Thread:Talk:Two Happiness Rundowns/HRD and Reads - Revision history

AntPhillips: Removed as now on the main page

2016-07-29T09:37:33Z

Removed as now on the main page

AntPhillips: Copied over to main page and delete this after a while

2016-07-02T14:43:21Z

Copied over to main page and delete this after a while

Ronsorg: New thread: HRD and Reads

2016-01-06T18:32:41Z

New thread: HRD and Reads

New page

Dear Ant

Interesting you bring this subject up. Actually I never considered the HRD as the "Blow RD" but it is true, it helped people very much to gain or regain their own integrity and respond accordingly. I was the HRD auditor in the Class IV Org Berne and audited many pcs on it. I loved it. Sometime I made miracles.

The point to discuss is the "checking for reads". Indeed there was no checking for it during all RD and the only purpose for to have the meter was to see an F/N at certain points. Along with the HRD there was also the ''Hubbard Basic Career Auditor Course'', training an auditor to deliver the ARC SW and HRD. It was supposed to provide an easy entrance to become an auditor with very little prerequisites.

The first moment we auditors had to check grade processes for read was actually after 25 February 1982. That is the date when HCOB 23 June 1980 ''Checking Questions On Grades Processes'' got revised to the opposite meaning.

The very first issue about it is actually HCOB 22 Oct 1970 ''Reading Questions'', author D/CS-4, LRH:GE:rr:ka, stating:

When you're running something that is common to all thetans – i.e. that all thetans have – then the charge is there, though it could take a little while to run the meter action into the process. Probably with Ruds well in most of the standard processes would read anyhow, if you happened to be looking at the meter; thus later you can check a previously run Grade process for read as an indication of whether or not it's flat.
This text was copy/pasted word by word to the HCOB 23 June 1980 ''Checking Questions On Grades Processes'' which then got revised to the opposite on 25 February 1982.

Not checking the questions on the HRD 1981 was very common, and much less is it out tech.
The stunning success of the HRD are based on the two points:

1. High communication level, pc was allowed to talk about all and everything without being evaluated nor invalidated. Questions are just asked and the pc could get rid off from all his overts but also all the overts he has seen or being done to him (in the church language that would have been just plain "natter") without being stopped nor punished.

2. Brilliant valence handling. LRH considered valence handling as extremely valuable but especially in those years (at least in our org) there where rarely if at all any valence handlings. It was the first RD broadly applied kicking pcs out of their valences. (In the five years I was on staff from 1979-83 probably not a single person in our org received the extremely powerful LXs. And there was no other specific procedure applied to handle valences in those years.)

Talking about my case I remember clearly the huge win and release I have had when I was on the HRD and the valence I was in was run out. It was above of any and all wins together in and before Scientology. It was stellar!

By "bringing in standard tech" and checking most of the questions (for those unfamiliar with the HRD there are close to 1000 questions on it) for read made the pc shut up and the auditor checking, gone were the days the pc could talk freely and make an as-isness of his life.

To this day I wonder who wrote and developed the HRD, it is master piece of how the LRH's tech got applied – in other words I doubt LRH wrote it. When you look at the HCOBs it is not LRH's style.

Was it David Mayo, at the end of every HRD bulletin is stated LRH:dm:.. , so?

Max Hauri

Ron's Org Committee Chairman

CO Ron's Org Grenchen, Switzerland

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:43, July 2, 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	:''''' This item has now been posted on the main page will be removed from here due course'''''
		+
		+
		+
	Dear Ant		Dear Ant

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-:''''' This item has now been posted on the main page will be removed from here due course'''''
+This has been transferred to the main page see under the subheading:<br />
+'''Early Training and Technical Comments, at Berne/Grenchen, Switzerland.'''
-−
-−
-Dear Ant
-−
-Interesting you bring this subject up. Actually I never considered the HRD as the "Blow RD" but it is true, it helped people very much to gain or regain their own integrity and respond accordingly. I was the HRD auditor in the Class IV Org Berne and audited many pcs on it. I loved it. Sometime I made miracles.
-−
-The point to discuss is the "checking for reads". Indeed there was no checking for it during all RD and the only purpose for to have the meter was to see an F/N at certain points. Along with the HRD there was also the ''Hubbard Basic Career Auditor Course'', training an auditor to deliver the ARC SW and HRD. It was supposed to provide an easy entrance to become an auditor with very little prerequisites.
-−
-The first moment we auditors had to check grade processes for read was actually after 25 February 1982. That is the date when HCOB 23 June 1980 ''Checking Questions On Grades Processes'' got revised to the opposite meaning.
-−
-The very first issue about it is actually HCOB 22 Oct 1970 ''Reading Questions'', author D/CS-4, LRH:GE:rr:ka, stating:
-−
-When you're running something that is common to all thetans – i.e. that all thetans have – then the charge is there, though it could take a little while to run the meter action into the process. Probably with Ruds well in most of the standard processes would read anyhow, if you happened to be looking at the meter; thus later you can check a previously run Grade process for read as an indication of whether or not it's flat.
-This text was copy/pasted word by word to the HCOB 23 June 1980 ''Checking Questions On Grades Processes'' which then got revised to the opposite on 25 February 1982.
-−
-Not checking the questions on the HRD 1981 was very common, and much less is it out tech.
-The stunning success of the HRD are based on the two points:
-−
-. High communication level, pc was allowed to talk about all and everything without being evaluated nor invalidated. Questions are just asked and the pc could get rid off from all his overts but also all the overts he has seen or being done to him (in the church language that would have been just plain "natter") without being stopped nor punished.
-−
-. Brilliant valence handling. LRH considered valence handling as extremely valuable but especially in those years (at least in our org) there where rarely if at all any valence handlings. It was the first RD broadly applied kicking pcs out of their valences. (In the five years I was on staff from 1979-83 probably not a single person in our org received the extremely powerful LXs. And there was no other specific procedure applied to handle valences in those years.)
-−
-Talking about my case I remember clearly the huge win and release I have had when I was on the HRD and the valence I was in was run out. It was above of any and all wins together in and before Scientology. It was stellar!
-−
-By "bringing in standard tech" and checking most of the questions (for those unfamiliar with the HRD there are close to 1000 questions on it) for read made the pc shut up and the auditor checking, gone were the days the pc could talk freely and make an as-isness of his life.
-−
-To this day I wonder who wrote and developed the HRD, it is master piece of how the LRH's tech got applied – in other words I doubt LRH wrote it. When you look at the HCOBs it is not LRH's style.
-−
-Was it David Mayo, at the end of every HRD bulletin is stated LRH:dm:.. , so?
-−
-Max Hauri
-−
-Ron's Org Committee Chairman
-−
-CO Ron's Org Grenchen, Switzerland