Two Happiness Rundowns

From Scientolipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Two Happiness Rundowns
Type of Article Category:History of Scientology - Technical
See introduction to this page at Two Happiness Rundowns – Introduction

On 2 March 1981 the check sheet for the first Happiness Rundown was issued.

On 15 January 1984 an HCO bulletin was issued, entitled Happiness Rundown Additives which cancelled all of the the first Happiness Rundown Series Bulletins. It was scathing about the various errors that the unnamed real author of the original bulletins had made.

The above material was written after the first edition of the Red Volumes (full name; The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology ). Neither the first Happiness Rundown nor 15 January 1984 cancellation appear in the second edition of the Red Volumes.

On 22 January 1984 a new Happiness Rundown Auditors Course check sheet was issued. The content was more or less the same as the first Happiness Rundown check sheet with the omission of a short tape and a 90 page bulletin (16th of March 81) consisting of detailed case histories of 16 of the 40 cases on the pilot project for the rundown which were considered the special interest to auditors and C/S's.

"The reason the S.O. was so anti the HRD is that so many of their guys who received it blew soon afterwards. The[y] started spotting the wild false data in the SO itself and just left. The entire schism in Scio of the early 80's, what we then called the independent movement, was date coincident with the HRD and this point was not missed on management" - quoted from Ex-Scientologists Message Board | message 29
Front of the 1981 Danish version of The Way To Happiness.

Data on Preparation of HRD[edit | edit source]

From Janis Grady[edit | edit source]

Janis Gillham-Grady is Yvonne's [Gillham's [[1]]] youngest daughter. She was in the Sea Org since she was 11 years old, for 22 years. She left in 1990. She was one of the original Commodore's Messengers since May 1968 working with LRH day in and out for about 11 years until he went off the lines in 1980 with Pat and Annie Broker.

Hi Ant,

I might be of some help.

When LRH wrote The Way to Happiness he was living in seclusion with Pat and Annie Broker, so I was not there. But what I do remember is that when the book was received, the LRH Public Relations Office had to get it published and do up a campaign around it and the Snr CS Int Office had to work out the rundown of processes. This is what RTRC (LRH Tech and Research Compilations) would do. They would take everything LRH had written or spoken about a subject and put the processes together and write it up in bulletin form under the name of LRH.

Based on the year TWTH came out, the rundown would have been compiled when David Mayo was the Snr CS International.

Hope this helps.


From Russell W[edit | edit source]

Hi Ant,

Dan [Koon] is right, I was up to my ears in the HRD evolution - first as a trainee at ASHO when it first came out in '81 (under David Mayo's supervision), then as an auditor and C/S at Phoenix Org, and finally in Senior C/S Int's office in late '82 to '84. I was in charge of RTRC (LRH Technical Research and Compilations) and the one who did nearly all the work on the revision project, eventually submitting the new HCOB drafts to Ray Mithoff and LRH for approval.

Here's a fast summary of what went on, as I recall it.

1. LRH did write TWTH. As far as I know, he wrote it entirely on his own, in late 80 and maybe early 81. I know (from despatches to Snr C/S Int in 82/83) that he was proud of it, and considered it one of his most important legacies.

2. The HRD was put together by Mayo and (I believe) Melanie Murray [Melanie Seidler Murray][1]. Others on David’s staff very likely contributed, too. It was based on Ron's notes and instructions, also from late 80 and early 81. In other words, Mayo and Co. did not make this stuff up out of their own heads.

3. A big training and export evolution was done at ASHO in spring - summer 81. The idea was to haul in an auditor and a C/S from as many orgs as possible, train and intern them on delivering the rundown, and send them back to their orgs to deliver tons of it. Mayo was there (at ASHO) at the start of the evolution. I arrived (from Phoenix Org, where I was the Snr C/S at the time) shortly after Mayo left - but the evolution was still in full swing, and David came by to check up on progress a time or two. I never saw Melanie, though I believe she took part in setting up and starting the training program.

As a side note, the subject of auditing basics was a major element of the HRD courses and training program. The courses included 8 or 10 LRH lectures on auditing basics, along with numerous issues, lots of drills and so on. I believe the rationale was dual. First, HRD worked best when auditor basics were solidly in. Of course that’s true of any auditing, but it's particularly applicable in the case of HRD, due to the nature of what it addressed and that fact that for many preclears it was some of the earliest auditing they received (so that they may have been a bit more "fragile" as pcs). Second, since the rundown was to be pushed as “the next big thing,” with orgs and missions training lots of people to deliver it (new auditors and old hands, too) – it offered an opportunity to improve auditor basics broadly.

4. HRD was marketed and pushed heavily, mid-81 and into 82. As I recall, it was extremely popular and a big success. Fairly easy to deliver, got lots of rave results, okay to deliver on people at many points on the grade chart, relatively affordable, etc. Good stuff.

