((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
                                ACT - 5
                   Copyright (C) 1993 Rowland Barkley
               From Clearing Today, Issue 1, October 1991
     (Edited from an article in the Heretic)
     Multiple Viewpoint Incident Clearing is a method of running
incidents with greater responsibility than PC Dianetics, so all
viewpoints are run and ownership is irrelevant.  Secondly, it is running
copies of incidents and beings, done as an intentional act at a high
level of consciousness, which is the basic ((on the chain)) to charge
run at a lower level.
     Aren't OT's Dianetic Clear?
     Nice certificate, but let's take a quick look at what they were
cleared of.  Firstly, incidents are normally scanned not experienced, so
the ability to perceive incidents is run out, with no restored ability
to experience.  Secondly, the "standard" commands evaluate that you are
the body and that you are at effect.  While that method is brilliant for
doing what PC Dianetics is for, i.e. handling body somatics, clearing by
that method is nonsense, as the being has not been addressed.
     Aren't PC's overrun on Dianetics in danger?
     Yes, but not too many people have looked into what happens that
could be a danger.  The assumption has been that the PC was infested by
huge numbers of alien spirits ((BT's or Body Thetans)) and that it was
misownership of their charge that was happening if a Dianetic Clear
tired to run dianetics.  ((The theory is that by asking the Dianetic
Clear for another or earlier incident when indeed there are none of his
own, he will jump into the pictures and incidents of myriad BT's which
can do great harm to his body.  Standard NOTS stuff.  (NOTS = New Era
Dianetics for OT's and is actually running Dianetics on BT's.)  Ron was
fanatical on the subject of not running dianetics on Dianetic Clears
because he himself almost died a number of time from NOTS phenomenon
like this.  I believe part of his problem may have been that he was not
as aware of BT's and their effects as we all are now.  Really just
asking about BT's, if such phenomenon should occur, will usually be
enough to settle it down.  Besides it's what you are doing to them and
not what they are doing to you that counts.  But it took Ron a number of
years and a lot of pain to figure this one out.))
     The trouble with such simplistic views on spiritual matters is that
spiritual realities are not MEST ((Matter, Energy, Space and Time)), so
one can't profitably be too dogmatic about how such things must be
expressed.  Even though in traditional clearing, the PC lets the system
evaluate most spiritual matters for him, at least by the time he reaches
advanced levels, he should be run on his own reality.
     There is a totally other way of expressing what happens at and
beyond the point of Dianetic Clear.
     The one factor that most degrades the benefits of Dianetics is that
the PC is told that he should run the incident from a body viewpoint,
and that to do otherwise is to be 'out of valence'.  Invalence was
evaluated to mean being in a body.  From a survey of many PC's and
Auditors, it was found that it actually is quite unusual for a PC to
record an incident from only a body view-point.
     Normally an incident is recorded on a spiritual level.  This might,
among other things, include a recording of the body view point.  The
being normally records all of the viewpoints simultaneously of each
person participating in the incident.  This can mean different
viewpoints not only for each person, but many ((?viewpoints for each
     One can look at an incident as an individual, see it differently as
a "citizen", see it differently as a body, and have one's own idea of
how another sees it.  As all of these are what you would run to clear
somebody, not much of a product will come if running is limited to what
was called "in valence", i.e. running it as if you were a piece of meat
at the time.
     When a person becomes complete on that processing method ((Standard
Dianetics)) and is run the same way further, he overruns into the huge
number of flows not addressed, so he receives a special review rundown
to pull himself out of it.  ((The Church does it this way)).  Worse
still, if the PC and/or the practitioner intend that method for
clearing, the ability to perceive is cleared without the somatics being
     What's wrong with running only one viewpoint?
      Let's take an example of wife shoots husband because she found out
that he was about to be tortured and gradually dismembered.  HER reality
is to spare her loved one great agony.  Husband reincarnates.
Practitioner says, "Locate an incident of another causing you an
explosive head pain".  Running this may blow a headache, but he may
still be wary of getting married or some such thing.  If this incident
were experienced from such viewpoints as the body at the time, HER body
at the time, both beings as Source Selfs (Static), both as Beings, and
the government collective unconsciousness that ordered the torture, the
PC will have had a positive learning experience, not just a somatic
gone.  He will be able to live life again.
     This brings us to another explanation of the Entity phenomena.
When you run an incident from one viewpoint only, charge is bypassed on
all the other viewpoints.  ((By Passed Charge is charge that has been
restimulated but not blown.  This can cause the PC to get sick and die,
or just ARC break him and make him leave.)) When all gain has occurred
that can be gotten from such a restrictive evaluation, you do get a nice
'win' or 'Clear'.
     The problem is now that all the other viewpoints have been stacked
up.  They are created by the PC out of his own life force, but now are
disowned by running the 'in valence' body viewpoints of incidents.  As
they are 'alive' but disowned they then can 'think' independently of the
     Running these ((apparent)) 'beings' as if it were 'your' charge now
cause misownership problems, but this does not prove that these beings
ever had a separate existence until they were disowned.  They are other
viewpoints, you learn by running them.
     Any viewpoint that a PC cannot assume can affect him.  Therefore,
it does not much matter whether a given entity is a creation of one's
own or another's, of a demon, or a being in its own right.  Once the PC
can experience things from that viewpoint he won't again be the effect
of it.
