]

"Move to that incident"

(the "duration" question is omitted)

"Move to a point just before that began"

(the rest of the procedure is the same as before)

I'd scout a bit for a postulate here. - Revenius

Running the shift should resolve the balance of the unreality.

This process is good for ANY point on the track that bogs or grinds.


This and the other similar commands work regardless of the "timelessness" of the shift. The Pc can easily "inject time" into it to make it viewable. I toyed with the idea of incorporating the command "spot the shift" as a repetitive command. That did work, however one person commented that that wording didn't give her as clear and expanded a view of the shift as the other one did.

I'd include upper dynamics and go with what the Pre-OT can handle.
Early on they might be taking one terminal at a time. Later they
could just encompass all the dynamics involved. - Revenius

When hitting the basic-basic incident, his viewpoint may be the only relevant one, and so this command would not be used. It is prudent to check for charge on hidden viewpoints, or viewpoint of a particular object or "theta trap" in question. It is also good to check if there is an intelligence behind any such object. Maybe that would need to be run.

I'd think that your going to get a higher dynamic involved even with
basic-basic but it'll vary from person to person. - Revenius

I've found the order of the last two commands to be most workable, but that doesn't preclude the Pc doing better at running them vice-versa if the later viewpoint is too unconfrontable

The idea behind these two commands is to get the Pc to confront the moment of shift from both points of view - from the point of view of his original and expansive identity, and from the point of view of his new and limited identity. The commands may appear to defy logic, but they run quite as well as all the other commands.

The following commands may seem abstract and hard to comprehend, but they run quite well on everyone.

The valence shifts and postulates in the incident are the link into
the GPM. These need an emphasis. - Revenius

This encompasses all the viewpoints taken so far, from an independent point of view. Another way of stating it is "all viewpoints at once". I use "observe" instead of "move through" just to be precise in my words. I surmise that a higher viewpoint would be more widely encompassing of the incident with regards to time/space. Both versions may work, I just chose to do it this way when running the higher (more widely encompassing) viewpoints.

This is the 9th dynamic, according to LRH. It can be roughly defined as "the considerations of beauty and ugliness. These concepts do run quite readily, even on beginners, and even given the strange appearance of the command. I felt that aesthetics is an important factor in an incident, which is why I included it here. Ethics seemed like an important factor too.

This is the 10th dynamic, according to LRH. It can be roughly defined as "the considerations of right/wrong, goodness/badness.

This was taken from the Pilot's (Ken Ogger) tech as a dynamic. I can't verify if it actually qualifies as a dynamic, but it is a point of view that is fundamental and worth inspecting. I define games basically as dealing with opponents and contests.

This command can be given with the clarification that the person should interpret it in whatever way he chooses. The command does impinge on the being and gets a valid response. I first encountered this from one highly evolved Pc who told me that she could see a higher viewpoint than "pan-determined". I've been incorporating it ever since. Pcs seem to all be able to make it run, and will even tell you when it's not flat for them yet.

In this context, "all-being" can be variously translated as "allness", "the whole", "all that is", "infinite being". Since "God" is a debatable concept that has little common agreement as to definition, I've avoided that term. I've tried "the universe", but that didn't seem to run very well as it tended to be taken as MEST.

This question was taken from John Galusha's procedure that handles shifts. The feeling of loss seems to be the most prevalent one contained in shifts.

(See section on "handling of feelings".)

Postulates as all dynamics should pull a lot off here. - Revenius

[Note: That should be a fruitful area to explore - the feelings and postulates from the other dynamics' viewpoints. I haven't delineated commands for that specifically]

All these questions are simply buttons to check for any thoughts, emotions, or efforts that might still be contained in the shift. Other possible buttons include: thoughts, ideas, considerations, postulates, intentions. When the chain is properly run to its basic-basic, these questions will rarely be necessary.

A ser fac is a solution. You could just ask for what postulate
enabled him to still be right or various wordings - its what solved
and explains the overwhelm of the incident so as not to need further
inspection. - Revenius

Have Pc repeat the computation until it goes flat (releases). The computation should be worded in such a way that it relates to the basic incident as well as to the present lifetime. A computation is normally an equation that amounts to "If I have X aberration in a Y situation, then that will solve my problem." So it basically says: "unwanted situation plus compulsive postulate equals solution". The computation is only an apparent solution which in actuality only compounds the problem for the user and makes it persist.

(see section on "Command Notes")

This action usually takes only one or two times through to F/N, but sometimes (though rarely) a bit more. After the basic on flow 0 is erased, everything stemming therefrom blows like minor locks. This is the same procedure as was written about in Book - 1® auditing on a single flow except that it's taken wholesale instead of one incident at a time.