5. Mayo was removed from post in late August/early Sept 82. Ray went on post as Snr C/S Int. I was the first tech person added to his new office, Sept 82. One of the earliest projects I was given was overhaul of the HRD (Ron had asked Ray to get this done, and Ray assigned it to me). Over the next several months (into the summer of 83? - I don't recall exactly) the HCOBs for the rundown were all revised, and the "new" rundown was piloted to ensure it worked. It did work, and the revised rundown was submitted to LRH for approval, along with a program to implement it internationally. LRH approved the issues and program, and the rundown was "re-released." It continued to be delivered, but never had the same popularity (or marketing attention) as when it first came out.

Opinion, big time: First, after Mayo’s removal, the rundown may have been somewhat "tainted" in the eyes of some public and staff because of its association with Mayo, who had been thoroughly, loudly discredited and disgraced. When it came out in its revised "purified" form, it was viewed with suspicion by some, because it came from LRH Tech Research and Compilations, not directly from LRH (and at that point anything not 1000% Ron was viewed with suspicion). I remember seeing and receiving letters to this effect from tech staff around the world, as RTRC Director. Also, the revised rundown changed some things in a rundown that had been working very well for people. Most notably the checking for reads point, which made it more complex and difficulty-prone. Finally, HRD was almost completely eclipsed by the next Next Big Thing, which I believe was FPRD. (That’s another whole story in itself, OMG.)

Anyway, since HRD was no longer pushed and wasn't a mandatory Grade Chart step, it faded into obscurity in most places. By the time I went on post as Services Executive International many years later (mid-95), there was zero management attention on it. The push was all sec checking/FPRD, all the time (except for the big-money services at AOs and Flag and Freewinds). I did receive a few letters and reports from tech terminals here and there, saying they were still delivering HRD with great results and wondering why it wasn't being promoted.

I hope that's of some use to you. Again (and in the interest of the precept "Seek to live with the truth") it is just what I recall of events that took place 30+ years ago. It includes opinions, and some of the data is probably a bit off (though not intentionally so). Unfortunately, aside from Dan [Koon], I don't know anyone else to refer you to for more info about the whole thing. Maybe if you could reach Melanie or David, they'd have some useful input. (If you do, please tell them I said hello!)

Russ W

[In a later email Russ adds:] You're right, the revised bulletins are not enormously different from the originals. The big case histories issue was dropped because it was considered (a) not really necessary (b) not asked for or approved by Ron, and (c) liable to be full of outpoints and "twists," put there by the "suppressive" Mayo and Murray.

[And in another email:] I had a quick look at the pages you linked to in the message below - very interesting, even on just a fast scan-through. I'd forgotten about that cancellation HCOB. I wrote that one, with some help from Ray. It was also seen and okayed by LRH, though I don't know how closely he actually reviewed it. Nor do I know that all of what it said was actually correct. The main thing that jumped out at me as possibly being horse shit is, once again, the point about checking for reads on HRD questions. Reads weren’t checked in auditing the original rundown, and in my experience as an auditor and C/S, it worked extremely well that way - probably for the exact reasons mentioned (and the LRH data referred to) in one of the write-ups you linked to.

From Ken Urquhart; Earlier Preparation of Rundowns,1969/75.[edit | edit source]

On 8 January 2016 Kenneth G. Urquhart wrote the following comment on Max Hauri's entry (see further down) Antony A Phillips (talk) 03:13, January 14, 2016 (CST)

In my day, LRH would develop a new rundown using the auditors at hand locally to begin the experimental auditing.He would work with the c/s who was in charge of the auditors but LRH would usually see the folders too. And he would have daily conferences with the c/s about the folders and what was happening with the preclears.

Now, I was directly on his communication lines from 1969 through to 1975, when he piloted and introduced several new rundowns. Although the pc folders in the pilots didn't come through me there were written communications between LRH and the C/S which I saw. I knew when they were both in consultation or briefing in LRH's office as my office was a couple of yards from his. I became very familiar with the process and system LRH used.

When he was satisfied that he had a good product, he would have the c/s write up the hcobs -- often from the c/s's notes of conferences he'd had with LRH as the rundown developed. Once the two of them had agreed on the form and processes and policies for the new rundown, LRH would ask the c/s to submit a list of the most common errors he'd seen the auditors committing on this new RD and that would be the basis of the RD's correction list. The whole process usually occupied little more than a couple of weeks. An exception, understandably, was the L's.

