Dianetics on Clears and OTs

June 2, 2013

From post to DianeticR3X Yahoo group

I've written about this subject before many times ad nauseam. I'm writing about it again because it irritates me to see "keeping Scientology working" and "correct tech" continue to be equated with totally standard obdience to prescribed rules rather than standard results.

The following webpage:
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_story_of_mayo3b_nots.html
was e-mailed to me recently. It raises many questions about how the tech is and has been applied, both in the free zone and in the church. It also reinforces my belief that the advent of the "Dianetics forbidden on clears and OT's" rule is arguably the single most suppressive rule ever foisted on Scientologists. The author of the website explains in detail why I would come to that conclusion.

The one reservation I have about advocating the use of Dianetics on clears and OT's is that R3R runs too shallow for this lifetime body case. Running whole track may be appropriate for handling a present time body problem, but the chain of incidents from this lifetime should be addressed back to the earliest moment of key in for this lifetime. This is so that the body and GE can erase their charge on the incidents.

This is why I have felt it necessary to develop R3X (routine 3 expanded), which is more or less an organized application of the Dianetics tech from 1950 through to about 1980. In other words, it bridges book 1 auditing with NED and incorporates elements of "NED for OTs", which I see as a huge misnomer and a misleading term, as well as a number of bits of "lost tech", mostly from the 1950s.applying this tech will produce deeper and longer lasting results than R3R. But any use of Dianetics on cases that need it, regardless of case level, is far better than none. How many serious illnesses and deaths will Scientologists have to suffer needlessly before that datum sinks in.

Robert