View source for Running Former Lives (500722)

'''Date:''' 22 July 1950

'''Speaker:''' L. Ron Hubbard

----

← [[Lecture_Index|Back to Main Index]]

You get this patient down into something which is an AA, let’s say. He’s demonstrating tears, he’s in an emotional state. We get these tears running well. We’re not relieving the engram all the way. While he’s still in this emotional state, before it’s relieved, we say, “Let’s go to the moment of painful emotion which is hung onto this. Now, let’s go to Grandma’s death.” So you go up the bank and run out that engram up there. Hasn’t been very many on this series, we don’t know about it positively yet, but I want to keep you abreast of research.

Yes?

Male voice: I’ve gone several times from a sympathy engram to the ally’s death, and bong, it turns on.

Okay. There’s the sympathy engram, [marking on blackboard] there’s the ally’s death—around we go. That is to say, we find the ally being sympathetic during sickness—the ally being sympathetic during sickness or pain.

All right, and then we go to the death or loss of this ally.

Male voice: Right.

Because it could be just a maid who was moving away and you’ve blown painful emotion out of it. Those are tricks for you. [gap] . . . by the way, whether you spot whether or not he’s there. He may be there and not giving you anything. And you’ll see his chest heaving.

Male voice: There’s nothing else?

That’s right, nothing else. But his chest is heaving.

Male voice: Is there any value in that?

Sure, it tells you you’re there. That’s the way you tell.

Male voice: Then what do you do then?

You try to run him through and run it out. And if it won’t run out you can pull this trick: take him down in the bank and get something, take him to some time when an ally, he was saying—being sympathetic. Then take him up to the loss of the ally, whatever it is.

If you are trying to run Grandpas death, I’ve had success on this line, is, “When was your Grandpa particularly nice to you?” And the guy says all of a sudden, “Oh, well, when he bought me some lollipops. Hm, funny thing to think about that.” And you say, “Well, what kind of lollipops were they?” “Aw, they were nice lollipops.” “He was a nice guy?” “Yeah, he was a swell guy” You get him deeper and deeper into this, telling you about these lollipops and the time he went for a ride with Grandpa—“Go to your grandpas death.” Ka-wham!

There is—but this is a more specific one, I imagine that would work better on particularly occluded deaths.

Female voice: Got a tremendous discharge due to the fact that the last time that they saw this ally, two years ago, the ally still lived but at that time they were thinking about their possible death. From there, into the prenatal bank to the person represented by this ally, who died before the patient was born.

Ah!

Female voice: The father.

Uh-huh.

In other words, you’ve got the person thinking about death.

That’s interesting. Another way—sometimes you can do something with a coffin case that’s lying there with his hands crossed on his chest, occasionally, just by asking him to go and pretend he’s dead. “What’s the nice things people would say about you?” and so forth. And treat it as though the death were a winning valence proposition. Get him fixed in it, you sometimes get a lot of data out of it. “Ah yes, they were nice to me when I was gone. They were nice to me.” Male voice: Children do that very confidently. They think up the things people are going to say about them after they are dead.

Mm-hm. It’s interesting to examine the kid’s bank when you’ve got that one, too.

Now, just the latest little note on research here, we’re investigating a phenomenon of death. There isn’t anything very harmful about this. I mean, a fellow can’t get into trouble on it. That’s what I’ve been trying to find out. And that is running off of former lives. For a long time there have been theories around about transmigration of the soul, reincarnation and that sort of thing. This has nothing to do with it.

Male voice: When—in former lives, have you gotten any data from the information from the preclear that could be substantiated?