I was not on LRH's comm line when they developed the HRD and nowhere near the door to his office, but I would bet that the same procedure applied. Because David Mayo, who would have been the c/s on this pilot, "wrote the issues," his initials followed LRH's on the ascription at the bottom. Compiling the RD's issues would have been a cooperative effort involving LRH and David Mayo. To say that David Mayo wrote the HRD issues is a misstatement. Yes, he sat at a typewriter and typed up the HCOBs' texts from his notes of discussing the sessions with LRH. He would have sent these draft issues to LRH for approval. If LRH didn't want to approve anything he didn't. If he wanted something changed, he changed it or had it changed. If David Mayo had had an idea of his own and wanted it added to the RD or to an HCOB above and beyond what LRH had uttered in their meetings, David would have run it by LRH before sending it in for approval to issue.

I'd say that the same procedure applied to the NOTs materials

Kenneth G. Urquhart

First Happiness Rundown[edit | edit source]

The technical background of the first Happiness Rundown included the fact that NOTs auditing was introduced in 1979. This was quite a technical breakthrough as many people had had difficulty with OT III and NOTs supposedly handled that for them. In the beginning a number of people were on NOTs who had either been on solo OT III for some long time or had completed OT III but had resulting trouble.

On 8 May 1979 the Professional Product Debug Course was introduced. This included Crashing Misunderstoods (July 1979) and False Data Stripping (August 79). It was introduced as an L Ron Hubbard Executive Directive (blue ink on white paper) which was a checklist with 47 items signed by a Ron Hubbard, Founder assisted by Ens. Michelle Barnett (Commodore's Messenger) and Cmdr. David Mayo (Snr.C/S Int).

Also around this time a lower-level rundown was introduced called the Survival Rundown. This was aimed at new people, was usually an evening course which people took after work and was mainly co-auditing on objective processes.

However the above few paragraphs is the background scene from a Scientology nerds point of view. For the ordinary member of Scientology's public (as opposed to staff members) the reality was that Dianetics auditing and the Scientology grades and other small things like assists had been established for many years and the focus was on new things coming out and the new things, whether they were new OT levels or things like the Ls, were confidential and required that one had done the lower levels (grades and Dianetics). The focus was on new (and expensive) procedures which hopefully would solve the things that hadn't yet been solved in that person's universe by more "ordinary" Scientology processes. Therefore when the Happiness Rundown came, it was very different from what these people had been used to. Almost anybody could have it, the prerequisites being very simple: according to Happiness Rundown Series 2 it required the preclear to have Purification Rundown and SRD (Survival Rundown) or Objective Processes, nothing more. It could be done anywhere on the Grade Chart (except during the Non--Interference Zone). This to Scientologists of the time it was quite a revolutionary idea.

The Happiness Rundown was piloted in the USA. It was also first publicly available in the USA and there supervisors and C/Ss were trained for Saint Hills throughout the world. Owing to the fact that by policy a C/S had to be at a higher or equal case level to the PC he/she was C/Sing, at AOSH EU and AF, OT IIIs and higher level OT's could not be given Happiness Rundown for a while due to lack of a C/S who was OT III.

The Happiness Rundown is based on a little book which L Ron Hubbard wrote entitled The Way to Happiness . This is supposedly "a nonreligious moral code based wholly on common sense" and is not issued by Scientology but in one case by Regent House, Ltd. in Los Angeles and in another case the publisher was New Era Publications International, ApS, in Copenhagen. The book consists of 21 precepts and some of these precepts have sub-precepts. To some degree the precepts are arranged in the order of the Scientology Eight Dynamics beginning with self with for example precept 1-5 "Get rest".

The rundown itself begins with an introductory phase and after that all the precepts except one are handled in the same way, in fact a rather simple 10 step handling. Due to the fact that it is easy to lose your place, a command/question sheet was issued (HCO Bulletin of 16th of February 1981 – HRD Series #3) containing all the commands and it is 89 pages long. One was used for each preclear, each step marked off as it was done, and in the end it was preserved in the preclear's case folder.

On the Happiness Rundown Course and Internship much emphasis was placed on the basics of auditing and approximately three quarters of the course material was concerned with the basics of auditing.

As experienced at AOSH EU and AF the course was rigourous but effective. On the course one was assigned the target each day and was able to keep to the target for the length of the course. The internship was very rewarding and included a video test with the meter.

Cancellation of the first Happiness Rundown.[edit | edit source]

On 15 January 1984 a Bulletin was issued called Happiness Rundown Additives. The first sentence read: "In a review of the Happiness Rundown issues I have found that the tech of the HRD, as originally developed and written by me in late 1980, had been covertly sabotaged." It goes on to cancel all the Happiness Rundown Series Bulletins and the four Policy Letters concerned with the Happiness Rundown.

In a section entitled Complexity appears the following sentences: "In addition to the original materials of the Happiness Rundown having been alter-ised, and another’s squirrel inventions added to the issues, there is another important point here: What was in essence a very SIMPLE rundown was made highly COMPLEX. This has now been handled with the restoration of the HRD materials to their original simplicity."
Link to cancellation Media:Happiness_Rundown_Additives_(cancellation).pdf

Front of the 1984 version of The Way to Happiness.

