Engram Running by Chains
Routine 3RA

Engram running on ST5 is done with  Routine-3RA, Engram running by Chains.
 
It is a very simple procedure indeed! But it took a lot of research to get to this point. It does not require the pc to have visual memory, sonic memory or recall of other perceptions at once. Instead it helps develop them.

R3RA builds directly on the know-how of the nature and behavior of the Time Track. It is based on experiences with many, many earlier techniques - from the first published techniques of "Dianetics™, The Modern Science of Mental Health" (1950) and forward.  R3RA was released in 1978 and that remains its final form. Engram Running by Chains is so simple the auditor usually begins by over-complicating. You almost can't get uncomplicated enough in Engram running.

Here are some of the complexities the auditor has to learn to put aside. 
 First Lesson: In teaching people to run Engrams in 1949 R. Hubbard repeated concern was, "All auditors talk too much."
 
His second concern was: "All auditors acknowledge too little." Auditors were always asking for more data instead of simply acknowledge what the pc just had given them. The auditor needs simply to acknowledge what the pc says and say "Continue." Auditors were always asking for more data and usually for more data than the pc could possibly find. Example: Pc: "I see a car...I think".  Auditor: "Okay. What year and model?"
 
That's not Engram running, that's just harassing the pc with poor TRs.
 
The proper action is: Pc: "I see a car...I think." Auditor: "Okay. Continue."
 
There are no exceptions to this rule in Engram running with R3RA and it is now clearly worked into the procedure itself. These were the first auditor rules in Engram running; there may have been complications in between, but we are  back to the basic rules.  
 
It can be summed up this way: 

Acknowledge what the pc says and tell him to continue.

Another point is auditor being doubtful of control. Wrong example: Auditor: "Move to your birthday last year. Are you there?? How do you know that it is really your birthday last year? What do you see that makes you think....?" Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
 
Right example: Auditor: "Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there." (Pc answers.) "What do you see?" (Pc's answer). "Good". The Time Track responds beautifully. But it is like dealing with a wild animal, you could say, the auditor has to exert positive control for it to happen every time.

The Time Track is under the auditor's control,     not the pc's. Thus the auditor     must exert positive control.

 
Another error is a failure to take the pc's data. You always take the pc's data. That is part of TRs and Auditors Code. That does not mean you take his orders. You never take the pc's orders. They usually stem from the Bank.
 
 
R3RA By Steps
 R3RA is done in Model Session. Auditor takes the usual steps, including clearing commands when run for the first time, and flying the rudiments. The auditor starts the session by saying, "This is the session" (Tone 40).
 The auditor tells the pc briefly what they are going to do in the session. That is the Reality Factor.

What to Run
 You establish the type of Chain the pc is to run. This is usually done by doing an Assessment. Sometimes the C/S will tell the auditor which Chain has to be run next; the auditor will still have to determine that it is reading and has pc's interest. In Engram running it has to have a read and pc's interest to be taken up. The only exception would be on the Engram Drug RD and drug Engrams.
 
The Commands

FLOW 1:
STEP ONE:  Locate the first incident by the command: 
"Locate a time when you had_____." Also make a note of TA position.
 
STEP TWO:  "When was it?" You accept any time or date or approximation the pc gives you. Do not attempt any dating drill with Meter.
 
STEP THREE: Move the pc to the incident with the exact command, "Move to that incident." (This step is omitted if the pc is telling you he is there already.)
 
STEP FOUR: "What is the duration of that incident?" Accept any duration the pc gives you or any statement to that effect the pc makes about it. Do not attempt to use Meter to get a more accurate duration.
 
STEP FIVE: Move the pc to the beginning of the incident with the exact command: "Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there."
 
STEP SIX: Ask pc what he or she is looking at with this command. First, if the pc's eyes are open, tell pc, "Close your eyes", acknowledge him quietly for doing so and then give him the command "What do you see?" 
 
STEP SEVEN: "Move through that incident to a point (pc's given duration) later."
 
STEP EIGHT: Sit quietly; say nothing, do nothing; just observe the pc and Meter or make quiet notes while pc is going through the incident. If pc comments before reaching the end just say "OK, continue."
 
STEP NINE: When the pc reaches the end of the incident say only: "What happened?"
 
 Take whatever pc says, acknowledge as appropriate. Say nothing else, ask nothing else. When pc has told little or much and has finished talking, give him a final acknowledgement. That ends cycle on one run through.
 
If the TA has risen (from its position at Step 1) the auditor immediately checks for an earlier incident (Step G). If no earlier incident, he asks for an earlier beginning to the incident (Step H).
 