We have some of these. We’re going to substantiate them. However, it’s just under a state of test now. Our statement is, “We have found phenomena for which we have no adequate explanation.” Everything validated back down the line on tapes and so forth. I’ve never gotten conception sequences on comparable cases because I’ve never tried for them. But there’s quite a bit of information given up by people when they go into this sort of thing. The objective reality of this material has not been tested. However, the subjective reality of it is very great and it has worked on a couple of people now who were “Oh, no, nothing like this ever happened to me. For Christ’s sakes, you’re going in for this stuff!” “All right, let’s go back to the last time you died.” “Oh, what the hell are you talking about?” “Well, let’s go back to the last time you died. What do you think happened to you?” And so on. “Let’s go back to the last time.” First thing, the guy starts getting peculiarly interested. I’ve done this, by the way, in the last three, four years quite a few times with people in the process of erasing the case. I’ve told them to go back to the earliest moment of pain or unconsciousness. And each time this has happened, I’ve chalked it up in my little book—”One of these days I’m really going to have to get down and investigate this, because it’s something that should be investigated.” And the person has wound up, “Well, here I am standing here, and I got a—yeah, I’m standing in the road and there’s a—I’ll be a son of a gun, that must be an 18—— coach!” And the guy stands there and all of a sudden gets run over.

Well, before, whenever I’d run them back to anything like this, I’d say, “It’s a wonderful thing what you can do with a guy’s mind,” and I brought them up close in to the prenatal bank and continued the erasure. Erasure proceeding very nicely and didn’t seem necessary to get anything else. Then once in a while I would hit one of these tough ringtail snorter cases. And so naturally I’m looking for additional phenomena that might occasionally explain a very tough case.

Yes?

Male voice: When you run through cases like that, do you go after much data in the—prior to the past death?

Hell, I’m in a stage of this investigation just trying to find out if it’s there!

Male voice: I’ve gotten one—that’s why I’m asking. I want to know more about it.

Wonder what to do now?

You got the name?

Male voice: Yeah. And the town, too.

In most of these cases, I have received the names. And I’m not kidding you.

Dick and I are going to go to work tomorrow, and we’re going to go down my bank.

Male voice: Have you ever used a time shift to a former life?

Yeah. You say, “Go to 1760. What are you doing?” and the fellow says, “I’m at Louisbourg.” Male voice: Yeah, well, that’s something I wanted to ask you about too. I ran a person back last night, got him very early. I ran him back very early, I ran him through about six incidents. In none of these was he dying Yeah. That’s right. The whole life is there. [gap] You see, back through the research level, telling people to “let’s go early,” it was inevitable to run into this if it was there, and it’s there and I’ve run into it. And as a matter of fact I have—because it startles people I wasn’t ready to investigate it completely. But I’ve carried enough investigation on it now to find out that you get somatics and unconsciousness off and the cases very often feel very much better for having run such incidents.

You have to handle these things like engrams. That’s right. If you’re going to hit an engram—I’m serious about this—if you’re going to hit an engram along the line, why, you run it. And if it won’t reduce, go to the earlier one that’s necessary to reduce it and you find another death or something of the sort and you reduce the earlier death. You get yawns off of it. It reduces. Then you can go back and get the other one, it’ll reduce. The somatics lie across each other, they lie in chains, it’s all set up.

Male voice: In much of your discussion and in the gentleman s discussion too, you gave quite a good deal of precise, exact answers.

Lots of them.

We got some, what you call mercenary Italian, French, off of somebody a couple of days, three days ago. And the odd part of it is—this is why I was bringing it up—I knocked out a coffin case. That’s why I’m talking about it. I cured one.

Male voice: Just to come back to it I’ve gotten a lack of accuracy I’ve gotten one conception; ovum and sperm stage through both to the joining Very little emotion and sort of slips in—sort of a joining and no release, no—nothing.

That’s right.

Male voice: Well, I should go earlier, is that your . . . Ask him to go earlier?

Not go earlier on this one. By the way, that will resolve on this basis of [marking on blackboard] here’s the conception on the time track, here’s your sperm, you’re going to find engrams here and engrams here, Male voice: I didn’t find any.

You didn’t find any?

Male voice: I didn’t find any.