Second Happiness Rundown.[edit | edit source]

We do not have data as to the background to the second Happiness Rundown being introduced. We don't know whether a big fuss was made about the first Happiness Rundown being cancelled or whether it was done quietly so that only the involved tech terminals knew about it. We don't know whether the Happiness Rundown was still popular or had become replaced by some new nine-day wonder. We would very much appreciate first-hand experiences of what happened then in 1984.

The 13 Bulletins and Policy Letters in the original rundown were cancelled. These all concerned Happiness Rundown, and the rest of the material concerned basic auditing and was often 10 or more years old, none of it was cancelled in this Bulletin. Most of that material appears in the new check sheet although the order is occasionally a little bit different.

Happiness Rundown Series 1 is is nearly the same in both versions, but the following one line paragraph is omitted: "Although the rundown is handling very hot charge, it runs very lightly and smoothly." There is also an addition near the end defining more closely when a person could be run on it and which orgs could supply it (which are the same as in the first Happiness Rundown but defined elsewhere in the check sheet materials).

The rest of the Happiness Rundown Series bulletins are different in the first and second versions, though the material of Happiness Rundown Series #7 is never repeated. However reading these 1984 versions the data they contain is very close to the data in the first Happiness Rundown so that the difference is that they are placed differently.

Happiness Rundown Series #8 File:HRDseries-8scannedin.pdf[edit | edit source]

This bulletin is dated 16 March 81 and is unusual, perhaps unique, in Scientology history. It is 90 pages long and starts by saying "The Happiness Rundown was piloted on over 40 cases." It then gives summaries of each session of 16 of those cases. A perusal of the whole 90 pages is quite revealing, especially to the experienced auditor. As well as giving some of the wins from particular sessions, including the fact that people who did not know the preclear was on Happiness Rundown noticing a change in the preclear's manner it also gives examples of auditor mistakes in running these pilot sessions.

Sample one . (These are random samples from different preclears)

Thirteenth Session: Time - l:43 TA - 13.7
Lots of itsa on the ARC Break rud about how she is the only one in her Org that sees and handles ethics sits etc.
Gets off some false data about truth. Realizes that the whole trouble in her Org is getting people to see the truth. This precept (“seek to live with the truth”) parallels where she is and she is very interested in it.
She spots a moral code she’s had that “it’s okay to lie, just don’t get caught”. She spots that this came from a whole track incident where this was her moral code and also spots and blows an implant where a false datum was implanted into her to never tell the truth under duress. More false data from implants is gotten off and the idea that it is pro-survival to lie.
She also has a cognition that she (earlier this life) would misassign the cause of her getting into trouble to God.
At the end of session she says that the out ruds she had at the beginning of session were really covered by this precept.
Pc and auditor both observe that the pc tends to move into the next precept and starts having it come into restim just before they begin auditing it.

Sample two

Fifth Session: Time - 1:24 TA - 4.3
Pc came into session VGIs. She said she felt really good, especially since she’s had enough sleep. On clearing the word “promiscuous” she cleared a long standing confusion as the 2-D. She realized she had mixed up the 7th and the 2nd Dynamics resulting from a confusion on the word “promiscuity”. She saw that having ARC and sex identified was a real trap and that her having a feeling of affinity confused with being promiscuous had caused many conflicts and upsets all her life. She saw how false data acts like a held down 7. She handled some false data that had cut her affinity and caused her to refrain from starting conversations later in life. She shifted out of her father’s valence. She felt she got a lot out of the session.
In between sessions the pc turned on a rash (an allergic reaction to a food) which she originated to the examiner. Her folder was red tagged (incorrectly). In her exam origination the pc said that the rash was disrelated and that the session was fine. The C/S was going to take this up and try to repair it but was crammed by the Senior C/S for Q & A. Doing a repair at this point would have been a wrong action as the pc was doing well on the rundown and there was nothing to repair. (Cram was on C/S Series 3.)

Sample three

Eighth Session Time - 1:58 TA - 27 0
Cogs how she had been continuously promising various things would get done by juniors which she knew were unreal just to keep the peace and the heat off and that this practice was quite common is her area. Cognites on an overt product she’d sent along and had had trouble ever since on that type of cycle. Blows a false datum from a psychology article she’d read that it was "neurotics to like work". Huge win on one of the precepts resolving a mystery she’d been stuck in since she was 4 years old.
Ninth Session Time - 1:07 TA - 13.0
Cogs on a computation she’d made against being competent. Blew a lot of suppressive false data such as “wart people are unhappy” and that it was hopeless to try and do well (from a high school teacher). Had a major win on realizing she’d had the idea you were either born with a skill or “tough” because if you practiced a skill you were open to ridicule for goofs made in practicing, etc. so she had dropped any areas she’d wanted to learn about. She traced this to her brother last lifetime which had then been carried through by her sister and herself this lifetime The session ended on this with a persistent F/N and VVGIs.
Tenth Session Time - 1:40 TA - 6.3
Pc originates that after last session she really liked working on E-Meter drills on study and usually she’d hated it (she was doing her solo course ).
Blew false data and some OWs on religious beliefs with good wins. Very good wins and relief on the next chapter -- ” it sort of solves the problem of ‘what’s an overt”’. At the end of the session the pc was VVGIs and said “I definitely want my copy of this one! (“the Way to Happiness” booklet). It’s a bookstore item I’ll definitely buy myself. Usually there are copies of things around but this is one I’d definitely HAVE as my own!”

