R3X procedure

April 20, 2003 Revised December 10, 2005 on R3X Course

The 12/10/05 revision is to delete points 32 and 33, per a 12/09/05 post from Robert to the Freezone America Discussion Board, saying they were not really needed.

Minimum Pre-Requisites

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; Dianetic tape series by LRH; Tape: "The Goals Problem Mass", 6112C31 CHC-4, 31 Dec. 1961; "Engram Running by Chains", bulletins 1, 2., and 3 of 15 May 63, 8 June 63, and 24 June 63.

Note: The commands given here, prior to the shift handling, vary only slightly from the original R3R commands. The original commands can be found in Dianetics Today and the Tech Volumes. The exact wording of the commands are not as important as consistency where it's needed and being real and flexible where that's needed. Roteness is a handicap and liability. The auditor is expected to use good judgment in any case.

Caveat

The approach I have taken is from my own research and experience and is not necessarily in agreement with what is referred to as the "standard bridge" though it does qualify as "standard tech" per the definition. I don't pretend that the tech as written here is the last word in tech advancement and that it can't be improved, but it does work in achieving a finite goal, namely that of getting the Pc to take full responsibility for the item run along all dynamics. I know of no other technique that will accomplish this. Obviously not every Pc is ready for this step and his or her case must be set up with such things as "standard bridge" processing. In fact, the more set-up processing a Pc gets, the more smoothly and efficiently R3X seems to run.

It is recommended that one learn R3R as taught in Scientology first so as to have a primary foundation as a standard by which this tech can be compared.

Procedure

1. Two way comm with Pc (or do a formal assessment) to establish which item is to be run. Get the wording that most exactly fits the feeling.

2. Give first command: "Locate an incident where you had the feeling of (item)."

3. When the Pc has located the incident, give the question: "When was it?"

4. Next give the command: "Move to that incident."

5. Ask: "What is the duration of that incident?"

6. Give command: "Move to a point just before that began."

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". The auditor can add the standard "...and tell me when you are there" if he so chooses.

7. Ask (if appropriate): "What do you see?"

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. I normally skip this command except for whole track incidents.

8. Give command: "Move through to the end of that incident."

I don't include the usual "Move through the incident to a point ... later" because I prefer to leave it up to the Pc to decide what the end of the incident is as he's running it.

9. If the Pc says something during this time, this is acknowledged with "Okay, continue."

10. Ask: "What happened?"

This question can be phrased in several ways, like "What occurred?", "What did you get?", "What did you notice as you went through?", "What came up?", etc. I use whatever happens to seem most appropriate at the moment. As an auditor, the first time through I am interested in what actually took place, so I ask "What happened?" to elicit that response. However, after the first time through, I am more interested in what the Pc saw newly as he was scanning than the story line, so I'll tend to vary the question to elicit that type of response.

11. Give command: "Move to the beginning of that incident." (Still before the beginning, but I go with that command. The Pc knows where to start from).

12. Give command: "Move through to the end of that incident."

13. Ask: "What happened?"

14. Ask (when appropriate): "How does the incident seem now (by comparison) (with the last time through)?" 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.

In fact, each incident can be discharged--as long as the entire incident is being viewed (including earlier beginning and later ending, and should be. To not do so can cause the Pc's attention to remain fixed on the later 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 EP as though it were a narrative incident as in the R-3R tech.

Note: Sometimes running other viewpoints is necessary if the incident is particularly charged. Sometimes, though rarely, one needs to run the shock out of the incident too. (See paragraph entitled "Shock Moment Handling.") Generally I try to flatten the incident the regular ways first, and if a shock moment keeps it from resolving by any other means, I may incorporate the other- and pan-determined viewpoints in shock handling. I try to reserve shock or shift handling for the basic on the chain whenever possible. When dealing with Clear Pcs, this should not be a problem.

Moving on to the Next Incident

If after asking "How does the incident seem now by comparison?", the Pc says "flat" or "released", then it's okay to ask the "earlier incident" question.

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. In any case it's still good to make sure the later incident is flat.

15. When the incident being run is flat or the Pc is ready to move on to another incident, ask: "Is there another (or "an earlier") incident where you had the feeling of (item)?" If another incident comes in to view first, then omit the above command.

16. Then ask: "When was it?"

Normally I use "another" for MEST universe incidents and "an earlier" for pre-MEST universe incidents. I have no fixed rule on this though. It's a judgment call. I get the best results by giving the "another" command and just letting the Pc handle whatever pictures or incidents the command triggers regardless of time sequence. 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 -- and in no particular order -- 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.

In addition, I will normally use the Six-Direction process after the first scan through and until flat and then have the Pc scan once more.