This step was suggested by LRH in several places where he said that one should as-is an incident, and then as-is the fact of having as-ised it. It's also a safeguard against unflat areas of the session which should show up on running this step if they exist.

You may also have NOTs cross copying and restim to handle.

After that's handled I'd expect the PC to be blown out. If they've
extended their space and run the incident across the involved
dynamics then going further might well collapse their space and
havingness and act as an invalidation. - Revenius

[Note: Havingness is something needed and wanted by some and not by others. If the Pc opts for no havingness, a watchful eye should be kept on him for signs of low havingness, and remedy accordingly. This process is notorious for removing large masses from the case. Personally I would remedy havingness as long as the Pc didn't protest or feel invalidated by it]

The basic havingness commands I use are: "Put out eight anchor points in space" (or "...eight points...") and "Do what you like with them." Repeat to E.P. If Pc is new, instruct him to either collapse the anchor points into the body or to throw them away, either one that feels better for him at the moment. He can be started off by giving him alternating commands i.e. "Put out...." "collapse them into the body" "Put out..." "throw them away", and then shifting to the "do whichever you like with them" after the second command.. P.C.s, for better or worse, will often do strange things with these anchor points like twirl them around or make them into figures or whatever. That's why I use the word "...whichever..." in the command rather than "...whatever...". I'd rather they either disposed of them or collapsed them.

An alternate command would be "mock up a pleasant scene" or "mock up an acceptable object" (the more large and massive the better) (auditor should not acknowledge the Pc on this step as it may tend to as-is the mockup) and "collapse it into the body" (I find "collapse" to be more neutral than "pull" or "shove" it in).

A present time orientation process I use is: "Look around and tell me something you could have".

Another alternative havingness command would be either "look at that (object pointed to)" or "spot an object".

Different people respond differently to various havingness processes. Some do well on some, others do better on others. The trick is to find the havingness processes best suited to the individual Pc.

The E.P. of this procedure is primarily "full responsibility for the item on all dynamics", and secondarily, "item completely erased" (I would add "forever, but that would be too presumptive of the Pc's will) and "able to mock up the item if one would choose to". This is normally accompanied by a sense of expanded space and a feeling of wellbeing.

Sometimes it takes a few days or a few weeks before the person adjusts fully to the change from the process. He may have ongoing cognitions for quite some time, even months later, even after only one session. So how the sessions are spaced out is dependent on the Pc's ability to assimilate change. Too many sessions in too short a period of time can result in overlapping "denouements", to borrow a literary term. The person will be experiencing cognitions and changes from two, three, four or more sessions, all at one time. So it's best to space out the frequency of sessions accordingly.


Grinding and Earlier Beginning: If an incident seems to be grinding, check for an earlier beginning. You could also ask him if the charge is coming from the that incident or from elsewhere. If it's coming from that incident, then it's probably an earlier beginning, even if it's an earlier incident the Pc identifies as part of the incident being presently run. As a last resort, the alternate confront process can always be used. But it's always best to stick with procedure as much as possible rather than to go into unusual solutions.

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 or more real. If so, that should count as erasing, not more solid. An incident needs to be confronted before it's left for an earlier one.

Yes, that's important. One really wants to be running OTs with bright
3D perceptions of these incidents.

One is erasing charge but the incidents don't disappear. At this
level the Pre-OT is actually restoring communication and reach into
the locations and times of the incidents. - Revenius

The whole idea is to disconnect the incident from the charge. Every incident can and should be run in the manner the narrative incident is run in the R-3R materials.

Acknowledgments: Acknowledgments (e.g. good, fine, alright, okay, thank you) need to be given after every command has been carried out and every question answered by the Pc. The reason is basically because it makes the Pc feel like he has been heard and smoothly completes the cycle of communication. The only exception to this rule is when having the person doing a mockup during a havingness process. To acknowledge the mockup would tend to as-is it prematurely.

Definitions: A Pc must fully understand each command before running it. If there is any doubt about any word, it should be defined. Any good dictionary can used for this. Before defining the term, I will ask the Pc what he thinks the definition is. This will get him to compare his past concepts of it with the common meaning. It will also validate his knowledge about it if he is right. In any case, I have found doing that to be a more causative and interesting way of defining known words because of the active rather than passive role it promotes. It causes him to look and create rather than just passively think about and accept it. Previously unknown words are a different matter, and are handled without this step.