Sample four

Thirteenth Session: Time - 1:28 TA - 2 8
PC is coming up to an awareness and confront of where he is at (apathy) and expressed grief over it. The auditor Q & A’d and spent the session on an L1C. The C/S notes that this is the first time the pc has gone into grief in a session and that he is coming uptone actually. (Most likely coming through emotional shut off from the drugs he had taken and had a lot of cognitions about, in recent sessions.) (Auditor crammed on Q & A.)
Fourteenth Session: Time - 1:06 TA - .3
In this session he cognites how he didn’t have a beingness mocked up of his own so wanted a friend’s beingness. After handling this area, he blows the valence. He starts to have cogs about his responsibility to get others’ ethics in rather than leave it all to the MAA and sees he has not been good at that.
Page of 1984 edition of The Way to Happiness.
Fifteenth Session: Time - 1:04 TA - 2.7
PC comes to session all “spruced up in his SO uniform”. In this session he gets off a whole lot of false data on the subject of

Truth, and also his overts on the area. PC realizes midsession how uptone he is today!! (Which is quite a change.) He gives off many wins at session end and says he realizes that the other is confusion blowing off.

Wide F/N at Exams.

Sample five

Twenty-Ninth Session: Time - :42 TA - 5,1
Pc had out ruds having to do with not knowing what she wanted to be and do in life and feeling that her integrity as an auditor hadn’t been handled. She said she couldn’t seem to end cycle on it. She also looked at the area of her training and saw that her earlier training before Scientology had been out gradient for her and had given her losses. She F/Ned and felt very good on looking at that. The Rundown was continued and the pc cognited that she went into her mother’s valence and nagged in order to get what she wanted. She was very pleased with this win and the session was ended. Auditor comment: “Very nice.” C/S comment: “Going back over the precepts has really been the right action.”
The HRD was continued using the “assessment method”, which has been running very well, for some sessions. The HRD has not yet been completed.

Link to full data: Media:Happiness_Rundown_Series_8_(Case_Histories).pdf

Experiences with the Happiness Rundown[edit | edit source]

Early Training and Technical Comments, at Berne/Grenchen, Switzerland[edit | edit source]

By Max Hauri[edit | edit source]

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

Ronsorg (talk)‎18:32, January 6, 2016

[as a result of another person's questions to Max, he answered with the following with permission to put it on Scientolipedia.]

Being on staff you had to compromise with your integrity all the time and the longer the more. The HRD brought back your integrity to a large degree, so you had to make a choice...

I don't know what happened really in those years, I doubt LRH was really around, and I doubt LRH would have released such a RD in the 50ties. It is too moralistic, it is based on a moral code - I consider it quite correct but still, it is moral. I think it works well on a Christian and Scn based society but will this RD also work on Islam based society? Or in Far East?

For example in Russia we had not the same success with it as I was used to have auditing Scientologists (when I was still staff auditor). Indeed it worked best on those Scientologists then. The huge success of HRD was most probably also based on the fact that HRD was the first real valence handling RD and application, implying that there has been almost no valence handling otherwise.

Valences and its handling is a fantastic subject, and when I returned to the tech 1990 (I left the church end 83) I was studying all the stuff again I realized the power of it, also knowing the subject of HRD, and later also Don Roth gave me good advice, I learnt a lot on it and how to apply it, and it is dynamite. So we introduced this tech, all kind of valence handlings from the Red Volumes or BC [Saint Hill Special Briefing Course] tapes, and also the LXs.

I certainly blew from staff because I recognized that if I don't leave staff I will have to do things I would be ashamed of myself to the end of my life for having done so. Of course there have been plenty of other reasons, too.

I tried to handle the org from inside, which brought me only into ethics and such matters. It got the longer the more impossible to keep the own integrity. HRD was certainly something that helped me to make a correct decision.

Let's put it this way, HRD opened the eyes of many staffs and Scientologists. They didn't blow because HRD would have been out tech to them but because of all the other out tech, out admin and out ethics.

I still wonder who initiated the RD. I doubt it was LRH and I also don't think he wrote the booklet. Not his style.