If the TA is the same or lower, he runs the incident through again (Step A).
 
In going through an incident the second or more times auditor does not ask for date and duration or anything else.

STEP A. (After pc has competed Step 9) "Move to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there."
 
STEP B. "Move through to the end of that incident."
 
STEP C. (When the pc has done so) "Tell me what happened."
 
STEP Ca. "Is that incident erasing or going more solid?" (TA rising means the incident has gone more solid so the question is not asked if TA is higher.)
 
If the incident is erasing, go through it again.  If it has gone more solid, ask for an earlier incident.
If no earlier incident, ask for an earlier beginning.
 
STEP D. "Return to the beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there."
 
STEP E. "Move through to the end of that incident."
 
STEP F. "Tell me what happened."

STEP Fa. "Is that incident erasing or going more solid?" (TA rising means the incident has gone more solid so the question is not asked if TA is higher.)

If the incident is erasing, go through it again (Step D).
 
If it has gone more solid, ask for an earlier incident (Step G) 
and if no earlier incident, ask for an earlier beginning (Step H).

STEP G. "Is there an earlier incident when you had a (exact same somatic)?"

Continue on down the Chain of the same somatic using Steps 2-9, A, B. C, D, E, F. G. H. and EYE.
 
Step H: "Is there an earlier beginning to this incident?" or "Does the one we are running start earlier?" or "Does there seem to be an earlier starting point to this incident?"
 
(If not, give command D and put the pc through the incident again. If there is an earlier beginning, give command EYE.)
 
STEP EYE. "Go to the new beginning of that incident and tell me when you are there." (Followed by B. C.)

Postulate off=Erasure  Unless you get to the very bottom  of things - like the earlier beginning     - the thing isn't handled completely.    When you get to the tip of the roots     and get the postulate off you are done!    You have "completely removed  the whole root system of the weed".

Postulate Off Equals Erasure
 When it looks like you have reached the basic incident of the Chain and that it is erasing, after each pass through, ask: "Has it erased?"
 
The pc sometimes thinks the incident is erasing but it's not erasing, so you have to go back to your G. H. EYE followed by 2-9, A-EYE. In some cases this can happen several times on one Chain.
 
The postulate coming off is the EP of the Chain; it means you have obtained an erasure. This will be accompanied by F/N and VGIs. Getting the postulate is the important thing. Even if you get an F/N you don't indicate the F/N until you've gotten the postulate, at which time you have reached the EP and end off on that Chain.
 
If the pc says the Chain has erased, but the postulate made during the time of the incident has not been expressed by the pc ask: "Did you make a postulate at the time of that incident?" Only when the postulate has come off to F/N and VGIs can one consider that the full EP of an engramic incident or Chain has been reached.
 
You must recognize what the postulate is when it comes up. It is usually signaled with a BD. If you try to run pc past the postulate it messes up the situation and pc. It may need extensive repair. All you're basically going for is find and blow the postulate, because hat is what is keeping the Chain there. When the pc has given the postulate to F/N and VGIs, that is it. You have the EP of that Chain.
 
Going Earlier
Usually an incident is run through twice, (Steps 1-9 then A-C). This is done to unburden the Chain and allow the pc to locate earlier incidents on the Chain, now coming to view. You get some of the charge off the present incident and the pc can now find anything earlier.
 
The TA, however, tells the story as well. If the TA is rising on Step 9 it usually means there is something earlier. If the auditor observes the TA rising, he should ask the pc (1) if there is an earlier incident, using in the command the exact same somatic or feeling used in Step One. (2) If there is no earlier incident he asks if there is an earlier beginning.

 
With R3RA you have all the tools to get down to the basic incident (and the basic postulate) fast. Seeing the TA higher at the end of a run, the auditor never have to solidify a pc's Bank by putting him through an incident again. The higher TA means increased mass and makes it clear that the incident has gone more solid by the end of the previous run through.
 
When the TA has gone up you check for an earlier incident (or earlier beginning) after the first run through.
 
If, after the second pass through, when you have asked the pc "Is the incident erasing or going more solid?" and the pc doesn't know or isn't sure, ask for an earlier incident. Never ask erasing/solid in the middle of an incident.
 
 
Bouncers
If the pc bounces out of the session, out of the incident, bounces from the incident, etc., you would have to tell him to "Return to the beginning of the incident and tell me when you are there" and move him through the incident. The pc who bounces out of an incident on a "bouncer" has to be put back into the incident and continue to run it. So you give pc the above command followed with E, F. Fa.

