6306C11 SHSpec-272 Engram Chain Running

"I finally found out why you can't run engrams.... I found out you've
been trying to run engrams and you never run engrams. You run chains of
engrams.... This is the way I ran engrams in 1949." This got crossed up with
repetitive processing. "Flatten the process" became "Flatten the engram",
when it should have been "Flatten the chain." You flatten the chain by getting
the basic. Engrams never exist all by themselves. There is always a chain.

An engram is only part of a chain of similar incidents, which, in turn,
is part of a time track. You are essentially running a time track. You never
handle an engram all by itself, because it is too closely related to the rest
of the track to be treated that way.

If you are a skilled auditor, you can quickly pick up BPC when the PC ARC
breaks, indicate it, and have the ARC break disappear. Until you can do this,
you will have rough sessions. In engram running, the BPC is always the
earlier incident on the engram chain.

Charge is able to make the PC feel worse or better, depending on whether
it gets restimulated and encysted or blows. You can let the PC learn more by
entering a lot of engrams and not finding basic. The result is that the PC
knows more but feels worse, because you haven't erased basic on the chain.
Running a chain of engrams is not the same as finding out about a lot of
incidents.

Every time you run an engram, you open up a valve into the next earlier
engram, letting its charge get restimulated and partially leak into the one
you are running. If you continue to run the later engram, it gets sticky, TA
ceases, and it gets solid and will eventually collapse on the PC. The BPC
from the earlier engram causes the PC to ARC break. Moving back to the
earlier one blows some of the charge. Charge always flows later, from its
source, not earlier. We can only find the earlier engram because the later
one was run. As we go back on the chain, each incident seems to be the
earliest incident, when it is actually just the earliest available incident.

If two engrams or any two pictures collapse, the cause is BPC, and the PC
will, very shortly, ARC break. The converse is also true: if the PC has BPC
and is ARC breaky, you have two pictures collapsed. Out-of-valenceness --
"that's me over there" -- is also a problem of BPC. If an earlier engram is
tapped, it will bleed charge into the one you are running; the somatic will
strengthen. But this phenomenon won't cause out-of-valenceness. An
out-of-valenceness is caused by an earlier portion of the same engram that you
are working on, that hasn't been seen. It is assisted by charge bleeding from
an earlier incident. You could even run a dub-in case and get him earlier
than the dub-in. However, it is safer to use straightwire or MEST processes.

Suppose you are running an engram where the PC hit his head and, when the
PC goes through the incident, the part where he actually hits his head gets
skipped. This indicates that the engram is part of a chain of "hit head". So
we work our way back through earlier incidents. As he gets back to basic, he
gets full perceptics. When we get to basic, we run it over and over, and his
somatic blows. If we came back up through the chain, you could send the PC
through each engram on the chain and now he would get the somatic each time.

The only way to flatten an engram is to flatten a chain of engrams.
Chains of overts follow the same principle, as was done in sec checking.
[This involved the withhold system, used in prepchecking, old style. See HCOB
1Mar62 "Prepchecking (A Class II Skill)" and pp. 208-209, above.] These also go
much earlier than this life. Chains of overts include overt engrams. It
doesn't matter which you run, because the overt-motivator sequence is an
installed mechanism. It is very old. It is not as deeply laid in as
obsessive create, but it is equally implanted and engramic. Either overt
chains or motivator chains can be run. They rarely entwine. Sometimes the PC
will jump chains from motivator to overt. When that happens, you should
follow it down to the basic overt, but you should then also pick up and
complete the motivator chain.

Running engrams is very simple. Here is how LRH would do it: Get a
crude date, e.g. 89 trillion years ago. Get the PC to return to this
incident. Ask him what he is looking at. Ask, "How long is this incident?"
Get the duration by meter. Get the PC to move on through the incident to the
end. There will be a long pause. The PC says, "I did." Ask him what it is
all about. The PC tells you. Ask for an earlier beginning. Get when it
was. Send the PC to the earlier beginning, then through the incident. The PC
goes through the incident and tells you about it. PC has a somatic. LRH
dates, with the meter, an earlier incident with the same somatic. He sends
the PC through that incident. You go earlier; date it, etc. If you don't
complete the chain in one session and the PC doesn't get the picture, run a
few commands of, "Since the last time I audited you, is there anything you
were unwilling to duplicate?" Run this to a clean needle. The picture will
now be on. Don't harass the PC to find all the unknowns in the incident. It
is not necessary to do this. When you have had a rough session, try "Since
(the day before that session occurred), what have you been unwilling/willing
to duplicate?" Alternate these commands.

If the PC can't run engrams, it is because he is at the wrong place on
the scale of case levels to be able to confront it. Even a dub-in case can
run earlier than the dub-in, but it is dangerous.

Engram running is important, because you won't make OT's without it. All
the fancy stuff was developed to handle cases that were too heavily charged to
run real track. The least common denominator of the case scale is
no-duplicate, which is right in the middle of the communication formula. "The
swan song of this universe [is] that that which you are unwilling to duplicate
tends to go on automatic." An ARC break is an unwillingness to duplicate. If
you show students a bad TVD, they will flub the first five minutes of their
next session, because they were unwilling to duplicate the bad TVD and
therefore it went on automatic in their next session. This is what happens
when you show a bad example. You could clean up earlier bad auditing by
running, "Since (a few days before the bad auditing), what have you been
unwilling/willing to duplicate?" It will clean up.