In scanning, I will use the term "series of incidents" for any specialized grouping of incidents, and use the term "period of time" for that period of time in general. So the commands "Scan through to the end of that series of incidents" is used when the auditor wants to make sure to limit which incidents the Pc scans. Being this specific may or may not be an absolute necessity, but it is a cautious move to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding by the Pc.

16. Ask: "When was it?"

17. Give command: "Move to that incident"

Repeat previously outlined steps from the "What is the duration of that incident?" question on forward.

Keep tracking back incidents until nothing earlier shows up.

In the case of grinding and/or otherwise suspecting an earlier beginning to the incident to exist, one asks something like "Is there an earlier beginning to this incident?" or "Does this incident have an earlier beginning?" (One could also similarly look for a later ending.) Once one gets the earlier beginning, it's good to ask "What do you see?{". The thing to look for is a point in time before the incident and its main somatic began, a time when the Pc was feeling relatively well or neutral.

In running this process, when an incident goes flat, the Pc is always asked for another (or earlier) incident regardless of how much the current incident may appear to be a basic.

Running Pre-MEST Incidents

The basic incident on the chain is never a MEST universe incident. It is always pre-MEST. The auditor ultimately aims for pre-MEST incidents if at all possible.

All chains are basically flow zero. Running the shift will help the Pc to determine that with certainty along all his dynamics.

If the Pc is unable to get an earlier incident with the "earlier incident" command, he is asked: "Is there an earlier incident, possibly before the beginning of time" (or "...in the Theta universe...?"--whatever phrasing indicates) "...where you had the feeling of ...(item)...?"

Thereafter the "another incident" or "earlier incident" command is given until there are no more.

To ask for time or duration when dealing with pre-MEST incidents will often get a confused response from the Pc, since time as we know it didn't exist then, which is why I have dropped those steps.

Then the question is asked: "Is there an earlier incident, possibly around the original separation from Static, where you had the feeling of ...(item)...?"

The question can be posed in various ways like "...breakoff from Static", "...breakaway from Source", "separation from self", etc.

The question will either indicate or not. If the question elicits an instant read, one can steer the Pc to the incident. The Pc should know beforehand that pre-MEST incidents are very ethereal and conceptual rather than physical and concrete in nature and so can be very subtle and elusive.

Basic on any chain may or may not be the original separation from Static, but it usually is. Regardless, the Pc should run the incident presented by the file clerk when prompted and not skip to a basic prematurely.

Pre-MEST incidents are run as follows: Note: The "When was it?" command is omitted after entry is made into the pre-MEST area, i.e. when looking for earlier similar pre-MEST incidents. 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. 17. "Move to that incident" (the "duration" question is omitted since time in that era is irrelevant) 18. "Move to a point just before that began" (the rest of the procedure is the same as previously outlined)

Alternate Confront Process and Other Remedies

If after running basic-basic on the chain to a "flat point" with nothing earlier on the chain, the Pc is still having some unreality problems with regards to the incident, the auditor can run "What part of that incident could you confront?" and "What part of that incident would you rather not confront?" back and forth to a release point (accompanied by BD F/N; usually no more than a few commands.) Two other processes that can be run on the basic incident are the Before/After process and the Six-Direction process.

Running the Shift should resolve the balance of the unreality. (see section entitled "Through the 'No Earlier Incident' Block".)

Handling the Moment of Shift

(See sections entitled "The Shift" and "Shift/Shock Moment")

The shift as outlined here should only be used on pre-MEST universe basic incidents, and preferably on Basic-Basic. The shift basically addresses the viewpoints' various dynamics, the basic goals associated with the item addressed, and the computation(s).

19. Ask Pc for the moment of Shift.

The auditor can ask if the Shift was "from what to what?", in other words, "What were things like before versus what were things like afterwards?"

20. At this point I always run the Before/After process: "Spot a moment before the shift" and "Spot a moment after the shift" repetitively to flat point. This is normally a very short action usually consisting of only about two, three or four commands.

21. I have also been often running the 6-Dir process on the shift: "Get a concept of the shift, put it above you, put it below you, put it to the right of you, put it to the left of you, put it in front of you, put it in back of you, put it above you..." etc. Done repetitively to flat point. This can be a valuable action which tends to open up new data about the Shift for the Pc. It also clears more charge from the Shift and makes running it an easier task. I have been employing this action more and more of late. One can use the 6-Dir process on the Shift with benefit even after having previously run it on the incident itself.

22. Give command: "Move through that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat until flat.) 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 original one did.

23. Ask Pc how he felt after the Shift. Note down his responses for later reference. Then have Pc assume that viewpoint. Then give command: "From the viewpoint you had after the Shift, move through that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to flat point) Note: The above command I have been placing before the "others" viewpoint in sequence.