Much love Max (7th July 2016)

1981 Auditor Training and Internship at AOSH EU and AF, Denmark[edit | edit source]

by Antony Phillips[edit | edit source]

At the end of the 1970s I gave up my job in order to do something for Pubs Org in Great Britain. When I came back I was full-time at the AOSH EU receiving NOTs auditing and taking the Briefing Course [2]. When I got to the end of my second level of the Briefing Course I went as usual to the Registrar to sign up for the next level. Here I was strongly encouraged to enrolled on the Happiness Rundown Course and Internship which was getting a lot of publicity and general attention at that time. The Rundown was new, sounded very exciting, and I signed up. The Rundown had been piloted in the USA and people who had been on that pilot were coming to AOSHs to the various post needed to run such a course, notably C/S's, Cramming Officers and Course Supervisors.

The Course and the Internship were very high toned and very busy, and the staff very high toned and cooperative and the pace was high. At the beginning one of the Supervisors went through my check sheet with me assigning targets for individual days, so that it was planned that I ended the course on the date coinciding with the length of time the course was supposed to take. I'd had this sort of thing of assigning targets before, and they seem unrealistic and were not kept. In this case, much to my surprise, they were kept, the staff being more eager (high toned) than I had experienced before.

On the Internship there was no difficulty in getting preclears. I audited a number of people who were junior staff members in the Guardian's Office. They had had little auditing (the minimum required to do the Happiness Rundown as a prerequisite was some Objectives). The early part of the Happiness Rundown concerns the first dynamic of Scientology, oneself, and included things like take care of yourself, preserve your teeth, eat properly, get rest. On a number of occasions Guardians Office staff who I audited were surprised about this feeling that it went quite against the way their seniors had expected them to behave. "Did Ron say that!" was the sort of reaction I observed.

As I was (supposedly) a NOTs preclear I was able to audit people up to and including the level of NOTs. In fact I was rather popular in that direction because there weren't so many people who could audit NOTs preclears on the Happiness Rundown at that time. However there was a stop on the line, because the person C/Sing it also had to be up to NOTs, they were still waiting from someone from the USA who was that level.

There were certain expectations about the Happiness Rundown. For example, you were required to get a session each day because having handled one precept the charge from the next precept "attacked" you, and it was expected that the rundown should take something in the direction of 15 hours. Part of the procedure was the students co-audited on it. As auditors you were expected to finish a precept before ending session.

I found myself an exception to one of these and with my co-auditor we made an exception to the requirement to do a session every day. One of the steps of the rundown is to audit the valence of someone who had transgressed one of the precepts. In the early days of my auditing, my co-auditor audited me three sessions on one valence and didn't flatten it, or rather didn't get a chance to flatten it because the C/S ordered another auditor to run a correction list on it. The other auditor was a Class VIII auditor who came from South Africa, he did Happiness Rundown Correction List on it and it read on the item "process not flat"! He then continued that valence and audited it flat in that session. I then continued the Happiness Rundown co-audited with this South African Class VIII. We audited daily, but mutually agreed to audit each other on alternate days, thus breaking the rule of getting a session each day, and I felt dreadful on the day I had to audit him and didn't get a session. That convinced me that one should get a session each day. It was also a little bit weird that we both audited far more than 15 hours on each of us. I think I was audited about 90 hours on the Happiness Rundown.

It is now 30 years or so since I audited Happiness Rundown and memories are dim! A few still stand out. Usually when running it some precepts took more time than others. One person I audited after I came out of the Church had trouble with the one "Honour and Help Your Parents." He regarded his father as suppressive, and told me a good deal about his father. At the time, which was fairly near to when I was thrown out of the Church, I felt that the way I handled it I thought would not have been accepted by the Church. Now, looking at it from a new viewpoint, I could have wished that I had the support of a good C/S and possibly Cramming Officer. I have since, auditing other routines, come across two or three preclears whose fathers could have been regarded as pretty suppressive (should one honour them and what, actually, does honour mean?). Another preclear I remember well was an auditor on org staff and had had problems of some sort in one org which did not get handled despite a good deal of auditing and in the end he moved to another org to handle it (I don't remember the problem now). On one precept he discovered a solution to it, or what the nature of the problem was, and was elated! After I was thrown out of the church I had one preclear on Happiness Rundown who did the whole in two sessions and most or all of the precepts had no charge on them. Again, looking back, I wondered if a C/S, cramming officer, or just a chat with a friendly, knowledgeable fellow auditor, would have revealed a way of handling which I had missed, so I'm left now with the conclusion that actually there wasn't anything to be handled, that his integrity was very thoroughly in, or that he had some sort of hidden agenda of proving how perfect he was! I must have been on the Happiness Rundown when it was still being changed in small ways. There is one step done on most precepts where you look for an identity and then run a process on it. We were told not to do it if the identity was the preclear (possibly in an earlier life). At one point my preclear, the Class VIII auditor, came up with the identity of a little dog and we ran that. Later, when we were allowed to run identities, he told me that actually that was his own identity. When we became able to run the preclear's own identity, we ran it with a special process with a special endpoint (actually four possible endpoints). Own identity was rather rare but I came up with four own identities all being "famous people" and one of them running for about 10 hours (four sessions, when we were expected to not to end session before completing a precept!).