"Erasing or going more solid": Incidents usually go through a bell curve pattern over a series of recountings where the incident may appear to get more solid, with TA rising, reach a peak, and then wane to erasure. The initial rise in TA is usually only the result of the Pc encountering more charge in the incident. When in doubt, the auditor can always ask something like "Is the charge coming from this incident, or elsewhere?" Each incident needs to be discharged before asking for an earlier similar, otherwise the earlier incidents can tend to run shallow or be blocked from view by the charge connected to the later incidents on the track, drawing the Pc's attention toward them and away from earlier track. Failure to consider this phenomenon has been one of the major weak points of the old R3R system.

Yes, that was covered in Class 8 but never really exported from
there. - Revenius

Pre-MEST universe incidents: These incidents have far more charge to them because in that realm there is more free theta and more ability to create that charge. The pre-MEST area should be the minimum target for any auditor processing an advanced Pc. Physical universe incidents are minor by comparison. Clears and above normally have little trouble accessing this realm. When accessing pre-MEST incidents, Pcs will notice that time as we know it becomes nonexistent.

Also it should be really stressed that the PCs postulates on the
early track are much stronger. So when you're getting up into the OT
realms you could well get more charge off repeating the postulates
than anything else. - Revenius

To ask for time or duration will often get a confused response from the Pc., which is why I have dropped those steps.

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.

Auditor 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 can stick you as an ally and get a propitiative PC." - Revenius

Roteness of commands and clears: A fatal error in running dianetics on clears occurs when the Pc is fast while the auditor is rote. The auditor will say: "move to that incident". Pc: I'm there... (itsas about it and blows it by inspection). Auditor: What is the duration of the incident? etc. etc. If the auditor is not tracking with the Pc, obnosing the situation, watching the meter for BDs and querying them, or running rote commands just to be following procedure blindly, he can cause an auditor to unwittingly dub in an incident creating protest charge in the Pc, and mess up the session. When dealing with advanced and fast Pcs, the auditor must follow the Pc's lead, not the other way around. The auditor must at the same time, however, remain in control of the session.

The shift: The shift is an interesting phenomenon. It evidently contains no time, and yet it contains all the postulates in the incident. It is the "prior cause" in the incident, and so is the important part of it. When the incident is run to a flat point, the shift will still be there. Rarely though, it will be blown along with the incident. But the shift still needs to be asked for. If the auditor asks for a shift and the Pc gives an at-effect experience, he should be wary of this and ask for the point where the Pc was feeling "like himself", and then have him move forward to find the shift moment. This is similar in many ways to finding the misunderstood word, i.e. going back to the point where one felt comfortable with the text and moving forward to the blank area. The transition point is the misunderstood word. That could also be called the moment of shift. The blank period following the M/U is comparable to the dianetic incident. Blow the prior confusion and the blank period following blows with it.

Shock or shift?: I have used both terms, and both work. However, the term "shift" is more cause than the term "shock". They usually occur pretty much simultaneously, but sometimes the shock occurs after the person creates the postulates and then shifts. The end result can still be erasure of the item, but the responsibility level tends to be higher when "shift" is used. The shift is what the Pc considers to be the single most significant part of the incident - at least by the end of the handling.

I'd try and work with this at the level of beingness across the
dynamics. - Revenius

Alternate confront process, use of: This process is extremely useful in unblocking stuck areas of track. The commands are: "What part of that (incident, shift, or whatever) would you be willing to confront" and "What part of that .... would you rather not confront." This is done to an EP. Like everything else, don't overrun. The EP usually happens fast.

When the Pc blows the shift along with the incident: It will happen on occasion that no shift can be found because it blew, and asking for it doesn't produce it, and no unwanted feelings exist. This normally happens only with very advanced Pcs and infrequently. If there is no shift to be found, then the shift can be considered cleaned up. The next action is to check for a ser fac computation.

On new Pcs who are used to ending off after a chain is erased dianetically, the shift should be handled anyway if it is found. If the PC protests that the blown basic is an EP, you can inform him that there are multiple EPs on this procedure - in fact, one for each incident and each section run.

I don't think a preclear is going to have the reach for the upper
dynamic approaches - if they have that degree of perception then they
are probably Clear already and its been missed. - Revenius

The behavior of personal GPMs toward present time: Normally the GPM will start out being "way back on the track", but then as it is run, it will tend to encompass the entire track including present time. The Pc will often say things like "This is the story of my life", or "This has been the story of all my existences along the track", or "this incident is still happening right now". This apparancy will blow off as soon as the postulates are discharged and the shift cleaned up.

