June 28, 2004 on R3X Course
by Paul Adams
From a post to the Yahoo freezoneaoint group: [the post has been edited for this article on the R3X checksheet. The full article is available at http://www.fzglobal.org ]
> One of the major points of disagreement with RD's practice is
> that he holds the cans while auditing someone else. That far outweighs
> less important points.
Thank you very much, XXXX, for your thoughful and sensible comments. I really appreciate it.
For the rest of my e-mail, "you" refers to the reader, and not specifically to XXXX.
Any time up till six months ago I would have completely agreed on that point. For several years I had sometimes come across Robert's posts about getting reads like that, and my idea of how impossible it was completely overshadowed anything else that he was saying. I never saw any posts from anyone saying they had been getting auditing from Robert and how messed up they were as a result; and Robert kept saying how it always worked very well on his pcs. But it was all so impossible that I couldn't even begin to accept what he was saying at face value. Or even look at it.
An analogy: It is said that what Galileo saw in the early 17th century was so disturbing for some officials of the Catholic Church that they refused to even look through his telescope; they reasoned that the Devil was capable of making anything appear in the telescope, so it was best not to look through it. If you think it is preposterous of me to position Robert with Galileo, well, point taken, but it's really not that important compared to the rest of it, so let's continue.
About six months ago I started doing a lot of reading in subjects that interested me, but are outside mainstream thought. Subjects like homeopathy, dowsing....
...The point is that there is a whole wealth of data in the world outside of Scn that deals with effects being caused at a distance....
...but even most Scientologists accept the idea of action at a distance through "theta" or "postulates".
There is a famous book by Abbe Mermet called "The Principles and Practice of Radiesthesia", written (in French) in 1935. I read an English translation. The subject of dowsing for water is probably familar to most, to a lesser or greater extent. An expert dowser can locate water flowing one hundred feet underground, as well as such details as the direction of flow, the flow rate, and how drinkable it is. If he is practised in it, the same dowser can determine the same information from one hundred miles away.
You might think this is getting ridiculous, but remember that these same dowsers probably think practising Scientologists are a bunch of freaking weirdos too. It is difficult to have affinity for a subject you have no reality on or communication with.
Abbe Mermet used a simple pendulum held in his hand to determine information at a distance, and he was an acknowledged master at it. His book contains dozens of testimonials from professionals in more normal fields, attesting to his accuracy, whether in locating water underground from a thousand miles away, diagnosing illness over a similar distance, or locating the body of a missing person.
Abbe Mermet considered himself a simple priest, and did not speculate too much on how the information he could pluck out of thin air, so to speak, was available to him. If one wishes to speculate, one is faced with the fait accompli of the feasibility of map dowsing, where an expert dowser can locate an item on a map in front of him, without ever having seen the location portrayed on the map. Possible theories include those like....
But the idea of a person's emotional charge reading on a meter connected up to the body of a distant auditor, while being in excellent ARC with that auditor on the telephone at the same time, while the auditor has all his attention devoted to the task at hand, is not nearly as far-fetched as locating a heap of inanimate iron ore buried a hundred feet down from a hundred miles away. The dowser isn't on the telephone with the iron ore, isn't personally concerned with its welfare, and is using a lump of wood or metal on a string, not an ultra-sensitive electronic instrument!
Anyway, after reading a pile of books on dowsing and other fields, I grew comfortable with the idea of "plucking information out of thin air", at least as a possibility. That doesn't mean I became an instant expert at it, just that I believed it was possible for others to do it.
Some weeks later I came across Robert Ducharme again. This time I did not automatically bounce off what he wrote, because what he said he did no longer sounded impossible to me. I read what he said with interest. I actually dug up every single post of his I could find anywhere, and read all of it. He does talk about other subjects, but mostly he talks about R3X and R3XD.
There are three big problems with R3X or R3XD. Most importantly, in general consideration anyway, is that he holds the cans and says it's the pc reading on the meter and not himself. Secondly, although it can be run in a normal session in the same room, he normally runs it over the telphone, with the auditor at home and the pc wherever. And third, although it is based on sound Scn principles and practices, it is not standard R3R. And he runs it on Clears and OTs.
Ten weeks ago, I wanted to get some auditing. Apart from some great gains on the Clay Table processes of Pro Trs, I hadn't made any real case gain since OT3 in about 1980. I'd had maybe two hundred hours of sec checks in the SO, but that doesn't count. I checked with Ralph over prices for NOTs, but with travel and living expenses it was too much money for me.
I looked at RD and R3X/R3XD. This time I didn't have a problem with the remote metering. I didn't know if he could do what he said he did, but I didn't have a theoretical problem with it any more. Similarly with the telephone auditing. I know from personal experience that if you have good ARC with the person at the other end of the phone, and your attention is fully on that person, you can pick up a surprising amount of information. As for the "improvement" on R3R, well, maybe. I mean, LRH improved on R3R with NED. I didn't know if R3X did what RD said it did, but I didn't have any theoretical problem with it.
And that left this: I didn't understand how you could beneficially run Dn on a Clear or OT. But I had had hundreds of hours of R3R before 1978 when the Dn Clear HCOB came out, and it seemed to run OK then, so maybe it was possible to some extent. Whether or not it worked I didn't know, but no-one said it was bad. All there was on the Internet was several years' worth of Robert banging the drum saying how he'd been auditing it for years full-time with no problems and how uniformly good it was; and everyone else saying how impossible it was for Robert to be doing what he said he was doing without offering any criticism beyond that.
I've been involved with several "impossible" things in my life. Scientology is one of them. So I called Robert and a few days later I was in session.
So far I have had about 25 hours of R3X/R3XD. I had a session today, in fact. I've booked the next session, I'm paid up to date, and I anticipate many more sessions. I'm a happy camper. I think it's great stuff, and it reaches parts that other auditing doesn't touch. Yes, if I were full OT7, L's completion, and Class VIII, I would be in a better position then to evaluate the full "standard" bridge. So what? If money had been no object, I would probably have been camping out at Ralph's for the past two months. But I like being able to lie on my own bed in my underwear and have a great session handling some real basic Actual GPM stuff, in a relaxed style that even clears up any faintest traces of session BPC. As for it all being impossible, well OK, so it's impossible. I don't care if it's impossible. We're doing it.