24. Ask Pc how he felt before the shift. Then have Pc assume that viewpoint. Then give command: "From the viewpoint you had before the Shift, move through that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to flat point.) 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 process could be viewed as a contact assist done on the Shift from each point of view.

Note: Some of the following commands may seem daunting or abstract and hard to comprehend, but they run quite well on everyone.

25. Ask Pc to spot all other individual beings (or viewpoints) extant at the time of the shift. There always are after the Shift regardless of how "single" or "unified" the Pc may have conceived himself to be before the shift. (See Ref.: The Factors by LRH from Scientology 8-8008 and Scientology 0-8)

26. Have the Pc assume the viewpoints of all the others collectively. Then give command "From the viewpoints of all the others, move through that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat until flat.)

27. Ask Pc if there are any other relevant terminals involved in the Shift moment. For each viewpoint to be run, if such still exist, ask Pc to take that viewpoint first. Then run with command: "From the viewpoint of _____ move through that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to flat point). He may choose to run the other participants as a group. If so, just have him take their viewpoints as a group. Usually this extra step will be unnecessary as all viewpoints will have been handled in the previous step.

28. Have Pc take the viewpoints of all the others in the incident again. Then have him scan all of their time tracks. If he has any problem with this, have him assume he can do this and then have him carry out the command. The command isn't rote, but a command like "Scan through all of the others' time tracks" will do. Done to flat point. This step may seem daunting at first, but, amazingly enough, I have found everyone so far capable of carrying it out.

29. Ask Pc about any creations (masses, energy, space, particles, etc.), anything that came into being after the shift. Have Pc assume the viewpoint of these creations. Then give the command "From that viewpoint move through that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat until flat)

30. Next have Pc take the viewpoint of the creations again. Then have him scan all of their time tracks. The above viewpoint is comparable to the 6th dynamic and seems to run quite easily once the Pc understands what is expected of him. Scanning the tracks is an optional step which I have added because it seems to work on everyone, and because people report benefits from doing so. The auditor can tell the Pc to just assume that he can do it.

31. Tell Pc "next we'll take up a pan-determined viewpoint." Be sure the Pc has a good reality on what is expected of him. Have Pc assume a pan-determined viewpoint. Then give command: "From a pan-determined viewpoint, experience that moment of shift from beginning to end" (Repeat to flat point)

This viewpoint encompasses all those taken so far, from an independent point of view. Another way of stating it is "All viewpoints at once". I use "experience" 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 probably work equally well however. I just chose to do it this way when running the higher (more widely encompassing) viewpoints as a result of taking a cue from Rowland Barclay's Multiple Viewpoint Dianetic processing.

32. [Omitted] (was viewpoint of aesthetics)

33. [Omitted] (was viewpoint of ethics)

34. Tell Pc "Next we'll take up the viewpoint of Being." Give the command: "From the viewpoint of just being, experience that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to flat point). This command can be given with the clarification that the person should interpret it in whatever way he chooses (like "Whatever that means to you"). The command does impinge on the being and gets a valid response. I first encountered this from one Pc who told me that she could see a higher viewpoint than "pan-determined". I found that it worked on everyone and have been incorporating it ever since. Pcs seem to all be able to make it run, as well as be able to determine whether it's flat or not. I personally interpret it as "individual godhood".

35. Tell Pc "Next we'll take up the viewpoint of All-Being (variously known as "The All-That-Is, Infinite Being, Universal Consciousness," etc.) In this context, "All-being" can be variously translated as "allness", "the whole", "all that is", "infinite being". Whichever term indicates best should be used. 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. Give the command: "From the viewpoint of infinite being (or "all-being") experience that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to flat point).

36. Tell Pc "Next we'll take up the viewpoint of Source (Source of all being or all consciousness)". Give the command: "From the viewpoint of Source, experience that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to flat point).

37. Tell Pc "Next we'll take up the viewpoint of Static". Give the command: "As Static experience that moment of shift from beginning to end." (Repeat to flat point).

38. Lastly, give the command: "As Static experience that moment of shift backwards from the end to the beginning." (Repeat to flat point).

Running all these additional viewpoints may at first seem a bit like overdoing it, but every one of these viewpoints runs and blows charge, and they form a fairly smooth gradient toward the Pc taking full responsibility from the very highest, most expansive level regarding the subject at hand. After trying them out on a few Pcs, the auditor will find out for himself how workable the commands are.

39. Ask Pc: "In or around that moment of shift is there any other feeling or emotion?" (Handle feelings with repeater technique. Repeat question. Continue until clean.) (See section on "Handling of Feelings".)

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.