There was one rather sad incident. Before I started the Happiness Rundown, in the lunch hour, I met walking across the courtyard of the AOSH a man who looked rather unhappy and said he had come to get a DofP interview. There were no staff around who could do it, and I think he had an appointment or work to get back to, so I did it myself. I thought no more about it until there came a point when I and others had to choose someone to audit on the Happiness Rundown. I wanted the man who I had twinned with on the Briefing Course (a Swede). The Happiness Rundown C/S refused about five other requests for someone to audit, until this man who I had given a DofP interview to was audited. It turned out that he had been getting auditing by a HRD student who had abandoned him (very out integrity) when he had completed his Happiness Rundown course/internship. Once you start the Happiness Rundown you should complete it. I took this abandoned preclear, my first action was to run the Happiness Rundown Repair List on him and this read on the item "rundown incomplete", so I just went on where the other auditor had left off.[3].

I hope this account encourages others to write their experience because my account is not (normal/usual)

1981 and 1984 version[edit | edit source]

by Anon(1)[edit | edit source]

I did the 1981 HRD as both a pc and as an auditor. I studied the HCOBs of the 1984 HRD when I redid the SHSBC, but didn't audit that version. The most important differences between the two versions, for me, were:

1. Mid-NOTs cases could be audited on the 1981 HRD. On the course, I co-audited the rundown with another mid-NOTs student.

2. Commands were not checked for a read before running in the 1981 version. This made it very easy on the auditor, because I didn't have to pay much attention to the meter. The whole rundown could be run by a green auditor, just following the commands in the booklet. This procedure was out-tech, according to the HCOB that said that every grades process must be checked for a read before running. On the other hand, the HRD is basically False Data Stripping (FDS) applied to the Precepts in the Way to Happiness, and the FDS bulletin says that it can be run without a meter.

First HRD at Flag[edit | edit source]

Page of 1984 edition of The Way to Happiness.

By Ralph Hilton[edit | edit source]

I was on the first HRD course at Flag. It was definitely a factor in my deciding to leave the Sea Org. The expected time was around 25 hours then but within a year or so it was being run much quicker. The auditing was very positive for me. I had a major valence shift. It was as if I no longer needed to be part of a group that was abusing its members. It was in 1981. David Mayo seemed to be working toward a light approach to ethics at the time but there was a strong intention toward heavy ethics from the CMO which destroyed his efforts. All the best, Ralph.

First and Second version at Flag[edit | edit source]

By Anon(2)[edit | edit source]

I studied the HRD Auditor's Course as a Flag staff member in 1981 when it came out. Unfortunately I did not get to audit the rundown at the time. However, I received it myself from an intern in 1982. I enjoyed the easy auditing. I enjoyed any and all auditing at the time. I was at the bottom of the Bridge then, with Purif, SRD Co-Audit, and Life Repair completed. I suppose it was never as spectacular as other types of auditing, but still fun. Mainly false data stripping on moral codes.

Later, in the 90s, I was told I had to have HRD again. The first version wasn't correct, they said. (You won't mind me asking, will you? Has anyone of you readers ever heard anyone say this?) The word of highly trained personnel being sacred to me then, I solemnly accepted. A number of sessions followed which were utterly uneventful. What I remember of this second version is that there really wasn't anything going on at all. Zilch. Which is exactly what I can now, looking back, say about every one of the actions that I've had to redo by reason of the same authoritatively announced ruling. And there were many. All of the redo's were a travesty of the original and served me to no good end. (That concerns auditing, i.e. Bridge steps, barring Int RD.) That's in hindsight I can say this

More ?[edit | edit source]

Other people's experiences of using the HRD, both the new and the old, and the org environment and PC reactions to it are invited

Epilogue[edit | edit source]

On the Ex Scientologist Message Board there is a thread on this: [2] [Excerpt from that thread #33]

30th March 2009, 11:13 PM #33
Quote: Originally Posted by Leon
The reason the S.O. was so anti the HRD is that so many of their guys who received it blew soon afterwards. The[y] started spotting the wild false data in the SO itself and just left. The entire schism in Scio of the early 80's, what we then called the independent movement, was date coincident with the HRD and this point was not missed on management.
lionheart :
This matches my experience of the HRD and the schism of the 80's. Not just false data, but transgressions encouraged or forced by the CofS and Scn valances were blown. So of course HRD completions tended to leave or be thrown out as they were no longer compliant.
I still remember when PC's originated LRH or senior execs as false data sources or trangressors and the freedom you would see come over the PC when the influence was blown.
The dial wide FNs and ease of it all!