"Resistance to duplication can be caved in." One can become what one
resists or the effect of what one resists. "A person's ability to duplicate
is what determines [his] ability to run engrams, because the engram itself is
a duplication of the actual event." The PC duplicates the event, but if the
picture he is running is an altered copy of the original, it is dub-in. All
engrams have some dub-in in them and develop new material. You can get some
surprising changes. One is particularly unwilling to duplicate dangerous
things. So one then gets lots of them.

The person who is totally unaware has tried to whip the mechanism of
obsessively duplicating everything. The trouble with this strategy is that
his duplication goes on total automatic. Some people have very heavy engrams
indeed, over which they have no control. These engrams are very inaccurate.
They stub their toe and have a picture of being run over by a truck. That is
all they run, if anything. Since there are very incredible things on the
track anyway, such as the Helatrobus implants, it would be very inaccurate and
dangerous to determine whether or not a PC can run engrams by looking for
factualness. For instance, basic on prenatals is an incident from the
Helatrobus implant, in which the thetan, on a pole, is tumbled through a
series of tubes, all curled up.

One way to see if a guy can run engrams is to try him out. If it is no
go, you can get out the ARC triangle in a hurry. A better test is simple
duplication. For instance, you can call off a series of numbers: "3, 6, 2, 9,
7" to a person and ask him what you said. If the PC didn't duplicate you, you
can forget about running engrams. Or you can go by the Chart of Attitudes, or
any test of duplication. But you shouldn't go by the material he runs.

You can use an ARC process to improve someone's reality. All sorts of
other processes will also do this. The duplication process [See p. 414,
below] also works well. CCH's are effective, when rightly used to show the PC
that it is safe to duplicate. If the case cannot run engrams, and if you are
running them correctly, engram running is probably too steep a gradient for
the PC.

The reason these data on engrams is important is that the Helatrobus
implants are a long chain of engrams, each one with a basic, and they tend to
bunch the whole track. On some cases, you can only run six GPM's before the
rocket read shuts off, and at this point, you have to start running engrams.

When do you go earlier? Whenever the PC recognizes that there is
something earlier, however he states it. He may say so directly or he may say
something that shows that he is looking for something earlier. If the PC sees
something earlier, you go earlier. Never ignore this. If you ignore the
indication that an earlier incident is available, the one you are running will
get harder to run. Besides, you risk an ARC break.

Charge is registered on the E-meter by needle and TA motion. You must
get TA action, or you are just restimulating the case without blowing
anything.

There is no absolute basic on engram chains. When you get to basic on a
chain, there may be portions of it that, themselves, have earlier basics. Go
ahead and run those out, too. There is only one basic basic. It contains
those impulses which eventually became aberration.

There are two things you can do with dating:

1. Relieve charge.

2. Identify something.

If you do a total dating, it goes down to the second. You get the exact
number of years, plus days, minutes, seconds ago. Get the date accurately,
and the incident gets placed right where it should be on the track, thus
relieving charge. Dating also contains identification. You can use rough
dates for this purpose, e.g. 89 billion or 450 million, as long as you don't
have a bunch of incidents close together in a row.

"Blocking out" an incident has these steps:

1. Get an approximate date.

2. Move the time track to that date.

3. Ask the PC what is there. Accept whatever he gives you in every
case.

4. Find its duration fairly accurately. If it is "days", get the
number.

5. Move the PC through it, not "to the end."

6. Then establish what was there.

7. Move the PC to the beginning and send him through again.

Don't vary the routine and don't Q and A with the PC's unknownness. If the PC
keeps saying, "I'm stuck," forget about holders and denyers. He has just
gotten in over his head. Bail him out and revert to lighter processes.

Always suspect that there is something a bit earlier. Ask for it.
"Blocking it out" is done by going through it once. After that, the PC may be
expected to tell you if there is something earlier. Generally, run the PC
through the incident twice. Once through is plenty if it is gummy. Having to
go through an incident more than twice is suspect. Don't try to keep getting
more out of it. It is OK to keep running an incident, as long as we are
getting motion on the meter, but don't strain to get more perceptics out of
the incident. More will turn up as you go earlier. You can keep running an
engram as long as the PC is interested in it and finding out more, but the
instant he says there may be something earlier, go earlier, or you will stick
him in the later incident. If you don't go for earlier incidents, you blunt
the PC's ability to go earlier and stick him where he is. But don't force him
earlier. If he is starting to bounce up to PT, let him, and run ARC
processes.

Basic isn't generally the more powerful incident. It is just the first
incident. It seems so unimportant to the PC, yet later incidents built up on
it, bigger and bigger. Basic is the shorter, lighter incident.

Theoretically, you could run back to basic-basic. If you found and
erased this, the PC would then have no pictures and no track.

If a PC seems to be trying to escape running engrams by going earlier, he
is over his head and needs more preparation. If you get the PC fully
interiorized into the engram, say by putting his attention on a large object
in the incident, he will get it all fully charged up, in 3D. This is not what
you want. You will never get him out of the universe that you are packing
around him.