This term "personal GPM" could get confusing. We're dealing with an
engram that's significant in the Actual GPM and could be a joining of
several chains on several dynamics. It's a point of significant
valence shift in the living of the GPM. - Revenius

Indicating F/Ns: Since I have been auditing this procedure almost exclusively by phone, I have cut out F/N indications entirely. I have found absolutely no liability to doing this. What I do instead is to thoroughly acknowledge the end of cycle. So instead of saying "Your needle is floating", I might say something like "Very good. Alright." or something similar to let the person know I completely agree with his end of cycle. Like everything else in auditing, it should be spontaneous and heartfelt, not rote, even if it's predictable.

Preclears tend to benefit from very standard session procedure but it
will bog down a fast running OT. - Revenius

Through the "no earlier incident" block: The R3R procedure is usually run in such a way that the auditor will accept almost any win as a basic incident. This leaves the Pc with a mere key-out instead of an erasure, no matter how significant the cognition or how early on in the MEST universe it happened. This must be balanced with the rule of not pushing the Pc past his capabilities.

Its even deeper than erasure really. I would go for restored ability
to pervade the space and time of the incident. - Revenius

When the command "is there an earlier incident where you had the feeling of......(item)..." is used, and there is a read, you can ask "Did you think of something when I asked that?" and 2-way comm it. Steering is an option, but I'd rather keep the Pc from being meter dependent., so I use that method as last resort. If I get a no response but the meter read, I will ask "Did you you have a thought flash by right when I asked that?" or something like that, and pursue that.

If nothing shows up, I will then ask (always with good TR-1) "Is there an earlier incident before the beginning of time where you had the feeling of .....(item)....?" If the Pc is well set up, this question should read big time. So then you run the pre-MEST universe bank back earlier similar, earlier similar, until there is nothing earlier. Then you ask for the flow zero incident with the command "Is there an earlier incident where you caused yourself to have the feeling of .....(item)...?". If it doesn't indicate to the PC, then you run the shift on the incident just run. If at any time there is a bog on running the shift of that incident, one place to look at is an earlier incident again. Sometimes it will surface when running the later shift triggers it. This phenomenon rarely occurs though.

If the incident already handled seems to the Pc like it might be the basic, the auditor can give the Pc the R-factor that the E/S question is routine and may not indicate.

The earliest incident I've ever seen people run has been the "original separation from theta" incident as mentioned on the "Individual Track Map" in the tech bulletins, which evidently is on everybody's track. Each Pc seems to have a unique take on it, but the basic story is similar from Pc to Pc. Not every Pc is ready to run this incident. Some run it the first time they have a session. Once a Pc runs this incident, it will thereafter probably be "basic-basic" for all or most subsequent items run thereafter. This is good and will lead to accelerated positive case change for him. Apparently basic-basic can have many aspects, each of which may constitute a GPM incident in itself.

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 no earlier incident this lifetime. You give him the E/S command and hope for the best.

The following are some methods of approach when he does not respond favorably to the E/S command:

You give him the "earlier similar" command, check the meter for an instant read, and then you can ask him if a picture, thought, or feeling flashed in his mind when you asked the e.s. question. Then you follow that up.

You can ask him if he can still feel the somatic he started the session with. If so, you can ask him to use his imagination and tell you what sort of scenario might explain or accompany the picture, thought or feeling he has. The same means can be used to open up blank areas of track like operations or implants. Then you get the Pc to "make up a story" about what the incident would be like if he were to have happened. Then you run him through it again and again until his reality on it picks up and the incident eventually flattens. Pay special attention to areas he talks about that gets good reads and have him expand on those.

Handling of feelings: From the point of asking for feelings in the shift on forward, 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 shift...)

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". Fear could also be simply "I am afraid". The Pc should break down the feeling into its component parts if possible, but the he should not be forced into an unreality either.

If possible, the Pc should 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 judgment call.

If he's not stating it as if its present time then he's looking back
on it and isn't as-ising it.

You can shift tenses for him. For example if he says "I lost my
confront" you could lead in with "Get the point where you are losing
your confront … what's the postulate you are making?" - Revenius

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. Again, if it's real to the Pc, he can run a statement like "I feel..." and see where it leads. Best to let the Pc be the final judge.

After they have been repeated a few times, I will ask the Pc "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 Pc 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 the Pc doesn't know what to look for and needs help, the auditor can suggest possible phrases in question form like "I can't .... any more?" or I'm unable to...?" or "I'll never....again?".

If Pc still cannot 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 (this rarely occurs. Just have the preclear feel that feeling in the sense of accepting it and letting it follow its cycle to completion (as in Technique 80). After you ask, "How does it seem now?" it may be in a form which can be run as a postulate by repeater technique.