References[edit | edit source]

Booklet The Way to Happiness (main text with introduction outlining what has been missed, extracted from the first Happiness Rundown course checksheet below): [[3]]
First Happiness Rundown course checksheet including written material (not books or transcripts): [[4]]
Happiness Rundown Series #8 (The 90 page bulletin with some case histories, not repeated in the later Happiness Rundown, extracted from the above scanned in course check sheet): [[5]]
Bulletin cancelling first Happiness Rundown: [[6]]
Second Happiness Rundown course checksheet, including tape lecture transcripts, book on emeter drills, and a FriScientology Tech Dictionary (2012): [[7]]

Other Internet references to Happiness Rundown
From [[8]]

Footnotes, Etc.[edit | edit source]

Page of 1981 edition of The Way to Happiness.

  1. ^ She is the daughter of a well-known and respected (at one time) Class VIII named George Seidler. She worked fairly extensively with Ron on technical matters. I believe she did much of the compilation of the original Survival Rundown, and worked on the Happiness Rundown as well. On the DVD "LRH Stories" she answers questions about her time as a messenger, and George Seidler also gives a talk, see [[10]].
  2. ^ Events leading up to Antony's HRD. My mother had died, leaving my brother and I to share the proceeds from the sale of a four-bedroom house in the London suburbs. I had a secure job in an insurance company in Copenhagen doing printing for them. Pubs Org (who I had been a staff member of for five years earlier) had an order from LRH (most holy! ) to convert all films onto cassettes which they had complied with apart from confidential films in connection with the Clearing Course. The person to do that had to be at or above Clear in case level and Pubs Org had nobody but their Commanding Officer who was at that level which was why they wanted me to do it. Further it was to be done by J Arthur Rank in Great Britain and (ridiculous as it might sound to later generations) it must be insured that no person who had not done those levels would look at it, as it was regarded as dangerous to them. In fact I was not present when this was done but it did involve me "wasting" some months of my time in Great Britain while the films were edited (they had not been properly edited) and then copied. When I got back, apart from doing two levels of the Briefing Course, I did the Professional Product Debug Course starting on 21 March 1980, subsequently applying it gratis to two or three HGC auditors on the AOSH because there was nobody on AOSH staff as high as my preclear level able to do it. The date of my starting the Happiness Rundown Course was 10 July 1981. Antony Phillips; December 2015
  3. ^ Antony's life shortly after the HRD - leading to being thrown out! At the time I finished the HRD Course and Internship I had run out of money, so to speak. I was trying to make a rather futile effort to set up a business under WISE, advising people on how to run their businesses on LRH lines and policy. I was contacting managing directors, and trying to sell this idea to them. I had enough money left on my account at the AOSH to get a Sec Check which would be a necessary action before my next NOTs session. After the session I was kept waiting an hour for a DofP interview, complained about it, and, rather to my surprise, instead of what I expected, to be sent in for an a ARC break session from my auditor, I was sent to Qual, who sent me to HCO with instructions that I should write up my overts and withholds. After two or three days of coming back to HCO (AOSH) with a new attempt and list of overts and withholds, the HCO Executive Secretary came up behind me as I was approaching the Ethics Officer's desk, told me that this was not okay, as they were not being paid for it, and sent me to EULO (European Liaison Office, which was the headquarters of Scientology in Europe) where I was put on something which they called the Deck Project Force. The Deck Project Force was really intended for staff members and I was not a staff member. Also I did it part-time and the others were doing it full-time. I was doing a badly paid night job and trying to get customers for my consulting business! The Deck Project Force consisted of two things, writing up your overts and withholds with occasional "Gang Sec. Checks" (two or more people behind the auditor and the meter also interrogating you) , and doing physical work. I did this for some days, until one day I arrived there, sat down to write up my overts and withholds (again!), and the Course Supervisor came over to me and asked me to set a target of the how many lines or pages of overts and withholds I was going to write. I was somewhat nonplussed by this, and while I was pondering how on earth I could assess that, he sent me to the Master of Arms, which was a posh Sea Org name for Ethics Officer. She told me that I was a Suppressive Person (which I believed!) and that I was to go away and find my overt and I was not to speak to anyone until I had come in and told her! I found myself a better paid job but lived in a sort of limbo until on June 15, 1983, when I received the Dane Tops letter[11] and got in communication with some Scientologists who had been surprised that I had been thrown out of the Church and were dissatisfied with the Church! Was I a marked man, because of taking the HRD? I was treated markedly differently from much of my earlier Scientology career. Antony Phillips December 2015.