Homer Wilson Smith
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Mon Dec 7 13:09:26 EST 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
ACT - 84
30 November 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
This is roughly taken from Dianetics Today with alterations.
It is supposed to be run on reading items and on all four flows for
each reading item and reading flow. It works best in new hands when run
absolutely muzzled, meaning the new auditor must not talk, chatter, make
comments, give sympathy, or otherwise distract from the exact commands
of the process.
Remember that charge blows finally and completely in the pc when
the pc receives the auditor's ack. Therefore learning how to ack
properly can be the difference between an ARC broke pc and a happy pc.
THE POINT OF AN ACK IS TO MAKE THE PC UNDERSTAND THAT HE HAS BEEN
UNDERSTOOD AND LIVED THROUGH IT. An ack is anything therefore that
accomplishes this, whether it be the nod of a head, the look of an eye,
or "Ok, I got that already!"
Acknowledgment is not just in how you say, "OK, I got that", or
whatever, it has to do with your whole presence and understanding, which
is why you never let something go by you don't understand. Even if the
pc thinks you are a dolt for not getting what he is saying, he will hate
you more when he begins to suspect 10 minutes later that you didn't get
He will wonder why you didn't bring it up when it first confused
you as an auditor, and it acts as a missed withhold to him as it leaves
him wondering if you know what he's been talking about. He will feel
like he has been talking to the air, rather than a living being. So
telling the pc once in a while 'I didn't get that', actually lets him
know you are listening, even if it does distract him a bit during
Try not to be interruptive about it though, you can knock a cog
back into oblivion by interrupting a pc's cognition flow, and the pc
will never forgive you for that, NEVER. So wait until the pc is
finished with the comm, then mention "I didn't get something" and have
him go over it again.
THE AUDITOR'S CODE AND THE PC'S CODE
Remember that there is an auditor's code which makes it possible
for auditing to happen, because if the auditor breaks the auditor's code
the pc won't talk to the auditor any more. It's as simple as that.
There is also a pc's code which is the code the pc has to live up
to for the auditor to be willing to audit the pc and take his money.
Both pc and auditor must have explicit agreements on the subject of
the auditor's code and the pc's code. What does the pc expect of the
auditor? What does the auditor expect of the pc?
For every duty there is a right, and for every right there is a
duty. For every duty that the auditor has in the auditor's code, the
auditor has a right to expect something of the pc. And for every duty
the pc has in the pc's code, the pc has a right to expect something of
the auditor. Get it worked out early for smoothest results. It's a
contract of sorts between two parties who are engaged in a cooperative
Filbert used to tell me there were three reasons he audited.
For the cogs, for the jokes and for the money, in that order of
So don't get the idea the auditor does not benefit from the
experience. It is that benefit which ties the auditor to his duties to
follow the auditor's code, as he won't have any pc's to benefit him if
Likewise it is the benefits of being audited that ties the pc to
his duty to follow the pc's code, because he won't have any auditor's to
audit him if he doesn't.
This is what Ethics is about. When the auditor breaks the
auditor's code, or the pc breaks the pc's code, into Ethics they go.
THE R3R PROCEDURE (Routine 3, Revised)
R3R is a Standard Scientology term used to refer to an exact
process used by the Church to run Dianetic incidents. The following is
NOT an exact replica of this process. It was changed and reworked by
LRH a number of times, particularly when New Era Dianetics came out.
However all of the various standard versions of R3R are very close to
each other in intent and pattern, and the following is representative of
R3R style processes in the Free Zone.
The first command is shown below for all 4 flows, the rest are
given only for flow 1. The other flows only effect line F.) below.
1.1) "Locate an incident of another causing you ....."
1.2) "Locate an incident of you causing another ....."
1.3) "Locate an incident of others causing others ..."
1.0) "Locate an incident of you causing yourself ...."
2.) "When was it?"
Take what ever pc says. Does not have to be exact.
3.) "Move to that incident."
4.) What is the duration of the incident?"
Take what ever the pc says. Does not have to be exact. Duration
always turns on picture. If it is omitted, the pc will run black - no
"A long time" is fine. "15 trillion 243 billion, 123 million, 645
thousand, 731 years, 15 days, 24 minutes and 2 seconds' is fine also.
Write it down and be able to give it back EXACTLY as said.
5.) "Move to beginning of that incident, tell me when you are
6.) "What do you see?"
7.) "Move through the incident to a point (duration) later."
Use pc's exact wording for duration.
My experience is that exact wording can be critical. Remember that
the auditor commands the somatic strip and thus controls the bank. If
the pc says "A long time", and the auditor says in line 7.) below,
"Move through the incident to a point "very much later", the bank will
8.) Let pc run through incident, quietly acking anything he says
with this exact acknowledgement "Okay, continue".
NEVER USE 'GO ON'. Use CONTINUE.
When pc reaches end of incident,
9.) "What happened?"
Take whatever pc says, let him complete, and ack. Say nothing
A. "Move to the beginning of the incident,
B. "Tell me when you are there."
C. "Move through to the end of the incident." (Don't use 'scan')
D. "Tell me what happened."
If TA rising goto directly to F.
E. "Is the incident erasing or going more solid?"
If erasing goto A until F/N, Cog, POSTULATE, VGI's.
F. "Is there an earlier incident of another causing you...?"
If yes goto step 1, or 2 if already 'located'.
G. "Does the one we are running START earlier?"
If no goto A. If bogged goto I.
H. "Move to the new beginning of the incident."
Goto Step B.
I. Run L3RD Dianetics Correction List
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 7 12:06:02 EST 2015
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L