Two Happiness Rundowns – Introduction
|Two Happiness Rundowns – Introduction|
|Topic||Auditing tech (HRD)|
|Type of Article||Category:Articles|
- This introduction to the article on Two Happiness Rundowns is written by Leo Swart in June 2016.
- Leo, now resident in New Zealand, was trained mostly in Cape Town Scientology org. He did the HRD course in Johannesburg in about 1982. A year after the HRD course he went back to Joburg to spend a few weeks there working under their C/S, Hero Dresser. At the end of it she awarded him his Class IV C/S Internship certificate.
Antony Phillips has asked me to write a short introduction to the presentation of the Two Happiness Rundowns. I'm glad to oblige.
I suspect that most of us who came into Scientology did so with a personal aim of greater self and pan-determinism, and a broader aim of having society at large benefit in the same way. We accepted that the CofS was also in alignment with this aim. There is an early lecture where LRH espoused exactly this and where he then went on to declare - and from the sound of it he had his hand on his heart - that he would never ever put any curves into the subject; meaning that no covert agenda was being hidden from us. We could trust him on this, he said.
We took it all at face value. And we had our gains from the subject. I certainly did - and way "beyond my wildest dreams" too - just on the lower grades. I will be eternally grateful for the benefits I gained. And yet . . . and yet I always found it a trifle odd that the subject that espoused self determinism and pan-determinism was being delivered by an organisation where these very same qualities seemed to be anathema. The organisation demanded obedience, compliance and money. It tolerated no independent thought or viewpoints on anything. But I, and all others too, explained it all away.
Then the Happiness Rundown came to be, and more than any other rundown I know of, this one really did deliver on self determinism and on regaining confidence in one's own viewpoint on life. It was so successful in this that a schism in the CofS resulted from it - the 1982 Independent movement. People left in droves. Sea Org members could almost be guaranteed to blow their billion-year contracts after receiving the rundown. I saw this happen myself.
Management was fully perceptive of this connection between the HRD and the schism and they acted with venom in getting rid of the rundown and its developer. They cancelled the original version and re-issued it - with one significant omission. All questions were to be checked for read before running them. But hey! That's a requirement of Standard Tech, isn't it? You only run charged items. This is standard practice.
But hang on a bit. Just what is "charge" and how is it formed in the mind? Charge is electrical energy, or potential energy. In normal physics it is formed by the holding in place of two opposing terminals - one positive and one negative. In this case here we are referring only to the electrical energy that is in the mind. In the mind, just as in physics, it is formed by two opposing potentials. So, for example, the two opposing forces of (a) life happening to someone, and (b) that person's protest against it, create opposing flows, one of push and another of pull. This generates energy, and this energy is stored as charge in the Reactive Mind.
Note that where there is no protest there is also no charge. Where he agrees with the way life is happening to him - no charge results. The formation of charge is entirely dependant on his opposition to the flow that is imposed upon him. No matter how nutty or insane that flow on him may be - if he agrees with it, there will be no charge. But if he resists it there will be.
And where there is no charge there is also no read on the meter, no matter how insane the thing he agrees with is. And so in this way these most aberrated agreements the preclear has made will never get run in auditing. Never. Because they will not read. This fact is fully covered in LRH materials.
This means too that at some stage in auditing the auditor must deliberately ignore the absence of meter read on a preclear, and just audit him on something that has come up because it is nuts. The HRD was exactly the rundown that hunted out and dealt with these non-reading insanities.
And this was thrown out and replaced with something that ignored these insanities in the preclear. That's what we have with the original HRD being thrown out and the new and corrupted version being introduced. What we have is a curve being inserted into Scientology. A hidden agenda was hereby introduced into the subject. Someone there did not want us to become more self-determined. Someone wants us to agree to go on being other-determined.
Was this the only time that such a trick was played on us in Scientology? Unfortunately, no. There are numerous others. I'll give you one more because we encounter this one so often.