FLOWS 2, 3 and 0
Step One and Step G (going earlier) commands for Flows 2, 3 and 0 are:
 
FLOW 2:
STEP ONE: "Locate an incident of your causing another_____ 
(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)."
 
STEP G: "Is there an earlier incident of your causing another_____ 
(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?"
 
FLOW 3:
 STEP ONE: "Locate an incident of others causing others_____ 
(plural of the somatic or feeling used in Flow 1). "
 
STEP G: "Is there an earlier incident of others causing others___ 
(plural of the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?"
 
FLOW 0:
 STEP ONE: "Locate an incident of you causing yourself___ 
(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)."
 
STEP G: "Is there an earlier incident of you causing yourself____ 
(the exact somatic or feeling used in Flow 1)?"

Each of these Step One and Step G commands are followed by on the full exact commands 2-9, A-EYE in the steps as given above.

A widow should have the loss    of her beloved husband run  out as a Narrative Incident.

Narrative R3RA
A narrative item is often run to run out the physical experiences the person has just undergone. This could be for example an accident, illness, an operation or emotional shock.
 
However, a condition or circumstance without an incident is not narrative. It's just an incorrect item. An example of this would be trying to run the item, "Obstruction of justice." It would not run as there is no exact incident there.
 
Narratives are all too often just run through once or twice and abandoned. Narratives are different from somatic Chains. If just run once or twice it leaves this specific incident still charged and capable of affecting the pc. A narrative needs to be run and run and run on that one incident. What you are doing is running that one narrative incident to erasure. You only go earlier similar if it starts to grind very badly, meaning it doesn't change on repeated runs and it doesn't erase.
 
Most narrative incidents will run out by themselves without going earlier. This may take a very long time and many, many runs. But if you want to change somebody's life, that's how you do it.
 
When you are running a narrative you always add the known incident to the command.

Examples of Narrative Incidents: The death of your mother. The Car accident last year. Going bankrupt with your clothing business. When your spouse left you. These are well defined incidents in time and location and the pc knows about them. But he doesn't remember all the painful details, of course, and that is what you have to bleed out.

Using the earlier beginning command in running narratives is important. For example: If the pc is running out a death of somebody closely related to him you will find that the incident actually started when he heard the phone ring, then, going back earlier to when somebody looked at him in a strange way, etc. So using the earlier beginning command in narrative running is important.
 
The commands for Narrative are:

FLOW 1:
STEP ONE: "Return to the time you______ 
(specific incident) and tell me when you are there."
 
Steps 2-9 follows (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, "Return to the time....").
 
Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.
 
If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C. Then again check for earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and additional runs through the incident use steps D, E, F making certain to check for earlier beginning after each run through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, "Is there an earlier similar incident?"
 
 
FLOW 2:
 STEP ONE: "Return to the time you caused another to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there."
 
Steps 2-9 follows (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, "Return to the time...").
 
Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.
 
If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C. Then again checking earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and additional runs through the incident use Steps D, E, F. Make sure to check for earlier beginning after each run through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place do you then use the command, "Is there an earlier similar incident?"
 
 
FLOW 3:
STEP ONE: "Return to the time others caused others to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there."
 
Steps 2-9 follows (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, "Return to the time....").
 
Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.

If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C. Then again check for earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and additional runs through the incident use steps D, E, F making certain to check for earlier beginning after each run through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, "Is there an earlier similar incident?"
 
 
FLOW 0:
STEP ONE: "Return to the time you caused yourself to/a (specific incident) and tell me when you are there."
 
Steps 2-9 follows (3 is omitted as you have already got the pc to the incident by giving him the first command, "Return to the time....").
 
Earlier beginning (Step H) is checked after each run through the incident. If there is one, send the pc to the new beginning of the incident (Step EYE) then follow with Steps B and C.

If there is no earlier beginning, return the pc to the incident with Step A, followed by B and C. Then again check for earlier beginning (Step H) at the end of each run through the incident. On third and additional runs through the incident use steps D, E, F making certain to check for earlier beginning after each run through, and only when the pc is obviously starting to grind and gets no place does one then use the command, "Is there an earlier similar incident?"

Secondaries
Secondaries are run with the same commands as R3RA. Narrative Secondaries (such as a recent loss)  are run with the same commands as Narrative R3RA Engrams.
 
The earlier similar command is "Is there an earlier similar incident?"
 
Narrative incidents are always run Quad flows.
 
Certainty of Commands
The commands etc. has to be drilled, drilled and drilled with TR 101, 102, 103 and 104 before actually doing Engram running on a pc.
 