All right. Ask the file clerk for the incident we have to have, and you’re liable to get some kind of an incident that might lie here, that this is tangled up in. Remember I said conception is tangled up.

Now, I’m talking—this is standard technique. What I’m talking about is a research project.

Male voice: Isn’t it possible to get sperm and ovum sequences related in which there are no pains, no engrams?

Oh heck, yes, I warned you, there are lots of conception sequences which are without somatic and are nonaberrative.

Male voice: Do you still get yawns off of them?

You sometimes get yawns off of them. You run them, Male voice: It seems to be a very quiet, quiet, placid thing . . .

It’s stuck, Male voice: But there’s no yawn off and . . .

Well, is there any pain?

Male voice: No. He doesn’t feel any pain and doesn’t record any By the way, he’ll probably stay there, too. It’s probably a pleasurable experience.

There’s nothing to worry about that, Male voice: Just go ahead?

Oh heck, yes, Male voice: I didn’t want to leave it before I got every . . .

Second male voice: On this and all that he said that we had—seem to have in our, I don’t know, reactive mind or in the sperm cell or whatever you want to call it. I don’t know. But if these are taken off I’m wondering if longevity won’t increase through this, being that the deaths are carried over into the reactive mind.

Here’s one point about this. Anything which is off the line of this— this is the proposition on which this society works today It works upon the proposition that somewhere back along the line an amoeba originated out of the sea and it developed gradually and came on up to present time and then through some necromancy, without any prompting, the sperm and ovum got together and they go on developing and the soul develops at the age of three months after conception, precisely at that moment. Goes on, the brain—suddenly the embryo brain suddenly joins up with the regular brain around birth. Myelin sheathing closes on and then the person becomes slightly analytical. At the age of two and a half they suddenly and miraculously start to think.

This is the social aberration today. You can’t call it scientific fact because it’s based on tenets which are as untenable . . . This theory of evolution, by the way, is full of enough holes, looks like somebody worked it over with a shotgun once a mathematician goes to work on it. And here, there is no reason particularly to accept any of these tenets, even the one we’re working with. We’re working right now on the possibility that there’s a continuous time span. Here’s a time span and the recording is on a sort of a cell-to-the-time-span ratio, that the actual moments of time building up along this line and so forth are the increasing lifetime of the individual. The time span goes back. Well, it can go back one lifetime, it can go back fifty lifetimes. But it would be the same individual on his own time span. That theory is just as good as the theory of evolution. Well, you’re getting down to theories. They’re just theories. They’re not particularly true one way or the other.

Now, we are discovering incidents. We are discovering incidents. These incidents back there, I never investigated them before, I probably should’ve. The engrams of various things. People feel better when they’re run, don’t know anything about them. This is not part of the standard technique of Dianetics. I’ve known this stuff was there for some time. If anybody blames me for the fact that there’s this sort of thing in life . . .

People have, by the way, a tendency to do this. I come up with something that I have observed, and I immediately say, “You know, I was out there walking the other day and I was standing on the edge of the frontier, and I looked over that way and I saw a funny orange light.” And it’s just like they say, “What the hell did you put it there for?” I come along and I say, “I have taken patients back, back of conception and very often discovered that they had some material in there.And its interesting—going to investigate it someday.” And they say, “Why, you shouldn’t do anything about that. You shouldn’t investigate that, because after all, it’s incredible and Dianetics would become incredible,” A young lady told me that today. I said, “What’s more incredible than complete memory on conception? That is incredible.” Because you’re postulating that a sperm, for God’s sakes, can retain memory recording. And it’s a microscopic little gimmick.

Actually as a person goes back, there may be a much better— electronically speaking—a much better explanation of memory storage. I hope to God to lay my hands on it. At this time, this experiment, these various sequences that we’re running are not for publicity because they would probably be misunderstood. (Recording ends abruptly)

[[Category:Lectures]]
[[Category:Lectures 1950]]