We all know the datum that people who blow have overts. That's the reason they blow - they have overts stemming from misunderstood words. Here's the Tech Dictionary on the subject:
- BLOW, defn 4. departures, sudden and relatively unexplained, from sessions, posts, jobs, locations and areas. (HCOB 31 Dec 59)—v. Slang. [The] unauthorized departure from an area, usually caused by misunderstood data or overts. (HCOB 19 Jun 71 III)
Misunderstood word phenomena are described fully under the headings of First Phenomenon and Second Phenomena in the Tech Dictionary:
- FIRST PHENOMENON, when a student misses understanding a word, the section right after that word is a blank in his memory. You can always trace back to the word just before the blank, get it understood and find miraculously that the former blank area is not now blank in the bulletin. The above is pure magic. (HCO PL 24 Sept 64)
I always wondered why they go blank just after the MU word. It was to be many years before I spotted the simple answer to it.
- SECOND PHENOMENON, the second phenomenon is the overt cycle which follows a misunderstood word. When a word is not grasped, the student then goes into a non-comprehension (blankness) of things immediately after. This is followed by the student’s solution for the blank condition which is to individuate from it—separate self from it. Now being something else than the blank area, the student commits overts against the more general area. These overts, of course, are followed by restraining himself from committing overts. This pulls flows toward the person and makes the person crave motivators. This is followed by various mental and physical conditions and by various complaints, fault-finding and look-what-you-did-to-me. This justifies a departure, a blow. (HCO PL 24 Sept 64)
Again, no explanation for the blankness nor for the individuation from the group. LRH's omission here is glaring at us. What is missing is any mention of the ARC Triangle. A misunderstood word is a no-communication. This is an ARC Break with the materials, right there. The break in Communication leads to a drop in Reality and Affinity and a consequent drop in the student's Havingness on the materials being studied. A non-confront results.
Hence, a blankness.
Hence, separation from the group - an inevitable consequence of an ARC Break.
And it is only after this ARC Break remains unhandled that he starts to commit overts against the course or the group.
Why was this ARC Break not mentioned by LRH? Why is there never a suggestion that it should be dealt with? I find it utterly inconceivable that he did not know about it. Clearly, at the basis of any person blowing an area is an ARC Break. 
This omission is another curve thrown into the subject, and there are others too. This short introduction is not the place for discussing them all.
However, and apart from what I have said above, we must also recognise that merely running ARC Breaks on such a student can never be an adequate handling of the issue. Auditing ARC Breaks is auditing the preclear at Effect, not at Cause, and is therefore a very limited approach. One has to clean up any and all O/Ws in the area as well and also run the other flows of the ARC Break - what ARC Breaks did he cause another, and so on.
= = =
There can be no doubt that the basic pattern and technology of Scientology is correct. I have seen and experienced too much of it to ever doubt that. LRH did his work well. Better than anyone else has ever done it. But there are curves in it. There are omissions.
Part of the task facing members of the broader Freezone is the recovery of lost Tech and the correction of incorrect Tech. And then there is also the development of new tech. Much of this last one has been done - much more still needs to be done.
Posting the two versions of the Happiness Rundown on this board is a major step in educating Freezone auditors. But on its own it is not enough. I think it would require the setting up of a proper training facility to get all of the HRD recovered and into use, since it was so much more that just this matter of running unreading items. The massive emphasis that was placed on Basic Auditing - proper TRs and comm cycles and being in full rapport with the preclear, the safe environment, and so on - these all played an enormous part in the success of the rundown. The need for such a training facility is apparent.
With best wishes,
- For the article this introduces click here > Two Happiness Rundowns.
References[edit | edit source]
- ^ Editor's note: There is a reference to where Ron very secretly suggested that ARC breaks were behind blows. "The despatch was entitled Very Confidential underlined. He went onto say that if you [David Mayo] or Franks ever reveal any of this information that I am about to reveal, the consequences will be severe for SCN". He [Ron] then wrote:" a person does not blow due Overts or Witholds. He blows only due to ARC BKs". The dispatch was returned to Ron, so there is no written evidence. Further details at [].