You don't want to be handling present time somatics with the repeater technique, so if there is any question about that, ask if that somatic is part of the pre-MEST incident being handled or if it's only present time.

Dichotomies: It doesn't hurt to ask if a feeling being run has an opposing side like "I hate you" and "I love you", or "I[typo erased] can't......" and "I must.........". If it does, the two sides are run by repeater technique 1,2,1,2,1,2 to a flat point. In fact, sometimes it's necessary to run the opposite side for it to blow.

Op-term feelings: It's also good to check for any feelings any opposition terminals had and run those out too by getting the Pc to repeat the op-term phrase from the op-term's point of view.

Yes, plus the other dynamics. Let's say you start in with a feeling
of degradation about an RPF assignment. You'd want to pick up the
emotions and postulates throughout his group. These things are part
of the telepathic aspect of the incident that needs to be addressed
and would block an EP if left there.

Another point that needs to be thrown in is the old "Stuck pictures"
from '68 . Incidents can hang up on those points and earlier
Dianetics was a bit too rote to get them.

It looks like this is getting into shape.




The primary purpose of this process: It must be kept in mind that the primary purpose of running R3XD is not to take away a person's items and restimulations. The purpose is to locate and discharge GPM masses at their source, thus bringing about maximum case gain per session hour. It may appear to be just a "negative gain" process at first glance, but it acts positively in restoring a being's full responsibility for his creations. The end result is a greater degree of OT ability.

Basic and basic-basic: Any incident can act as a "basic" as long as the charge is keyed out. I consider the "original separation from Theta" incident to be basic-basic. Any later incident, with no apparent earlier incident on the chain where the charge is at least keyed out, I call a basic.

References for the fundamentals involved in this procedure:

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 interesting to note that he never followed up on this discovery afterwards. But without this datum added, standard dianetics is a limited procedure.

In an HCO bulletin of 1963 LRH wrote:

"Almost any pc from Level 7 upwards could have run engrams if the exact chain necessary to resolve the case could have been established. This is accomplished now by an accurate assessment using a sensitive e-meter and the following form and procedure. "


"Thus the result obtained in the Preliminary Step is used on and on until an actual basic is reached. This may be fifty or more engrams run and perhaps even some R3N* in the middle of the chain if the chain leads into a GPM by normal rote use of R3R."


"Engram running has vanished as a healing process. Engram handling by chains has emerged as an entirely reoriented subject, not even vaguely connected with the body, and with the target not of human clear but of Operating Thetan."

-- L. Ron Hubbard -- HCOB 1 July 1963 "Routine 3R Bulletin 4 Preliminary Step"

* R3N: a GPM handling procedure which uses line plots.

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.

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, as relates to this procedure, is not a priority and so should not be done unless the standard session becomes stalled as a result

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.

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.

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".

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

Repeating truthful statements: The repeater technique for the shift 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 at cause" or "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). Sometimes the Pc has to have it clarified as to what is expected when "postulates" and "feelings" are asked for.

Incomplete sessions: Incomplete sessions can be emotionally troubling for the pc and should be handled as soon as possible, preferably within 24 hours. 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, and the Pc should be returned to session as soon as possible.

Blowing charge by inspection: Use of this ability should not replace the detailed knowledge of incidents, especially when dealing with the basic on the chain. If a Pc appears to be "glibbing" his way through, he may have to be hatted on the value of thoroughly reexperiencing the incident as it was when it was first created. Those who are used to running NOTs procedure eventually get to a point where they "spot and poof" charge on incidents without going into any detail. This may or may not achieve the deep level as-isness required for deep case change. It may be on the same order as blowing a lock on a chain, which is fine for removing present time restimulation, but is different from recovery of abilities, which is the goal of R3XD. Ideally, the Pc should be able to reexperience incidents in 3D holographic detail. In pre-MEST incidents, the existence of things may be more conceptual than substantial, but the impact is greater because of the higher degree of responsibility for creation in that era. The more thoroughly and exactly that can be re-experienced the better, especially if it contains pain and other heavy sensations.

This is not to say that a Pc should be slowed down because things happen fast for him. The right speed is whatever speed works best for the Pc.

Shallow sessions: When running chains of incidents that end with a MEST universe basic, I prefer to run straight dianetics rather than go into shift handling. Either way will work, but I generally prefer to reserve shift handling for pre-MEST incidents where the Pc can take responsibility for the whole incident and all viewpoints in it. In the case of running chains to a basic that is this lifetime or some other MEST universe lifetime, all 4 flows should be run on the item just as is done in R3R.