40. Ask Pc about any feelings or postulates he may have mentioned earlier in running this incident. Run them out with repeater technique as necessary. (Handle feelings with repeater technique. Repeat question. Continue until clean.)

When the chain is properly run to its basic-basic and all the viewpoints run, these questions will rarely be necessary. Such questions are usually clean by the time all the viewpoints have been run.

41. Ask Pc: "In or around that moment of shift is there any goal?" There are always at least two opposing goals in or around the shift. Normally two goals are all I find. They should have some bearing on the item being run.

42. The next step is to find some sort of computation. The following suggestion by Revenius has been very workable in practice: A ser fac is a solution. You could just ask for what postulate enabled him to still be right or various wordings--it's what solved and explains the overwhelm of the incident so as not to need further inspection. -- Revenius

A computation generally says "If (since, because, etc.)... then (therefore, thereafter, etc.)..." or any variation thereof. Examples are "If I behave this particular (aberrated) way, I'll be liked"; "You can't count on others because they'll always betray you"; "Because they did that to me, I can annihilate them."

It could be viewed as a "justified postulate".

One approach to finding a computation would be to ask for a fixed idea in or around the Shift, and then ask for how that might have been justified.

If a computation can't be found any other way, you could always ask: "Is there any parallel between this incident and the events of this lifetime?" After the Pc itsas on that and makes the connection, ask him if he can find a pro-survival computation that has made this item appear useful to him. There is usually one, but there could always be more than one. It will be a computation he has been basing actions on this whole lifetime.

Have Pc repeat the computation until it goes flat (releases). 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.

Normally simply looking for a justified postulate somewhere around the shift moment works. A lot of times the Pc will make these statements as he itsas during the running of the shift.

RULE: EVERYTHING THAT SOUNDS LIKE A COMPUTATION, POSTULATE OR GOAL MUST BE WRITTEN DOWN BY THE AUDITOR FOR REFERENCE LATER IN THE SESSION. The auditor can then refer back to these phrases for two way comm and run them out by repeater technique if they are the least bit charged.

For any postulate being run, always look for an opposing postulate to run along with it, no matter from what corner it may appear to be coming. Computations are normally run as single statements.

43. Run this process alternately/repetitively: "What part of that incident could you be responsible for?" and "What part of that incident would you rather not be responsible for?" This is done 1,2,1,2,1,2 etc. to EP. If the person answers "All of it" to the first question, then I will pose the second question as "Is there any part of that incident you would rather not be responsible for?" They will normally say no to that, followed by a BD F/N.

44. Give the commands for four flows of scanning. Repeat as necessary to flat point.
"From this incident forward to present time, scan through all the incidents where you had the feeling of (item)."
"From this incident forward to present time, scan through all the incidents where you caused another or others to have the feeling of (item)."
"From this incident forward to present time, scan through all the incidents where others caused others or themselves to have the feeling of (item)."
"From this incident forward to present time scan through all the incidents where you caused yourself to have the feeling of (item)."

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.

If there any problems in running these, one can always employ the 6-Dir process on that segment of time, or on a mass that happens to be stirred up.

45. Ask Pc how the item seems now.

End-of-Session Processes

46. Scanning the session. Give the commands: "Move to the beginning of this session" and "Move through to the end of this session." Repeat to flat point as needed.

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.

Havingness

I will usually run two havingness processes--one aimed at replenishing the mental mass, and another aimed at reorientation to the present time environment. Each is done to F/N. This is a fairly brief step. If the Pc balks at running havingness, let him know that it's not so much for the being as for the body and G.E. to keep it from pulling in unwanted feelings.

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.

47. For Havingness, nowadays I say:

"Put out eight anchor points"
(Pc can use objects for anchor points if he chooses) (pc acks but auditor doesn't) now "Push them into the body"
(auditor ack) "Put out eight anchor points." "Now allow them to remain where they are."
(auditor ack) "Put out eight anchor points." "Now throw them away."
(auditor ack) "Put out eight anchor points" "Now do whichever you want with them."
The last command is repeated to a release point. Usually around 5 to 10 commands suffices.

For beginners, and some Pcs who prefer it, instead of "Put out eight anchor points" I will use the command instead: "Create (or "mock up") a pleasant scene" or else "Mock up an acceptable object" (the more large and massive the better). Auditor (per LRH data) should not acknowledge the Pc on this step as it may tend to as-is the mockup.

Then I say "Spot an object" or else "Look at that (object pointed to)" done to a release point.

48. An effective present-time orientation process one could use is: "Look around and tell me something you could have". 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.

49. Give command "End of session."

The EP 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 added freedom and well-being.

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 cognitions. 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. One completed chain per week is standard.

Robert Ducharme