A hesitant auditor or incorrect use of commands kills Engram running. Auditor certainty inspires confidence and the Time Track will respond properly only when auditor is capable of positive control.
 
Adjusting Speed
The auditor must be able to adjust his speed to the pc. Some run fast and some run slow. But he must be able to keep up with fast pc's and not rush slower pc's. The auditor should never keep the pc waiting to do admin. Usually there is plenty of time for the auditor to catch up while the pc goes through the incident (step 8).
 
Especially when the auditor gives the command to move through the incident after having told the pc to move to the beginning of the incident speed is important. If the pc is already halfway through the incident before he receives the command to move through it the auditor has lost the crisp control needed. He will have to stay on top of the situation with positive control and the right speed.

Thus the drilling of the commands and procedure allows the auditor to keep up with fast pc's and get metering, admin and TRs all taken care of without much attention on his part - and without distracting the pc. 
 
Flattening the Chain
You always take a Chain to full EP for Engram running. Sometimes there is "no earlier incident" and "no earlier beginning". In this case you simply send the pc through the incident you are running once more. It may need to be unburdened some more and pc can all of a sudden see the earlier beginning or earlier incident and you simply continue down the Chain. In case you don't complete Chains you will get unflat incidents all over the place and a pc suffering from BPC. The EP of a Chain is:

1) The basic postulate off - that is the erasure.
2) Floating Needle
3) VGI's

Postulate off	Floating Needle	VGI's
The EP of a Chain is Erasure. That's the  postulate made at the time of the basic  incident off. It's accompanied by F/N and  VGI's. Pc needs not cognite, but usually does.

Postulate off (1) often happens in a spectacular way. Pc spots the earlier beginning or earlier incident. There is a BD and so on. Listen up and figure out if the postulate came off. It may be in plain view and expressed by pc or he may have to be coaxed to express it. He may need to go through one more time. But unless you get the postulate off you are not there yet. But when it is off. that's it! You should stop right there.

Ending too Early
You don't stop at the first sign of an F/N. You basically ignore the F/N until the postulate is off. You simply ask if it is erasing. When the postulate comes off you call the F/N. That is your EP for that Chain.
 
Fast Pc's
Pc's who have run a fair amount of Engrams get faster and faster. At some point they may be able to blow by inspection. Running R3RA you will see the following: around Step 3: the TA blows down, the needle F/Ns; the pc says, "It's gone" with VGIs showing up. This happens with fast running pc's on light Chains. If it was the basic for that Chain you are done. Recognize it for what it is and do not try to push the pc beyond the EP. If you do, the pc will "jump Chains", try to find an unassessed Chain or incident to run, or go into a heavy protest.

Ending on EP
An R3RA session can be safely ended on a completed Chain that ended with all the parts of the EP being present.
There are usually plenty more Chains to be handled in later sessions. You do a new Assessment and find a new unwanted  feeling, somatic etc. to run. 
When there are no more unwanted somatics, etc. to run you have completed Engram Clearing. At some point the pc may have a spectacular cognition about himself and his complete Engram Bank and the whole Bank may erase at that point. That may be due to the pc went Clear.

Ending the Grade
So you end Engram Clearing when (1) there are no more unwanted items to run. (2) The whole Bank apparently blows. In the later instance, the pc has to be checked out for if he went Clear. This is done on a special Rundown called Clear Intensive. This has to be done by a qualified auditor and is not part of ST. The reason it is not part of ST is, that this state has to be independently verified according to the technical facts. This is most reliably done by an independent auditor-C/S team which is not caught up in the excitement of the wins.

Clears and Somatics
Somatics are caused by Engrams. Unwanted, reactive feelings, sensations, etc. are caused by Engrams. But we have to let you in on a secret here. A Clear can have somatics and unwanted feelings and apparently no Engrams to run. We are here getting into the Advanced Levels of "Operating Thetan". States of being and techniques applied to pc's after Clear. This is above and beyond ST at this time. That's another reason why an independent auditor-C/S team takes over to establish whether the pc went Clear or not. There are techniques to address this effectively, such as NOTs (New Era Dianetics for OTs™). The statement of Engrams causing the somatics is true. But after Clear it has to be addressed in a different way entirely. So the State of Clear is valid. It is a clearly defined state; but no man is an island and the influences of other dynamics are addressed directly on Advanced Levels with its own techniques such as Advanced Level 5 (also known as NOTS).

R3RA Commands, Print-out
Drills for learning R3RA Commands TR-100's