     Multiple Viewpoint Incident Running.
     The PC experiences the incident from each accessible or reading
viewpoint, usually a separate pass through for each viewpoint.  Usually
it will be apparent from ITSA what viewpoints are the hottest.  ((ITSA
is the pc talking about the incident "It's a...")) Then if the original
condition is not totally blown, ask some such question as "Are there any
unrun viewpoints on this?"
     It is not very hard to run, provided the practitioner has normal
incident running skills.  The main skill is to be able to perceive that
the PC actually is viewing the incident the way the current terminal
((that you are trying to run out)) would view it.
     Is it difficult to access these other viewpoints?
     No.  What matters is only that the PC has experienced on all flows
what would cause the postulate or condition to be handled.  It is
irrelevant whose incident it was, and if someone else down the street or
in another universe has a better one, run that ((also or instead))
because the gains will be better.  ((In other words the incident you run
to blow a somatic or condition does not have to be the pc's incident!
Theoretically it could be a borrowed incident.))
     The body would have had a different experience than the Being, and
often the Source Self put the incident there for interest or learning,
so these viewpoints should be experienced separately or wrong
indications can be given to the current body.  ((A wrong indication is
when you give a wrong why, or wrong item to someone, it can make them
very sick.))
     A recent case.
     PC in middle of an entity rundown with suspected stomach ulcer not
responding to medical treatment.  Practitioner called me in, and PC was
perplexed that years before illnesses of that magnitude had been blown
((easily)) by Dianetics - why can't it be blown as easily now?  I said
"Locate an incident that could cause (condition)." (I did not say
"Locate an incident of another causing you (condition) which would mean
you were effect and a body at the time.)
     The incident was someone being gored by a bull.  "Move to the
beginning of the incident from the Being's viewpoint."  "Experience (not
SCAN, God forbid) through to the end of the incident from the Being's
viewpoint."  "Return to the beginning of the incident from the bull's
viewpoint and experience through to the end."
     Viewpoints that were relevant were: Being, body, Source Self, bull,
farmer (who owned bull) and government inspectors as a collective mind.
The PC experienced huge reactions experiencing the goring.  Body and
Being viewpoints differed as Being wanted excitement, body wanted
safety.  PC experiencing the excitement and ecstasy of the bull ("Got
him!"), joyously stamping around, experiencing power of the bull - with
huge belching ((in PC)) and condition half blown.
     The PC experienced the viewpoint of the observing farmer as
annoyance that just because some idiot wandered across his field the
government would make him waste a perfectly good $3000 bull.  Getting
that blew the whole condition.
     This procedure does not need to be rote.  An inexperienced
practitioner might need to run it quite rote until he gets certainty as
to how it works.  After that point it will run faster using some
judgement on such matters as whether the PC could run a number of
viewpoints at once.
     In general it should be run close to rote on a PC with somatics and
should not run at all rote on an OT.  It can be run so smoothly on an OT
he wouldn't even think it's a formal session.  It's normally quite
spectacular that way.
     Sample session patter.
     A. Get an item to be handled.  ((Pain in the zorch)).
     B. "Locate any incident of anybody's anywhere in any universe that
could cause (item)."
     C. If it's not obvious ask "What is the first viewpoint to run?"
     D. "Move to the beginning of the incident from (viewpoint)"
     E. "Experience through to the end of the incident from (viewpoint)"
     F. If it's not obvious ask, "What is the next viewpoint to run"
     G. "Return to the beginning of the incident from (new viewpoint)
and experience through to the end of the incident."
     H.  The Source Self isn't in time, never had a track and was never
aberrated, so of course you can't say to have it move in time.  You
would ask him to re-experience the consciousness of or as the Source
Self in relation to the incident.  This is a technique that usually
results in great illumination, but does not work unless the practitioner
(at the level of a companion or guide, really) shifts consciousness to
himself as a Source Self just before asking the question.
     If it's a physical condition you can end off by having the PC ask
his body what it needs to repair the condition ((after auditing has
blown the cause of the condition)).  Sometimes it's a vitamin or
exercise, often it's a couple days rest from Being indications.  Often
the reason why clearing improves a physical condition is that the Being
is now satisfied, so he stops laying his figure-figure on the body.
((Or his suppress, inval, not-is, alter-is, denial etc on the body.))
     Background of Multiple Viewpoint Incident Running
     I had had a type of Multiple Viewpoint Incident Clearing before I
ever found out about "Standard" incident running.  It was a traditional
method that involved running all viewpoints of an engram, including
one's own on many levels, and all participants and observers at one
time.  This included viewing the "Collective Consciousness" or planetary
fourth dynamic viewpoint.
     Dianetics as developed by Hubbard was a major scientific
contribution as you can run it on almost anybody, bit by bit, with
repairs if you goof.  The trouble is that most PCs don't run most
aspects of the incident.  I have solved this by cutting back the
gradient of the traditional method by running one viewpoint at a time,
and adding some of Hubbard's scientific precision.
     Rowland Barkley
     For more information on Multiple Viewpoint Incident Clearing
contact Flemming and Birgit Funch at 1 818 774 1462.